2012-11-18, 11:03
And thanks jmarshall, ill try that out
2012-11-18, 11:06
Ehm, I said 'Ice Age Meltdown' without 'the'.
Using the standard search, there are search results even if the search string is not 100% correct, using advanced search there is no match for 'Ice Age Meltdown'.
edit: btw, tt###### will be enough in the nfo.
Using the standard search, there are search results even if the search string is not 100% correct, using advanced search there is no match for 'Ice Age Meltdown'.
edit: btw, tt###### will be enough in the nfo.
2012-11-18, 11:14
cheers, considering i don't actually know about the scrapping structures or xbmc's way off doing it. But the advanced search will almost guarantee a match and if not then the normal search could be used for fallback, but i'm only speculating as i'm pretty sure that wouldn't be possible with the current structure.
2012-11-18, 11:45
I don't see why you are saying the advanced search will almost guarantee a match if we just saw it doesn't give results for 'Ice Age Meltdown'. Can you imagine how many folks out there have wrong movie titles and as a consequence of that what they would say when there was no match found for their crap?
Anyway, give a try to v2.6.1 (you can quicken up the update with force refresh on the team repo). As our searchresults regexp is already pretty complex I hope this will not broke anything.
Anyway, give a try to v2.6.1 (you can quicken up the update with force refresh on the team repo). As our searchresults regexp is already pretty complex I hope this will not broke anything.
2012-11-18, 13:14
Dude the naming conventions for xbmc specifically says to do it the way i have done eg. Ice Age - THE meltdown (2006) etc. exactly as it appears on a search result, Shortening/Lazy the legit names will almost guarantee a miss match whether it be advanced search or standard. If there is a title with the year, and you did a search with the year as a separate query field in the advanced section, then how much closer could you get, sheez. So your argument is really biased.
Then if you read my previous post properly, It clearly says, if advanced search failed then have standard as a fallback. Advanced search will either show the correct title or it will display none (you even answered that yourself "...it doesn't give results for 'Ice Age Meltdown'"), your argument that people will get the wrong movie titles is completely incorrect.
As i stated, i'm pretty sure this wouldn't be possible to have advanced then standard search, but my mentioned method for a higher accurate result is valid and correct. Then you claim in earlier posts that it has nothing to do with regular expressions and it was an xbmc issue as such, but your last post claims an update in regards to regexp, which i have tested btw and seemed too have worked for the mentioned title.
Then if you read my previous post properly, It clearly says, if advanced search failed then have standard as a fallback. Advanced search will either show the correct title or it will display none (you even answered that yourself "...it doesn't give results for 'Ice Age Meltdown'"), your argument that people will get the wrong movie titles is completely incorrect.
As i stated, i'm pretty sure this wouldn't be possible to have advanced then standard search, but my mentioned method for a higher accurate result is valid and correct. Then you claim in earlier posts that it has nothing to do with regular expressions and it was an xbmc issue as such, but your last post claims an update in regards to regexp, which i have tested btw and seemed too have worked for the mentioned title.
2012-11-18, 15:06
(2012-11-18, 13:14)edhen Wrote: Dude the naming conventions for xbmc specifically says to do it the way i have done eg. Ice Age - THE meltdown (2006) etc. exactly as it appears on a search result, Shortening/Lazy the legit names will almost guarantee a miss match whether it be advanced search or standard. If there is a title with the year, and you did a search with the year as a separate query field in the advanced section, then how much closer could you get, sheez. So your argument is really biased.Dear edhen, if everyone who uses XBMC would be so smart and wise as you are, then yes, your logic would work, but this is not the case. People have wrong file names and they are entitled to get search results as well. My argument is not biased. XBMC is doing a reasonable good job in correcting such mistakes and already taking the year into consideration.
(2012-11-18, 13:14)edhen Wrote: Then if you read my previous post properly, It clearly says, if advanced search failed then have standard as a fallback. Advanced search will either show the correct title or it will display none (you even answered that yourself "...it doesn't give results for 'Ice Age Meltdown'"), your argument that people will get the wrong movie titles is completely incorrect.Probably it's my English, but when you were saying 'advanced search will almost guarantee a match', then this for me means that advanced search in itself guarantees a match without falling back to normal search. Your statement would be only true if people had 100% correct folder/ file names.
(2012-11-18, 13:14)edhen Wrote: As i stated, i'm pretty sure this wouldn't be possible to have advanced then standard search, but my mentioned method for a higher accurate result is valid and correct. Then you claim in earlier posts that it has nothing to do with regular expressions and it was an xbmc issue as such, but your last post claims an update in regards to regexp, which i have tested btw and seemed too have worked for the mentioned title.
It might me possible (not entirely sure), but it was an unreasonable effort and slowing down the scraper for little gain.
What I claimed is valid. The scraper returns the results, then XBMC sorting it. The fact the the VG got sorted first was done by XBMC. I didn't say it is not possible to add additional regexp to try to filter out VGs and that's what I did. It was not a regexp issue as such, since filtering out any results was never intended before.
Not sure what you are fighting against and why you are attacking someone who actually looked at your issue and provided a solution. So it worked for the mentioned title. Can you test it on the other plenty of titles you have with the same issue?
...and a 'thank you' would have been nice/polite as well...
2012-11-18, 23:29
Mate you didnt even try to solve the issue till around 15 posts later, You beat around the bush and made wild accusations and still are. I was being straight forward and you turned this whole thread into a circus. Anyways, thank you for the fix, now piss off.
BTW, just stick to scapers, because you don't have the intelligence for much else. and your replies are beyond bias now and im not even going too bother with your wild retarded responses that doesn't even make sense.
BTW, just stick to scapers, because you don't have the intelligence for much else. and your replies are beyond bias now and im not even going too bother with your wild retarded responses that doesn't even make sense.
