Search options (Page 1 of 2)

fuzzball - I understand this issue has been discussed before without a perfect resolution.  I have reached out to the redump mods and admins, so that we can have a discussion and then get this settled once and for all, about guidance for correct EXE dates. 

I will update as soon as I find out.  Thank you for your patience as we discuss and get it settled.

Because we don't have good, solid, well documented guidance for naming conventions and entry rules.

I know that the game itself plus most of the official listings refer to it as "A-spec" - for example:

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games … -spec-ps2/

"A-spec" on its own, isn't necessarily a well defined or established word or compound word, so our guesses about exactly what to do are a bit subjective.  I don't know that we have thorough rules to handle every situation like this - in terms of words and partial words separated by hyphens.   

Personally, I don't really care which it is, but I think A-spec makes sense so I don't see strong reasons to change it really.

Thank you very much for your contributions Ratiocinator! We'll get you taken care of soon.

I'm inclined to agree, technically fuzzball is correct. 

example:
https://www.jp.playstation.com/software … 87364.html

fuzzball - just as in the examples I gave above - most of these have english titles on the disc itself.  For example:

I agree completely.  I believe the concept of redump is to get information that is truly and objectively verifiable by anyone at any time, anywhere - so using a completely universal convention such as UTC in a case like this, seems to absolutely make the most sense in terms of what should be input for the EXE Date field.

Ok - let us address this here then so we are all on the same page going forward.  As I stated in that thread, it is not my intention to change any rules or conventions arbitrarily.

So, let us discuss.

Currently, there is a bit of a mixture in the database with EXE dates.  I know that for a long while now, DICUI has been pulling the EXE dates using a "UTC method" similar to what I described in the thread linked above.  I also know that other submissions have been using the recorded date per the dumper's isobuster / file explorers / or perhaps dump data such as voldesc.txt for certain console discs, etc.

There are good arguments for both methods, from a practical standpoint, etc., but we should definitely address and at least try to get on the same page.  I know that I have had this discussion with several mods who agreed that moving forward, UTC does seem to make sense as we can always arrive at that exact date, regardless of where the disc is dumped or what settings they are using.  However, this would need to be agreed on and/or commonly understood by everyone in the context of consistency in our database. 

As I mentioned, currently the database has a mixture of both methods, and it is impossible to know which is being used in which case aside from going through manually which is near impossible nor am I suggesting.

Moving forward, we need to have a definitive method and have everyone on the same page, for how to determine the build date.  There seem to be some differing opinions here, so we should hash that out and come to an agreement.

I'll clarify - I've only modified an existing entry in a few situations where I redumped a disc - and if it is formally decided to reverse the convention and NOT use the 'UTC style' as I presented, I will correct all changes I have made.  But, since currently DICUI is generating it differently, we really need to come to an agreement here and then disseminate that information / instruction fully.

I want to state that I do believe in both consistency and accuracy in the database, and I do agree that we need to do a better job of communicating all of the explicit rules and conventions for dumping, so that discrepancies like this are reduced in the future.  Thank you for bringing this up and we should definitely address it.

How about we all stop with the snarky comments and calling each other's actions clusterfucks and just focus on the conversation about proper submission / database conventions.  We can do so without getting all accusatory and negative with each other.  Thank you.

I have several promotional DVDs that cover numerous different systems.  For example, I have store demonstration DVDs that cover games across 3, 4, sometimes even more systems. 

Perhaps the discussion here is more on dvds released WITH certain game releases, I don't know.

Regarding the file-naming, I'm inclined to agree with user7 and Jackal here that the current system does seem to create a really long and sloppy/complicated name.  Rather than passive aggressive attacks going both ways, surely we can come up with some solutions here that will please everyone.

If time and willingness were completely unlimited commodities, having all original dumpers check all of their games for that space could theoretically be a possibility.  But neither are unlimited unfortunately.  If people truly want to check them, sure that's great, obviously it will improve accuracy.  But I don't think it is significant enough of an issue to reach out to everyone and have them do so, when there are...more pressing things they might be attending to.

Since protocols like this have changed over time, and even currently accepted protocols haven't always been consistently communicated to both dumpers and mods, there will definitely be inconsistencies like this in the database. 

There are countless "issues" with the mould codes in the database such as this.  For example, many people submitted mould codes by adding "IFPI" even if it wasn't on the disc because that's what they were told to do.  Some people were told to capitalize IFPI even if it was lowercase. 

I do think it's good to be consistent going forward, and I certainly have no problem with correcting the previous inconsistencies as they arise, but I doubt in this case that people are going to want to go back and check all of that, and I'm certainly not reaching out to them to do so because I think it is a...secondary / tertiary / lower priority issue at the moment. 

I verified even some of Fireball's Saturn discs where he had a space and I didn't.  Who knows whether his original was "correct" or added under the previous protocol.