So why are people putting charts in REVERSE chrono order again?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Again, I will accede to the vote of the majority of the MODs. But I don't buy that 'everyone wants to see it a certain way'

Agreed, that's kind of a lame argument in favor of the reverse chronological order.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Historians don't list eras or trends or items in reverse chronological order. It depends if the MODS want IMFDB to be a scholarly historical site or a pop culture trends/Career tracking site like IMDB, because IMDB really focused on tracking what is POPULAR with the masses at the moment. (which is why they have that stupid Starmeter tracking system)

...I think that's kind of a narrow way of looking at it. IMFDB is both a historical site and a pop culture site. And so, I think, is IMDB, in its own way. The reason why I personally think that a reverse chronological order makes sense, for almost ANY type of database site, is because when it gets updated, most people will find it easier to add to the top of a list rather than scroll to the bottom. This may not seem like a huge issue for guns that have only appeared in a handful of films (that we've documented), but it would seem a bit unwieldy for guns that have appeared in hundreds of movies (i.e. the Beretta 92F or 1911).

This is one of those things that makes me wish IMFDB was a true "DB" like IMDB (instead of a Wiki) - everything could be standardized, and there might even be options to display data in either form of chronological order. But I suppose there's no sense gripping - it is what it is.

Also, I admit that the reverse-chronological order was decided somewhat arbitrarily. I am the one who first suggested it, and several of the other Admins went along with it, so I figured we were in agreement. But obviously, if there is a consensus in favor of your position, then I too will concede to democratic processes. That's what it's good for talk about this so that we know we're on the same page.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Also, I admit that the reverse-chronological order was decided somewhat arbitrarily. I am the one who first suggested it, and several of the other Admins went along with it, so I figured we were in agreement. But obviously, if there is a consensus in favor of your position, then I too will concede to democratic processes. That's what it's good for talk about this so that we know we're on the same page.

Thanks What initially bothered me was that I (and some others) didn't like the reverse chrono order, but when I brought it up, those concerns were pretty much ignored and everyone just assumed that Reverse chrono was the way to go. Which is why I pressed it again and asked for folks to (at the least) state their case and vote on it.

Because IMDB does it in reverse Chrono, I'm not going to be heart broken if the majority votes against Chronological order. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things (thought as a 'historian' I'm also used to things being a certain way, but I can adjust ), but it's good to have these discussions EARLY in the process. I'm sure IMDB had it's own board room discussions as to the best way to present their data.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Because IMDB does it in reverse Chrono, I'm not going to be heart broken if the majority votes against Chronological order. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things (thought as a 'historian' I'm also used to things being a certain way, but I can adjust ), but it's good to have these discussions EARLY in the process. I'm sure IMDB had it's own board room discussions as to the best way to present their data.

Actually, IMDB has sometimes made changes regardless of how the users, or even many of the admins, felt. See the new format of the front page? The reason for this is that some users complained that, with all the ads and whatnot, the front page was taking too long to load, so it was streamlined. But some others complained that it doesn't look as nice. I'm not sure what kind of decision-making was done, but I gather a lot of people still seem pretty unhappy with it, looking at their boards.

[Ace Oliveira]

I know this is a old thread, but i oppose the idea of not letting anonymous users from editing. A lot of them make good edits. We just have to not let them create pages. That is all.

[Gunmaster45]

Some of them make good edits, a lot of them add wrong information, screw up formating, spam, troll, etc, etc...

[Ace Oliveira]

Well, looking at Wikipedia, most of the Anonymous users are like that. However, since our site is really small, most of our edits come from Anon users. So if we don't let them edit, we will lose a lot of content.

[Gunmaster45]

Well the main basis of the completed site is made by the 10 or so admins/super users, and the uncompleted half is built mostly by anonymous users just passing through. On occassion we get a good edit by an anonymous user, but would it be so damn hard to make a user name if you are dedicated enough to help out?

Anonymous users cannot upload images, so they can't complete pages properly. There editing is limited to minor text, so they can barely help our needs. They aren't a necessity to the site, and anyone who is can just log in.

[Vangelis]

Originally Posted by MT2008

The reason why I personally think that a reverse chronological order makes sense, for almost ANY type of database site, is because when it gets updated, most people will find it easier to add to the top of a list rather than scroll to the bottom.

But when you get down to it, the people who's chief concern is how 'easy' it is will just add entries at the top or bottom regardless of any date order whatsoever and let someone else fix it for them. Unless we arrive at a state where we've covered every gun appearance in every movie currently in existence, most of the additions are likely to belong in the middle of the tables anyway.

[Gunmaster45]

One day it would be nice if we ran like IMDB. Only the administrators (or any good users turned into administrators by that point) could edit the pages, and if people wanted to make additions, they note so in the discussion section of the page.

That way it is like on IMDB when you add info and it has to be cleared by the Admins before it is placed on the site.

The only thing I can't figure out about this situation is how we'd be able to accept any more good users or admins. from that point on, since they wouldn't have the same editing privaliges anymore.

[Vangelis]

Well, I'd guess you'd have the forums to find out who were the really constructive users; the ones who made well-researched suggestions, found out obscure trivia and so on versus the ones who told us that we're gay for not having pages on Halo and Gears of War.