Interested in seeing comments from users/developers about this practice.

Most proprietary database apps have this facility, harvesting data from Amazon, IMDb &c. While speedy, I think this has problems, if not managed in some way.

The specifics of individual fields (films / credits / companies / duration / images etc) require cross-referencing with other databases, as well as the item in hand.

Harvesting from databases without cross-referencing AND select editing to conform with Filmogs codes of practice, strikes me as being redundant, and potentially flawed since it assumes a validity where none may be. Personally, I have not discovered a single database without significant flaws - in both data and its organisation. This is a key reason to be involved in helping to configure and populate Filmogs. It is certainly my hope that it might be more refined/less flawed than already existing databases, especially with specific regard to Releases.

I maintain a personal (offline) database with some 8,000 films/releases - it is currently housed in DVDPedia but has existed in other forms/applications over the decades. I am using Filmogs to cross-fertilize, cross-reference and correct some of the flaws in my existing database. As I enter data on Filmogs I have three other windows open, 2 other online databases and my own long standing one. Since I use the long-standing one daily, it is extremely useful to me; however, with over 30 years of organic augmentation, and numerous repottings, it naturally has growths and defects that could use a little attention. Plus it is wider than release only - cataloging my entire collection, including off-air recordings - so I am curious to concurrently maintain a release-specific database.

When I started using Filmogs I had to really suppress my desire to dictate my expectations - cultivated for my needs as they have been evolving for 3 decades - in the interests of seeing how a new site might choose to organise things. I assume this must be Filmogs principle - since it appears reticent to simply 'cut and paste' its rudiments from the successful yet long in the tooth Discogs. I think this approach is interesting, so I'm still holding back, though encouraging here and there, as structural issues are raised in the forum.

I say again - I don't see the point in cut and paste, without editing. If Filmogs is to be detailed and refined in its scope it requires management and a measure of diligence. Thankfully - editing is an ongoing process. There is a core of dedicated users here, that lead by example, so I am hopeful diligent management will grow as it did, for the most part, on Discogs.

Basing a submission solely on third party sources is not allowed. This is stated in the Filmogs General Rules and Guidelines (which are pretty much a copy of the Discogs ones).

Valid Information - You must have the exact object, or an official document describing the object in enough detail, or a set of high quality images that gives enough detail of the object, in your possession when you make a submission. Basing your submission only on third hand information from websites, low quality images, or anywhere else is forbidden [...] (1.1.1.)

Sources of information external to the object itself may be added, but the physical object must always be the main source. External sources of the information (for example websites, word of mouth, books etc) must be declared in the submission notes, explained in the object notes, and be verifiable as far as possible. Unsubstantiated information may be removed or rejected. External information should only be entered where it adds to the object information (1.1.2.)

It is of course hard to verify whether a user has the item in hand. Using other websites and datasources as a reference alongside an original item is all good in my opinion, as long as the data is verified from the original object. There are guidelines for images as well. Watermarks, copyright and readability are the most important things there.

If you suspect that submissions are being entirely based on third party sources you can politely ask the user in history comments on the submissions perhaps?

p.s. @EK_ Is there any reason for using all caps in these titles? It is generally perceived as text shouting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Association_with_shouting). I at least take it as irritating and confrontational if not combative

I at least take it as irritating and confrontational if not combative

Let it out, brother. It will be OK. Peace!

Let it out, brother. It will be OK. Peace!

Thanks, I'll be fine. JUST perpetually PUZZLED by the ODD capitalization CHOICES

There are guidelines for images as well. Watermarks, copyright and readability are the most important things there.

How about web source images. As far as I know the common Discogs rule is use scans or pics from actual copy. I see lots and lots of images taken from the web, showing front and spine from an angle. Most of those submissions don’t have images of back cover and/or disc, which make it impossible to check.

How about web source images.

There are some guidelines for images too: https://www.filmo.gs/wiki/filmogs-image-guidelines

By uploading images to Filmogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:

  • Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception).
  • You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license.
  • Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license.
  • Fair Use - any image representing a physical or digital product (e.g., cover art, label scans, packaging, liner notes).

With the images it is really hard to tell programmatically if the image is a phone snapshot, a scan or downloaded from the internet. So we need to build up guidelines and consensus on what kind of images are needed, I think this is best "enforced" at a community/human level, not by code.

We are planning to add more suggestions and information about the kinds of images we want to to the image upload form.

One can easily tell if an image is sourced from online retailer, etc.

Example:

https://www.filmo.gs/release/65048-10-000-bc

image search

https://www.amazon.ca/10-000-Widescreen-Full-Screen/dp/B0012Q732O

NOTE: This exact same image was found on multiple online retailers and sites about DVD/Blu-ray releases.

One can easily tell if an image is sourced from online retailer, etc.

Yes humans can. My point was that it is hard for computers to do at a scale.

I would guess that images such as the one you linked to EK_ fall under fair use. But that a better quality one could have been used for that submission and that a good submission should include more pictures with more detail (back cover, spine, disc, barcode etc).

my apologies if the following query is not related to this page. I have a csv. file list of 300 blu-ray films i would like to add to filmogs which do not exist at the moment on filmogs. is it possible for me to upload a csv. file to filmogs? i know that Reverb LP has a function whereby you can upload a csv file of your discogs listings directly to the reverb site.

Hi coolectibles.toronto,
We don't currently have a csv upload option, the only way to add an item to the database is to submit each item individually

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.