Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,692 |
| Posted: | | | | 2 1/2 mins from mirror 1..
Of course then the restore comparing headshots took 1 1/2 hrs plus (estimate)
It looks like Simon Cowell has the wrong headshot.. | | | Paul | | | Last edited: by pauls42 |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 1,242 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote: 2 1/2 mins from mirror 1..
Of course then the restore comparing headshots took 1 1/2 hrs plus (estimate)
It looks like Simon Cowell has the wrong headshot.. What they put a head on him? Steve |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 413 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote: It looks like Simon Cowell has the wrong headshot.. Only today I read in the newspaper about how he smoke too much and have cholesterol and blood pressure problems. There was nothing about sex change... |
|
Registered: March 22, 2007 | Posts: 95 |
| |
Registered: March 22, 2007 | Posts: 95 |
| |
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | I used the Name Variants plugin and found quite a number of unnecessary BY's (John Cleese, Tom Hanks) just by comparing people that are both in cast and crew. I also spotted many more (Ann-Margret, Fairuza Balk, Drew Barrymore, Billy Crystal, Jamie Lee Curtis, Robert de Niro, Cameron Diaz, Erika Eleniak, Stephen Fry, John Goodman, Jane Horrocks, Shirley Jones, Kevin Kline, Jane Leeves, John Lithgow) after the picture update, just by random checking. I am sure only a few of these were in my data before the pictures update (including almost everybody on The '70s Show).
Most ridiculous is Harrison Ford, who got a birth year of 1884, but the right picture...
On the other hand, the NV plugin has already shown me several cases where a BY would actually help distinguish actors with the same name (Kenny Baker, Matthew Beard, Erin M. Gray, John Howard, Michael Jackson, Peter Kent). | | | Hans |
|
Registered: March 22, 2007 | Posts: 95 |
| |
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | I don't think so, the Harrison Ford I want is not the one from 1884, so I'll keep the present picture. But you are right, I probably did not accept this, so the wrong date must have come from somewhere else. Or would the date be copied even if the picture isn't? After all, this is a cast/crew update, not a picture update. | | | Hans |
|
Registered: March 22, 2007 | Posts: 95 |
| |
Registered: March 22, 2007 | Posts: 95 |
| |
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | This is going to be interesting when the use of BY will be "released". Personally, I would prefer that a BY imported by an update does not get extended to other instances of the "same" actor in the database. I would manually decide (using the NV plugin) whether to merge or decide they are distinct. | | | Hans |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | I did an experiment with a peculiar result. I had removed "1884" from Harrison Ford and checked in Indiana Jones and Star Wars that this was now correct (with my orginal picture). Then I uploaded the headshot database again, with the setting to keep all existing pictures. As expected, I got no questions to keep or replace. When I checked Harrison Ford, the 1884 reference is back. Same for several others that I removed (John Cleese etc.). This behavior makes it difficult to use the BY even for its intended purpose, unless both instances have a BY attached, I guess. | | | Hans |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,692 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote: I did an experiment with a peculiar result. I had removed "1884" from Harrison Ford and checked in Indiana Jones and Star Wars that this was now correct (with my orginal picture). Then I uploaded the headshot database again, with the setting to keep all existing pictures. As expected, I got no questions to keep or replace. When I checked Harrison Ford, the 1884 reference is back. Same for several others that I removed (John Cleese etc.). This behavior makes it difficult to use the BY even for its intended purpose, unless both instances have a BY attached, I guess. I believe this is deliberate by the software (as mentioned by Ken in a very early post). And in order to separate you will need BY on both.. | | | Paul |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | So this would actually induce me to add a BY, where many people voice the opinion to stay away from these for the moment. | | | Hans |
|
Registered: March 22, 2007 | Posts: 95 |
| |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 1,414 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote: So this would actually induce me to add a BY, where many people voice the opinion to stay away from these for the moment. The longer it takes Ken to come up with a BY solution, the more they're going to proliferate through the database like a virus. At this point I doubt there is a solution other than trashing BY altogether. It was a poor design idea to add the feature without providing any rules or guidance for when it is to be used. | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|