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.

[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.

[Rockwolf66]

Me personally,
I don't want to be an Admin per say but it would be great to be able to play garbageman from time to time and remove the really unformatted trash pages. you know the ones that are just lists of gun names and no real effort. Heck I think it's time to do another full database sweep of the pages.

[Gunmaster45]

Well Administrators just have greater privaliges than regular users, it's not like you are given any greater workload. It just allows you to delete pages, ban users, delete images, protect pages, and work on Sysop Only pages.

It's a sweet gig, but we wield it responsibly to benefit the site to the best of our abilities. You earn the status when you prove to be a trust-worthy user, as these privalages in the wrong hands could spell disaster for the site. *Dunh, duhn duh!*

I'm pretty sure Bunni is the only Mod who works on keeping the site running, since he pays for it and keeps the server running. We don't do that (at least I don't)...

[Vangelis]

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

I don't want to be an Admin per say but it would be great to be able to play garbageman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3k

Couldn't resist.

Also, something to consider: should we add precise dates to the tables for movie and videogame releases to make it easier to organise multiple entries in the same year? At the moment, anyone wishing to add a new entry the same year as an existing one would have to manually check on the dates themselves, which can be extremely annoying if there's a lot of entries that year. Adding a three-letter month name and a one or two-digit date would probably be best, since XX / XX / XXXX dates are a potential source of confusion; if I remember rightly, in the US it's MM / DD / YYYY, while in the UK it's DD / MM / YYYY, which could mean dates ending up in completely the wrong place. "Jan DD, YYYY" is the best format for avoiding that.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by Vangelis

Adding a three-letter month name and a one or two-digit date would probably be best, since XX / XX / XXXX dates are a potential source of confusion; if I remember rightly, in the US it's MM / DD / YYYY, while in the UK it's DD / MM / YYYY, which could mean dates ending up in completely the wrong place. "Jan DD, YYYY" is the best format for avoiding that.

Yes, but I've pointed out to other users, especially those in other countries who seem to think that we have to be ALL to EVERYONE around the world .... that this is a U.S. based website. They should conform to U.S. standards and don't whine about it. I'm so glad that IMFDB uses the ENGLISH title as the sorting factor, not the original language title like IMDB. IMDB is big enough to fancy itself to be the U.N. of movie databases. But IMFDB is NOT IMDB.

For one thing, I am glad that IMFDB lists Jackie Chan's movie title "Police Story 3: Super Cop" .... rather than "Ging chat goo si 3: Chiu kup ging chat" like IMDB does. I don't know about you but I don't instinctive type in GING CHAT GOO when I search for a Jackie Chan movie! (of course the only exception is that if the movie was NEVER released with an English language title).....

[Gunmaster45]

Originally Posted by Vangelis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3k

Couldn't resist.

"Garbage Day! Bwh-hahahah!"

I laugh hard every time I watch that scene. Apparently a garbage can doesn't make good body armor.