Should I Re-U/L If It Risks Duplicates In The DB?

[Ozymandias]

Trump Card played:

Always upload, Ozy.

(1) If there are duplicates, so what?
(2) If someone is really bothered by a duplication, they'll notify somebody.
(3) I worry more about you losing the archived material (that isn't available) in a flood than if you made a different choice about how to categorize any given file.

Please do read on if you'd like, but ...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of you are aware of my sporadic re-u/ls to the C3 db.

It's been pointed out that my last batch (Ship Of The Line; etc.) were already available under "Renaissance."

Amigos, frankly I've neither the time nor inclination to check for items originally mis-categorized.

Furthermore, who in their right mind would search for a "Ship Of The Line" under "Renaissance??"

So, do I stop re-u/l-ing & ask the mods to deal with u/ls in the wrong category?

One last note: To "delete" after so much effort (including finding them, checking them out for flaws, converting pcxs to jpgs to u/l, etc.) took about 3 hours (sorry; I've always wanted to use that emoticon ) doesn't exactly encourage me.

So, folks, take to the polls ...

-Oz

PS - My apologies; it didn't occur to me that my phrasing would be confusing to those whose native tongue isn't English - and, evidently, poll questions cannot be edited. So:

OPTION 1: I continue re-u/l-ing, and if there are duplicates, so it goes.
OPTION 2: If I re-u/l something and it's already there, but in the wrong historical category, it's our collective responsibility to alert Mods to take whatever action is deemed appropriate.
OPTION 3: I bail on this effort, and simply leave classic works (more TopGun & Fire Fox u/ls, anybody?) on my hard drive.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Amigos, frankly I've neither the time nor inclination to check for items originally mis-categorized.

Honestly, took me less than a minute to find them using the Search button.

Furthermore, who in their right mind would search for a "Ship Of The Line" under "Renaissance??"

I guess you'd have to ask aaglo or Orthanc why they put them there, but personally I almost never search by era - I only use the Search button. And, realistically, there are probably hundreds of units that are categorized by era incorrectly.

One last note: To "delete" after so much effort (including finding them, checking them out for flaws, converting pcxs to jpgs to u/l, etc.) took about 3 hours (sorry; I've always wanted to use that emoticon ) doesn't exactly encourage me.

I'm sorry you spent so much time on these, but a couple of minutes doing a search would have saved you hours - and the frustration at having wasted those hours. My two points in bringing this to your attention were:

1. I thought it would be courteous to aaglo and Orthanc to not have duplicates of their units.
2. A few years back there was an effort to recruit people to reorganize the d/b because of units in the wrong era, duplicate units, missing units, etc.. I couldn't find the thread, but for whatever reason that effort fell apart (lack of interest?). Anyway, I thought it would be helpful to not create additional clutter in the d/b and confusion on whether there's any difference in multiple unit uploads by the same author.

Again, I'm sorry you became upset as it wasn't my intention, but if you feel this negatively about it maybe it would be better not to re-u/l more.

 

[Ozymandias]

Honestly, took me less than a minute to find them using the Search button.

[...]

My two points in bringing this to your attention were:

1. I thought it would be courteous to aaglo and Orthanc to not have duplicates of their units.
2. A few years back there was an effort to recruit people to reorganize the d/b because of units in the wrong era, duplicate units, missing units, etc.. I couldn't find the thread, but for whatever reason that effort fell apart (lack of interest?). Anyway, I thought it would be helpful to not create additional clutter in the d/b and confusion on whether there's any difference in multiple unit uploads by the same author.

Again, I'm sorry you became upset as it wasn't my intention, but if you feel this negatively about it maybe it would be better not to re-u/l more.

• Check my "Join" date; I have ~100,000 Civ files - ~70 GB - categorized.
• You're right, the effort you referred to failed - and no one's ever going to do it.
• I haven't "seen" either aaglo or Orthanc in these parts in quite some time - and, I would suggest that any effort, however humble, towards that end - like putting units where someone might naturally look for them - is worthwhile.
• Your search worked only because you already knew the search terms; good luck otherwise.

Furthermore, if you feel I've somehow slighted either aaglo or Orthanc, then you should really check my "Join" date.

CFC was the first o/l "community" I discovered, and the only one I have stuck with. I enjoy the game, love the creations, really enjoy the "company" of many on these boards, and I do not wish to see true gems lost to this ever-churning gang. So I just do my humble best.

And I noticed you hadn't voted on the poll.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Check my "Join" date; I have ~100,000 Civ files - ~70 GB - categorized.

Join date is irrelevant, I've been coming here since 2004 and have quite a library myself.

Your search worked only because you already knew the search terms; good luck otherwise.

That statement makes zero sense. Of course, I knew the search terms - just like years ago when I first looked them up. If you type in Ship Of The Line, Galleon, Schooner, Corvette, etc., they come right up. Didn't you have the unit names as well?

I haven't "seen" either aaglo or Orthanc in these parts in quite some time - and, I would suggest that any effort, however humble, towards that end - like putting units where someone might naturally look for them - is worthwhile. Furthermore, if you feel I've somehow slighted either aaglo or Orthanc, then you should really check my "Join" date.

I'm sure you knew both aaglo and Orthanc well so if you feel you're not being discourteous to them and if you really want to spend hours of your time duplicating files then knock yourself out. However, those ships had been in the d/b almost nine years now and it didn't seem to be a problem for anyone else to find them. Wouldn't it also have just been easier to see if they could have been moved from Ren. to Ind. if that's what you felt needed to be done?

And, again, I don't know how your Join date is relevant - it really doesn't mean a thing to me, as my own join date shouldn't have meaning to anyone else.

And I noticed you hadn't voted on the poll.

Because it's immature and petty. And, honestly, I'm way to old to waste any more time on this. I thought I was being respectful so I don't know why you are taking this so personal. This is one of the reasons I didn't want to register here for such a long time and it took a life-changing event to get me more involved.

 

[T-mun]

Maybe some other people than you two joining this discussion would make it less personnal, so here I come
I personnally use the Units Artists Library when I'm looking for units, because there are historically relevant units that I don't like, and there are artists like Kinboat or Aaglo that created incredible units that I have to use whatever the scenario I'm creating.
I believe there are units in this library that are not in the DB and should be there; there are also dead links (to other sites that closed) and units that were lost in the great hack. All these units should be a priority in your reupload quest, not units that are already available.
I was astonished when I saw the Japanese Medieval units you reuploaded to the DB, because I thought they were already there. I've checked the Library and found they could still be downloaded from their original page. I now think these units have their place in the DB and should all be uploaded there.

 

[Kirejara]

Hi Oz,

please continue.

You have me also irritated with the wooden ships as I know them to be in the download area, but your reuploads are not the only doubles (some of them by the builders themself).

Also if you lead to the rediscovery of some old pearls, that can be only good.

EDIT: Thanks for the clarification of the vote. I have now voted too: So please continue.

 

[Balthasar]

I agree with T-mun: there are units in the Unit Artists Library that never made it into the database. You should have another option there, Oz - keep posting and inform moderators that you'd like to fix the database. Or that I'd like to fix the database; I've often said that I would if I could.

The problem with the units database, I think, is the late great 20th century. The entire century was originally designated "modern", but that's just too large a category for a century that saw rapid change and had two world wars to boot and into which we're steadily entering units for the 21st century. So I would divide the present 'Modern' category into four categories: 20th Century: 1900-1940 (including WWI), 20th Century: 1940-1950 (incl. WWII), 20th Century: 1950-2000 and Modern (21st Century). Let me do that and I'd bet that I could sort it all out in a couple of hours.

 

[Wotan49]

I agree to Balthasar
I see only one way the database when the units; Sort by:
e.g. to 1700 (or 1600) more than 1701 to 1800, etc.
last as future (or 2100 ff ...)

of course takes time and work!



with best regards from
Wotan49

 

[Jorsalfare]

Please do continue your re-upload effort, Oz. If the unit already exists in the database, but in wrong era - whats the problem? Also I don't think any of the original creators would have anything against you making their creations more easy to find (and thus more accessible) - duplicates or not. I really do appreciate the work and time you are investing in our "common treasure chest".

Regarding the organization of the database: Is it possible to have multiple "tags" (or categories) on each unit? For example the Ship of the line: an era-tag (or century), a sailingvessel-tag, a gunpowder-tag, and in addition a nationality-tag (or tag for "african, meso-american, asian, european and so on). Was perhaps this the scope of the failed attempt to reorganize the database (mentioned earlier)?

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Whilst we overall would like to see nothing re-uploaded if there's already a copy in the database, there's been no harm done. To be honest though, if I were creating a mod for a specific era, I would see what's available in the eras either side of it as there could always be units that suit. Anyone really looking for a specific unit to put in a mod will do more to find it than simply check a list under one era in a unit database.

What I did to search for the units was to look for aaglo and Orthanc, as each of them have a link to a list of their units in their signature, that way it's not time-consuming to search for them - and there might even be other units you weren't aware of previously.

 

[Delta_Strife]

Rob (R8XFT) is it possible for the database to be broken up into more specific categories? I know Balthasar has expressed interest in that project and I have in the past and I am still interested in that if it is a possibility.

 

[Ozymandias]

@Laurana Kanan - My apologies for the heated tone, but do kindly view the attachment. As I don't have OCD, I can assure you it wasn't done just with myself in mind.

@T-mun - TY, and, yes, dead links for units only downloadable from a single post and the UAL are quite problematic.

@Balthasar & Wotan49 my friends - I couldn't agree with you more, with the exception that informing mods of dupes would mean searching for them myself ... To your re-org idea, I'd also like to see each era sub-divided into Land, Sea, Air, and Other. (My WWII-ish - "Late Industrial - ~1940-1950" - for post 1945 "What-Ifs" - alone has the first three categories, and some 50 or so sub-categories of those, with a total of about 770 units - and I'm not even close to done!

@Jorsalfare - Your "tag" idea is fantastic, but the work involved on what essentially becomes an OODB would require considerable effort on CFC's part as well as our own. And I can count on the fingers of one hand (OK, maybe two) those who have assisted in this effort.

BTW, as of this posting, there are 6 votes, 4 for me to carry on and 2 to let it go.

-Oz

ADDENDUM - BTW, I also "break down" and organize huge release packs like imperator1961's & Sandris', AND I add a descriptor AND the creator's name, e.g. I know that imperator1961's pack "ge1" contains German WW1 units , including, "German Gaswerfer Later." If you do Search for, "Gaswerfer" you'll find it - but how many would know that?

 

[Jorsalfare]

BTW, as of this posting, there are 6 votes, 4 for me to carry on and 2 to let it go.

-Oz

I didn't vote, since the choises kind of confused me a bit (I'm not a native english speaker). I figured it was best to abstain rather than accidently choose the "wrong" option. As you already know, I hope you will continue the re-upload quest. You can consider that a vote from me in favor of "carry on".

Regards Sigurd

 

[Ozymandias]

I didn't vote, since the choises kind of confused me a bit (I'm not a native english speaker). I figured it was best to abstain rather than accidently choose the "wrong" option. As you already know, I hope you will continue the re-upload quest. You can consider that a vote from me in favor of "carry on".

Regards Sigurd

My apologies, amigo. Evidently one cannot change polling questions once posted, so I added explanations in the first post.

-z

 

[ShiroKobbure]

I say option 1.

But it would be nice if the database used a tag system so people could search by era, artist, civ, era, unit-type, etc.

But I guess that would take a long time to do for all the units already uploaded.

 

[Blue Monkey]

Always upload, Ozy.

(1) If there are duplicates, so what?
(2) If someone is really bothered by a duplication, they'll notify somebody.
(3) I worry more about you losing the archived material (that isn't available) in a flood than if you made a different choice about how to categorize any given file.

 

[nick0515]

Always upload, Ozy.

(1) If there are duplicates, so what?
(2) If someone is really bothered by a duplication, they'll notify somebody.
(3) I worry more about you losing the archived material (that isn't available) in a flood than if you made a different choice about how to categorize any given file.

 

[Balthasar]

Always upload, Ozy.

(1) If there are duplicates, so what?
(2) If someone is really bothered by a duplication, they'll notify somebody.
(3) I worry more about you losing the archived material (that isn't available) in a flood than if you made a different choice about how to categorize any given file.

 

[Ozymandias]

-z