Lost again

Discuss ongoing matters concerning the application of site policies, or the policies themselves, here.
Forum rules
This sub-forum is for the discussion of site policy and the handling thereof ONLY.
Please direct all change requests to the main forum.
dmc84
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:11 pm

Lost again

Postby dmc84 » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:47 pm

DO NOT CONTACT MODERATORS REGARDING POLICY ENFORCEMENT.
If you feel the application of a policy is unfair, please open a Policy Inquiry, with the understanding that administrators (red names) set the policies and moderators (green names) must enforce them within reasonable degrees of latitude.


Why is that when i post here a moderator moves it?
Isn't the point to have an admin review it since the moderator denied it and this is an appeal?

Original post in request change: viewtopic.php?t=51794

Denied so i appealed to policy: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=51922

And it was moved to denied again. WTF? how is it this hard to have someone see reason? instead of just saying "its that way cause its been that way cause it aired that way and we don't care about anything else"

Mistywing
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:59 am

Re: Lost again

Postby Mistywing » Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:28 pm

Here is the admin decision on Lost.
Here it is explained that revisionism is not tolerated.

The consequences are therefore the following:

Lost was originally presented and listed with 24 episodes in the first season.
Newer sources of information conflicting with this original listing are therefore invalidated.

dmc84
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: Lost again

Postby dmc84 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:54 pm

Here it is explained that revisionism is not tolerated:First sentence
Every once in awhile things need to be reviewed and updated to better suit the times. What worked for the site several years ago clearly no longer works the same way today so the admins, other mods, and myself have agreed it was probably time to evaluate our rules involving sources.


It continues:
From today onward sources will be prioritized as follows:

Preferred Sources
Official Websites* - The official listing for a series in its country of origin. Unless the listing is a god awful mess or conflicts with an existing site rule such as splitting of multipart episodes in animated series or aired ordering actually differs, the official listing will be considered gospel. No matter what the scene thinks.
TvRage.com - Aside from a few oddball series, in my personal experience TvRage has over the years been a pristine and trusted source of information. (TVRage has resurfaced in the past month, but may be outdated or incorrect. Please do a sanity check before citing this source.)
TvGuide.com - TvGuide's entire business depends on accurate television listings and foreign listings aside they're usually dead on.
TvGuide.com - TvGuide's entire business depends on accurate television listings and foreign listings aside they're usually dead on.
AnimeNewsNetwork.com - When it comes to anime info ANN is generally your best bet, the listings are almost always complete and damn accurate even for the most obscure or old titles.
MyAnimeList.net - Second only to ANN, MAL features some of the most up-to-date and accurate anime info.
BFI.org.uk - British Film Institute database is particular good for British/UK shows. There is little addition of "current" shows but the archive is usually good.

Acceptable Sources
Tv.com - While generally accurate to a degree tv.com is often missing required details such as airdates to backup their listings which limits reliability. Good for comparison to other listings and often to fill in blanks, but a preferred source it is not.
Imdb.com - A great database for movie info, but often lackluster when it comes to television series. Some of you may have seen me mention that I'd rather not use it as a main source for info and this is for good reasons. Try and find a better source for info if possible.
Anidb.net - An acceptable but often incomplete anime source. Series often lack season info and listings include non-episodes such as OP, ED, dvd extras, etc. A decent supplementary source for episode titles or release dates, but not much else.


Official Website: ABC no longer lists lost, out of date, other official source would be who owns copyright so DVD and Bluray (lists as 25 episodes) eg
Every once in awhile things need to be reviewed and updated to better suit the times.

2nd: TVrage.com: site shut down.
3rd: TVGuide.com: Lists the finally over 3 episodes, 25 episode season.https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/lost/episodes-season-1/100272/
Not applicable as not anime or british:(AnimeNewsNetwork.com, MyAnimeList.net, BFI.org.uk)
4th: Tv.com: Lists as 25 episodes.http://www.tv.com/shows/lost/episodes/
5th: Imdb.com: Lists as 25 episodes.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411008/episodes?season=1&ref_=tt_eps_sn_1
i agree wiki is not a good source.... but even wiki: lists as 25 episodes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(season_1)

Now the ONLY conflict is the web archive of the original site, and i'm assuming your using this * as the reason.
*Update: 02/09/2016
I feel that we need to clearly explain something that should be obvious but clearly isn't. If we have a listing that is based on an official site, and that site becomes defunct, we will not simply change said listing based on the ignorant insistence of members who have not seen said website. This nonsense is called revisionism, and it won't be tolerated here. Classic series will continue to be listed as they were, when these sites were available. Thank you **

Note: Revisionism, this is a political term specifically to do with Marxism and socialism. Absolutely NOTHING to do with the reasonable review of data organisation. Which is all this is, not changing history here, not changiong the plot, or aired date, were just saying that if back in 2005 when you watched 120mins of lost on 25 May 2005, were going to say you watched 2 40min episodes back to back instead of 1 120min episode.

Also there is no reason to assume if it was still listed by the ABC, that they would not have revised it, afterall
Every once in awhile things need to be reviewed and updated to better suit the times.
... since every other source on that list has it as 25 episodes, and the current official source as seen on DVD is also 25, its safe to assume if ABC still listed it on their website it could be 25 episodes.

Do you understand my confusion?
Every source has it as 25 episodes, and you seem happy with the clear contradiction in you single post:
Every once in awhile things need to be reviewed and updated to better suit the times.
and then go just kidding with an *
and that site becomes defunct, we will not simply change said listing based on the ignorant insistence of members who have not seen said website

even with ignorant insistence of members who have not seen said website that does not mean we shouldn't review and updated to better suit the times.

Can we please get an admin to weigh in on this?
I feel like its been a while and time to review and update i don't think i'm an ignorant member and i feel it complies with all of your preferred sources.
If everything said 24 except like some random wiki page or other forum i can understand and i honestly hope you would deny it but just look at the other sources... Not 1 has it as 24 episodes, not 1.

dmc84
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: Lost again

Postby dmc84 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:00 pm

lol, come on, please just look what you wrote: Why revisionism is not tolerated, and the first line is:Every once in awhile things need to be reviewed and updated to better suit the times.

I can't be the only one who lol'd at that?

NeoCortex
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Lost again

Postby NeoCortex » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:18 pm

This has been argued and decided plenty of times in the past. If you really want that last episode to be sorted as multiple episodes, use NFO files. It's not difficult to do.

eherberg
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:56 am

Re: Lost again

Postby eherberg » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:40 pm

Yup -- your whole argument seems based on what the site "would do" ... if it existed today. I get it -- you want the listing to match your DVD/Blu-Ray set so it just scrapes to match. But the disk numbering is not the same as the original broadcast. It's not the first time boxsets get released with different numbering. Use nfo files and number them however you want. Better yet - start a DVD ordering database and make Lost the first entry.

Mistywing
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:59 am

Re: Lost again

Postby Mistywing » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:02 pm

You are completely ignoring the context of the line in the first paragraph.
The context is obviously about the timing of creating a clear rule set concerning what sources of information are acceptable and in what order, presumably because the situation was unclear and somewhat chaotic beforehand.
It is most definitely not talking about how the rules or sources of information should ebb and flow like the tide and change or adapt constantly to the seasons and humors of the users.
In fact, doing so would make this database extremely unreliable due to the changing standards which would apply to some series but not others, or perhaps should apply retroactively to all series and therefore messing up previously exported or gathered data for every single user of the site or its derived products and applications.

The purpose of the database is to list series AS THEY AIRED on TV at the time of airing.

However they are packaged in DVDs, online streaming sites or cereal boxes ten years after the fact is completely irrelevant to the primary method of listing episodes on the site, which is the AIRED ORDER.

Please understand this most important point: the episode numbers you see per season represent nothing else but the AIRED ORDER. They are not supposed to be a DVD order or a streaming site order and were never meant to be.

These options are instead filled out in the DVD order or absolute order as necessary. In this case it is unfortunate that only a single value is allowed as it would require two, but since this is something unsupported by the site and the API it will have to be something you do on your end.

You wanted the admin decision on Lost. You have it, it is final. He is the site founder.

Please also note that the thread containing this decision was posted by the administrator in 2011, and the sources of information rules was posted by a moderator in 2012.

Believe me that this isn't the only case, I've already seen a few double length season premieres require the same treatment because some site somewhere randomly decides to split it in two. This has never been a valid reason and probably never will be except in the case of the main broadcaster also doing it immediately on its release.

dmc84
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: Lost again

Postby dmc84 » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:27 am

NeoCortex wrote:This has been argued and decided plenty of times in the past. If you really want that last episode to be sorted as multiple episodes, use NFO files. It's not difficult to do.

I understand and have done that already.
This is about consistency and purpose. I try and support the site and encourage friends to use it, because i figure it to be an accurate source for organising media. This situation does not seem to be fit what i thought it stood for.

dmc84
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: Lost again

Postby dmc84 » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:59 am

eherberg wrote:Yup -- your whole argument seems based on what the site "would do" ... if it existed today. I get it -- you want the listing to match your DVD/Blu-Ray set so it just scrapes to match. But the disk numbering is not the same as the original broadcast. It's not the first time boxsets get released with different numbering. Use nfo files and number them however you want. Better yet - start a DVD ordering database and make Lost the first entry.


No actually my whole argument is there should be some consistency with how episodes are categorised, and defined and it should be flexible enough to account for future changes, and logical enough to resist unnecessary changes.
It is inconsistent that the series has 117 40 min episodes and 1 120min episode, however it seems logical that a series may have 118 40 min episodes.
When it aired originally in 2005, between the two episodes on that night (or halfway through the single episode) it said "to be continued" and went straight into the next episode (or 2nd half of the first episode).
The point im making is that that shouldn't even matter, even if it didn't say that and even if 13years ago ABC listed it as a single episode ( its logical that it was a double episode airing, like countless other shows before (all of which theTVDB.com splits that i can see, i have dozens of examples in my own collection)

The office season 4 originally aired with 14 episodes. https://web.archive.org/web/20150402000 ... e/episodes
yet theTVDB.com has it as 19 - (4 double episodes). Now does NBC still list it on their website as 14... no they updated it to reflect a more logical order of their series.... so which is it how they originally aired or how they appear today.

dmc84
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: Lost again

Postby dmc84 » Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:15 am

Mistywing wrote:You are completely ignoring the context of the line in the first paragraph.

I know but its still ironic, your saying it about rules but not content.

The purpose of the database is to list series AS THEY AIRED on TV at the time of airing.

i just mentioned this above in reply to eherberg's comment:
The office season 4 originally aired with 14 episodes. https://web.archive.org/web/20150402000 ... e/episodes
yet theTVDB.com has it as 19 - (4 double episodes). Now does NBC still list it on their website as 14... no they updated it to reflect a more logical order of their series.... so which is it how they originally aired or how they appear today, if its how they appear today and the original preferred source is unavailable then we should seek the next preferred source.
I have a number of other examples i just thought the office was a good one because it had 5 double episodes (originally 5 40 min episodes, not 10 20 min as seen by the web archive) in one season.

Please understand this most important point: the episode numbers you see per season represent nothing else but the AIRED ORDER. They are not supposed to be a DVD order or a streaming site order and were never meant to be.

I understand yet when 2 episodes air at the same time theTVDB.com CHOOSES to list them as either 1 or 2 episodes... see above about The Office (US).

You wanted the admin decision on Lost. You have it, it is final. He is the site founder.
Please also note that the thread containing this decision was posted by the administrator in 2011, and the sources of information rules was posted by a moderator in 2012.

Is it not time to review, either The Office (us) is listed incorrectly or Lost is. I'm just asking for consistency.

Believe me that this isn't the only case, I've already seen a few double length season premieres require the same treatment because some site somewhere randomly decides to split it in two. This has never been a valid reason and probably never will be except in the case of the main broadcaster also doing it immediately on its release.

I do believe you but that doesn't make it right, we all want the same thing, a robust database for media, specifically TV shows.
I have a number of other examples i just thought the office was a good one because it had 5 double episodes in one season.