| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Does anyone else think that having 17 separate topics on "Common Names" in the "Today's Active Topics" list is a clear indication that the current linking system just plain sucks?  | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| |
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,735 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't think anyone who started and/or participated in these threads today feels that "the current linking system" is flawless, to use an understatement. I certainly don't. Ideally I'd like to see unique ID's for everyone, coupled with a "one set of cast and crew per film, rather than per profile" approach. So yeah, we can all dream, but this is what we have right now - even if it "sucks"...
Also, it's worth noting that these common name-finding threads are actually mostly needed not because of our system, but because of the huge batch of IMDb-mind data in the database that messes up the CLT numbers. Of course there are also many flaws in the way we deal with these things, and in how the CLT works (unable to properly count TV credits being one of the major problems), but things would already immensely improve if we could manage to get rid of all the IMDb-mined data at some point. But as long as we stick with cast & crew data per profile rather than per film, I don't see that happening... |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Does anyone else think that having 17 separate topics on "Common Names" in the "Today's Active Topics" list is a clear indication that the current linking system just plain sucks? I agree with that. If common name used correct spelling, we would avoid many threads. Unfortunately, Ken doesn't seem ready to change his "clarification", and I try to clean the mess in the database that followed this clarification. I have yet about twenty new threads ready that I'll post in the two next days, but I checked only 20 movies on my 1150, so this number may increase rapidly... | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | That isn't anything we haven't known from Day 1! I said it back then... I said it many times since... and I will say it again. I wish Ken would try a different linking system! I would like to see the way Hal described many times given a chance! | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: July 8, 2010 | | Posts: 52 |
| | Posted: | | | | Here's another reason the current linking system sucks. How are we suppose to handle these to actors. Mark CurryMark Curry |
|
| Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Does anyone else think that having 17 separate topics on "Common Names" in the "Today's Active Topics" list is a clear indication that the current linking system just plain sucks? Absolutely agree. And with every new movie/actor in database it gets more problematic. So yes, we need something different! |
|