Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Without any comments from Ken the only thing I can fall back on that seems REASONALBLE is Ken's known wishes and his July 2005 statement. If he wants to come here and tell us start with a clean slate then have at it, but otherwise I would still say per July 2005 leave it alone.

Skip

I appreciate that that is your point of view.  But I can turn that completely around.  I say we are starting with a clean slate and if Ken wants to come here and tell us otherwise...well you see where I am going with that. 

Fact is we did start with an empty DB.  Stuff that wasn't verified made it in and stuff that was verified was removed.  Such is life.  We need to deal with what we have here, not what we had over there.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Hal and...is that not basically what I said. The existing data prior to July 2005 is granfathered.

Skip        

You set yourself up so I have to say it...no data existed prior to July 2005.  Every single profile in the Invelos database was created on or after March 13, 2007. 

Seriously though we have to look at it that way.  I have quite a few profiles with uncredited cast from the old IVS database.  Can I now throw that into the Invelos DB because that profile existed before July 2005?  Of course not.  Any change, whether to add or remove, must be documented.  There is no longer a magic date.

That was why I specified the OLD IVS standard, Unicus. If Ken wants us to do something different, then he needs to tell us. I understand the point you are making, but at the same time we KNOW Ken's feeling about (uncredited) data, so applying the old standard seems reasonable, else we will be stripping out a lot of old data.

Skip

Honest to God, I don't get this obsession with uncredited that Ken has.  Yeah, I can see it for trivia reasons for well known actors doing cameos, etc.  But we all know that 99% of that stuff is nothing but extras, and you can't identify them to save your life no matter what.  That doesn't even address the hundreds of entries for "archival footage" being listed as uncredited.  Nothing but garbage.

I have to agree with Unicus that now that its Invelos, ALL PROFILES ARE NEW, and the IVS date thing is meaningless.  Why haul all that junk over from IVS?  Aren't we supposed to be starting fresh with a new, cleaner database?

And by all means, I wish Ken would come in and clarify this with a concrete, logical reason for keeping it.

That is, of course, always the correct answer for any deviation, Cubby

Skip

I am very clear in what I am saying, paul, in the absence of a comment from Ken. I am suggesting his last comment in July 2005, coupled with his known position relative his view of the importance of (uncredited)  data. I don't know how I can say it differently or any clearer.

If the title was released prior to July 2005, the (uncredited) data is grandfathered in, after July 2005 we must provide documenation to include or remove any (uncredited) data.

Other than that I awaiting further clarification from Ken.

Why are you rolling your eyes at me, it was ken's call not mine, I happened to be an advocate of removing 98% of (uncredited) data because so much of it is difficult if not impossible to verify but...not my call.

Skip

Your comment was necessary and served exactly what purpose? Oh I know.... what a surprise

Skip

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
If the existing credits are obviously from IMDB (e.g. using IMDB manglers like II, III, etc), they must be removed.  If not, I don't see a reason to remove them en masse.

Going forward, the stated rules still apply.  Don't use third party databases like IMDB for your source.  They really don't like that.

This will be interesting.  We'll have to see what else besides "manglers like II, III, etc." people think are "obviously from IMDb".

You can bet that some folks will come up with some imaginative interpretations on this one to justify removing uncredited cast!