On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:17:32 -0500, baldrick (baldrick@blackadder.com)
wrote:
>Everything you suggest sounds like a good idea. I have been
>following a different route, however; I have been keeping a double
>collection, on the one hand following CD's csvs, but simultaneously
>organising sets by date of photoshoot:-
Actually, I proposed different alternatives for dealing
with the situation, some of which are in conflict with
each other:
Should there exist two CSVs or one?
Should GrA sets, GrA re-logoed sets, and PhA sets be kept
in separate folders?
How do you feel about 'GrC' versus 'GrA' for the Grand
Company logoed sets?
How do you feel about the re-naming of image filenames
from their generic format?
If re-naming is to be done, what naming convention would
you support?
>year folder
>
>mm.dd (two or three letter website identifier) (Set name)
>
>05.21 GA 22-05-2-Anna
>
>Variations of the set are appended to it e.g.
>
>05.21 GA 22-05-2-Anna(team logo)
I have no GrA 22-05-2-Anna set with the Team logo,
so I have some questions about it:
What indication was given as to the site origin
of the set?
Was this set genericly numbered, or was the set
name prepended to the file names?
Does the image count and numbering order match
the BD-Company logoed set?
>I have found this invaluable when trying to find mystery sets/girls
Your work will indeed prove to be invaluable as
we begin to sort this mess out. In the past, I
had supported the concept of leaving site folder
names intact, and the creation of supplemental
text files that provided additional site/set info.
>The only bugbear is that some sets don't seem to be availble with
>the info intact, or were never published with info (plasma X).
That *may* change as we begin to dig deeper into
this.
>At the moment there are too many gaps, ( which you are filling,
>thanks). Looking forward to the rest.
>"I have a cunning plan"
LMK what gaps exist in your research, and I'll
try to fill them.
--
bs
|
|