Movies are now in CK

A new CK item has just been added to deal with movies that are based on a particular work. On any work page you'll be able to list the movies. The date that the movie was released is an option. Put the date in parens if you add it.

We'll do more with this data as it becomes populated. I'm actually very excited about this one. I've been wanting to do it for a while and I have some fun ideas about things we can do.

A couple of good places for source info are:
Based on the Book
http://www.mcpl.lib.mo.us/readers/movies/

and
The Internet Movie Database
http://www.imdb.com/

I'm very interested as well. But maybe I'm blind or something, but I don't see Movies anywhere on the CK page. Specifically I'm looking at The Fellowship of the Ring http://www.librarything.com/work/3203347/commonknowledge/20747149.

Aha, the next big project! :-D

3: It's just under the Important Events on the main work page. I'm checking to find out why it's not displayed on the dedicated CK page. I'll fix that momentarily.

ETA: fixed.

What is the best way to distinguish two different films off the same work that have the same title? I have already listed the year, but it doesn't seem like enough. Like there should be more. Maybe it's just me.
I'm thinking in particular about Dark Water by Koji Suzuki which has been made into a Japanese film in 2002 and then an American remake in 2005, both also titled Dark Water. Thoughts?

In most cases the year will be enough to distinguish them. In those cases where there are two films in the same year we could probably distinguish them by film company or something similar. I'm open to suggestions.

You could enter director or production company for clarification. And you're right, for some books it could get pretty complicated to tell the various movie adaptations apart. There are dozens of Alice in Wonderland films for example.

Thanks cD. Also what about upcoming movies (ie Hobbit Part 1 & 2 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1170358/)? Or made for TV movies?

When movie people talk it's usually along the lines of "Do you mean the original 1974 version or the remake in 2005? The remake was trash!" Years seem to be the distinguishing marks for repeat films.

Any possibility to link the movie title to IMDB, for example? Is it possible to make hyperlinks in CK?
Then of course, the information would become dependent on IMDB's stability...

Otherwise, this is a great new feature, thanks a lot :)

And how would you add the production company?
Would it be Title (production company) (year)? Or Title - Production Company (year)? Or Title / Production Company (year)?

At this point someone will find and show us two remakes in the same year. I know it.

Hm. Upcoming movies. That's a tough call. At first thought I'm against it.....but my only reason is the fact that the title and release date might change without the CK data getting changed to reflect that. We don't aim to be IMDB and have lots of movie gossip, etc.

"Just the facts ma'am."

Anybody want to convince me otherwise?

Chris: Would you consider asking people to use the IMDB title? I think that's practically a stable identifier.

12:
Movie Title (1990 | Dreamworks | Director Name)

Tim, the problem with that is that we then must expect people to go to IMDB to get the title and come back here. I'm not sure that's something that's going to happen. We can certainly ask though. heh.

Well, I've added Debbie Does Dallas... http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/search.php?q=Debbie%20Does%20Dallas&...

Thanks cD.

I dunno. If they're going to get the year then I think they'll have to go somewhere. IMDB is result 1 almost all the time.

Well, the year is optional though I bet 90% of our members will hunt it down.

I need a bang-up example for the blog post—something that's been done and redone multiple times, and which people will probably know. Anyone got one for me. Romeo and Juliet? (Incidentally, I'm definitely including West Side Story there.)

>21 conceptDawg:: yeah, because those that are interested in movie+book -connections are most certainly interested enough to get the year as well.

Do things like BBC miniseries count? Or is it strictly films shown at least once in a cinema?

I think they do. These format decisions are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I see no problem with a TV series either, although there aren't as many of them. For example, Flash Forward was a novel first, before it became that show—a show I stopped watching pretty soon.

Also it's mainly a difference in distribution. Sure that effects the form too, but I think it's a bit like Dickens having his books originally published in episodes. You wouldn't go denying they are still novels, would you?

Oh I think A Christmas Carol would be a good one for a Blog example, Tim. Everything from Alistair Sim to Kermit the Frog.

New format:
Movie Title (1980 | tt230023 | Director Name)

Episodes:
Show:Episode title (1985 | s1e4 | tt399887)

tt233834 type numbers correspond to the IMDB IDs that are in their URLs. We'll be able to link over to them. If you don't include them it's not the end of the world either because we'll be able to get them. Don't fret over these.

s1e4 is "season 1, episode 4"

Just so you know: I'm working on getting some interaction between CK and IMDB. The idea is that the auto-complete dropdown will be guided not by what's in our database but by what's in the IMDB data. Plus, it will automatically fill in the extra data for you (year, IMDB code, etc.)

Another good example would be Emma -- feature films, BBC mini-series (I think), and even "Clueless" with Alicia Silverstone.

Although I agree with Bookmarque that A Christmas Carol is a splendid example, since so many television shows have done one-shot episodes with that story, either playing it straight or in parody. Plus the countless movies and television movies....

The tt #### format of the IMDB id's has an interesting side-effect in the CK value field in the search results:
ie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001 | tt0120737 | Peter Jackson)

Becomes:

The Lord of the Rings: The Fello… (2001 ∙ {0120} ∙ Peter Jackson)

See http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/search.php?q=The%20Lord%20of%20the%2...

ETA: replaced square brackets with {} to prevent touchstones

Also, what about multiple directors? Do we do the lastname, firstname format like for authors?

Dammit, Tim! Another time sink!

So what about a tv series like Hamish MacBeth? Based (very, very loosely) on a the Hamish MacBeth novels by MC Beaton, but not really on any individual book. Should one add the info to each book in the series? What format, since there is no episode title to link to?

My try at an episode does the same thing as #30

Looks fine here: http://www.librarything.com/work/242214/book/17046454

But is wonky here:
http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/search.php?q=%22outer%20limits%22&am...

>28 conceptDawg:

How would it work if an entire series is based on a book, rather than a single episode? None are coming to mind at the moment, other than Clueless which is based on a movie of the same name, which is based on Emma, and even then the link to Emma is negligible, as each episode tended to focus on a different work of classic literature, but I know there are more out there, because I used to watch some. (ETA: I see tardis in #33 posted the same sort of question a few minutes before me)

And then there are opposite cases like Kit: An American Girl, the film from summer 2008 with Abigail Breslin that isn't based on one book, but an entire series of books.

Now that my brain is working, I've also thought of other potential wonky spots, like, uhm, Little Bear on PBS, which is a series based on a book, but do the individual episodes come from the other books by Else Minarik? What would get put into Little Bear's Visit's CK?

Or Wishbone, which is more like it has books based on the series, and each episode also relates to another work of classic literature - obviously the individual episodes would be linked to the classic lit base, but do the Wishbone books get linked to the series as a whole or the individual episodes? Both?

I think that all of those might apply. The CK field is "related" movies so they don't necessarily have to be BASED on the book. It could be the opposite. You can always put a note in the parens data that mentions the relation. "book based on movie" or "entire series based on book" or something similar.

The autocomplete dropdown menu is now using IMDB data. So you can just start typing and it will search IMDB to find matching movies/shows. It also fills in the year and tt number for you.

sweet cD. Like lilithcat said, thanks for the time suck! ;)

Off to play now...

Criminy! Sixteen film versions of East Lynne!

Yeah, agenda-wise this might develop into a problem. Love it though - will probably keep me busy most of 2010 ;-)

I was testing this out by entering data for a book that has a television series (and also specific episodes within that tv series) based on it, and the drop-down suggestions when the cursor was next to the IMDB number were rather interesting:



Not sure if this is something y'all will want to make not happen?

Blog post up: http://www.librarything.com/blog/2009/12/related-movies-in-common-knowledge.php

So you can just start typing and it will search IMDB to find matching movies/shows. It also fills in the year and tt number for you.

Just a reminder - people should not assume that a film is based on a book just because they have the same name! If you're not certain, check.

(Conversely, the film and book may have different titles.)

It's simple to fill out this new CK field for the books in my library:

Star Trek
Star Trek
Star Trek
Star Trek
Star Wars
Star Trek
Star Wars
Star Trek
Star Trek

and so on.

Okay, love the fact - in your example - that Westside Story would also be considered an adaptation of Romeo & Juliet. That kind of thing makes it so much more interesting than just the straight up film adaptation. Yes, Disney's "Oliver & Co" is an adaptation of Oliver Twist - live with it ;-)

Ok. The CK history listings now correctly link the tt number to the IMDB page.

The error shown in the image above should be fixed. Actually it was fixed before I saw the image. But if it shows up again, let me know.

Autocomplete should be a little faster now.

I'm now correctly stripping out the quotes that were showing up in some titles returned from IMDB.

I tried it on Let the right one in, but the auto IMDB search only finds me a movie called L. No other options, while a search on IMDB returns the movie Lat den ratte komma in...

47: I'm looking into that. Seems that IMDB sometimes doesn't return the movie title with their information. sigh.

Okay, this is gonna make me look sooooo stupid but here goes: how do I make the vertical slash which is needed between year and IMDB-tt number?

I tried the new feature on Breakfast at Tiffany's and it's working nicely -- but only managed to put the vertical slash by copypasting it from here.....**blushing humbly**

49: Shift-click the \ button.

On most keyboards the "vertical slash" is somewhere top right, next to "back space" but does look like a broken vertical.

And you can also use a comma instead of the "pipe" character. The code will figure it out. I prefer that you use the pipe symbol if you are comfortable with it though. It's much easier to parse because it's not used in standard text.

Thanks, found it but cannot get it to work, dammit... doesn't react to shift, nor ctrl, nor ctrl+alt, nor alt gr, nor alt gr+ ctrl....
What am I forgetting?
Stupid problem!
However, not giving in since I don't wanna use a comma. Stubborn, that's me ;)

Strange, just shift + "pipe" usually works.

||||
alt+124 does it :)

On my keyboard the vertical bar is not in the same colour than the normally working characters (`´) so I guess there are some settings I ought to change in order to use the characters with different colours (the bar in light blue, two other in green) but I don't know where to find them. Tried in control panel -> keyboard settings, but nothing there.

So tried the alt+numbers and sheer stubborness finally paid off :D

Sorry about the Off Topic -- carry on with the finetuning of this great new feature ;)

Aw man, guess I've got some work cut out for me tonight in doing various manga...

> 13

There were three film versions of The War of the Worlds released in 2005. ;)

So, as for episodes of shows, they should go like:

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Cardassians (1993 | s2e5 | tt0708514)

Right?

This is an awesome feature!

I really have nothing else more to say about it, though.

You have spaces on either side of the pipes. What's the reason for that? Are they necessary? Preferable?

If the tt number is pulled from imdb, there's no way of knowing it's the right movie unless one goes to imdb to check. Right? What does the "tt" mean?

Nice feature, Chris!

ETA: I now see how it pulls the movie data from imdb. Very cool!

Regarding episodes...

does the title we enter have to match the title in IMDb? I ask because if I enter episodes for Fullmetal Alchemist, all of the titles would be in Japanese (and transliterations never quite agree).

EDIT:

I've filled out the related episodes for that volume of FMA; if I have the time I'll eventually cross-reference all of the volumes with their appropriate episode adaptations.

As with all of our CK creations, I don't want to get front-heavy with lots of rules. We like to let each type mature on its own based on what you think and how you use it. But so far I'm happy with the way things are going. I'm going to work on integrating the movie data in a few more ways that I think will be fun.

...more ways that I think will be fun.

cD, just be very, very careful that someone doing a search on the last opera in Wagner's Ring Cycle, don't get sent to a YouTube video of certain sparkly vampires. All hells would break loose!

>63 justjim: oh jim... ;)

cDawg, is this new feature going to be available as a column in my books page? it would be awfully cool if it was!

55> Talvitar, see if you've got a key marked Fn (possibly in blue) somewhere on your keyboard. That's what a different-color label usually means (Function key triggers it).

The CK: Movies column is now available in your catalog. Enjoy.

What about books based on/inspired by movies? What I'm thinking of is not fanfic type stuff or novelizations, but e.g. Stephen King's Dark Tower series which were inspired in part by Sergio Leone's Man with No Name trilogy. Too far?

I just saw the same dropdown as shown in post #41.

It happened when I inserted a space as the first character (an accident which I fixed). As soon as the space was there, the drop-down with choices "each" and "eachSlice" appeared.

68: I think it's ok to go the other way with the connections. But I'd probably advise noting that in the parens.
Man with No Name (book inspired by movie)
or something to that effect.

69: Thanks carport. I'll take a look and correct.

if you try to edit the CK field in catalog view, the automated choices pop up under the lightbox so you can't see them.

It links to the IMDb in your catalog and in history listings. I'm still making changes to the system to get the feature everywhere. The link to IMDb in the CK section is coming, albeit it's harder to deal with than one might expect due to how that section is built and used.

>65 jjmcgaffey: Talvitar, see if you've got a key marked Fn (possibly in blue) somewhere on your keyboard. That's what a different-color label usually means (Function key triggers it).

Nope, no Fn-key on my keyboard...

However, I did notice that the vertical bar is set on another key as well (down left, with characters) and pressing alt gr together with

This is awesome!

Just a few things since stuff has changed already -

Do we want to change the examples to show the IMDB tt number in the CK area? Same thing on the blog post (and maybe update the blog post to note that these pull automatically since most people will see that first?) (beat me to that part - but the Romeo & Juliet should have the update...)?

And I'm another one that agrees that television series and mini-series are great to have - let's face it, some of the mini-series are the best adaptations we're going to find! (The Pride and Prejudice being one of the best examples - Kiera Knightly's Oscar nomination notwithstanding!) Is it really too late to say "Related movies/tv"? ;)

I've noticed that as others are adding the fields they are just adding the title and tt-number, not the director of each movie. Should that field be edited in CK to add the director in each case? It's very easy to put the tt-number into the imdb URL to get the director's name to pop right up at the top of that imdb web page.

I am one of those lazy ones and just grab whatever feeds from imdb.

Yeah. It's the easiest and quickest way to do it. The question is...am I making the work too hard for myself? :)

If you're truly lazy but want to populate the fields, if you do an IMDb search for the author's name, you'll find a list of their "writing credits," which includes a listing if a book/story that was translated into a film. Then it's a matter of matching that information up with the right records on LT.

I was playing with this feature, and the next title that popped into my head was Beauty and the Beast. So I searched my catalog and came up with Fire Rose, which is a full length novel based on the original fairy tale. I started to enter the information and realized that I wasn't trying to match the book to a movie, I was trying to match the story of the book to the original story it was adapted from.

Oh well, back to the fray.

Yeah, I did that w/most of P.D. James. : )

I thought the director was needed only if there were two movies of the same name in the same year.

>81 trollsdotter:.

It's gets kinda murky when a story has roots deeper than just a single author, like with the Grimm fairy tales. For that, I'd recommend only including films that deal specifically with that author's interpretation of it. Otherwise, you'd be linking things like The Looking Glass Wars with Disney's Alice in Wonderland, which, while they're related, it seems like relating them in this way is a stretch, and/or a call for this feature to be mirrored for LT records, so you could set up a path: LGW (book) -> Alice (book) -> Disney's Alice (film).

But that's just my opinion.

>83 jjwilson61:.

IMDb's convention is: 2009/I and 2009/II if a film has the same name in the same year. That comes through in the auto-suggestions.

I think, also, that IMDb makes this distinction only if the two items are the same media (that is, if it has a designation, such as V (straight-to-video), VG (video game), TV (Television Movie), etc.), but I may be mistaken.

This new feature does seem to run afoul a bit with the work concept. Is the Treasure Island movie related only to the original Treasure Island work or is it also related to the many childrens adaptations? Is an Odyssey movie related to both the work in modern language and the work in ancient Greek?

I love being able to add television adaptations as well... though I've just realized, someone's going to have to add Reading Rainbow episodes eventually...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085075/episodes

(Right now I'm content adding CBS Storybreak.)

>86 jjwilson61:

Even worse!: Will the eventual film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies be listed under just P&P&Z or also under P&P?

I'd say a good rule would be: complain to Tim et al. about work-to-work relationships, and until they get that done, only list the record if (a) the film was made after that particular work, and (b) it can be argued convincingly that that film was in part "inspired" by that work. That way, you don't have The Furry Odyssey (I am so thankful that the touchstone for this doesn't return anything!) pointing to O Brother, Where Art Thou?.

Here are a couple of links to keep folks busy for a while:

http://www.librarything.com/tag/made+into+movie

http://www.imdb.com/keyword/based-on-novel/

I use the tag 'filmed' myself, so you can add that one, too.

>90 Bookmarque:.

Thanks for the suggestion! It looks like it's already been combined with "made into movie."

Sweet. Makes things way easier.

Okay, here's an unusual question:

Does anyone know what book the CBS Storybreak episode "Dragon's Blood" adapted? There are multiple titles with that name, and I don't think I've seen that episode.

Don't worry about the Director name unless:
1) There are multiple movies in the same year, or
2) You are OCD, or
3) both.

>93 lampbane:

According to this link:
http://www.tv.com/cbs-storybreak/dragons-blood/episode/351608/summary.html

It's this book: Dragon's Blood

eta: looks like someone's already captured it.

>84 aethercowboy:

Agreed and if we ever end up making these same kinds of connections between books (e.g., that The Looking Glass Wars is an adaptation/retelling/version of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland), we're going to run into this problem over and over again with fairy tales and myths.

With thanks to PhoenixTerran (for Dragon's Blood).

I've finished up CBS Storybreak. It's weird that a lot of the books just aren't that popular in LibraryThing (very few copies of a lot of them).

Maybe I'll do the ABC Weekend Special next.

What can I say? I watch a lot of book-related TV.

As long as we're adding TV info, would it be possible to add stageplay info? I'd love to include the Broadway history of "West Side Story".

I'll also say, great feature. The link to IMDB is especially impressive. It's so nice when someone else has already done the cataloging work.

Two ideas for playing with this feature (perhaps someone else has mentioned them, but I'm not going to go back and read the whole thread):

Look at your Tag Mirror for the tags "movies" or "movie." People often use those tag to indicate the existence of a film adaption. It makes a good way to go through your own books and add the CK.

Search IMDB for an author. On the author's page look for entries labeled "novel" or "play." Then search for these works in LT.

Just what I needed, another way to avoid my real work.

--> 83

Actually, I kind of like seeing the director's name there with the other info. I think I'll still add the director's name to the ones I do.

Just read message #94. :)

Any chance of putting a box on the author pages that says "works turned into movies?" or something similar?

Shakespeare will be all sorts of crazy (if you expand to see all much like related awards or characters), but for the vast majority of authors, it will be pretty nice to see a nice collected area of everything they've had that's been adapted.

if we ever end up making these same kinds of connections between books

I hope this is in the works! "Cites" and "Cited by" would also be nice.

Two areas for discussion:

1. Should a film adaptation of a short story be added as a "related movie" to anthologies including that story. (My view is "yes".)

2. Are we limiting ourselves to adaptations, or should we add any film "related" to the book. I particularly have in mind books about films. Would, say, adding all the films mentioned in Scorsese On Scorsese or Hollywood Goes to War be helpful, or super annoying? (I'm kind of hoping the answer here is "super annoying" because otherwise I'd be tempted to do it and it seems like a lot of work.) What about Making-Ofs -should, for example, "Blade Runner" be associated with Paul Sammon's Future Noir? (Leaning to "yes".)

I believe that books that are about the movie/TV show in question should absolutely be connected to that movie/TV show; I've already connected a few (like Batman Animated is connected to Batman the Animated Series). I also connected a few video game strategy guides to their respective video games.

Two questions:

-What about books referred to in a movie? Like ... For some reason, the first example that comes to mind is "Catcher in the Rye (book)" / "Conspiracy Theory (film)".

- Is this going to be fed into the recommendations engine at some point in the future? That would be fun :) .

>103 Robert_Weaver:

1. My view is "no," but mainly because I'm anticipating some sort of part/whole interface in the future. If nothing else, check to make sure that a very popular short story hasn't been entered on its own. E.g., some LT-ers have entered the Ender's Game short story on its own, even though it's never been published separately, to my knowledge.

>106 Katya0133: There are actually quite a few short stories from their anthologies with respective films entered already (someone did Stephen King's right away).

No one is asked not to enter any other CK data on anthologies - so restricting this seems silly. Besides, one can enter it on all the anthologies and on the stand-alone stories if they want. This field in no way ever says, "I'm sorry, but this movie has already been entered in another CK field and cannot ever be entered again."

>>107 stephmo:

Common Knowledge wouldn't be very interesting if we couldn't see what other books were attached to the same movie.

>108 lampbane: Not to mention, if I actually wanted to read the story - if I had to only find a stand-alone short story, how would I know which anthology to find it in if no one had entered it on the anthology?

:)

Can you tell I just got done w/some of Robert Bloch's stuff?

=P

Can we extend this to radio drama as well please? I've just been listening to the first part of the radio dramatisation of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

I'm not sure that there is a comprehensive searchable database of programme titles so it will have to be done the hard way.

IMDB also have movies from non-English countries and they have the original title as the main title (e.g. Män som hatar kvinnor). Should we add the non-English names of movies in the English CK or in the same language site CK as the name in IMDB?

And dare I ask: what about translated names for movies? Can we add those or is it better not to?

>111 Anneli:.

I think it was determined earlier to use IMBD's "canonical" name for the film. So, if you're going to link Battle Royale with the film based on it, it should be to Batoru rowaiaru (tt0266308).

I wouldn't mind if you used the movies original title as long as you also included the popular/US title if it's different from the original.

There are two ways to go about it:
1. Put the alternate title (whether original or popular) in the parenthetical meta data.
2. Add another entry using the alternate title.

I think I like 2 better.

But this should only be used when the ORIGINAL release had a different name from the popular one. Don't enter the 400 different names for "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" in all of its multi-lingual permutations.

I prefer using the original title in that it indicates to the user that the movie may not be in English (especially in cases where there might be other productions that are in English).

>113 conceptDawg:

I thought it would be logical to add the original title in the CK field of the language version of the original title's language (e.g. Swedish movie title in Swedish LT or French movie title in French LT). If I add some CK info in the English version of LT it doesn't show in CK fields of other language versions. I wish this problem would be solved. CK info should be common for all language versions.

^Grand big AMEN to that!

116> That's true for some CK fields and not for others. There's really no need to show the book description for every language and it would be a mess to show the characters over and over for every language that they were entered.

>118 jjwilson61:

You are right. Book description is one of the CK fields that should be language spesific. On the other hand people do add CK info in whatever language when they are in the English site. Look at the occupations, first words, series etc. It already is a bit messy.

I have been adding old books (read but unowned) and there is this book: Kyökin puolella (original in Norwegian: Vi som går kjøkkenveien). There is no English translation of this book as far as I know.

This book has been adapted to at least four different movies: Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian and American. Should all of them be added in different language versions of LT?

edited: the American version is not translation after all, but also adapted from the original Norwegian book

Re.#18 ... A classic!

heh ...

 

18, 121> The original work was a one act musical? Or it could have been turned into one. Film could be basis for work, or work could be basis for film.

So . . . did the film inspire the musical or the musical inspire the film?

I think the hint showed when editing the field Related movies is too basic

Blade Runner (1982), The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Three Musketeers (1993)

and should show in some way IMDB link, something like

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001 | tt0120737 | Peter Jackson)

how to escape parenthesis?

this movie is called Immortal (Ad Vitam) …

http://www.librarything.com/work/1600454

123 - From my understanding, when you type something in that field, it searches the IMDB database directly, so that you can select the correct film. In other words, it's rarely necessary that you would need to know the IMDB link, because the IMDB link comes through automatically when you select the film.

I could agree with you, so why putting a hint at all?

I think the example dates from before the capacity to search IMDB directly when you're adding a movie name. When they first created the field, there wasn't a direct link.

I see, so why not updating the example dates? Moreover users like me still use an ISDN (yes…) and I discovered the existence of IMDB search after ten movies typed without using it.

I'm reviving this very old topic to ask if it would be possible to get a list of the top 100 or 200 work titles in order of how many IMDB adaptations are linked to them. I.e., Hamlet would probably be fairly high on the list with its 95 adaptations, A Christmas Carol would probably be in the middle of the list with its 11 adaptations, and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone would probably not appear in the top 200 because it's only been adapted once. (I'm currently working on a project at work where it would be useful to have access to this sort of information, for comparison.)

Deleting . . . commented without noticing this was an old discussion.

>129 Katya0133: Yes, it's something that we could do but it's not high on my list right now merely because I'm overworked as it is. :)

At some point if I have some downtime or want a break from normal work I'll see about doing a blog post with this data. I agree that it might be very interesting.

>131 conceptDawg:

Cool. I'll look for it in "about two weeks." ;)