A33 ... I know that guy, his name is...ahh, umm, well he was in Fargo!
Submitted by Infomaniac on Sat, 02/16/2002 - 03:29
Tags:
- Jeremy Piven - Best known for his TV roles in Ellen (the cousin) or Cupid (the lead). Grosse Point Blank (former best friend who's now a dope tokin' real estate agent), Elvis the Black Hawk pilot in Black Hawk Down. The personal style coordinator in Rush Hour 2.
- Frank Whaley - "Check out the brain on big bad Brett." Ahh...to be wasted in Pulp Fiction, wouldn't that be cool. He was Brett, obviously, the kid who donated his Big Kahuna Burger to Samuel L. Jackson. He was also the LUCKY DUDE to play opposite the luscious Jennifer Connelly in Carrer Opportunities. You remember the commercial, the one where Connelly is riding the mecanical horse, her ample breast rocking with the motion of the horse...I need to go to bed.
- William H. Macy - Okay, he's starting to get leading roles, but he is a great guy and no one remembers his name until you say it. Easily identified as the lead Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo, he really made an impression on me during his time as an uptight head doctor on ER.
- Michael Rapaport (2 p's, not 3) - Now here's one that you'll recognize the name before the face. The cop 'Superboy' on the lam in Copland, people always seem to go "Yeah, he's the guy in...in...in...hey, what the hell WAS he in?"
Author Comments:
New name of the list.
Acutally, I recognized all of them. Jeremy Piven is one of my favorite actors (he was really funny in PCU). Frank Whaley isn't bad, and I thought Career Opportunities was really funny (Jennifer Connelly---oh boy). Michael Rapaport was in Metro with Eddie Murphy also (I believe).
Yep, he was in Metro, too. I really like Piven. He is starting to play a similar character in many of his roles, but he's accepting enough roles that are different (Rush Hour 2, Black Hawk Down) that he has not yet set a stereo type.
C'mon, Sean. You've got to do better than that. We Listologs are a very erudite bunch! :-)
LOL, yes, very true. That's why I didn't make it a 'game' for name the movies these guys are in. I just find the vast majority of people have no clue who they are, and I like to shed some light on these actors.
You bring up an interesting point. Are these lists mainly for the benefit of other Listologists, are primarily a way for an individual to sort out their favorites and log them, or are the lists intended for each user's friends that aren't necessarily Listologists to read?
My initial intention when I started posting lists here was for my other friends to check out. They might not be as nearly interested in movies as I, but most are intrested in reading these kinds of lists and debating the merits of them.
That said, now that I've been interacting with the Listology community, I've found that the lists are becoming more for within the community than outside. I'll still write some lists with an intended audience outside Listology, but I'll be writing (and already have written) lists to discuss specifically within the circle of Listologists.
My lists are aimed at 3 different audiences. People outside the Listology community (my friends), people inside the Listology community and myself. I don't think there is any one 'right' audience and that's cool with me.
I recognize and like all your actors here. Frank Whaley is real good in Born On The Fourth Of July and in his bit part of JFK.
I love "usage of Listology" questions, 'cause it allows me to think about how to accommodate different needs. One way to easily target a specific audience with your lists is to use the "archive" feature. An archived list does not show up on your profile (unless somebody clicks the "show archived items" link). Nor does not show up on "recent updates." A "this list has been archived" flag appears at the top of such lists (or at least, if it doesn't already, it will in the next release). Posts to such lists DO show up on the "recent posts" screen, and archived lists also show up in search results.
So let's say you have a series of lists you want to target to a specific audience. You archive all those lists, and put something like "F&F" in the title (for "Friends and Family", whatever you want). Then you navigate to your own profile page, do a search for "F&F", and check the "search in my content" box. Voila. A custom page with just those lists that are targeted to your friends and family, while at the same time banishing to semi-obsurity as far as the rest of the Listology community is concerned. Copy the URL of those search results, and distribute as you see fit.
In theory. That's how I think it should work. Haven't actually tried it. :-)
In the next release, in your own custom domain (e.g. infomaniac.listology.com), you'll be able to populate the left navigation (if you opt to keep it at all) with custom search results.
Jim my man, if you're not a professional designer, then you, like me, spend WAY too much time building web applications and sites. Way too much.
This site IS an excellent application. The Archiving would be a neat technique. I might use it, but I could see others using the feature.
One thing I'd like to do is be able to order the Genres, especially after you've made your own. Maybe leave the basic 4 'frozen' to the top, but allow the user to rearrange the genres they've made. I use a web application called Discus (http://wwww.discus.com, freeware) for my message board and online photo archive, and it allows you to reorder the 'genres' (called 'topics' in discus) on the fly from the admin page. That would be neat. Also, in discus, the ability to move lists from one genre to the other (as I can move sub-topics from one topic to the other) If you want, I can set up a temporary password and let you see how the admin section works to see what I'm talking about.)
You asked for it: here's what I want in the 'next generation': a ranking SYSTEM. IOW, I type the films in like I do now. I then click on "publish" or "rank" or somehting, and the next screen pops up and it allows me to rank them (either 1-100, 1-10, 1-5, some kinda ranking system. Best of all, you could choose from one of several systems, as we all seem to have different preferences. If you did THAT, a simple algorithm could translate each system to a normalized ranking, ie, a 3/5 stars would basically equate to a 6 on a scale of 1-10 and a 60 on a scale of 1-100. THAT would be cool...stream of thought feature dreaming here, by the way.)
This ranking feature would make it easier for those of us who can assign a number to a film easier than just saying one is better than the other. I know that other people like to just do that, but a lot of us think in numbers, not feelings (re: MEN).
COOL, here's one: Now that my list is ranked, and jblacks lists are ranked (all quantitatively) you could have a Head-to-Head comparison function, where you picked a list from User A's content and a list from User B's content, and it would meld them together in order of ranking, Blue text from User A's list, Red text from User B's list.
I realize this has SERIOUS design implications (one I'd have fun helping you work out), I'm just dreaming here. But if you're looking for making this a killer app, that would be a totally cool function.
Now that I'm rambling on here, I want my custom app, I want a new 'Type' to select called 'Info'. This type (as opposed to 'List' or 'Article' or 'Poll') would be a collection of related sites, movies, blah blah blah (jim, see my http://www.theinfomanic.net site, check any page in the computer section to see what I mean.)
After naming the 'Info', it would present you with a form. The form's items would be:
Title:
Url:
My Rank:
Viewer's Rank:
Description: (where other urls could be used and hotlinked, and any formatting could be used. Discus allows this feature to be turned on or off by the administrator).
Rate: (A scale that would allow visitors to rank the site, movie, review, etc.)
After filling out the form, you could either click Save, or New Entry. You could have unlimited entries.
The OWNER of the 'Info' would then select how the entries would be default sorted (alphabetical, by owner rank, by viewer rank, by order posted) (DCLinks does this, see the one I'm using at http://www.theinfomaniac.net/cgi-bin/dclinks/dclinks.cgi)
Once published, the USERS could then click on buttons that would allow the list to sort as they choose, to fit their needs.
But I digress...this would come in Version 9.0 of your site.
Sean
Jim my man, if you're not a professional designer, then you, like me, spend WAY too much time building web applications and sites. Way too much
:-) Thanks! I'm a programmer by trade. Database-driven websites, specifically. I'm not really a graphics guy, more of a backend guy. But I do my best in the design/ui/graphics department.
One thing I'd like to do is be able to order the Genres, especially after you've made your own.
You are the second person to ask for this. It's on the wishlist!
As for the ranking system, comparison feature, and new "info" type, I think those are all great ideas. Two major obstacles: [1] time, and [2] legacy data. If Listology ever becomes my full-time job, that will take care of [1] :-). [2] is trickier, as lots of the existing lists could only be parsed by hand into the new DB-driven format (as opposed to the text format in use now). Also, while I like the idea of the site being DB-driven on the item-level rather than the list-level, it would impose significant restriction on the types of lists that could be created (like I think many of the "quiz" lists would go right out the window). I'll try to figure out how to move in this direction without compromising the ease-of-use or flexibility we have already. I think the only way to do it would be to incorporate a standard ranking format that could be parsed out of the text-list. But that would rely on folks spelling titles the same way. Hmmm . . . Like you said, we might be talking like version 9.0 or so . . .
Jim,
I think I said this somewhere else or in email, but the answer is that you don't have to have the same storage format for the lists and the articles. I mean, it's nice and convenient for integrated searches, but it's not necessary.
For instance, have the data for Lists be DB driven...so you could do the rating concept, attach links to titles, actors, etc. Have the Articles in the string storage as you already have them. A single search could EASILY search a DB and string storage file and presen the DB results first, followed by the string results second. It would really be transparent to the user. I think this is a paradigm thing here, because all the data doesn't necessarily need to be stored in the exact same format...use the format that is best for each type. I don't know of many sites that have taken this approach, and it is one way to make Listology stand out above the crowd (as it already does) ;-)
Sean
Yeah, that's a good answer. I think I'd extend it by offering a fourth type (with list, poll, and article) called "ranking" or something like that.