Topic: DVD Profiler 3.1 - What do you think.

[m.cellophane]

This wouldn't be possible with situation such as Charmed... you would have something like...
actor as part (ep. 1,3,5,7,9,15,17,21,23,24)

and you know there is only so much room in the role field.

I recommend goodguy's Credits Plus for TV shows:
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=200740

 

[RossRoy]

I recommend goodguy's Credits Plus for TV shows:
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=200740

Oh I use it. Looks much cleaner.

[addicted2dvd]

I seen that... but I personally don't like the look or feel of it. I prefer the look and feel of DVDProfiler's version.

[Achim]

I seen that... but I personally don't like the look or feel of it. I prefer the look and feel of DVDProfiler's version.

The point it not to exchange it with the Cast window but add it next to it When looking for an actor, I switch to goodguy's Cast+, otherwise I use the original for regular display.

[goodguy]

I seen that... but I personally don't like the look or feel of it. I prefer the look and feel of DVDProfiler's version.

The point it not to exchange it with the Cast window but add it next to it When looking for an actor, I switch to goodguy's Cast+, otherwise I use the original for regular display.

That's the way it is intended to be used (hence the +). Personally, I have all four (Cast/Cast+/Crew/Crew+) as tabs on a single window.

Also, the look and feel can be customized by changing the CSS and the compiling options. For example, you can turn name-coloring off and/or entirely switch to an "as credited" display.

[addicted2dvd]

Downloaded and will be playing with it some... see what I can do with it.

[Touti]

Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the copyright section, check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, check the font size used for the title on the front cover. Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title.

Check the font size ?

 

They forgot to specify that if the possessive is printed on the DVD itself it has to be printed in a circle keeping a curve within 0.01% of the disc itself and must be within 15.38mm from the exact center of the disc hole.

[lyonsden5]

yeah.... not sure where that came from. It took me by surprise when I read it too. Some remember it from discussions way WAY back.

[Touti]

I think they problem is that since the beginning of this they tried to encompass everything in the rule.  The rule should say wether or not the possessive in the title is allowed, period.  Then another document should give information as to what are the thinkgs one can check to find out if a possesive is actually part of the title or not.

The rules would be much less difficult to comprehend and remember if they only told you what you can/can't do without including how to do it which should be as part of a contributing guide.

I know some people worked very hard in the rules comittee with the best intentions and I don't want to ridicule their work but I think it's time someone in charge looks at this seriously and tries to put himself in the pant of a new user reading before making his first contribution.  There's just too much in there to make it easy to understand, they need contribution rules and a contributing guide.

And btw, don't expect me to be on the "Contributing Guide Comittee" if Invelos' management ever wakes up.

[RossRoy]

I'll admit it, right now: I've never read most of the rules.

Yes, you read that right, I never spent the time to actually read the rules, from beginning to end.

Why?

Because it's not worth it. There's this lost art called "common sense" that I keep applying when doing a profile, and you know what? It works. It gets the profile to a point where it is usable.

Do I end up entering some data that is against the rules? Probably. I don't know. But the profile is the way I like it, and that's all that matters. I will often then submit it, and leave it at that. I don't check the votes. I'll check the PM, just in case it's something worthwhile, but it's rarely been.

And you know what? While I haven't contributed much, what I did contribute has always been met with 98%+ Yes votes. And not just from blind voters.

Does that make me a bad contributer? I guess in the eye of some people it does.

Do I care? 

[Najemikon]

I think it's time someone in charge looks at this seriously and tries to put himself in the pant of a new user.

I'm not going anywhere near another users pants.

Remember, in the UK, pants are not trousers...   

I was on the original rules committee. But as time has gone on, I've steadily given up. They are now an absolute joke. I think the final straw for me was the thread about Helena Bonham Carter. 

[addicted2dvd]

I think they problem is that since the beginning of this they tried to encompass everything in the rule.  The rule should say wether or not the possessive in the title is allowed, period.  Then another document should give information as to what are the thinkgs one can check to find out if a possesive is actually part of the title or not.

The rules would be much less difficult to comprehend and remember if they only told you what you can/can't do without including how to do it which should be as part of a contributing guide.

I know some people worked very hard in the rules committee with the best intentions and I don't want to ridicule their work but I think it's time someone in charge looks at this seriously and tries to put himself in the pant of a new user reading before making his first contribution.  There's just too much in there to make it easy to understand, they need contribution rules and a contributing guide.

And btw, don't expect me to be on the "Contributing Guide Committee" if Invelos' management ever wakes up.

don't know about all the rules as I wasn't on the committee that wrote those... but the new rule about possessives was not written by the  committee... but by Ken himself... and from what I can tell he just did his best to cover everything as the majority wanted.

[Achim]

don't know about all the rules as I wasn't on the committee that wrote those... but the new rule about possessives was not written by the  committee... but by Ken himself... and from what I can tell he just did his best to cover everything as the majority wanted.

I am fine with the new rule too. Yes, it's lengthy and Ken went a little overboard with the description, but his intent was clearly as Pete said, to cover everything that was said in the preceding discussion.

BTW, I am the one who remembered the font size from way WAY back then. I think ken threw it in for good measure and the one title that keeps popping up in my head is "The Lost World", which has the title in large red letters on the front, preceded by small black "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's". Another example was recently discussed in the forum: Hellraiser (big red letters) preceded by Clive Barker's (small white letters). While it is a too subjective of a thing to put in the rules, I understand what Ken was trying to do.

But hey, no rules discussions in this forum!