Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RoChess" data-source="post: 1061178" data-attributes="member: 18896">I'm only able to test from a USA based IP, so for all I know you get different results from yours. That happens on imdb.com as well and has given me many lost hairs in making IMDb+ plugin work with that.&nbsp;You will have to reach out to the scaper-script developer and ask them to build in ID support, so that you can refer an ID into search/filename that will be used to force a single movie, the same way IMDb tt-ID works for imdb.com based scrapers.&nbsp;Or maybe they have to fix the encoding of their requests inside the scraper-script, so that it can work with the accents and get the right result listed higher, as was the case when I manually did it myself. It could even be as simple that they do not pass the (year) as part of their search query, which from my manual test showed a great increase in accuracy (and is also what I use for IMDb+ when doing searches with imdb.com).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RoChess, post: 1061178, member: 18896"] I'm only able to test from a USA based IP, so for all I know you get different results from yours. That happens on imdb.com as well and has given me many lost hairs in making IMDb+ plugin work with that. You will have to reach out to the scaper-script developer and ask them to build in ID support, so that you can refer an ID into search/filename that will be used to force a single movie, the same way IMDb tt-ID works for imdb.com based scrapers. Or maybe they have to fix the encoding of their requests inside the scraper-script, so that it can work with the accents and get the right result listed higher, as was the case when I manually did it myself. It could even be as simple that they do not pass the (year) as part of their search query, which from my manual test showed a great increase in accuracy (and is also what I use for IMDb+ when doing searches with imdb.com). [/QUOTE]

Verification