|
|
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.
|
|
| Sunday May 13 00:22:16 2007 Re: Cleaning up the DB - |
| Joe of London wrote:
> Another 'feature' that may be more difficult to address > is the expression "no gag(s)" that could > generate false positives for people looking for scenes > including gags The idea is put gag in Description Box to eliminate those and if it not mentioned, means it's not there. Still cleaning those out though, but after that I really don't see it being much more of a problem |
| Jay L |
| Sunday May 13 00:42:35 2007 Re: Cleaning up the DB - |
| Joe of London wrote:
> I get the > impression it is important to some). > Replacement text such as "no attempt to silence > her" or "no attempt to prevent speech" are > rather clumsy and "not silenced" seems to me > rather inappropriate for some traditional 'Hollywood > gags' that in reality might only reduce the clarity of > communication. To this point, concentration has been on accuracy of Titles. Except for something blatant, like mentioning ages, Episode Titles are the main reason for going in to the Description. All to do with the Search Feature Say this as some post with their own flair, for humour. Like Van & a few others I personally don't wish to get on them for the above kind of "having fun with the boy here" comments mentioned when it has no effect on the Search Same your's if it passes the Search test, I'd probably leave in. |
| Jay L |
| Sunday May 13 02:31:22 2007 Re: Cleaning up the DB - |
| Joe of London wrote:
> Another 'feature' that may be more difficult to address > is the expression "no gag(s)" that could > generate false positives for people looking for scenes > including gags (not that it worries me, but I get the > impression it is important to some). It's not important to me, and I don't want see weird convolutions for this sort of thing. In my theory, people just shouldn't be running broad searches of that nature anyway. > Replacement text such as "no attempt to silence > her" or "no attempt to prevent speech" are > rather clumsy Not appropriate. > I did wonder if "no g@g", "no g*g", > "NO G/\G" or something similar may convey the > intended message without being found in a search for > "gag". We will definitely NOT have anything like that. I put in a facility to refine searches. All they have to do is put -"not gagged" in the Description field. If people can't figure how to use the thing properly, then they should referred to me for remedial education. No policy decisions are to be made by anyone but me on this topic. |
| Brian R |
| Sunday May 13 02:32:28 2007 Re: Cleaning up the DB - |
| Jay L wrote:
> The idea is put gag in Description Box to eliminate > those > and if it not mentioned, means it's not there. I'm not sure that's a worthwhile or useful thing. |
| Brian R |
| Sunday May 13 03:23:03 2007 Re: Cleaning up the DB - |
| Brian R wrote:
>> If people can't figure how to use the thing properly No policy decisions are to be made by anyone but me on this topic. Perhaps mis-read your reply here? I got the impression Joe had read a Discussion page post and asking about the (Editor workings? there a term, it'll come to me) what with at this point not uniform through the DB. Say not same tone as say "You changed OTM WHY? Everyone uses OTM blah blah anal blah blah" Which expect your type of response to |
| Jay L |
| Sunday May 13 03:36:50 2007 Re: Cleaning up the DB - |
| Brian R wrote:
> I'm not sure that's a worthwhile or useful thing. Okay, go slow It late and see I missed putting "type" in there "All they have to do is put -"not gagged" in the Description field." Yes, trying to get it uniform for that. At moment coaching on gag type search eliminates "No gags", or "hand gags", or anything else sqwacked about Believe we talking the same thing here |
| Jay L |
| Sunday May 13 11:29:12 2007 Re: Cleaning up the DB - |
| Jay L wrote:
> Brian R wrote: > "All they have to do is put -"not gagged" > in the Description field." > > Yes, trying to get it uniform for that. > At moment coaching on gag type search eliminates "No > gags", or "hand gags", or anything else > sqwacked about Ok, that's good. I was concerned about people requesting strange "anti-search" features that would be unnatural. |
| Brian R |
|
|