| |
TDJ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1879 |
Groups as members
Topic says it all: I want to enter a new group into the database called 'Fiction', a group I myself founded in 1987. Problem is that this group consisted of other groups (much like TLS) and I see no possible way of correctly entering that information.
And it's not just the umbrella groups, think of several famous groups (like Crest, and Focus ofcourse) who started out as a subgroup. |
|
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1666 |
I don't think it would be a good idea to make it possible to add other groups as members the same way sceners are added.
Maybe another type of relation would be better. 'Subgroup' or whatever?
This would still require some additional code and tabels in the database etc. And this is not the only additional type of information that have been requested.
It seems that releations in the scene are not so easy to categorise into a database.
I think that the most common info should have their special place in the database, and more uncommon info should be left out.
This type of info could then be put into some general info-pool - like the trivia fields or something.
However for relations there is a better solution we have been thinking of.
Whenever some entry have some kind of relation to another entry (of same or different kind) we could make it possible to add this relation.
It would work in more or less the same maner as adding any other relation currenctlym except you have to chose which entry type the relation is to.
Only here a good description of the relation is required to justefy it.
Only downside is that it would be hard to search within these relations because they are only defined by some text.
Anyone got that? :) |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
this is a very difficult problem since it depends on the actual "constellation" if a subgroup can be seen as an independent group or not. in some cases you would more see their demos as a co-production between two groups, in some cases the subgroup would be the creator of the demo and in other cases the mothergroup would be the name behind a demo.
TLS might be a good example where the mothergroup would be the one to mention. if i look at a demo and see TLS logos all around i don't care about any subgroups. thats different for other groups.
a different example might be my old group Gloom which was "member" of Trans-X for some time. this membership was almost non-existant. Gloom stayed an independent group and did it's own productions, and that "membership" was a weaker connection than most cooperations were.
and to give a third example i might state the membership of Ian and Mic in Triad. those demos would be both, Ian and Mic + Triad demos. |
| |
TDJ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1879 |
Perff: I got that :)
To be honest, I think it's a little too late to say you want to focus on the common stuff only. After all, you make the distinction between a graphician, a logo graphician and a fullscreen-graphician. You make the distinction between a demo and a dentro. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing but this flexibility means that different people enter their information in a different way, making for a very uneven database. |
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1666 |
I got your point TDJ. :)
When we first got the idea for CSDb we thought LONG and HARD on how to design the DB, but when we started to put info in it we soon discovered that we needed extensions which we then made.
Now I just think the extending of the database have reached a critical limit imho.
The optimal thing to do would be to gather all the experience we got over the last 1.5 years and redesign it all over, but .. yeah. NO WAY! :)
|
| |
TDJ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1879 |
Perff, congratulations, you have made a professional product :) The same thing I see happening in my work every day, and often the only solution is in fact start all over. Which doesn't happen because it's too much work, just like in this case :) |
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1666 |
Heh. :)
|
