Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
ALWAYS enter what you see on the cover for contribution purposes.

That's the least ideal scenario in my opinion.  I have a big pile of movies today that are NR.  I'd like to sort those into two piles.  One containing harmless material and one that is more mature or grown up in nature.  One pile I'd let a 5 year old pick from, the other I wouldn't.  Or one pile I'd be interested in on a Friday night and the other would be boring.  However you choose to look at it.

Going strictly by the cover, some of the things from the second pile will end up in the first.  Because some movies plaster Unrated all over the cover and some don't.

I realize your method is easier.  It will lead to less arguments.  I accept this.  But like I said before, these ease of arriving at a rating doesn't make the incorrect data any more useful.  And one of the points people have brought up is sorting the existing pile of NR discs into two different piles.  So I'd rather not come up with a rule that deliberately sorts things into the wrong pile.

Here's the problem with your argument.

You are ignoring the fact that that IS the way the DVD is actually rated.  That's the information that we should be tracking in DVDP, not whether or not the DVD is "family friendly".

If you need to track that, then there are two distinct ways in the program to do it.  One is with Genres, the other is with tags.

Deliberately changing the actual rating on the DVD cover to something else in order to accommodate this "purpose" is just wrong-headed, IMHO.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
ALWAYS enter what you see on the cover for contribution purposes.

That's the least ideal scenario in my opinion.  I have a big pile of movies today that are NR.  I'd like to sort those into two piles.  One containing harmless material and one that is more mature or grown up in nature.  One pile I'd let a 5 year old pick from, the other I wouldn't.  Or one pile I'd be interested in on a Friday night and the other would be boring.  However you choose to look at it.

Going strictly by the cover, some of the things from the second pile will end up in the first.  Because some movies plaster Unrated all over the cover and some don't.

I realize your method is easier.  It will lead to less arguments.  I accept this.  But like I said before, these ease of arriving at a rating doesn't make the incorrect data any more useful.  And one of the points people have brought up is sorting the existing pile of NR discs into two different piles.  So I'd rather not come up with a rule that deliberately sorts things into the wrong pile.

Mark:

You are correct, but the answer is not to ignore the data or try to create an arbitrary definition. There are answers that CAN and I would posit should be considered, the short run solutions are not ideal, and I think they make carry some liabilities especially if a longer term solution as suggested is implemented, but the liabilities will be a big deal to some and not so big a deal to others.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
ALWAYS enter what you see on the cover for contribution purposes.

That's the least ideal scenario in my opinion.  I have a big pile of movies today that are NR.  I'd like to sort those into two piles.  One containing harmless material and one that is more mature or grown up in nature.  One pile I'd let a 5 year old pick from, the other I wouldn't.  Or one pile I'd be interested in on a Friday night and the other would be boring.  However you choose to look at it.

Going strictly by the cover, some of the things from the second pile will end up in the first.  Because some movies plaster Unrated all over the cover and some don't.

I realize your method is easier.  It will lead to less arguments.  I accept this.  But like I said before, these ease of arriving at a rating doesn't make the incorrect data any more useful.  And one of the points people have brought up is sorting the existing pile of NR discs into two different piles.  So I'd rather not come up with a rule that deliberately sorts things into the wrong pile.

Here's the problem with your argument.

You are ignoring the fact that that IS the way the DVD is actually rated.  That's the information that we should be tracking in DVDP, not whether or not the DVD is "family friendly".

If you need to track that, then there are two distinct ways in the program to do it.  One is with Genres, the other is with tags.

Deliberately changing the actual rating on the DVD cover to something else in order to accommodate this "purpose" is just wrong-headed, IMHO.

                 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Here's the problem with your argument.

You are ignoring the fact that that IS the way the DVD is actually rated.  That's the information that we should be tracking in DVDP, not whether or not the DVD is "family friendly".

Well, if you're interested in profiling what on the cover, then I agree.  I don't care what's on the cover.  That's just marketing nonsense in my opinion and I really don't care about it.  What I care about is that Planet Earth and Saw currently have the same NR rating.  But the content of those two items are very clearly different.

I suppose that is a "family friendly" approach to the problem.  But at the same time, not really.  My kids don't use DVD Profiler to pick movies.  And I don't use it to pick movies for them.  We all know what's appropriate without looking at the rating on the back.  For me it's all about my desire to see something "grown-up" after the kids are in bed.  And if I were to look for something R or higher today I don't see a large chunk of those movies because they're lumped in with the G rated material.

Quote:
Deliberately changing the actual rating on the DVD cover to something else in order to accommodate this "purpose" is just wrong-headed, IMHO.

As has been pointed out, unless it's G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17, the rating is made up anyway.  I'm saying if a movie doesn't have Unrated somewhere on the cover, but it's an unrated version of an R movie, I think it's silly to give it the lesser rating just because it wasn't marketed right.  I have no interest in profiling how it was marketed.  That's useless for me.  I care about it filtering correctly if I filter on rating.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Here's the problem with your argument.

You are ignoring the fact that that IS the way the DVD is actually rated.  That's the information that we should be tracking in DVDP, not whether or not the DVD is "family friendly".

Well, if you're interested in profiling what on the cover, then I agree.  I don't care what's on the cover.  That's just marketing nonsense in my opinion and I really don't care about it.  What I care about is that Planet Earth and Saw currently have the same NR rating.  But the content of those two items are very clearly different.

I suppose that is a "family friendly" approach to the problem.  But at the same time, not really.  My kids don't use DVD Profiler to pick movies.  And I don't use it to pick movies for them.  We all know what's appropriate without looking at the rating on the back.  For me it's all about my desire to see something "grown-up" after the kids are in bed.  And if I were to look for something R or higher today I don't see a large chunk of those movies because they're lumped in with the G rated material.

Quote:
Deliberately changing the actual rating on the DVD cover to something else in order to accommodate this "purpose" is just wrong-headed, IMHO.

As has been pointed out, unless it's G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17, the rating is made up anyway.  I'm saying if a movie doesn't have Unrated somewhere on the cover, but it's an unrated version of an R movie, I think it's silly to give it the lesser rating just because it wasn't marketed right.  I have no interest in profiling how it was marketed.  That's useless for me.  I care about it filtering correctly if I filter on rating.

Mark:

You can call it whatever you, if referring to it as marketing soothes yiou...fine. But the poinnt that you are missing is that while it might marketing it is also THE DATA. You want to invent data, I think those who want to invent data should keep it local, because they operating according to their own standards and who knopws or understands what THOSE are.

And as for the "made up data that you refer to, it is at least made up by somebody, not some bunch of users. I have yet to see any film include any rating that says Rated by the users of DVDProfiler on it, I suppose when we see that we can begin to claim some credibility in the Ratings game. WE don't create the data, Mark

Conversely, Mark, are you really going to be confused by seeing Dora with an NR rating or do you know that it's a kid's show. Come on , now

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Here's the problem with your argument.

You are ignoring the fact that that IS the way the DVD is actually rated.  That's the information that we should be tracking in DVDP, not whether or not the DVD is "family friendly".

Well, if you're interested in profiling what on the cover, then I agree.  I don't care what's on the cover.  That's just marketing nonsense in my opinion and I really don't care about it.  What I care about is that Planet Earth and Saw currently have the same NR rating.  But the content of those two items are very clearly different.

I suppose that is a "family friendly" approach to the problem.  But at the same time, not really.  My kids don't use DVD Profiler to pick movies.  And I don't use it to pick movies for them.  We all know what's appropriate without looking at the rating on the back.  For me it's all about my desire to see something "grown-up" after the kids are in bed.  And if I were to look for something R or higher today I don't see a large chunk of those movies because they're lumped in with the G rated material.

Quote:
Deliberately changing the actual rating on the DVD cover to something else in order to accommodate this "purpose" is just wrong-headed, IMHO.

As has been pointed out, unless it's G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17, the rating is made up anyway.  I'm saying if a movie doesn't have Unrated somewhere on the cover, but it's an unrated version of an R movie, I think it's silly to give it the lesser rating just because it wasn't marketed right.  I have no interest in profiling how it was marketed.  That's useless for me. I care about it filtering correctly if I filter on rating.

On what I put in bold...
That is what I care about too. So I while I understand I also look at it differently. I want to filter on the rating that I actually see. So if (to bring up a tired subject again) Dora is rated as NR all is great I have it at NR ... but if they decided to put Unrated on a Dora DVD... I am just as happy to have it as Unrated... because that is the rating it is on the box. But that is me. I want the ability to track the actual rating on the case.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
It's previously rated- as in before the DVD release, not "before this version was originally edited"

That doesn't quite cover it. By that logic the recent release of Touch of Evil is Unrated because it contains the original theatrical version, which didn't get a rating, but a PG-13 re-edited version came out before this release. Let's say there was a rated version before the first release of the version in question and preview screenings don't count.