Ha, figure it out for yourself, hal. you certainly aren't asking me.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
And i am equally shocked that so many want to decrease the accuracy and usability of the program. very, very short-sighted.

Skip

Now that is where you have it backwards.  We are actually trying to increase the accuracy and usability.  You, on the other hand, are not.  How do I know you are not?  Because Deadly" " Kiss Me as the Profiler title for Kiss Me Deadly is neither accurate nor usable.  And anyone who thinks it is, well let me just throw in a few     

No, Unicus, you are not. Worse yet you are totally unwilling to listen.

Skip

Again, you have that backwards.  I have listened to your argument and have found it completely illogical.  What you propose does not increase accuracy and usability.  In fact, it does the complete opposite.  I have illustrated this fact with one single title.  That fact that you refuse to see that indicates that you are the one who is totally unwilling to listen. 

North:

First off to address part of your comments. Who are we to determine what is valid and what is not. None of us had any involvement on a personal on most of these films, and thus have no first hand knowledge. I am NOT advocating very much here, which is why i say James and others are unwilling to pay attention to what I am saying. I am saying that there are TWO pieces of CORRECT data, the On Screen credit and the "legal' title, they want to exclude one piece of CORRECT data, I am not saying exclude anything, I am saying let's figure out how to accomodate BOTH.

What are the potential repurcussions, here? You have been around long enough to see how some of these users behave. The essential CORE of James and others argument is IGNORE what is On Screen, we can determine what the REAL Title is. What can this lead to, EXACTLY the same argument can be applied and has been tried to other areas of the database. What about typos in the Overview, I know how to spell, what about this actor's name, it is misspelled or he is credited totally incorrectly and I can prove it, etc, etc, etc. If this is allowed the precedent is set and will come back to haunt us somewhere else, using exactly the type of arguments that have been used here.

I repeat, I am NOT saying EXCLUDE anything, I am saying let's figure out how to achieve James wishes and support that piece of CORRECT data while still supporting the ON Screen Correct data. FACT the On Screen says " Mister Roberts", Fact the Copyright title is Mister Roberts same is true of possessives in general. While i don't get as worked about james continued reference to search as he does, I still understand his concern as I do Hal's

Now how can we do this?

We could conceivably do it by making the title field (the field which is key field) the legal title ( I am not sure I like that term BTW), we could then broaden the definition of Original title, or we could perhaps add an additional field specifically for the On Screen title. I am open to almost anything.

One thing I am not open is allowing some users to start believeing that they know more than the filmmakers do, that road leads to a mess. And I repeat I am not, like James suggesting that we exclude data, just because we think we know more. And as  I have also said speaking PERSONALLY, I am not happy when "Mister Robert" caught my eye, for whatever reason it did, but it is what it is On Screen, fine James wants something else, then how do we accomodate his wishes AND the AS CREDITED title.

On thing that I have noted, elsewhere is basically ignore the 1% we are the majority. Which implies that when the Sound Crew as initially designed was a total wreck and non-functional. Ken removed it, and most people supported that, according to the philosophies espoused here, I should have ignored them when TWO users complained bitterly about the removal, they wanted Sound. My attitude was if they want they data they should be able to have it, if possible, so I suggested they get together and work up a plan to give to Ken and see what we can get. They came up with what you see today, while it is not perfect, it is a lot more workable solution that what we originally had. I will never respond has James and others have and I do not operate based on a personal whim or a belief that I know better than the filmmakers. The quote marks were pout in the On Screen title for a reason by the filmmaker. So I accept that, I also accept what James has said, so how do we accomodate both of those, that is the reasonable answer.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Ha, figure it out for yourself, hal. you certainly aren't asking me.

Skip

Hal can't figure it out for himself because there aren't any real repurcussions.  If, however, we go down the path you are headed there is the possibility of at least one.  This program will become a laughing stock and people won't bother to buy it.  I mean who in their right mind would buy a program that insists on entering Kiss Me Deadly as Deadly" " Kiss Me simply because the studio used stylized credits? 

See my above response and my earlier response, no until we get more information this is academic.

Skip

What about the Rules do you NOT comprehend.

"Title
Use the title from the film's credits."

That is very clear, unicus. It says " Mister Roberts" so be it. I am at least willing to allow us to NOT exclude correct data, but seeking to accomodate any data that is coirrect.

As for the repurcussions I said they are potential, and based on what I have seen in this user Community I would expect to see it somewhere down the road. If you think you know more than the filmmakers...well you know my answer to that.

Please also take note based on what the Rules say, documentation to prove Mister Roberts is excluded and not provided for, ONLY the film credits apply, along with the additional qualifiers relative Capitalization etc.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
What about the Rules do you NOT comprehend.

"Title
Use the title from the film's credits."

That is very clear, unicus. It says " Mister Roberts" so be it. I am at least willing to allow us to NOT exclude correct data, but seeking to accomodate any data that is coirrect.

As for the repurcussions I said they are potential, and based on what I have seen in this user Community I would expect to see it somewhere down the road. If you think you know more than the filmmakers...well you know my answer to that.

Please also take note based on what the Rules say, documentation to prove Mister Roberts is excluded and not provided for, ONLY the film credits apply, along with the additional qualifiers relative Capitalization etc.

Skip

I comprehend the rules just fine.  I see what they say and what they don't say.  Unlike you, I am not going to pretend they say something they don't.

They say what they say, not what you want them to say. But again I say unlike you I am willing to acknowledge the veracity of James' argument, I am merely saying depending upon what you look at there are at least TWO correct pieces of data and I want to find a way to accomodate BOTH of them not ONE or the other. So climb down off your high horse and deal with what I am calling for which is by far the more reasonable. I am not even saying that the Key field has to be "Mister Roberts" because I see what problems that causes, I am only saying that in the interest of accuracy and usability "Mister Roberts" has to be acknowledged in some form as well as Mister Roberts.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am only saying that in the interest of accuracy and usability "Mister Roberts" has to be acknowledged in some form as well as Mister Roberts.

You've said usability again. I just got caught up on 2 pages of this thread and have not seen you address how recording a title with quotes increases usability.