Quoting DariusKyrak:

Quote:
Your 'follow the rules' standpoint my be correct, but is ultimately unhelpful, naive, and very disingenuous. It ignores the problem... and there IS a problem, as can be seen by the resurfacing of the same issue in different forms again and again.
Stuart

You described the problem very well, I couldn't agree more.

Also EnryWiki// (?) made some very good points why 'exactly as credited' does not go along together well with the 3 naming fields all the time.

Darius:

You are interpreting. STOP IT. oN TOP OF THAT YOU ARE wrong.

We have Rules FOLLOW them and stop playing cultural interpretation games. They aren't for profiler/

Skip

Enry:

All your attempt a5 arguing the meaning of a word show is that you have an agenda.  This has discussed, cussed and re-cussed and your little game changes nothing. This gets old, for three years you people say the sme thing and you refuse to accept the answer, for what reason i can speculate, buty the answer is what it is, FOLLOW it the, the data is what the data is and yes I IGNORED totally Asian parsing and ordering and did so deliberately to maintain consistency in appearance of data. And I contuinue to IGNORE it, and you would be well advised to ignore it as well, unless you are 5trying to drag profiler towards the garbage can that is IMDB. I don't care what you do locally, Enry, but ther objective is to resemble the Online credits as closely as possible.

Skip

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
The labeling of the fields confuse the issue. One should think of them as "First part of name", "Middle part of name" and "Last part of name". That would eliminate some of the cultural confusions.

I tend to disagree. If that was the case it would be Max/von/Sydow and Helena/Bonham/Carter and (even better) Joe/Smith/Jr.

In the case of HBC we argued that BC was her last name. Accepting that asian names work the other way around, first names would go in the last field e.g. Chow//Yun-Fat (or Yun Fat).

And Skip, repeating the same old stuff over and over again does not make your case stronger. And my interest in having correct data in the DB is as big as yours is, we just have a different angle.

Where the heck did that come from? 

Of course I'm interpreting - that was the whole point of my post! The rules and the system both invite interpretation. If you see Dr John Smith, you have to apply some interpretation to decide if Dr is a name or a honorific - the rules tell us to do so. To require interpretation of prefixes / honorifics, and then to require their prevention when it comes to ordering of name is counter intuitive, and thus poorly designed. This could be resolved either by changes to the rules or to the database/software, but to deny that incongruity exists is to pretend that black is white.

I made no claims as to what should be done or  who should do it - there are several options as to what,  and the ultimate decision belongs to Invelos - I merely stated that a problem exists. As EnryWiki shows, it's not as easy as it may originally seem.

I stand by my comment that the 'follow the rules' standpoint is unhelpful and naive, and I cite the number of times that issues relating to this topic have come up as proof. Given how poorly this standpoint achieves the goal of resolving the matter, to continue to think it is the answer is the very definition of naive. Quoting from Blackadder Goes Forth on the latest plan to go over the top of the trenches "...Doing precisely what we've done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time!"

I think that you (Skip) could do with turning down your ego. I'll presume from your responses that you consider the current rules for cast and crew to be very much a product of your work, and that is why you are taking things so personally (and lashing out personally as well). Whether it is or not is totally irrelevant. To declare yourself the expert on all things and superior to people of whom you have little or no knowledge demonstrates a clear lack of both perspective and the issue at hand. At the foundation of this issue is perception, and if someone states their perception to be one thing, you are certainly not in a position of superiority to tell them they are wrong.

I also do not believe that I have made ANY insult at all. I find it far more likely that you have taken issue with me personally and have interpreted my comments in such a way that justify your lashing out. You may have taken issue at my statement that a particular approach is naive, but it clearly is as demonstrated above. Even if it were not, I do not believe that 'naive' is an insult.

I do take issue with you using a post from me (regardless of whether I was nasty or not) as an excuse to call OTHER PEOPLE idiots. On this issue, I firmly believe (as a former professional system owner, supporting hundreds of people from different locations, backgrounds, education, and seniority) that bad data or confusion within data entry is far more the result of issues with the systems and guidance than with the people doing the data entry.

Stuart

Quoting DariusKyrak:

Quote:
Where the heck did that come from? 

Of course I'm interpreting - that was the whole point of my post! The rules and the system both invite interpretation. If you see Dr John Smith, you have to apply some interpretation to decide if Dr is a name or a honorific - the rules tell us to do so. To require interpretation of prefixes / honorifics, and then to require their prevention when it comes to ordering of name is counter intuitive, and thus poorly designed. This could be resolved either by changes to the rules or to the database/software, but to deny that incongruity exists is to pretend that black is white.

I made no claims as to what should be done or  who should do it - there are several options as to what,  and the ultimate decision belongs to Invelos - I merely stated that a problem exists. As EnryWiki shows, it's not as easy as it may originally seem.

I stand by my comment that the 'follow the rules' standpoint is unhelpful and naive, and I cite the number of times that issues relating to this topic have come up as proof. Given how poorly this standpoint achieves the goal of resolving the matter, to continue to think it is the answer is the very definition of naive. Quoting from Blackadder Goes Forth on the latest plan to go over the top of the trenches "...Doing precisely what we've done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time!"

I think that you (Skip) could do with turning down your ego. I'll presume from your responses that you consider the current rules for cast and crew to be very much a product of your work, and that is why you are taking things so personally (and lashing out personally as well). Whether it is or not is totally irrelevant. To declare yourself the expert on all things and superior to people of whom you have little or no knowledge demonstrates a clear lack of both perspective and the issue at hand. At the foundation of this issue is perception, and if someone states their perception to be one thing, you are certainly not in a position of superiority to tell them they are wrong.

I also do not believe that I have made ANY insult at all. I find it far more likely that you have taken issue with me personally and have interpreted my comments in such a way that justify your lashing out. You may have taken issue at my statement that a particular approach is naive, but it clearly is as demonstrated above. Even if it were not, I do not believe that 'naive' is an insult.

I do take issue with you using a post from me (regardless of whether I was nasty or not) as an excuse to call OTHER PEOPLE idiots. On this issue, I firmly believe (as a former professional system owner, supporting hundreds of people from different locations, backgrounds, education, and seniority) that bad data or confusion within data entry is far more the result of issues with the systems and guidance than with the people doing the data entry.

Stuart

It came fro,m this "Your 'follow the rules' standpoint my be correct, but is ultimately unhelpful, naive, and very disingenuous." I suggestn that since you had nbo involvement in the Rules nor did anyy of the other voices, that you simply have no idea what you are talking and are being naieve, disingenuous and ultimately unhelpful. you have been repeatedly been advised of the answer and you simply do not want to accept it. You want to be able to do things YOUR way, not the way of Proifiler.

Skip

Skip

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Don't know about everyone else but when I see film credits with Name 1, Name 2, Name 3 I enter them in the three available fields, Field 1, Field 2, Field 3. Unless it's proven with documentation that Name 1 & Name 2 both belong in Field 1 or that Name 2 & Name 3 both belong in Field 3. I don't fret much over it.

You do not see a credit with "Name 1, Name 2, Name 3". You see a credit with "Word 1, Word 2, Word 3". This could mean "First Name, Middle Name, Last Name". It could also mean "First Name, Last Name" (last name composed of two words) or "Last Name, First Name" (Asian style with a two worded first name) or "Title, First Name, Last Name" or "Stage Name" (composed of three words) and many more possiilities. You have to interpret the words in the credit. Otherwise you can not apply the given rules.

As you have said, with the given documentation a 3 worded credit may need to be stored differently as the simple "Word 1, Word 2, Word 3".

Quoting madacid:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Last time I have checked my dictionary, family name, last name, and surname were synonyms.

+1

Thanks!

Quote:

and thats why the CLT is useless for nearly any hongkong, chinese or hungarian film and more (exceptions may appear).

No, the CLT is uefull for those credits. For example with our famous Yun-Fat Chow the CLT gives "CHOW YUN-FAT" as the most common credit for this person. We can document, that this credit consists of the family name "CHOW" and the given name "YUN-FAT". We apply standard capitalisation rules which results in "Chow" and "Yun-Fat". Then we store the family name in the approriate field (the one labeled last name) and the given name in the first name field (first name = given name). After this we see that profiler constructs the credit "Chow Yun-Fat" for this name. Therfore we haveto store "Chow Yun-Fat" in the credited as field.

All of this is completely conforming to the current rules. But I would welcome if Invelos would add such an example to the rules for clarification.