As I still have not been accepted in to the Rules Committee forum, can I please ask whether the following situation has or will be addressed?

With the new version of Profiler, we will be able to contribute new covers for the same barcode.

Some releases originally had a Slip Cover but were released later without one (still with the same barcode).

Will the Rules cover this situation, and is it ...

* Slip Cover or nothing
* Further Contribution without the Slip Cover is acceptable.


Just curious,
Neil

Still working on this... so nothing is final yet... but it seems the way it is leaning only if it is completely different then the case without the slip cover... if I am understanding it correctly. That is if I got what Ken said he wanted correctly.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Still working on this... so nothing is final yet... but it seems the way it is leaning only if it is completely different then the case without the slip cover... if I am understanding it correctly. That is if I got what Ken said he wanted correctly.

You have it correctly, Pete.

Is there any reason against making the variant feature allowed for all possible variants? There are so many possible scenarios (box sets, alternative covers, slip covers, alternative discs-IDs because of problems with sound/picture in the original release etc.) that otherwise there will definetely be discussions about how to interpret the rules. "All variants that lead to different data in any of the data fields in the profile are reason enough for a new submission" would be quite hard to misunderstand. At least as a general rule at the beginning of the page, maybe there are still cases that should be excluded (like identical re-releases that only differ in UPC and release date).

Quoting Discostu:

Quote:
Is there any reason against making the variant feature allowed for all possible variants?

The question regarding slip covers (and snappers re-released in keep case) was brought forward in the rules forum. After that, Ken gave the following comment

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
After careful consideration, I've altered the following:

Use for: Two or more releases of the same title with largely different cover images.
Use for: Two or more releases of the same title with significantly different content.

Although this is subjective and a bit more restrictive than the prior wording, it will reduce the amount of duplication in the database at the expense of some variants.  The question becomes, do we want two records in the online DB with the only difference being a single checkbox in the program?  At this point, the answer is no.

We will reevaluate this policy when those further 'tba' changes are available.  It is better to be selective at first and expand later, rather than face the possibility of the reverse.

If after release for every film with slipcover and now without or a re-release with a slightly other cover new profiles are made that will be an awful mess. It's hard enough today to get the profiles accurate, if there are hundreds more and new profiles, I don't know if that will be good for the database and to maintain it.

Fritz

Quoting SwissFilm:

Quote:
If after release for every film with slipcover and now without or a re-release with a slightly other cover new profiles are made that will be an awful mess. It's hard enough today to get the profiles accurate, if there are hundreds more and new profiles, I don't know if that will be good for the database and to maintain it.

Fritz

From what Ken has announced so far it seems only significantly different covers wil be allowed in. Usually the type of re-release you're talking about doesn't qualify.

Quoting Discostu:

Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:

From what Ken has announced so far it seems only significantly different covers wil be allowed in. Usually the type of re-release you're talking about doesn't qualify.

But how can there be a clear rule when the changes are significant enough? For example: Are the new big rating symbols on the front cover of releases in Germany significant enough for a new profile?

IMHO, no.