Why on earth don't you use the same basic systems here as you do on Discogs...

For example, the movies on my collection are in order of addition. I'd like to arrange them in alphabetical order or by original release year. How come this is not possible??

The same goes with eg. directors. Films are in alphabetical order and it's not possible to change that into chronological.

Also it would be nice, if I could categorize the movies in my collection. This is easy on Discogs as well.

What about purchase date, last viewing etc etc.

It seems that this whole site is very hurriedly put together.
I can't understand why as Discogs platform is pure joy all around (if we won't talk about the miscellaneous tag). :D

I'd love to use this instead of Imdb to list my movies but as of now, this service is not good enough. I'd pay to get a Discogs-level version of this!

Kind regards,
Jarkko Mäkelä

hey JMaekelae, welcome to Filmogs. Thanks for the feedback. A lot of people have commented on features they want for collection/wantlist, it is something we hope to address in the coming weeks or months. (We just recently released changes related to how a users contributions are displayed, which is a related effort)

There are many reasons why the site doesn't use the same system as Discogs, most of them are quite technical and boring. But a big one is that the system that Filmogs (Bookogs, Comicogs and all the other *ogs) runs on is built to be customisable and extendable for different media and domains while Discogs is very much built around music.

We believe that the sites can be valuable, even if they are still a work in progress. We also want to build a community around the sites, get people submitting, set standards and guidelines and so on.

Hope that explains things, but further questions are always welcome. Stay tuned for more new features and functionality.

filmogs staff should focus in on core of what makes this site unique - detailed indexing of physical home-video releases.

How can "set standards and guidelines" occur when new users keep requesting features be added that don't actually enhance the site - but confuse and complicate things - while basic formatting questions have not been answered for years?

filmogs staff should focus in on core of what makes this site unique - detailed indexing of physical home-video releases.

Indexing and archiving is a major focus point. But the different parts all play a big role, archiving, collecting buying and selling are all core parts of what the sites are about. We need to improve on all of these fronts, as they all go hand in hand.

How can "set standards and guidelines" occur when new users keep requesting features be added that don't actually enhance the site.

Setting standards and guidelines occurs through forum discussions, feedback to the development team, discussion between contributors, updating wikis, improving submission form functionality and so on. It is a constant ongoing effort.

basic formatting questions have not been answered for years?

Could you elaborate on which questions are you thinking of specifically?

Something that has come up recently regarding 'COMPANIES' field

What EXACTLY should be place in RELEASE pages vs FILM pages?

I'm of the opinion that listing companies involved in the MAKING of a film don't need to be placed in the RELEASE page, as that information should be placed on the FILM page. RELEASE page should have data specifically about that RELEASE.

Yes, no, maybe?

PLUS! Shouldn't there be a specific order if someone is going to go nuts and list a bunch of them? Often the same user will have no sort of rhyme or reason to the order he or she lists the companies.

Company ROLES would be nice.

NOTE: Perhaps having a RELEASE DATE field for RELEASES. I put specific release dates on my entries and for some reason a user or users have been removing this data. Weird.

There seems to be NO place to login or make submissions. What gives?
The interface, so far, is awful.

Top of page. There is a CONTRIBUTE button. Select it and choose submission type.

I was logging into Filmogs.com. Now I know to use Filmo.gs
Thanks for your help

Two of the biggest issues I have with the website so far are the following :

  • As far as I can see the Title field in the Add Movie form only reports a possible dupplicate if you use the exact same name (including spelling), when it comes with movies with non english titles it makes it tedious to know if the movie you're adding is a dupplicate or not. Why not use the Alternative Fields as well ?

  • The only way I found to group together different releases of the same movie is through the Film page for that movie, unlike discogs which allows you to instantly see what other releases exist (and potentially add your own if it is missing).

I have been periodically active, adding releases I own but there are still plenty I'd like to contribute. I strongly feel that the main reason people aren't as active here as on discogs is the lack of a clear system for organizing films and releases, not only because it makes it tedious to contribute but also because when doing so on filmogs it never feels like you're adding something concrete, it just feels like it floats somewhere with no solid link to anything.

Thanks for the feedback DenkiGroove. Re. your first point, the title search in the add movie form does indeed need improvement, we hope to address it soon.

To your second point. Do you mean how a Discogs release will show you a handfull of other versions of a release on the release page?

I strongly feel that the main reason people aren't as active here as on discogs is the lack of a clear system for organizing films and releases, not only because it makes it tedious to contribute but also because when doing so on filmogs it never feels like you're adding something concrete, it just feels like it floats somewhere with no solid link to anything.

I'm sorry to hear this, but thanks for the feedback. Filmogs is very much a work in progress, so we hope to be improving on those things as we move along.

Could you elaborate a bit on why it feels so disconnected to you? When you say "lack of a clear system for organizing", what do you mean? Lack of filters/searching/sorting on a film page? Something else?

Why not just clone the Discogs interface and modify it to suit movies. As a developer, we do this all the time. Make development much faster,

As for the interface, actions and functions are not intuitively obvious. They should be.

Why not just clone the Discogs interface and modify it to suit movies

This has been done to some extent. There are many technical reasons for why Discogs code or functionality wasn't copied wholesale. Discogs is an old codebase, very much specifically designed and build for music, where as the other *ogs sites have been built to be extendable.

We are trying to build on the experience of Discogs, good and bad. Obviously that means there's also a quite a bit of catching up to do.

As for the interface, actions and functions are not intuitively obvious. They should be.

Agreed of course, we are working towards this. If you have more specific or concrete examples that would be appreciated, but thank you for the feedback and the patience.

Could you elaborate a bit on why it feels so disconnected to you? When you say "lack of a clear system for organizing", what do you mean? Lack of filters/searching/sorting on a film page? Something else?

What I meant to say initially was that in discogs, when you're looking at a release page all the information you need for what you're doing (be it just research, identification, adding your own release in the right place) is rarely more than one click away.
To illustrate how this generally isn't the case on filmogs, if I enter the name of a release I own with the objective of getting to the movie associated with that release, but both name differ in any way, I will have to go through an existing release for that movie (assuming any exist) to then click on the movie link for that release.
What makes this problem worse is that movie pages on filmogs don't do a good job of listing previously added releases because the only information they provide by themselve is a picture of each release.
I often end up having to open multiple tabs to get a clear picture of what has been added, what is incomplete and where everything "fits".
It would be much easier to use if movie pages used a list format to show existing releases, with information such as the release date, catalog number, country and publisher.

Thanks for the detailed feedback DenkiGroove. Those are all good and valid points. Improvements for some of them are in the works (including better filtering on releases for a film) we hope to have them out soon.

We've made a note of the other points you mention.

if I enter the name of a release I own with the objective of getting to the movie associated with that release, but both name differ in any way, I will have to go through an existing release for that movie (assuming any exist) to then click on the movie link for that release

Just to clarify here, do you mean if the name of the film differs from the name of the release? Because of different language titles or something like that?

Biggest problem:
Quantity is favored over quality of submissions.

I'm sorry you feel that way EK_. I don't feel that is an accurate portrayal of the team nor the community here.

We are definitely concerned with getting momentum and building the site, but data accuracy is a concern of everyone involved as far as I can tell. I feel like we have been responsive to criticisms when you and others have (sometimes rightly) called us out when verging from quality over quantity.

Are there some specific features or aspects that you feel need to be addressed in this regards? (CIP is not happening though)

Building the website would be key.

But i think having a voting system like discogs would also help out heaps like needs minor changes etc.

Maybe even easier to understand rules espically for new users in sensitive content or other areas if need be .

I would also like to be able to view other films with the same title in other languages like Italian Spanish or Russian. It would help heaps

I added a few releases and movies recently, here are a few thoughts I had presented as suggestions :

While some entries I've seen used english or romanized names for foreign titles or credits, most did not. In my opinion using original names, in the orinal language, is a good thing and the best way to avoid duplicates, so this is the system I've been using as well.
This way of doing, however, is problematic until the improvements mentionned earlier in this thread are put into effect, since you cannot leverage alternative names and have to use the exact spelling of things at all time, even in a language you may not understand or know how to write.
Therefore everytime you (or I) use a non-romanized script anywhere, it makes it harder for most people to use that data.

Some fields could be automatically sorted, such as credits in a film page.
For example having a set of blocks, one for director(s), one for productor(s), one for the cast and so on, you could have each credit be automatically put in the appropriate block (this would only work with roles being selectable from a list as they are on discogs) and then each block could be automatically sorted (with for example director at the top, then productors, then actors...).
Each block could also be limited to only show the first few credits until it is clicked or expanded, so that by default even pages with a lot of credits would be easy to browse.
One issue this would cause is that someone with more than one credit would appear in multiple block, but the way it is now, when a page has a lot of credit it sometimes is problematic to read because too much information is on screen and rarely in the same order.

Thanks for the feedback DenkiGroove, we've made a note of it. Your suggestion re. standardisation of credit orders makes sense.

Re. original names, I think there is a general agreement on that films should be entered with their original language title, alternative language titles should be searchable as well.

For credits this still needs to be implemented (alternate names and aliases should be searchable as well).

Releases should be entered under the name/language that they are released in and then tied to the relevant film.

@Kalli or anyone really.

I have a gen questin what role should i put pro wrestlers under?

Wrester, cast or actor / actress.

Alao should i add each wrestling match that apperes on the dvd like tv shows or leave it like how i have been adding it like film / release.

I would love feedback

@bnoi: When I've done WWE DVDs in the past, I've listed the credit as follows...

Name (ANV if billed differently)
Subject (if documentary) / Cast (if fictional film)
Him(Her)self (if documentary) / Character Name (if film)

Does that make sense?

What i have been doing is.

Starring CM Punk as himself. / Herself for the divas

For gimmicks like Cactus Jack / Mankind i added that as an as on the Mick Foley credit. But still using the word starring.

That is what i have been doing.

I like adding credits, could it be possible to conceal most of them like IMDb does? The more you add, the more you have to scroll down the page.

Is a nice goal to think of with the info on this site is to have the immense amount of information that IMDb has along with the physical release database that Discogs has?

I like adding credits, could it be possible to conceal most of them like IMDb does? The more you add, the more you have to scroll down the page.

Is a nice goal to think of with the info on this site is to have the immense amount of information that IMDb has along with the physical release database that Discogs has?

Submitting a new release is getting to be too much data entry. Could we just post a picture of the credits, title, etc?

mwolfstone, no. Try to make your releases have the best information possible. If you just take pictures, you're just leaving it for somebody else to do it for you. Please refrain from doing so.

It's not too much to ask for.

Yeah i agree most credits on old films and shows are no where to be seen.

So most of the wrestlers or people in the films i own i have been adding and adding them to other films and shows that are allready on the DB.

Most the references i am uaing from IMDB.

I think it should be required to make a release and film.

Well I do like the way that it's done on discogs where a master release can't exist without at least 2 releases, but I think in this case I prefer to be able to create a film page before a release page.

It's always nice when it's already created for you so you don't have to create a new one. It keeps things nice and organized and the information up to date.

I don't know if it has been mentioned before, but i just added credits without roles to a film and even though it said that it was good to go my edits didn't show up until i added credit roles.

I like adding credits, could it be possible to conceal most of them like IMDb does? The more you add, the more you have to scroll down the page.

That's a good point, we'll look into this moving forward. And thanks for advocating for full and complete data submissions. We know it can be time consuming, but it's really the only way of building a comprehensive, accurate and useful database of film releases.

i just added credits without roles to a film and even though it said that it was good to go my edits didn't show up until i added credit roles.

Thanks for letting us know about that, reknuggets, we're looking into it now

I also do the same i just added 20 new credits and adding a pic plus bio to them all haha

May i ask two questions:
Is there an actual reason why it is possible to create new profiles with the exact same name?
Why not following the way it is on discogs by FORCING the user to add "(2)" behind it because an entry with the same name already exists?
Also having the user to CONFIRM that he is actually creating a new profile is a proper way to prevent numerous dupes i guess.
A simple if-clause would justify this.

There are also alot of film dupes.
The main reason for this is the search function when adding a film to a release.
It simply doesn't work.
Why should i enter different language names or name variations for films when these are simply not taken into account by entering them in the search box.
This is really bad for titles that have their original names in e.g chinese lettering entered.
There's no way to find them.
So why are the alternative names not indexed?

Why not following the way it is on discogs by FORCING the user to add "(2)" behind it because an entry with the same name already exists?

The "(2)" looks so shitty on discogs; please do not add it here.

Why not following the way it is on discogs by FORCING the user to add "(2)" behind it because an entry with the same name already exists?

The Discogs way is not by choice, but a remnant of old technical restrictions.

Is there an actual reason why it is possible to create new profiles with the exact same name?

Because some things have the exact same name. This question has come up on Bookogs as well. We are considering the best way to distinguish between different but identically named entities. Feedback or ideas are welcome.

https://www.bookogs.com/forum/530564-credit-name-indentifiers

The main reason for this is the search function when adding a film to a release.

We are also aware of the shortcomings of the search here, alternative or foreign language titles being a big one, we hope to improve them soon.

I have added (2) to some credits and others have as well.

I think its better to have (2) (3) etc so we can easily identify the differences between each credit.

I agree a warning should pop up saying this already has a credit etc it would be much nicer and easier to differ between items and not have 100 dfferent dupes

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.