|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Monday February 04 01:11:57 2002 Re: Brian's Post & DB Question? |
| > the Data-base is only giving me 10 entries at a time. "Yes, bandwidth." You know my feelings on this, so just say the word Buddy. "For the time being, I am limiting the number of entries returned by any query to 10. This should be temporary." "I'll probably try to do something for editors here shortly" Was the editing contributing to the problem? As, figured we'd have David's style for all TV entries in a couple of days Can stretch it out longer, (or slow down) if part of the problem? "I'd suggest taking a break." Will. Thanx |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Monday February 04 01:27:03 2002 Re: Brian's Post & DB Question? |
|
> Was the editing contributing to the problem? Editing always does, but it's not the driving factor. I also posted on Discussion, but bandwidth use for the DB is up 144% over last Saturday. Our "visitors" were hitting it hard. > Can stretch it out longer, (or slow down) > if part of the problem? Let's see where we are in a couple of days, when the novelty of the listing wears off. We may not need any extraordinary measures. We got about 500 extra visitors Friday and Saturday. Things were calmer today, although it was Superbowl so that may have affected things. |
| Brian R |
| Monday February 04 02:04:22 2002 Re: Biff, DB Question? |
| > Figure it'd be better to go through and adjust to David's > system first, to establish it. > Asking that you give us a few more days to finish up that > first. "I'm not sure what you're driving at, Jay ... all I'm saying is I don't see the need for dumping the total ep info (e.g., #67). Why can't both be in the entry?" That was before this bandwidth issue. Before we were working on making the entries uniform to David's style. All what I was trying to relate: Roughly half of the TV Series entries have been edited to David's style. I was just asking for time that we could finish off the whole TV side. Then agree on the standard/style, before we add more information in. Realise a certain few are trying to assist, but they're doing their own thing where entering concerned. Figured if we established a set (or David) style, they may adopt it.(Save us having to correct their entries) Now with the bandwidth thing, figure this will be on hold abit. :) "I'm not advocating for running down that info at ep guides" We're already doing that. "And when we do come upon that info, it's no biggie to put it in, right?" Agree that putting them in no biggie, already doing that. Just asking that it be a standard or David style here. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Monday February 04 02:10:28 2002 Biff You Realise Huh? |
| Just to add:
I got crossed up with David, ended up figuring he wanted the ""s out, when he didn't. So correcting my own errors as well. So I'm not cross with the fellas I've mentioned, just would like them to adopt our set style as well. Save us editing hassles. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Monday February 04 07:41:27 2002 Re: Episode numbers |
| > > We're almost 3/4 now (top working down), adjusting the
> > entries to David's system. > > I'm not sure what you're driving at, Jay ... all I'm > saying is I don't see the need for dumping the total ep > info (e.g., #67). Why can't both be in the entry? > > I'm not advocating for running down that info at ep > guides ... but if CM's got a lot of it and is willing to > input it, that sounds good to me. > > And when we do come upon that info, it's no biggie to put > it in, right? > I'm all confused ... On formating issues, we need to come to a consensus and then stick to it. Otherwise we'll continue in this unhappy spiral of editors changing and counter-changing entries to their individual visions of what the format should be. I'm not signing on for "David's format" -- it should be "Our Format", "The Database Format" or "The Editors' Format" because we all need agree to what the database should look like (subject to The Boss's veto, of course). Once that format is agreed upon, all entries should be altered to that format, or else we'll go through another cycle of The Battle of the Editors. Several days ago, I wrote (more or less), "IMHO (2.1) ep# 47 is redundant, but if I'm in the minority, I'll sign on to update existing entries." Brian R. replied, "I would say no. My reasoning is that almost every show now has at least a episode list in epguides or one of the others. Those who are waiting on an episode can use that to figure out where in the run the repeats are, based on the list. I think the current system is fine." That's good enough for me. |
| David |
| Monday February 04 12:32:14 2002 Re: David's Post, DB Format |
| > I'm not sure what you're driving at, Jay ... all I'm > saying is I don't see the need for dumping the total ep > info (e.g., #67). Why can't both be in the entry? "On formating issues, we need to come to a consensus and then stick to it. Otherwise we'll continue in this unhappy spiral of editors changing and counter-changing entries" I really haven't noticed this, what cross-up we did have, we are a couple of days (or were), away from sorting out. Why was asking for those days to finish it off first. "I'm not signing on for "David's format" -- it should be "Our Format", "The Database Format" or "The Editors' Format" Well, meant that as reference to the style in your post. Which most of the fellas (editors) are using. Problem is with a few who aren't using our style. Example: Vast majority are the (2.1) style. Most of the edits are changing them from (2-1)[Editor mix-up], (#2.1), (2nd Season, episode 1) & (Season 2; Episode 1)& (episode 1 of the second season 24/04/1999), etc That's where I felt a problem was. You agree on a format for more information, I'll be okay with it. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Monday February 04 12:58:07 2002 Re: David, An Example |
| Just wanted to post this recent entry, before I edit it, as an example of why want to establish a format first. Reference note: Epguides was down, needs ep title. Record number: 6639 Title: The Lost World - End Game Medium: TV Series Actress: Jennifer O'Dell, Rachel Blakely Description: Leather-bikini-clad JOD and the fully clothed Rachel Blakely (along with a putz) are chained AOH behind a wall of fire. We only get one full body shot. While they struggle nicely, the entire scene is about a minute or so if all the shots are compiled back to back. _______________ Hoping to get this fella to adopt our system, was what I was posting about. (Along with Buddy who puts the ep: "Title" in the 3rd or 4th sentence into the description) Other than that, I'm okay with anything you fellas agree to do. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Monday February 04 14:14:06 2002 Re: Episode numbers |
| >
> Several days ago, I wrote (more or less), "IMHO (2.1) ep# > 47 is redundant, but if I'm in the minority, I'll sign on > to update existing entries." Brian R. replied, "I would > say no. My reasoning is that almost every show > now has at least a episode list in epguides or one of > the others. Those who are waiting on an episode can use > that to figure out where in the run the repeats are, > based on the list. I think the current system is fine." That's good enough for me. > I don't see how adding the total number ep causes any problems, if it's used in conjunction with the season format (standardized to the "2.1" style), rather than in place of it. It's useful info. Again, if it's readily available, let's put it in ... if not, don't worry about it. Am I missing something here? |
| Biff |
| Monday February 04 20:17:16 2002 Bandwidth |
| As I posted on Discussion, things are much better today. We are no longer featured on the front page of POE, that was one of my unknowns, I wasn't sure if it would be all month or what.
I have removed the restriction on the database. |
| Brian R |
| Monday February 04 23:27:15 2002 Re: Episode numbers |
| > >
> > Several days ago, I wrote (more or less), "IMHO (2.1) > ep# > > 47 is redundant, but if I'm in the minority, I'll sign > on > > to update existing entries." Brian R. replied, "I > would > > say no. My reasoning is that almost every show > > now has at least a episode list in epguides or one of > > the others. Those who are waiting on an episode can use > > > that to figure out where in the run the repeats are, > > based on the list. I think the current system is fine." > > > That's good enough for me. > > > > I don't see how adding the total number ep causes any > problems, if it's used in conjunction with the season > format (standardized to the "2.1" style), rather than in > place of it. > > It's useful info. Again, if it's readily available, > let's put it in ... if not, don't worry about it. > > Am I missing something here? What's missing is the 2802 television series database entries that don't have this information, while only 4 do. That sounds like a lot of work for somebody, especially for information which, IMHO, isn't worth the effort. So, Biff, how many thousand corrections can I put you down for? |
| David |
| Monday February 04 23:55:54 2002 Witchblade update |
| For DB entry #5636 (the episode showing on TNT tonight):
The unknown actress is Malin Akerman--blonde model, wrists chained overhead with menacing python. Cross-checked on multiple sources: IMDB, Movie Fan files, and Witchblade fan site. |
| Eagleton |
|
|