Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Berak:

Quote:
Since when do we filter CLT-results?! 

Since the minute the CLT was introduced. We see it literally every single day: every common name finding-thread is essentially "filtering the CLT results". The CLT is a nice tool, but we really can't take the numbers on face value - you really need to work with them to get proper results. Ken knows that, too:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The lookup tool is not to be blindly trusted [...] if a user documents errors in the database where the credit is not entered properly, that can and should be considered.

Of course not everybody feels like doing the extra work, but that's no reason to bash those that ARE willing to put the extra time in. So what Kluge is doing is absolutely correct, and very welcome. 

I have to agree, and since Ken said the CLT "is not to be blindly trusted", this is a valid method to IMPROVE the database and is not an attempt to undermine the rules.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
That would be correct Tweeter, if that is what Kluge were doing. Instead he is trying to do this AFTER THE FACT not before.

I really don't undersand 

I simply had shown the data that demonstrate which is the Hiroshi Kan Ikeuchi common name.
I don't have manipulated absolutely nothing, and I can't see what T!M hve to do with this.

It seems to me to be in a parallel universe now, because until yesterday we have contributed a lot of this changes, as per Ken instructions, for example:

Quote:
The lookup tool is not to be blindly trusted, however it does outweigh other sources, including autographs. The common name is not intended to always reflect the "real name", but the most commonly credited name.

However, if a user documents errors in the database where the credit is not entered properly, that can and should be considered.  Better yet, correct the entries, assuming you own the discs in question, thereby correcting the lookup results.

Bolded by me.

At this point I hope that Ken itself let us know what we could do (one again!).

For the record my contribution at this moment has 8 No vote and 0 Yes, I'm not worried about this but really I can understad this logic, probably my fault, sorry.

Tim lives to undermine the Rules, Space, I have tio disagree with you. This largely because he thinks he knows more than he does, which is near nothing since he was never involved in the Rules process. He also seems to believe that he represents Ken and that his interpretations are the only ciorrect one and usually he is WRONG. As I said I do not interpret what Ken said to mean that ALL he has to do is state that he used the CLT, the Rules themselves and the even the Contribution request better documentation than that.

I cannot even begin to describe the disgust and the depth to which I am personally offended by nearly every Contribution that is made by Tim. He is so narrowly focused on his objective that he is unable to view it in any sort of rational thought process, all he is capable of doing is insulting, arguing and acting in a pompous manner. I will never back what he is doing, I will only say that I don't think he is being malicious but I know that he is misguided and that alone is causing damage to the database.

But I am done with this thread, I don't havethe time to sit and argue with...you finish it.

Skip

SKip

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
But I am done with this thread

But of course: that's your usual routine, isn't it?

1. You utter a blatant lie,
2. I ask you to back it up.
3. No answer.

And hey, let's not forget step #4: a few days later, you start all over again.

Can't back up your lies, I gather? That's what I thought.


So then it's back to just being plain insulting, apparently. Lovely.

Really, you need to get over yourself. If only you could muster up the courage once in a while to just say "sorry, I was wrong" - that could have spared us all a few pages of nonsense.

As SpaceFreakMicha quoted above, Ken knows full well that the CLT figures shouldn't just be believed and to take that into consideration when working out the numbers, etc... So Kluge, T!M, SpaceFreak, Kathy, and so on are correct in this case.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
As SpaceFreakMicha quoted above, Ken knows full well that the CLT figures shouldn't just be believed and to take that into consideration when working out the numbers, etc... So Kluge, T!M, SpaceFreak, Kathy, and so on are correct in this case.

If this is indeed the intetion of the use of the CLT, the function is useless to me.

If I understand you correctly, this means that if the CLT gives a result of say;

John Rambo 140/365
John J. Rambo 233/463

I would have to go through both the names manually and add together similar titles of different localities/releases, and then get two new numbers that would be the "correct" common name?!   

If this is the case, as I say, the CLT is useless to me. The intent should be to determine which profiles they are most commonly credited in, regardless of locality/edition.

The CLT-function would have to be re-written if the intent is another IMHO.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Kluge,

As you can tell there there are differences of opinions on this topic. Personally, I think that you are correct and the CLT data will be improved with this contribution.

It might be best to submit the contribution as you have, explain your rationale for doing so and let the screeners decide.

Well said.