Hi.

Who came up with the idea of adding the different layers of a DVD / Blu-ray in this field?

I think this belong among the technical stuff of the release (Aspect ratio, Audio, Color Encoding, etc,etc).
A separate Field called Layers would be appropriate.

I think that a "Edition" field in format section is more useful.
Such as Director's cut, Extended, Special, Collector's (or what Edition where are)
By using this we only have to add the Titel (in the Title field) instead adding the "Edition" In ( ) or Title - Descrition.

A second description field in Format would also be very useful.
Here we would add Retail, Rental, Promo.

Using this will show the "Edition" of the Release in the Release Header (instead of the different layers of the DVD / Blu-Ray as it is now).

Example:(a wishful thinking)
Title: King Arthur.
Format: 1 X DVD.
Edition: Director's Cut
Description: Rental

Instead of (as it is now)
Title: King Arthur (Director's Cut)
Format: 1 X DVD.
Description: DVD-9

And i think alot of people is more interested in what "Edition" a Release is in rather than the layers of the Release.

as always, this is just a thought! (if you like it, bring the hammer down on the "Staff" or if you don't, just kick it). I will continue contributing anyway!

Thanx:)

WRONG.

Format description is used to describe the physical FORMAT being indexed. Please tell us how 'Special Collector's Edition' or 'Rental' or whatever belong in the Format Description field. None of those describe the FORMAT.

I thought that you would be the first one to answer to this thread!

so you think that DVD-9 or whatever the layer is, is more importent to show in the release heading rather than
the edition of the release.

in that case i think that you are WRONG!

If you got your will, we would be entering everything in the Notes section.( since you are against almost everything, like brands, series...).

I was asking for a new field called "Edition" in the header of the release.
as it is now the description field is just plan stupid.
To be honest, do you really think that the different layer on the disc is importent
to show in the Release heading, rather than the "Edition".

Maybe you care about that but i do not. It belongs in the technical section of the release.

FORMAT section of RELEASE FORM
1st field - QUANTITY

  • "Enter the quantity of the format. For example, a 4-disc DVD set would be 4, a single VHS release would be 1. If there is one Blu-ray and one DVD in the package (eg. this release) then the quantity is 1, but each format will require its own line."

2nd field - TYPE

  • Select the physical media type from drop down menu

3rd field - DESCRIPTION

  • "Enter any specifics about the format in this area such as type, layers or length."

This is from guidelines.

A second description field in Format would also be very useful.

There used to be two different fields. One was for the technical details (such as layers) and the other was for editions. But they both had very generic names, and users didn't know what to do with them.

I think they are both important bits of data, which is why I was surprised that the other field had been just deleted, and only the technical format field kept.

I've never liked that all the edition information is entered into the title field, it makes this place look like eBay instead of a database. The title field shouldn't be a garbage bin.

The "editions" can be divided into two groups: film cuts and release editions. I would consider the release type (promo, retail, rental) completely separate from the editions.

So in my dreams we would have:

Release Type: Retail
Edition: 5-Disc Complete Collector's Edition
Film Cut: Final Cut, 1982 U.S. Theatrical Cut, 1982 International Theatrical Cut, 1992 Director's Cut, Workprint

The release type field could be a dropdown with a description field, so something like this would be possible:

Release Type: Retail (Target Exclusive)

What about tv series releases then? Obviously "Season Two" wouldn't be part of the title in your scenario.

The title of the RELEASE may not be identical to the film or show contained. Title is how that particular item is marketed. Disney does it all the time with its never ending rereleases.

What about tv series releases then? Obviously "Season Two" wouldn't be part of the title in your scenario.

"Season Two" is not an edition, film cut or a release type, so it should be obvious why it was not part of "my scenario". ;-)

The title of the release may not be identical to the film or show contained.

I'm aware of that.

Edition names are used very inconsistently on the releases, allowing them to be interpreted in many ways. Hype terms on the back cover or a sticker are clearly not part of the title. On another release, the same term can be printed on the top of the cover. On yet another release, the same term can be printed below the title, even with the same font as the title. This is part of the problem.

The thing with dedicated fields would be that it would be a lot easier for the system to parse and display the data in a consistent way, with very little user involvement. It also makes it clear where that data belongs, which would then encourage users to enter the edition data.

But, if the fields don't happen, there should be at least an agreement how to enter them. Now everyone is just using their own method.

Now everyone is just using their own method.

Yes. However this thread was about the Description field in Format section. That is clearly defined as to what data belongs there.

I think as it is, is much easier just write what ever edition it is in the title after release name.

mirva wrote:

I've never liked that all the edition information is entered into the title field, it makes this place look like eBay instead of a database. The title field shouldn't be a garbage bin.

The "editions" can be divided into two groups: film cuts and release editions. I would consider the release type (promo, retail, rental) completely separate from the editions.

So in my dreams we would have:

Release Type: Retail
Edition: 5-Disc Complete Collector's Edition
Film Cut: Final Cut, 1982 U.S. Theatrical Cut, 1982 International Theatrical Cut, 1992 Director's Cut, Workprint

The release type field could be a dropdown with a description field, so something like this would be possible:

Release Type: Retail (Target Exclusive)

This was even better!!!

mirva wrote:

The thing with dedicated fields would be that it would be a lot easier for the system to parse and display the data in a consistent way, with very little user involvement. It also makes it clear where that data belongs, which would then encourage users to enter the edition data.

But, if the fields don't happen, there should be at least an agreement how to enter them. Now everyone is just using their own method.

+1

EK wrote_:

Yes. However this thread was about the Description field in Format section. That is clearly defined as to what data belongs there.

Fair enough! As you have pointed out severel times now the description field in format is for the different layers, etc.
But will you agree that an "Edition" field is also a good option
to have in the "Release" header.

An edition field (at this point) will only confuse users more than they already are.

As Mirva stated:

Edition names are used very inconsistently on the releases, allowing them to be interpreted in many ways. Hype terms on the back cover or a sticker are clearly not part of the title. On another release, the same term can be printed on the top of the cover. On yet another release, the same term can be printed below the title, even with the same font as the title. This is part of the problem.

Suggestion - use the TITLE field until a simple, workable solution from developers is in place.

The suggestion that THREE new fields to appear in the header

  • Release Type; Edition; Film Cut (!)

would be a disaster.

Not only would ALL previous RELEASES need to be edited, but even with suggested drop-downs users wouldn't get it right. Example - see packaging field. Or Id Code Types.

All the forms need to be as simple as possible.

Yes i EK is right.

We are having problems allready with required fields some users only put data in the mandatory fields and they might add what region etc.

Or some users add all sorts of wackie companies on there releases, simplicity is key.

EK wrote_:

The suggestion that three new fields to appear in the header

I suggested three new fields to be added to the release submission form. What would be displayed in the header is another matter, and can be discussed.

EK wrote_:

use the title field

How do you enter them to the title field? What's your method?

EK wrote_:

An edition field (at this point) will only confuse users more than they already are.

Could you elaborate why?

You might've misunderstood my point - my point was that because of the releases displaying the edition names in varying locations and prominence, it's unclear to users where the edition name belongs. IMO data entry should be as intuitive as possible, and having to enter a hype phrase from a sticker to the title field is far from it.

In addition, there are no guidelines, or even a consensus on how or where to enter the edition names. Users enter them where they want to, and other users move them around, and edit them according to their personal preferences. There are some releases where the title has been changed multiple times because users disagree on the best method.

How can a field called "Edition" be more confusing than the current situation?

Imagine you're a new user, and have a release that has a sticker which says "Deluxe Edition".

In the current Filmogs, you see there's no obvious place on the submission form where to enter it. You find no help in the guidelines, and the releases in the database show the data entered in various places: notes, title, description field, nowhere. You end up putting in notes, because surely something in a sticker doesn't belong in the title field, and because the description field guidelines only mention formats.

In the updated Filmogs, you see a field called "Edition". The guidelines confirm that this is where the phrase belongs.

( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.