Ken states that NR is the lowest rating, and with all the TV stuff as well as the films to old to have been rated, it is clear that NR as it stands is the lowest rating we have in DVDP.

Precisely the point, Rom. There is no industry standard that would back this up in any way. it was an arbitrary decision that just doesn't follow either the data or any logic because it leads to things like completely ignoring the data and saying that a movie that says it is Not rated is really Unrated in Profiler and this is done for what reason. It is done because instead of following the data, a totally fictional hierarchy was decided upon and that hierarchy screws up the sorting and confuses a lot of users.

I know what Ken wants to achieve, I think and I am fairly certain i understand the other issues and there are ways to do this without setting up a fictional hierarchy or turning to fictional data. In fact, it 's realtively easy.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Where is that true, Rom? I have never seen anything in the industry that supports this. Ken has made thuis decision somewhere along the way and thus we have this problem. The rating should not be sorting based on some hierarchy, but according to the data. Sorry again, Ken.

It's true in the program. If you do a sort for titles with a rating less than G, it will include all the NR titles. Are you suggesting that instead of adding unrated, we should change NR to a different age? Should Abbott and Costello Meet the Wolf man have a higher rating than The Wolfman? Should Sesame Street: Learning about Numbers have a higher rating than Murder By Numbers? This isn't a practical solution.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Precisely the point, Rom. There is no industry standard that would back this up in any way. it was an arbitrary decision that just doesn't follow either the data or any logic because it leads to things like completely ignoring the data and saying that a movie that says it is Not rated is really Unrated in Profiler and this is done for what reason. It is done because instead of following the data, a totally fictional hierarchy was decided upon and that hierarchy screws up the sorting and confuses a lot of users.

I know what Ken wants to achieve, I think and I am fairly certain i understand the other issues and there are ways to do this without setting up a fictional hierarchy or turning to fictional data. In fact, it 's realtively easy.

NR is not a rating anymore than Unrated, so how is the data a totally fictional hierarchy? If it were NR films and TV stuff would not end up with films at one time were rated R. I can see the logic in Ken having NR as the lowest as all the old films and TV stuff for the most part having G rated content. However as time goes on we now are seeing a lot of Unrated films released that are PG-13 or higher in the content. So adding the Unrated will help filter these, and "If" (2nd class condition, "If and I wish it were true") Ken adds a tic to personalize for the user to set what they think is right for their kids, then problem solved.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:

Quote:
The rating should not be sorting based on some hierarchy, but according to the data. Sorry again, Ken.

How should it sort? Alphabetically?

If someone sorts (sorts, not filters) by rating, what order should they go in if not by minimum age?

I agree, By minimum/maximum age (whichever is appropriate).  My question is, where should "Unrated" be placed?

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:

Quote:
The rating should not be sorting based on some hierarchy, but according to the data. Sorry again, Ken.

How should it sort? Alphabetically?

If someone sorts (sorts, not filters) by rating, what order should they go in if not by minimum age?

Not age. Not by Hierarchy. But by the data, Ken.

Data=G
Data=PG
Data=PG-13

etc.

Sort on data get list, simple.

If stop trying to create a fictional hierarchy and turn Not Rated into something else and just deal with the data. The sorting and filtering as it is being discussed right now will go away.

Data=Not Rated
Data=Unrated

No hierarchy or imaginary ages, simple data. Search on Not rated get listing of all movies in a collection that are Not Rated. Unrated likewise. This is basic. If you want Ages or some hierarchy that is a totally different issue and it is not an ONLINE issue. Not rated means No Rating, similarly for Unrated. A hierarchy or ages  is the establishment of a Rating, this is beyond the scope of then Online aspect of the program, it is not beyond the scope of the Local side of the program and that is where hierarchy or ages should be and only there, Ken. Who among us feels that they are qualified to pretend to provide age data or some form of rating for someone else's family. I don't , I won't even in my wildest dreams pretend that I can do that or SHOULD, that is a decision I make for MY collection and relative to MY family, not yours, not Pete's, not Charlie's nor anyone ONLY for my own collection and my own family, that is the very definiton of LOCAL data

There are answer,  ken but NOT this way. You will wind up some users happy and others that will simply lock down.

I am not engaging in hyperbole, ken, this is very serious.

I have been womdering if other users actually understand that, Ken, it is they who started throwing the terms sort and filters out there.

Here are the problems as I see them ken
1) You have created a fictional hierarchy, that simply isn't necessary at the basic level
2)  You are trying to turn data which appears into something else, for what reason, acording to some filters and sorts<shrugs>
3)Most of us for years have understood that NR=Unrated and that both are the highest level
4)You have said that there have been issues in this regard, but these issues have not been seen in the forums, if they haven't been seen in the Forums, then while i don't say they don't exist, I will say that I don't believe them to be of a very serious nature
5)End result of the above is that we have some users who are confused, speaking for myself, it doesn't make sense.

Ken look at the MPAA rating system, how many ages are employed. There are FIVE if I counted correctly and there are TWO ages only TWO. So obviously age is not needed, although it could be used, that is a possibility but that is not used to fictionalize the published rating data of  Not Rated or Unrated, and I am still NOT including Unrated as Edition data as rating data. So if we sort on the data and we sort on Not Rated what do we get as a result (or Unrated). We get a list of titles that includes everything.

Sorting based on your fictional hierarchy Ken, puts you directly in the line of basically making judgements for users. You are telling me that NR is the lowest level rating, and i am looking at the contents of NR and saying that's BUNK. So at the simplest we ARE filtering based upon the data that is presented. And now we have this huge list of information that is mixed. Now we need to run this data through another filter, and what is the makeup of this second filter, it could be a set of ages that could be tied directly to Not Rated and Unrated and users could make their own determinations relative to that Not Rated or Unrated data.

So now the question becomes what is being asked for by users in the here and now, this is where I get confused, Ken some are talking about the data and some seem to want more. You seem to be feeding those who want more, but I think you are taking the wrong approach. rephrase that I know you are taking the wrong approach, there is no doubt in my mind. The solutions here really are very simple.