Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum rules before posting.

Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free registration is required.

If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.

    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1  Previous   Next
Counting titles
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,509
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I'm currently testing my program CTLinfo, which is a companion to mediadogg's CTLBoss. I'm a bit confused by the results I get compared to what the CLT gets when it comes to counting titles. Here is an example:





The CLT says 8 titles. I am getting 7. I suspect that the indicated profile is the "culprit". It's title is just "30 Rock: Season 2", but it has "3 disc" as edition. So it would seem that the CLT includes the edition when it counts separate titles.

This is, of course, guesswork to a fair degree. So I have a question. Can anyone confirm (or disconfirm) that this is how the CLT counts titles?

So if that's how it is done, where does it leave us? Should we say that the CLT is wrong? It is after all the "official" way of counting.
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributorninso4
Registered: January 16, 2010
Reputation: Highest Rating
Germany Posts: 1,617
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
The production year is also different. 2008 instead of 2007 like the other profiles. So maybe that's why it is counted as a separate title.
Think different

Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,509
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Ah, right, that seems more logical. Thanks!
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,509
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I was so focused on the title that I didn't consider the year.

But that raises another question. Should the year be considered? Of couse a person can be involved in two different productions with tha same title, so my initial reaction was - Yes!

But then I thought - it's more likely that a certain movie is profiled with different production years than a certain person being involved in two different movies with the same title. So ignoring the year probably yields a better result than treating them as different titles. It's just a matter of which error you prefer.

Thoughts?
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorAiAustria
Profiling since 2004
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Austria Posts: 5,703
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Yes, the year should be considered:
a) There are films out there, where at least some personel are involved in more than one version (consider also writing, producing, ...)
b) Somewhere there is a definition how to count TV shows, which uses the year to distinguish between seasons. This is a very poor attempt, even poorer since the definition for valid original titles (which is essential for this issue) was buried in a big quarrel and postponed forever...
Complete list of Common Names  •  A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1)
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,509
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
OK, I don't have any strong preferences myself, so unless I hear anyone else telling me the contrary I guess that I'll make year count.
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorObiKen
Registered: October 22, 2015
Reputation: Superior Rating
Australia Posts: 257
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
Yes, the year should be considered:
a) There are films out there, where at least some personel are involved in more than one version (consider also writing, producing, ...)

How true, indeed. Just look at some of the writing credits in American remakes of American films.

Shared Screenplay credit in remakes:
The Getaway (1972 & 1994) - original writer "Walter Hill" credited in both films.
Father of the Bride (1950 & 1991) - original writers "Frances Goodrich & Albert Hackett" credited in both films.
Psycho (1960 & 1998) - original writer "Joseph Stefano" credited in both films.
The Mechanic (1972 & 2011) - original writer "Lewis John Carlino" credited in both films.

"Based on" credits in remakes:
Sabrina (1954 & 1995)
Cape Fear (1962 & 1991)
To Be or Not to Be (1942 & 1983)
 Last edited: by ObiKen
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,509
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Sensitive subject. Ignoring valid data, leading to incorrect title count, is unacceptable. I get it. And in a perfect world I would most certainly agree. But...

This is not a perfect world, and it's not a perfect database. Not by a long shot. Several things throw off the title count, mainly misspelled titles and missing or incorrect original titles. It's impossible for a program to produce guaranteed correct title counts.

Ignoring production year will get us an undercount of titles. Using production year and ignoring the fact that it is unfortunately sometimes off by a year or more will lead to an overcount of titles. Which is worse? I believe that using production year will actually cause more errors than ignoring it would.

But as I said, I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other. This is one of the few programs that I don't develop for my own use, so I'll go with whatever you guys say.
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorAiAustria
Profiling since 2004
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Austria Posts: 5,703
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Ignoring production year will get us an undercount of titles. Using production year will lead to an overcount of titles.

Totally agree.
Quote:
Which is worse?

In numbers the overcounting of the current CLT is way worse. ... often the reason why a common name thread is needed at all. But...
The cross linking uses the current (flawfully - does this word exist) CLT as a definition base. Therefore amending the rules of counting denies the reason for its existence.

I don't know how big the programmatical difference is, but from my personal (selfish) point of view it would be great to have a check box: Differentiate production years Yes/No, which toggles the counts...
Complete list of Common Names  •  A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1)
 Last edited: by AiAustria
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,509
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
I don't know how big the programmatical difference is, but from my personal (selfish) point of view it would be great to have a check box: Differentiate production years Yes/No, which toggles the counts...

I was afraid you would say that ... 
Quote:
The cross linking uses the current (flawfully - does this word exist) CLT as a definition base. Therefore amending the rules of counting denies the reason for its existence.

Isn't that exactly what the common name threads do? That's my main reason for not really liking them. And I imagine that the reason for CLTBoss/CLTinfo would be to support the common name threads, not to replace the CLT, so ... ?
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile Registrantmediadogg
Aim high. Ride the wind.
Registered: March 18, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 6,396
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageDirect link to this postReply with quote
I agree with Gunnar's thoughts, as I share and understand the programming issues.

I don't totally get the "Common Name" thread and have wondered why there was not some kind of tool that maintained a dictionary of common names. Does this make any sense? How would it relate to the CLT?

Such a tool would not need to be a plugin, I think. But the dictionary would have to be hosted somewhere we all could synchronize with our local copies.

Any thoughts? Separate thread?

I'm not necessarily offering to write the tool, but I would certainly lend a hand if needed.
Thanks for your support.
Free Plugins available here.
Advanced plugins available here.
Hey, new product!!! BDPFrog.
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorAiAustria
Profiling since 2004
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Austria Posts: 5,703
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting mediadogg:
Quote:
I don't totally get the "Common Name" thread and have wondered why there was not some kind of tool that maintained a dictionary of common names. Does this make any sense? How would it relate to the CLT?

The tool is not that easy to maintain. Starting from the point, that the data base is corrupt in many ways, following the idea, that the CLT (based on this data base) is defined to be used for determining the common name for cross linking names, leads us to the resolution, that common names can be proven in any other way to correct the invalid data from the data base: hence the common name threads are one of the most popular method to research, provide evidence and last but not least prove the correct common name for a person. The tool you are sugesting would have to consolidate the outcome of various forms of common name threads (and other name proving resources out there)...

With some limitation in presentation and functionality my "List of common name threads" - see my signature - fulfills this requrement.

But the names proven by common name threads are a very small minority, though there are nearly 2000 of them. The vast majority of names is still to be linked using the CLT...
Quote:
Such a tool would not need to be a plugin, I think. But the dictionary would have to be hosted somewhere we all could synchronize with our local copies.

... and this dictionary has to be maintained!

... but if someone is interested in the raw data of the "List of common name threads", PM me...
Complete list of Common Names  •  A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1)
 Last edited: by AiAustria
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile Registrantmediadogg
Aim high. Ride the wind.
Registered: March 18, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 6,396
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageDirect link to this postReply with quote
Ah ha, now I understand better. Hey there are plenty of other things to do, rather than re-invent the wheel!   

I hadn't noticed the list before. I'll take a look.

Edit: Ok, wow!!!!

Now I switch to another idea: If YOU could use a tool to help mess with the raw data, and you don't want to do it yourself, or you want some way to use the online database to directly interact with your lists or dictionary, or whatever you call it, I would be willing to take a look at your ideas for what to do with a special plugin for you - since the vaccine will not be here in time for me to see my grandkids over the holidays, I wouldn't mind having a distraction that helps me prove to Santa that I am a nice boy. 

I appreciate all what you do for this community. I am willing to do something extra for you.
Thanks for your support.
Free Plugins available here.
Advanced plugins available here.
Hey, new product!!! BDPFrog.
 Last edited: by mediadogg
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,509
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
AiAustria - you got your wish. CLTinfo supports both options for production year. (See Settings)
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorAiAustria
Profiling since 2004
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Austria Posts: 5,703
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Complete list of Common Names  •  A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1)
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1  Previous   Next