The standard is to have a barebones profile for the set itself, and then child profiles only for individual movies, not a child profile for the individual discs. if each of the discs is in its own case, you would use the the same images for every movie on that disc, but movie credits are only used for the specific movie.

There's no way to properly profile each movie unless each movie has its own profile.  As such, I would create a parent profile for the release as a whole and child profiles for each movie by Disc ID, Alternate Disc ID's being used for the 2nd and 3rd movies contained on a given disc.  And I would profile the release this way irrespective of what the Contribution Guidelines call for.

If profiles had yet to be contributed for the release I'd contribute them, then locking my local profiles down.  Whatever is done with the profiles I had contributed is irrelevant at that point.  People can do whatever they want to them.  I'm not going to allow my local profiles to be updated by anything in the Invelos online database anyway and will never need to download the profiles fresh so.

And locally I'd use movie specific front cover images for the child profiles.  It makes for a much nicer browsing experience that way.  My local database is my own.  Adhering to the Contribution Guidelines with respects to one's local database is silly.  To each his own naturally, but I have no interest in being part of the collective.

Quoting Magmadrag:

Quote:
I need your help to find out what is right or wrong.

1. "Hollywood Collection" contains 6 movies, 3 on a disc
2. I created the parent (by EAN) for the case and two childs by Disc-ID (each for 3 movies)
3. I got an update where the Disc-ID was used for just one movie of each, all other data was deleted/erased and for the other movies someone else created alternative versions of the Disc-ID

You have a UPC profile that contains more than one film (that is, two or more different films), so you need to construct a BOX SET profile, and you must follow the rules for box sets here.

Please note the paragraph highlighted in yellow, which states:
"Discs with more than one movie on a single side should be entered as one profile per movie. Use a disc ID profile, and as many disc ID alternate profiles as required."

This you did not do in point 2 above and that is why you witnessed alternate profiles for the other movies in point 3 above.

If you follow the box set rules, you should end up with these seven (7) profiles for your scenario:

UPC Parent  (no disc info, no cast, no crew, no disc features)
    |
    ==> Disc1-ID        child    (movie1)
    ==> Disc1-ID #1  child    (movie2)
    ==> Disc1-ID #2  child    (movie3)
    ==> Disc2-ID        child    (movie4)
    ==> Disc2-ID #1  child    (movie5)
    ==> Disc2-ID #2  child    (movie6)

Hope that helps.

Quoting Magmadrag:

Quote:

And: I am not sure if the Alt. Version was established in the rules in 2016 or before. So waht about all the profiles which were correct before and became wrong by establishing this new rule?

You're correct - this is a newer rule, and the older style was to use the UPC for the parent, and then the disc IDs for each disc, dividing each movie on the disc with episode dividers.  After the introduction of the alternate ID profile option, this was changed so that each movie had its own profile via alternate ID.

In this case, the previously correct profiles should be altered to the currently correct profiles.  So, for example, King of the Cowboys: The Ultimate Roy Rogers Collection, which I originally created with 5 disc level child profiles in 2010, now has 25 child profiles as of 2018.

Quote:

And destroying work is not acceptable months and years later!

What it seems you're arguing here is that because someone did the work of making a profile, it should remain as is, untouched, simply because someone put work into it.  If that was the case, common names, birth years, any auditing of profiles should not be done.  The profile stands as a monument to its creator.

That's not feasible.  The database is a constantly evolving thing, the work of many people, used by many people.  The rules have changed, the abilities of the program have changed, in many cases for the better.

As for the screeners, they often take profiles that have mistakes.  They don't have the discs in front of them, and the kind of profile described would still be a correct style for a disc of short films (which don't get their own alternate-ID profiles).  So a UPC/disc-level/disc-level could be correct, and they wouldn't know, because they don't have the disc.  They rely on notes and votes, I believe.

I can't claim to know anything about the screeners, but given Ken's lack of involvement, I personally think it's one or two people volunteering a bit of time to keep Profiler going for us.  If they accept profiles that have to be changed/corrected later, I see it as a small price to pay for the continued operation of the online section of the program.

I was never a fan of the new rule to create all these separate alternate disc IDs for multiple movies on a disc since it splits the movies into separate profiles and creates more clutter.  I understand the need to have alternate profiles for UPCs/EANs since they have been reused in the past, but there should only ever be one unique disc ID (i.e. changing the disc content changes the disc ID).  I would have preferred a way to profile each movie but still be attached to a single disc ID profile.

It would have also been nice to be able to divorce the cover images from the alternate profiles this way someone doesn't have to create a whole separate alternate profile just for a different cover.  You end up with splintering the updates for the multiple different versions of the alternate profiles even if it's the same disc ID and it creates more clutter.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:

Quote:
I was never a fan of the new rule to create all these separate alternate disc IDs for multiple movies on a disc since it splits the movies into separate profiles and creates more clutter.

That's one of the most useful and appreciated features added to the program since I started using it in 2007.

I agree.  I used to have all sorts of manual profiles for the individual films, so the alt ID profiles have been awesome.

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
I agree.  I used to have all sorts of manual profiles for the individual films, so the alt ID profiles have been awesome.

For films, it's a great feature. For TV series... Let's just say I'm not a fan.

Quoting rdodolak:

Quote:
It's nice to profile the details of each film, but I would have preferred a different method.

TBH, I just consider a disc with multiple films the same as a box with multiple films.  We've had container profiles (boxes) for as long as I've used Profiler, so this seemed like a natural extension of that.

For those who would rather profile discs than content, there are always profile locks.

---------------