Topic: DVD Profiler 3.1 - What do you think.

[xyrano]

New build is out... from you know where... 

[DJ Doena]

4info:

3.1 is planned for full release this coming week, the first release candidate will be out on or before Monday.

[ninehours]

Just installed the new version i like how the HD banners are added in so you don't have to scan them yourself 

[m.cellophane]

Just installed the new version i like how the HD banners are added in so you don't have to scan them yourself 

I like them too, but won't really be able to use them until they are supported by DVDP Mobile. 

[Edward Karlinski]

Ken Cole does communicate if your name is Skipnet. Otherwise, he apparantly does not acknowledge bug reports. DVD Profiler is still the best program out for keeping track of a DVD collection. But, I have been underwhelmed by some of the things which Ken has chosen to focus his attention on in preference to other problems. I do think that lack of competition is a problem.

[Touti]

Edward, does Ken Cole really communicate when your nick is Skipnet or does Skipnet wants everybody to believe that ?

I do however agree with you on the lack of competition and also don't really like some of the choices Ken made.  It's nice to have new features but I think a new release of a program should never ever leave reported bugs unfixed.

[Edward Karlinski]

Well, you be the judge. Skipnet is the dictator of contributions. He is an imbecile who seriously argued that Zsa Zsa was a first and middle name and then accepted a police booking slate as being definitive proof that it was not. Why would an idiot like this who posts about once an hour on the Invelos boards just so he can be top poster be tolerated unless he had the ear of Ken Cole. Skipnet has no life and has decided to live online. He posts on other boards, so I assume that this is how he spends most of his day. One wonders when he finds time to watch the movies he collects. I know many people who have been driven away from contributing profiles because of the gestapo like rules established for contributing anything. I have never understood Skipnet's aversion to IMDb, which is the best source of film data online. If Ken Cole is afraid of copyright infringement, that is one thing, but Skipnet constantly rails about the unreliability and inaccuracy of IMDb. I know it is not a perfect source, but what is a better one online? I just think it is a shame that such a blowhard with no life has the ear of the programmer of such a great product and is having such a negative influence on the development of that product.

[Touti]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I think the rules should never have been implemented in the first place.  They were used to circumvent limitations of the program but now they've become the main limitations themselves.  DVD Profiler uses a collection of data files, not a real database and that's one big part of the problem because it creates limitations.

Wether Skipnet has the programmer's ear or not is irrelevant to me, as someone once told me, he's just a groupie of the highest order.  I won't be defending him but I think everyone should keep it mind that he doesn't have endless arguments with himself so he's not the only one to blame for the stinking ambiance of the forums there.

As for contribution, I think it's going in the wrong direction.  I don't contribute anymore and I won't be contributing as long as I have to explain myself and almost build a legal case of every bit of information I want to contribute.  I'm a paying customer, not a paid employee.

[RossRoy]

As for contribution, I think it's going in the wrong direction.  I don't contribute anymore and I won't be contributing as long as I have to explain myself and almost build a legal case of every bit of information I want to contribute.  I'm a paying customer, not a paid employee.

I still contribute, once in a while, but I NEVER check the votes and usually just dismiss any PM related to my contribution, unless they are pointing out a very obvious and honest mistake. Anything else I just ignore and let the screener do their job.

As for Skip, I've lost most of the respect I had for him. He just keeps on attacking everybody, and I do know he's not alone in that behavior, but that, along with the fact that he keeps claiming he's got a fast line to the developer is just too much, when too many things happened to prove otherwise.

Edward, don't be swayed by whatever Skip claims to know or whatever. He's just applying bully tactics, and unfortunately, it's working on many people. Just do your thing, ignore him if you can, and you'll be much happier. I know I am!

And no, I haven't blocked anybody, and don't plan too. There's a wonderfully thing the brain can do called "Selective reading". 

[Edward Karlinski]

Well, I never block people either. I agree that the contribution system has gotten ridiculous. I feel no obligation to document my sources after spending hours on a profile. I am always amused at the errors that manage to get through the supposedly brilliant screening system. My favorite is the clamshell as a storage case. No major studio has ever used a clamshell case, yet according to DVD Profiler, the Universal Monster collections are all packaged in clamshells. Of course, they are in digipaks, but clamshell got voted in. I also don't see why birth dates are only used when two actors have the same name. Why not give birth dates for all actors? In fact, why are headshots discouraged in contributions? Some of the rules just make no sense and actually hinder the information provided by the database.

[RossRoy]

I also don't see why birth dates are only used when two actors have the same name. Why not give birth dates for all actors?

I think that's a perfect example of what Touti meant when he said:
I think the rules should never have been implemented in the first place.  They were used to circumvent limitations of the program but now they've become the main limitations themselves.

The "No birth year unless 2 actors have the same name" was brought forth because of a design decision that I still can't wrap my mind around: Automatic propagation of Birth Year.

What Ken did, is say I have Star Wars with Harrison Ford. I see the new birth year feature and think "That's easy! He was born in 1942, why not add it?". So I do, contribute, and it gets accepted.

You go online, download the updated list, see the update to Star Wars with Harrison's BY and you go "yeah, why not?" and accept it. All fine and dandy.

A few days later, you are browsing your collection and see that little silent movie from 1917 called "The Sunset Trail". Harrison Ford plays in that movie, it says so! He even has his birth year as 1942!

That's why the rule was put in place. Which is insane! The PROGRAM should have been modified to NOT autopropagate birth year updates! But no, it was much easier to say "let's leave this neat feature unsused by crippling it with a worthless rule!".

But I digress, this was a bit OT.. But then, it does show what I think of DVDP, or at least, of the management

edit..

Oh and for the record, The Sunset Trail's Harrison Ford was born in 1884 and played in 87 movies. How many movies did 1942 HF play in? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[richierich]

Couldn't agree more with the majority of comments here, I have percevered with doing regular contributions since the move to Invelos, but the continual harrassment and bullying by one user in particular has made me decide to hang up my contributor boots.
The last straw is the new 'possessive' rule, which is total madness IMO and clearly indicates that this said user has a far greater influence over the program than I initially realised.

Rich

[RossRoy]

The last straw is the new 'possessive' rule, which is total madness IMO and clearly indicates that this said user has a far greater influence over the program than I initially realised.

What rule about possessive? I don't see anything in the rules about possessives.

[lyonsden5]

The last straw is the new 'possessive' rule, which is total madness IMO and clearly indicates that this said user has a far greater influence over the program than I initially realised.

What rule about possessive? I don't see anything in the rules about possessives.

There is a new set of rules being review in the Rules Committee Forum. One of them, the most controversial one, has to do with possessives. The new rule simply states "Include possessives if the cover includes them."

Using the new rule many, if not most of the Disney movies will have to be changed from "Cinderella" to "Disney's Cinderella" for example.

It's a Wonderful Life" is now  "Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life" Every Alfred Hitchcock movie will now be found under "Alfred Hitchcock's XXX" which I find amazing since the community was strongly against it recently with "The Birds".


It is very frustrating how most of the work done in the rules committee forum is seemingly for nothing. Many of the changes suggested have gone without comment and are not included in this update. Not sure why we bother.... 

[RossRoy]

Using the new rule many, if not most of the Disney movies will have to be changed from "Cinderella" to "Disney's Cinderella" for example.

It's a Wonderful Life" is now  "Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life" Every Alfred Hitchcock movie will now be found under "Alfred Hitchcock's XXX" which I find amazing since the community was strongly against it recently with "The Birds".

It's going to be a locking galore then for me.

It is very frustrating how most of the work done in the rules committee forum is seemingly for nothing. Many of the changes suggested have gone without comment and are not included in this update. Not sure why we bother.... 

The more I hear about those little tidbits about what goes on in that rules committee forum, the more I am happy to have not joined.