3 duplicate images?

http://hkmdb.com/db/people/images.mhtml ... ay_set=eng

i guess mr. Harlock likes her i see that he has not so far returned to the fold, so i guess we could wait a bit.
or perhaps mr. Bearserk can make a decision.

I deleted the extras.

Was it anything like Cheng Pei-Pei (and others) here?

http://hkmdb.com/db/movies/images.mhtml?id=5101&display_set=eng

I've noticed this a few times, was wondering what the consensus was. Not hurting anything, but seems repetitive.

Yes-yes-yes-yes

The extras needs to go. I will be working on this myself...

Just clarifying, policy should be one ID per person, unless a dramatic costume/makeup change warrants another?

maybe we should create a "rule" for double/triple portraits in the same movie.
"Dramatic costume/makeup change" seems good.
Another rule could be "First portrait(s) of a person without any portrait but many movies" so he/she can be easily identified in other movies. Later, when we have more portraits of other movies, the "double portrait" could be removed.

But I think this should be "ruled" by our Chief Image Editor Mr. Bearserk.

Sometime different angles, facial gestures provide useful images for further identifications. "Common" sense should be the guideline/rule of thumb. I know some editors prefer one image per title but often not enough visual information for characteristics like height, girth, general build, etc can be determined.

I'm also helpless when it comes to those group images with multiple links: so here's a plea to take advantage of the captions box to ID group shots, for dummies like me.

"Dramatic costume/makeup change" seems good.
Another rule could be "First portrait(s) of a person without any portrait but many movies" so he/she can be easily identified in other movies. Later, when we have more portraits of other movies, the "double portrait" could be removed.

I think this is exactly how it should be done. Once that 4 portrait front page has been met, we can start eliminating duplicates from films or shots that have no movie reference (i.e glamor shots, etc).

I think it is difficult to implement rules on the no. of portraits when one has to consider needs for movie reference & as aids to future identification of actors. How many is too much? Does this portrait aid future identification? Nobody can really pin it down.

I prefer to leave the decision to our Chief Image Editor who should be able to do a consistent & complete job under broad guidelines. If the job is too time consuming, he can enlist a team to help him.

I am going to come up with a new set of image rules and guidelines, and I will post them in a few days. There has been far too much anarchy in this regard.

The current state of the images in the DB is inconsistent--both in terms of quality content. I am going to be summarily removing at least 10% of the images that do not meet some basic quality standards. I may add the ability for there to be second-tier quality images (i.e., poor quality but serving some useful identification purpose).

For right now, err on the side of inclusiveness, and focus on portraits over full screen caps. We are treading on shaky copyright/fair-use ground with our images as it is.