Quoting CubbyUps:

Quote:
Just adding my idea for creating unique ID's.


David Arnold

Basic ID would be 0401220904011814151104

Of course that's likely too long, so let's shorten it by adding up all the numbers. Which would equal 49. Now that would be too short and likely other names would total that amount.

So let's take 40 and add it to the first letters of both the first and last names.

So either something like D49A or 044901.

Middle initials or "Nicknames" would be ignored.

Now let's say that there are multiple David Arnold's in the database.

We could take an already Accepted BY and add it to the end of the ID.

For example an actor by that name has an Accepted BY 1949,
so we would have two David Arnold's in the database.

One with an ID of D49A or 044901.
Now a second with an ID of D49A1949 or 0449011949.

Now let's say that there is a third David Arnold and he has no known BY.

We could either use multiple sources to find their earliest role and add that in place of the BY at the end, or if not listed on those sites than use what is currently in the main database via the CLT, of course excluding the other David Arnold's credits.

So let's say that there are two more David Arnold's in the database.

One has a verifiable first role in a film made in 1967 and the second has a verifiable first role in a TV series made in 1978.

Those years would be added to basic ID for David Arnold.
1. David Arnold D49A1967 or 0449011967
2. David Arnold D49A1978 or 0449011978

In the rare case where a person has no known BY but has the same year of first role then perhaps something can be added to the end.

Perhaps something like
1. David Arnold D49A1978-A or 0449011978-A
2. David Arnold #2 D49A1978-B or 0449011978-B


Like I said just throwing this out there, it's very likely that this could be improved or made easier.

Wayyyy too complicated and confusing.

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Wayyyy too complicated and confusing.

I was thinking exactly the same thing, but I thought it's just me ...

I think that I understand CubbyUps' proposal. The idea is to generate an ID using name and other data to differentiate two actors with same name. This has to be rather complicate because you have to be sure the generated ID is unique, but is not a problem since the ID would be calculated by the program.

Suppose the simpliest idea: first actor existing is 000000000001 and 1248736th actor in the database is 000001248736. Easy to understand. But with this, what will be the ID for the next actor contributed since several new actors may be contributed at the same time? If the ID is generated only for the online, the local of the contributor of a new name would not have the correct ID. So it has to be generated in local by the program and be sure that two different actors don't get the same in two different contributions, so it is necessary to have something rather complicate.

I don't know if anyone has noticed but there appears to be some sort of number assigned to cast/crew already.

If I am editing a profile and go to either cast/crew and have the number of credits allowed and put the cursor over that number a pop up number appears.

For example if I click on the Credits column number for Michael Dorn in the cast edit window I get a pop up number of 14534. Some names have no number that pops up.

The numbers only show up if you have the credits column shrunk down so that it's smaller than normal. In other words have the "Credits" at the top of the column appear as only "Cre".

It is obviously not the same number for everyone.... I have Michael Dorn as #5265. It is probably counted in the order they are added to your local.

Not exactly sure how you could find out.

gee... you think? 

We are nearly 9 months after Ken announced his new 3.8 baby was in preparation. Can we expect a birth in a few days ??? 

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Version 3.8 will begin the process of improving our cast and crew entry and linking system.  At present, we have removed the First/Middle/Last name system and replaced it with Given Name and Surname.

I have no idea what's the state of this project but ask you to seriously rethink this matter. Only thing, that would actually solve the present problem would be single name field. How would you enter  José de Souza Melo Junior?

Quote:
We anticipate this will reduce the parsing issues

Maybe a little, but I would much rather see a solution that would solve them instead of reducing them. And you already know how this would be gained.

Quote:
Although a single field for names would go farther, functionality would be lost, such as the ability to display names as "Surname, Given Name", and to sort lists by Surname.

I would VERY happily lost this function if we would get rid of this parsing hell.