Quote:
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.

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I don't intend to remove sorting, and I don't intend to force users to enter their own sort order, so there needs to be a default.  The sort order in DVD Profiler is NR at the bottom.  Sure you could place it at the top, but that would also be at best arbitrary.

Note that this doesn't preclude a potential future program change to allow customization of this, but even if/when that's added, we need a default.

Deafult should be NR=Unrated = Highest Rating

Donnie

Quote:
but would we really want something like classic episodes of The Dick Van Dyke Show... pretty much all kid shows and any movie made before the '60s as the highest rating? I would venture to guess the majority of people wouldn't anyway.

Quote:
Quoting DarklyNoon:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
but would we really want something like classic episodes of The Dick Van Dyke Show... pretty much all kid shows and any movie made before the '60s as the highest rating? I would venture to guess the majority of people wouldn't anyway.

Do we really want to all the direct to video gore films and action films to be the loweest rating ?

Indeed. I'd rather have something classified as higher than it should be than lower.

Quote:
In my eyes having one group of titles wrong for the time being (as Ken is considering something to fix that)... then to have multiple groups of titles wrong.

Quote:
Keeping titles away from the kiddies is more the parents job then a program. The program can help but it will not be perfect.