Whether to recommend there be a new field for target age

[Jim Van Dore]

When we decided that target age is not an element of genre, it was suggested we consider recommending a new field to capture target age information.

I would argue that this should be only for target age information recorded somewhere on the item by the publisher.

I am in favor of recommending this field.

Discuss.

Jim

[Lionel English]

We could actually expand this idea to encompass "market demographic".  I'm thinking of the common manga designations like shonen and so forth which indicate both gender and age groupings.

 

I agree that this should not be a subjective field, but should be for recording things actually on the book.  Though this raises the question of whether we should just literally record what's on the book, or if we should attempt to "translate" different marketing slugs to one of only a few categories on our end.

--
Lionel English

San Diego, CA
lio...@beanmar.net

[James Ludwig]

TOO MUCH
We can not keep adding fields infinitum

[Lionel English]

Crisis in Infinate Fields.  A new 42 part maxiseries from the GCD.

[James Ludwig]

:)

[Jim Van Dore]

Personally, I don't think "we have too many fields already" is a particularly good reason not to add another.  To me, it should be decided based on whether adding the field adds value to the database or whether the user will find it helpful.

Jim

[Tony Rose]

I'm growing leery of new fields.  And this one would require some very tight policing.  I think this sort of data can be left in the notes.




tony

---

From: "Jim Van Dore" <jrva...@gmail.com>
To: "gcd-genre" <gcd-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:16:46 PM
Subject: [gcd-genre] Whether to recommend there be a new field for target age

[Tony Rose]

In principle, I agree.  In this instance, if we limit the field to only "what's on the book," while the majority of the output from DC and Marvel *currently* has such text, in the larger scheme of things, there aren't that many.  And if we don't tightly control this field, we will have people preaching from it -- guaranteed.

tony

---

From: "Jim Van Dore" <jrva...@gmail.com>

To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:46:13 AM
Subject: Re: [gcd-genre] Whether to recommend there be a new field for target age

[Lionel English]

I agree.  If we have hundreds or thousands of issues that have something in common, such as a label that reads "For Mature Audiences", then it makes sense to me to isolate that data in a field that can be searched on.  Not that you can't search Notes, but Notes are generally for  non-standardized information--stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

The "too many fields" problem is really a problem with our cluttered interface.  We should probably think about doing something such as IMDb does; have a "basic" page that shows basic info, and then different detail pages that have more info on certain data subsets.  Or collect the data on the screen into groups that can be collapsed and expanded.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Jim Van Dore <jrva...@gmail.com> wrote:

Personally, I don't think "we have too many fields already" is a particularly good reason not to add another.  To me, it should be decided based on whether adding the field adds value to the database or whether the user will find it helpful.

Jim

[bobah...@comcast.net]

I think "We have too many fields already" is a major thing to consider when deciding to add another.  A five or six year moratorium on new fields is something to consider.

---

From: "Jim Van Dore" <jrva...@gmail.com>
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:46:13 AM

Subject: Re: [gcd-genre] Whether to recommend there be a new field for target age

[bobah...@comcast.net]

Doesn't this easily fit under keywords?  Shouldn't we wait for keywords to flesh out before we decide we need to add more new stuff?

---

From: "Lionel English" <lio...@beanmar.net>
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:55:55 AM

Subject: Re: [gcd-genre] Whether to recommend there be a new field for target age

[Jim Van Dore]

Because in five or six years, humans will be genetically better-equipped for using additional fields?

Jim

[Tony Rose]

holographic data storage and direct, brain-to-machine data input.





tony

---

From: "Jim Van Dore" <jrva...@gmail.com>
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:58:58 AM

[bobah...@comcast.net]

Because in five or six years we may have fixed most of the mistakes we've inadvertantly generated in the fields we've already created?

Because in five or six years, the people who most want new fields may have drifted away and stopped bothering us?  (Hey Congress tries that trick all the time.)

[bobah...@comcast.net]

Will that increase or decrease our concensus making abilities?

---

From: "Tony Rose" <tonyr...@comcast.net>
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:01:21 AM

[Lionel English]

Your argument here runs counter to your position in the other thread, where you want to add an extra primary genre field :-)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:01 PM, James Ludwig <narfs...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tony Rose]

I contain multitudes.




tr

---

From: "Lionel English" <lio...@beanmar.net>

To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:29:10 AM

Subject: Re: [gcd-genre] Whether to recommend there be a new field for target age

[Lionel English]

We could *use* keywords for this if a new field isn't added.  But I think this data is structured enough to support it's own field.

[bobah...@comcast.net]

Very few comics over time have had labels on them.  And as far as I know only American ones.  We just got through eliminating age categories from the genre list.  Now you want to put them back in?

---

From: "Lionel English" <lio...@beanmar.net>
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:24:18 PM

[Jim Van Dore]

The argument to take them out of genre had nothing to do with the information being inherently worthless.  Just that it was being stored in the wrong place.  The fact that people wanted to store it there indicates that they want to store it.  What this is suggesting is store it in a different place...where it would actually belong.

Repeat your argument with job number substituting for target age.  Very few comics have job numbers.  As far as I know only American ones.  Yet we record those.

Lots and lots of books have target age on them.  More and more every day.

If you include target age self-designation like all those manga things, why not use this also as a way to record if something is code-approved?  Wouldn't it be nice to see which comics are code-approved?

Jim

[Brian Saner Lamken]

I'm leery of adding new fields too. Heck, with all the changes that have occurred, are planned, and/or need to occur but haven't been ironed out policy-wise or technically yet, I'm actually glad that my indexing has slowed to essentially nil for the time being — and I say that as a former Rules Coordinator who is greatly in favor of stuff like the Policy list, Documents revision, and this very committee.

At the same time, I agree that the biggest problem with many fields is bad fields or incorrect usage of otherwise good fields. We should address what's not working rather than just adopt a scorched-earth "rrr.. fields bad" mentality. I think that a field that reflects (probably exactly captures) target-age info on a publication is a solid idea.

For what it's worth, not having bought a new Marvel comic since about the time the company switched to its own labeling, I didn't even go there in my mind re the field. The stuff that I've indexed with age info — which I've put in notes — has been material aimed at a nontraditional (from the perspective of the US direct market) audience, by both dedicated comics publishers and mass-market publishers like Harper, marketed at and often featuring children.

The proposal to include manga designations is intriguing.

I don't have a Solomonic answer to Lionel's question of whether to "just literally record what's on the book, or ... attempt to 'translate' different marketing slugs to one of only a few categories on our end".

Blam

Brian Saner Lamken
blamken.blogspot.com

"Later, a bound Hawkman is led into Rotor's metallurgical laboratory, where Hawkgirl has already been imprisoned inside a giant thermometer."
— caption, "The Human Fly Bandits!"; Flash Comics #100 (DC, 1948)

[Brian Saner Lamken]

Tony Rose wrote:

> I contain multitudes.

You can't argue with poetry. 8^)

Blam

Brian Saner Lamken
blamken.blogspot.com

"I have a capsule of powdered corrosive in my fingernail!"
— Agent 13, "The Weakest Link!"; Captain America #103 (Marvel, 1968)

[Lionel English]

Yes, what Jim said.  And, erotica/porn has usually been labeled as adult only or similar.  I've frequently argued against subjective judgements of what is and isn't offensive/suitable for work.  But recording what publishers *say* about their own content is objective data.  It's as useful as statements of ownership, which also appear in a relatively small selection of comics.

[Jim Van Dore]

There appears to be at least two in favor of the idea of recommending
the addition of a target age field, so I will move this to a poll.

Jim

On Feb 24, 12:09 am, Lionel English <lio...@beanmar.net> wrote:
> Yes, what Jim said.  And, erotica/porn has usually been labeled as adult
> only or similar.  I've frequently argued against subjective judgements of
> what is and isn't offensive/suitable for work.  But recording what
> publishers *say* about their own content is objective data.  It's as useful
> as statements of ownership, which also appear in a relatively small
> selection of comics.
>

> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jim Van Dore <jrvand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The argument to take them out of genre had nothing to do with the
> > information being inherently worthless.  Just that it was being stored in
> > the wrong place.  The fact that people wanted to store it there indicates
> > that they want to store it.  What this is suggesting is store it in a
> > different place...where it would actually belong.
>
> > Repeat your argument with job number substituting for target age.  Very
> > few comics have job numbers.  As far as I know only American ones.  Yet we
> > record those.
>
> > Lots and lots of books have target age on them.  More and more every day.
>
> > If you include target age self-designation like all those manga things,
> > why not use this also as a way to record if something is code-approved?
> >  Wouldn't it be nice to see which comics are code-approved?
>
> > Jim
>

> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:36 PM, <bobahug...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Very few comics over time have had labels on them.  And as far as I know
> >> only American ones.  We just got through eliminating age categories from
> >> the genre list.  Now you want to put them back in?
>

> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From: *"Lionel English" <lio...@beanmar.net>
> >> *To: *gcd-...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Sent: *Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:24:18 PM
>
> >> *Subject: *Re: [gcd-genre] Whether to recommend there be a new field for

> >> target age
>
> >> We could *use* keywords for this if a new field isn't added.  But I think
> >> this data is structured enough to support it's own field.
>

> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:58 AM, <bobahug...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>  Doesn't this easily fit under keywords?  Shouldn't we wait for
> >>> keywords to flesh out before we decide we need to add more new stuff?
>

> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> *From: *"Lionel English" <lio...@beanmar.net>
> >>> *To: *gcd-...@googlegroups.com
> >>> *Sent: *Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:55:55 AM
>
> >>> *Subject: *Re: [gcd-genre] Whether to recommend there be a new field

> >>> for target age
>
> >>>  I agree.  If we have hundreds or thousands of issues that have
> >>> something in common, such as a label that reads "For Mature Audiences",
> >>> then it makes sense to me to isolate that data in a field that can be
> >>> searched on.  Not that you can't search Notes, but Notes are generally for
> >>>  non-standardized information--stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
>
> >>> The "too many fields" problem is really a problem with our cluttered
> >>> interface.  We should probably think about doing something such as IMDb
> >>> does; have a "basic" page that shows basic info, and then different detail
> >>> pages that have more info on certain data subsets.  Or collect the data on
> >>> the screen into groups that can be collapsed and expanded.
>