|
|
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.
|
|
| Wednesday November 27 00:12:38 2002 Re: Rework- Question? |
|
> Whilst on the topic, many of the entries are still being > edited to fit TV Series/Movie format. > > Is the format something you wish to continue? > > Or have you considered backing off on it abit? I'm not sure I follow. You think we should remove the distinction between TV series and movies? Or am I misunderstanding? |
| Brian R |
| Wednesday November 27 00:18:07 2002 Re: Rework- Reference |
|
> Am I just being paranoid, or are your tone quite arrogant > and hostile? There was nothing of the sort about his post. If your English skills are sufficient to understand, then you ask for clarification first, you don't make accusations. I don't know how to make it any plainer, this ain't AG. There's not even a presumption of fairness, I value Jay and his contributions way above you. You cause a problem here and there will be trouble in short order. You got that? |
| Brian R |
| Wednesday November 27 01:01:26 2002 Re: Brian, Rework- Question? |
| "I'm not sure I follow. You think we should remove the
distinction between TV series and movies? Or am I
misunderstanding?" Okay, clarify it abit here. Going from the "help cut down on duplicate entries and poorly formed ones" comment: We've been editing quite a few of the recent Movie & TV Series entries that would be slightly considered poorly formed due to the current format. Used a recent TV Series entry as example: Record number: 8130 Title: Mutant X (2001) Medium: TV Series Actress: Larissa Laskin, Lauren Lee Smith Description: Episode: Lazarus Syndrome (Season 1, #15) See this entry, then look up Mutant X in the DB, and notice the others are done in format, so edit to: Episode: "Lazarus Syndrome" (1.15), like the others. Movie example: Record number: 8133 Title: The Last Yellow Medium: Movie Actress: Samantha Morton Instead of format: Title: Last Yellow, The (1999) I'm tougher with the Movies as can throw off the search. But in the case of TV Series, If we're continually editing to format even after the format has been established? Then question was do we try options to encourage the format, even in this case where changes minor? Or have you considered easing off in certain areas? |
| Jay L |
| Wednesday November 27 15:12:35 2002 Re: Rework- Reference |
| > "are your tone quite arrogant and hostile?"
> Huh? > > "Well my friend, > > understand when you've taken your best shot at it" > Well, > > I was just about to ask you what reason you figured I'd > be hostile to you in the first place? > > Don't see where you're getting this impression from? OK Jay L. I said I would apologize if I misunderstood you. Seems I did. So I do. (apologize) Maybe it is some language thing, I don't know. Maybe (actually I think) the exact same thing happened once before. See, I do not know you. I have nothing against you, but I do not know you. Therefore, you cannot be a friend or an enemy to me, and I cannot be a friend or an enemy to you. Then, when you start a post adressed to me with: "Well my friend, understand that....." I couldn't help but reading that as degrading, arrogant and hostile. Like an adult would adress a misbehaving child. I see now that I was wrong. I misunderstood. I apologize again. Let us bury this, and continue to cooperate-I still wish to contribute where I can. Just do not say "well my friend" to me again, please. Instead, you could say " Your Honorable Excellency" (Kidding? noooooo) |
| Per |
| Wednesday November 27 15:14:14 2002 Re: Rework- Reference |
| You cause a
> problem here and there will be trouble in short order. > > You got that? No. |
| Per |
| Wednesday November 27 15:14:26 2002 Re: Rework- Reference |
| You cause a
> problem here and there will be trouble in short order. > > You got that? No. |
| Per |
| Wednesday November 27 15:31:34 2002 Re: Rework- Reference |
|
Double post, without intention, sorry. |
| Wednesday November 27 15:59:29 2002 Re: Rework- Reference |
|
> > You got that? > > No. Because I do not like being patronized and talked down to. I tried, however, to sort it out with Jay L. See above. |
| Per |
| Wednesday November 27 16:17:29 2002 Re: Rework- Reference |
| If your
> English skills are sufficient to understand, then you > ask for clarification first, you don't make accusations. > > I don't know how to make it any plainer, this ain't AG. > There's not even a presumption of fairness, I value > Jay and his contributions way above you. You cause a > problem here and there will be trouble in short order. > > You got that? I got one thing Mister Brian. I thought, that maybe Jay L was being insulting. I found out he was not, I misunderstood him. I apologized to him. I really am sorry, if I caused him any harm or trouble. Your post, OTOH, is not that difficult to understand. Why do you not go shove your schoolmaster manners up your ass? And ban me. And loose your prime source of info on European mainstream media bondage for years to come? Go ahead. |
| Per |
| Wednesday November 27 17:54:12 2002 Re: Per's Post |
| "I do not know you. I have nothing against you, but I do not know you. Therefore, you cannot be a friend" Okay, this where different. I've never met Brian either, but consider him a good friend. Same with other fellas here from around the world. Unlikely I'll ever meet them, but trading scenes back & forth, capping for rest of fellas, etc etc, why I consider them friends. "Then, when you start a post adressed to me with: "Well my friend, understand that....." I couldn't help but reading that as degrading, arrogant and hostile." You misunderstood, You related from your experience how Discussion Page posts weren't of assistance to you. And I agree from your perspective they weren't. In my own experience with Discussion Page also had same results, but have had success as well. Aware you have no way of knowing that I'm going through the guides at same time reading the posts, so relating that to you. Again, intent wasn't acid. In future, I'd hope you'd realise if you've just ID'd an "Unknown" entry, then it's one that I had no success with in the past. You're contribution has just assisted me from going through the episode guides over & over, and is appreciated. From that perspective, comments relating to you being a "friend of the fellas here" will likely not be considered acid or hostile towards you. |
| Jay L |
| Wednesday November 27 19:28:15 2002 Re: Brian, Rework- Question? |
|
> We've been editing quite a few of the recent Movie & TV > Series entries that would be slightly considered poorly > formed due to the current format. > > Used a recent TV Series entry as example: > Description: Episode: Lazarus Syndrome (Season 1, #15) > Episode: "Lazarus Syndrome" (1.15), like the others. > Movie example: > Title: The Last Yellow > Instead of format: Title: Last Yellow, The (1999) Well, we came the format decisions to avoid repetitive changes by editors. I think you are saying let's not make such changes unless it is a factual error. > If we're continually editing to format even after the > format has been established? > > Then question was do we try options to encourage the > format, even in this case where changes minor? > > Or have you considered easing off in certain areas? I think an example post might be useful in this case. I have no particular care, I was never worried about the alternate ways in the first place, 'twere you guys doing all the iterations. Either is fine with me. |
| Brian R |
| Wednesday November 27 19:34:15 2002 Re: Rework- Reference |
|
> And ban me. Your wish is granted. |
| Brian R |
| Wednesday November 27 21:31:24 2002 Re: Brian, Rework- Question? |
| "I think you are saying let's not
make such changes unless it is a factual error." No, not what meant here, Different formats & poorly formed entries are throwing off the search, which lead to double entries as well as just not searching beforehand. But was thinking of options for not throwing off the search, to cut number down? "I think an example post might be useful in this case." Afraid you'd say this, due to search timeout problems from here. So try and quote your advice roughly: "Best to search on sub-strings" etc? Could continue on with format to bring all entries up But, if you could, without much effort on your part, ease off the restrictions on your end?: Title: The Last Yellow Title: Last Yellow, The (1999) would both come up in the search. Same with Title: Walker, Texas Ranger Title: Walker: Texas Ranger Neither this a problem any longer: Episode: Lazarus Syndrome (Season 1, #15) When all other previous entries: Episode: "Lazarus Syndrome" (1.15) Main reason I offered it as suggestion of possible solution?, is also recall when those what? Porthole Jokers? the snark forum, whatever? You had to limit entries because the snarkers were bringing up too many entries. I suspect the relaxed restrictions would cause many more entries to come up in searches too. So a what if/or question? |
| Jay L |
| Wednesday November 27 23:45:13 2002 Re: Brian, Rework- Question? |
|
> Different formats & poorly formed entries are throwing > off the search, which lead to double entries as well as > just not searching beforehand. But was thinking of > options for not throwing off the search, to cut number > down? I agree that the formats can cause search failures, and of course not checking at all is all too frequent. > "I think an example post might be useful in this case." > > Afraid you'd say this, due to search timeout problems > from here. So try and quote your advice roughly: Sorry, communications difficulty. I meant that perhaps I should include examples of how we want the posts to look, to help cut down on rework. Perhaps similar guides in Search side, maybe a link on Results that says, "Couldn't find what you were looking for? Check these tips." > if you could, without much effort on your part, ease off > the restrictions on your end?: Are you asking about reworking the search feature of the database, to ignore punctation and articles? That could be done, but I probably won't do anything like that until we see about the reorg. > Title: The Last Yellow > > Title: Last Yellow, The (1999) > > would both come up in the search. > Same with > > Title: Walker, Texas Ranger > > Title: Walker: Texas Ranger Gotcha. > Neither this a problem any longer: > > Episode: Lazarus Syndrome (Season 1, #15) > > When all other previous entries: > > Episode: "Lazarus Syndrome" (1.15) That would require a pretty smart search engine :) > You had to limit entries because the snarkers were > bringing up too many entries. > > I suspect the relaxed restrictions would cause many more > entries to come up in searches too. So a what if/or > question? I don't know that it would make that much difference. I'd have to look at it. Anything with a programming solution, versus an improvment in the instructions is likely to be farther out in time. |
| Brian R |
|
|