Talk:Internet Movie Database

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet Movie Database article.

[edit] Accessing IMDb content from Wikipedia

Further information: Wikipedia:IMDb

A link to a page on IMDb about a title (a movie or a tv series), a person (actor, actress, etc.), a company, or tv episode, can be made by means of four templates: {{imdb title}}, {{imdb name}}, {{imdb company}}, and {{imdb episode}}. Instructions about the use of these templates can be found on their respective talk pages. Note that these templates should be used in the "External links" section.

There is also another mean: using InterWiki by adding [[IMDbName:ID]] or [[IMDbTitle:ID]]. Just replace "ID" with the IMDb code (at the end of the URL) for a given title/person (eg. Frank Sinatra's is "0000069", and Ocean's Eleven is "0054135"). Example:

You can also make a piped link to use a text for the link:
  • [[IMDbName:0000069|Frank Sinatra]] is rendered as Frank Sinatra
  • [[IMDbTitle:0054135|''Ocean's Eleven'']] is rendered as Ocean's Eleven

This method should only be used where in-article links are needed. For the external links, the use of the imdb name, title, or company templates is preferred.

Archive
Archives
  1. Talk:Internet Movie Database/Archive 1
  2. – March 2006

Contents


[edit] Google groups mention?

Under the History section,

"Google Groups coverage of rec.arts.movies is incomplete during the relevant time period, with a 6-month gap in late 1988 and early 1989 and a number of missing articles after that. [2]"

Is the timeframe for that correct? Or is it referring to Yahoo! instead? Diulama 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The timeframe is correct AFAIK. Google Groups are a way to access and search old Usenet newsgroup entries when they aren't available on most other archives - unless you know of somewhere that still has them. But Google Groups don't hold a complete archive. The earliest references to The List by Col Needham or others is only available from 1990/91. But they reference earlier newsgroup messages which are no longer available. -- SteveCrook 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searching IMDb message boards?

I've been unable to find a way to search the IMDb message boards, and imdb.com/robots.txt does not invite spiders to visit the boards. Surely, this limits some aspects of their usefulness. Is there any way to search the message boards? Should this lack be noted factually in the article?

There used to be a special search facility that searched the message boards. But it was never all that good. It is sometimes a nuisance that you can't search the boards. We've asked for the boards search to be reinstated quite a few times, but there's no sign of it being done. Especially given their blocking of the boards in the robots.txt file I think it could be considered to be a limit to the usefulness of the IMDb. SteveCrook 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV and verification problem continued

To the user who made the following comments in an edit: Restore legitimate criticims minus POV words, which should have been edited in lieu of suppressing the criticisms entirely. Article needs monitoring against pro-IMDb POV vandalism

Regarding your comments above, would you mind referring to Wikipedia:Civil guidelines which asks editors not to make "ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another"? Please also assume good faith on the part other editors. If you look at my contributions, you will see that I have made quite a detailed analysis of the flaws of the rating system used on IMDb. Although it is tempting to use emotive or extreme terms in making points, in my experience the points are actually made far more compellingly by letting facts speak for themselves.

A balanced decision must be made regarding whether edits are worth amending given the quantity and nature of issues pertaining to Wiki guidelines and policy. Please note that the whole ‘’criticisms’’ section is still subject to a request for verification as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. While I think some important points are made, unfortunatley most of the section does not meet the necessary criteria. I will soon be recommending that most of the section is deleted. I personally spent some time researching material to support these criticisms or related points. I appreciate the difficulties in doing this but without meeting reasonable criteria, as I’m sure you will understand, there is no way to know objectively verify whether the criticisms are valid.

I note that you have not cited any sources in support of the criticisms you made. On balance, however, most of them appear to be sensible statements of fact that can be verified by looking at the site itself and so forth, so I did not raise this issue. However, I have made more amendments to conform to NPOV. Common sense needs to be used on this and most guidelines. Please let’s work together to make points for and against in line with the Wiki policy and guidelines – not for the sake of it, but because the guidelines are valuable for developing quality articles. Cheers Holon 02:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do something productive, like searching for the kind of citations you want yourself? And before you go deleting entire sections because of a word or sentence you perceives as POV, why don't you figure out a compromising rewrite? You seem to be one of those people who make Wikipedia impossible to take seriously or work with, a chronic fault-finder and nit-picker who is unable to contribute anything of value to an effort, but has plenty to say about what's "wrong" with it. Your lengthy POV defenses of IMDb from any and all criticism - to the point of threatening to recommend the entire Criticisms section (which appears only to bother you and Steve Crook) be summarily deleted at the wave of your magic wand - are becoming most tiresome. What is your real name? 12.73.196.186 14:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone should give their real name and not hide behind a nom de plume - or an anonymous IP address :) SteveCrook 16:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Holon 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your constructive comments 12.73.196.186.

You're welcome. Just following the examples set by the IMDb contingent on this talk...

The verifiability policy is as follows:

[edit] The policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Please take particular note of 3 in response to your question "Why don't you do something productive, like searching for the kind of citations you want yourself?".

Now, there's a "policy" that just invites either passing on common mistakes or else getting involved in deletion wars. Which seems to be your greatest interest in this matter (the other being, throwing your weight around as a big, hotshot Wikipedia Editor. Ooooh!) 12.73.201.87 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you please leave out the personal attacks? You've made one off the mark accusation after another, and it's getting us nowhere. I've been very critical of IMDb's ratings in my edits, so you can leave aside conspiracy theories, seriously. Your comment here is just confusing. The point of a policy on verifiability of material is so that people don't insert whatever nonsense they feel like without there being any possibility of verifying it. So I have no idea what you mean by passing on 'common mistakes' - the point of the policy is precisely the opposite, it is to prevent people inserting material that has no basis. BTW, it is one of the most fundamental policies for Wikipedia -- I'm only bringing it to your attention, I didn't have anything to do wtih introducing it for goodness sake. I have no interest in following a policy just for the sake of it, but let me ask you a simple question. If the criticisms are genuine (which I don't doubt they are), shouldn't it be possible to verify them? If not, how on earth can I or anyone else be confident they are legitimate? This is an encyclopedia -- the material needs to be bona fide. All I'm asking is that people cite at least some of the criticisms for the sake of credibility. If no-one else cares, so be it. I'll take of the tags and we'll leave the article. I edit in my spare time and don't come here to get accused and absued. Holon 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well there's at least two of us who want things done properly according to the Wikipedia policy. SteveCrook 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific crticisms require verification

I have placed the [citation needed] tag on the comments I think are most in need verification. As per Wikipedia policy, the criterion is not that the truth of criticisms is necessarily verified, but it must be possible to at least verifiy that the criticisms have been made in a reliable source. I think that if at least a few of these points are verified, the credibility of the section will be enhanced and it may become reasonable to remove remaining tags on the basis that the section is on balance generally well researched and founded. I did some research and found an article which mentioned specific errors being incorporated on IMDb then removed, so this should be verifiable (I'll do so if I can find it again). Criticisms should be voiced for balance in achieving a NPOV, however the additions to the section frequently read like complaints and are unverifiable (I know some of them to be either valid or plausible from experience with use of IMDb, but this is not enough). Specific points need to be verified to be retained. It does no good to the credibility of the article as a whole to have a number of points that cannot reasonably be verified in reliable sources. Holon 03:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMDb's contributors

Hi. I'm new here, so delete this if you don't like it, I woun't mind. I just wanted to pass a idea for an article about where imdb get's its data. Most of it is from volintary contributors, and the site lists the top 100 anually. So I thought it would be nice to have that on wikipedia as well as some aditional info. What do you think? (contribution by 213.213.134.251, 3 May 2006)

It's already there, in the main Overview it says Information is largely provided by a cadre of volunteers with expertise in various areas of film history. Please sign all comments using four tildes (~~~~) SteveCrook 23:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychometrics

Is the discussion of the statistical properties of the rating system really appropriate? Besides the fact that it just reads as being out of place, the lack of citations makes it perilously close to violating WP:NOR Liamdaly620 13:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The first question is a good one -- I added detail where the original synopsis was confusing and misleading and it may have made the section too long. Perhaps it should be shortened back to some essentials so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. Thoughts? As for OR, I'm not sure which points you're referring to. Points made regarding reliability and validity, sampling, use of averages for ordinal data, weighted means, trimmed means , etc. are very well known and widely accepted (as can be checked through the links to other articles on the topics). None of it is vaguely original as far as I can tell; it's just making clear the relevance of the considerations to the situation. Are there specific points you are concerned about? Cheers. Holon 02:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the current length is diruptive to the article and kind of out of scope to the point of the article as a whole. Maybe you could reduce the currect section just to a quick summary of the current ratings system and an enumeration of the lists available, then move the discussion of the flaws of such a system to another article? It seems to me that this kind of rating system exists all over the web and it might be nice to have a good article about the issues with it. After that's written, then this section of this article could be only a short paragaph and link to the other article for those interested in more details. Skrewtape 00:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Skrewtape, that is an excellent idea. When I first read your comment, I was not sure that there was an appropriate encyclopedia article to cover this. Then I realised it would be good to have an article on rating scales (there is one on scales (social science) but not rating scales). You are dead right -- the same method is used widely all over the web. What I can do is create an article that explains what a rating scale is when used well, then devote sections of the articles to widespread usage as on IMDb, Amazon, Epinions, Yahoo! Movies, etc. and the problems. Links can be included wheverver reference is made to the rating methods used online which helps increase accessibility to the material for those interested when reading about other websites. I may not have time in the next few days. Edit if you feel inclined, and I'll take what I need from history. Otherwise, I'll get to it asap. Cheers, Holon 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What I meant by original research was not that the methods with original -- they are, of course, established statistical methods. My question was where the application of the methds came from -- it seemed as if someone sat down to write here what they thought was wrong with the IMDB system, rather than reporting widely disseminated positions others had taken about IMDB (which would need cites) Liamdaly620 01:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the majority of the information to Rating scale because it is more generally applicable. Also, see discussion lower down on same topic -- I've commented on positions taken specifically about IMDb versus positions taken on widespread misuse of rating scale data. I think the suggestion to move the material is best. I'd welcome feedback. Cheers Holon 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki movie data base

It could be factible to made one. A wiki is a great idea,all people can review the reliability of the data and it his update super instant. has more advantages than the IMDB.- Atenea26 13:15 , 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the flaws of rating system to critiscism.

I agree. About moving the flaws of rating system to criticisms. While it is appropriate to make a brief comment there, the plan still remains to move a substantial amount of the rest of the discussion to another article. Holon 12:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "... directly have other users' posts" deleted

I deleted this text:

  • In addition, there are also frequent queries regarding whether users can directly have other users' posts

because I couldn't figure out what it was trying to say. What does "directly have" mean? -- JHunterJ 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing this means that admins/staff sometimes just delete a post that someone has complained about without checking to see if anything was actually done wrong. This is already covered in the article, so there's no need to include that sentence. Just of note - one extreme case was on the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie board, where a topic with over 100 well-written (no trolling/spam) posts about Douglas Adams' atheism and the effect it had on his work was completely deleted by someone (presumably an admin) with no explanation or warnings given. These things do happen - you sometimes get the feeling that from time to time someone in a position of power just has their own agenda to get out and deletes certain things that they don't like. Esn 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading use of averages

I have referenced the article which has appropriate information about use of averages for ordinal data. I am happy to cite any number of texts which say the same thing: averages should not be used for ordinal data. This is unnecessary though as Wikipedia already has an article on the subject with references, including to the original 1946 article by Stevens on the topic. The burden of proof lies with the person collecting data and computing averages to show that this is justified. It is not necessary to cite evidence that data are not interval-level when no evidence at all has been provided that they are interval-level. It is simply an observation related to a fact that is readily verified in any text on elementary stats and the like.

Also, I'm happy to leave out very in the description very misleading. Here are the facts though. (1) IMDb does not publish any information which would be accepted in a peer-reviewed article to support the fact that the data are interval-level measurements which means that at best they might claim they are ordinal data. (2) It is widely accepted that averages cannot be calculated for data ordinal data. (3) IMDb claims to be using proven statistical methods including weighted averages, when no kind of average is justified for the data. It is not just misleading -- it's plain nonsensical. So leave it out if you want. Let's not pretend though that this is a POV statement. It is actually an very tame description of patent nonsense. Holon 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The only reference in that section is to the IMDb's claims. Yes, a text that says averages should not be used for ordinal data would be a good start. A citation of a publication applying that guideline to the IMDb's ratings would be ideal. Because, as it stands, it reads like an ax being ground. I don't use the IMDB's ratings, so I'm ready to believe you, but Wikipedia isn't the place make the uncited claim that IMDb's statistical justifications are patent nonsense. JHunterJ 12:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my tone may not have been the best above, no offense intended. The main reference that is relevant here is: Stevens, S.S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677-680. I was the one who added this reference to the article on levels of measurement. The essence of Stevens' paper is repeated in most texts on elementary statistics and pychological measurement (reference to the scales is made in SPSS. I don't think it's appropriate to add this sort of reference in this article; it's best just to link to the article in which it is already referenced. Assigning integers to categories is, at best, ordinal classification. You may as well hear it from the horse's mouth:
"A classic example of an ordinal scale is the hardness of minerals. Other instances are found among scales of intelligence, personality traits ..." ... "...means and standard deviations on an ordinal scale are in error to the extent that the successive intervals on the scale are unequal in size" (Stevens, 1946, p. 679). "Most psychological measurement aspires to create interval scales, and its some times succeeds. The problem usually is to devise operations for equalizing the units of the scales". Progress was made on this problem by L. L. Thurstone and then Georg Rasch. IMDb has produced no evidence that it meets the necessary criteria: in any class on stats, if students were asked what level of scale the data on a rating scale like this are, the answer would be ordinal (at best). The burden of proof lies on the person constructing a scale to demonstrate they have met the criteria to justify greater than ordinal-level measurement. I have no axe to grind, but if IMDb wishes to publish 'averages' without any justification, it is entirely in order to point out the problems with doing so. Cheers Holon 13:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No offense taken, we're all adults here. :-) It sounds to me like we can get citations for (1) IMDb uses ordinal scale ratings and (2) one shouldn't applying averages to ordinal-scale data. Drawing the (however obvious) conclusion that (3) the IMDb shouldn't use averages for its ratings would IMO be best left to the reader, because it strays needlessly into "original research". If it's truly obvious (as it appears to this non-statistician), it doesn't need to be stated, and if it's not as obvious as it looks, it definitely doesn't need to be stated. JHunterJ 13:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Good attitude. I'm not saying they "shouldn't" publish averages, just that misleading information is stated regarding proven statistical methods (they're not even appropriate ! :). I don't like misinformation and believe Wiki should strive to counter it. From burden of proof -- outside of legal context "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". What I am actually saying is that they have not supported an implicit claim (which is verifiable by looking up the page on which the statements are made). Can make this clearer perhaps. Don't really care all that much tho'. It ain't original research; it's pointing out there is no research. Anyhow, I don't much care, I'll let others make up their minds over time. Take care and thanks. Holon 13:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Third example I found of ordinal data on a credible site included movie ratings, so added reference. As you no doubt realise, very few people would dispute this point. Also to put in perspective, while it is not justifiable, it is commonplace so mentioned this. Comments welcome. Holon 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm looking at anything you're "pointing out" that hasn't been pointed out somewhere else as original research. And if it has been pointed out somewhere else, it can be cited. But I could be wrong.
People point out these things in different contexts often. For example 'When is a mean meaningless?' [1] 'Although ordinal data should not be used for calculations, it is not uncommon to find averages formed from data collected which represented Strongly Disagree, ..., Strongly Agree!'[2] I have a PhD in psychometrics, so I take certain things for granted. I'm not sure exactly which part you look at as original research. People won't bothter publishing research specifically on IMDb, but the points are commonly made in relation to precisely the same situation. Which particular point are you concerned about? Cheers Holon 01:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's it: people won't bother calling out the IMDb in particular, then why should Wikipedia? That Wikipedia is doing it "alone" is what catches my attention. But I wish someone else would chime in here. :-) JHunterJ 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a point I take on board. I have started the article Rating scale to outline the way rating scales should be used and the problems with the way they are actually used. This was a suggestion above. A lot of the material in IMDb (specifically) can then be taken out, with just a reference to the other article. That said, it should be kept in mind that most articles in Wiki have some analysis from pepole who know the material -- this is a good thing, and the original research policy should not be applied to something that nobody would bother trying to publish (because its just use of analysis using well-established concepts) imho. Original research, to me, is research that makes a consequential new claim or demonstrates a consequential new result. I am about to submit a paper which is original research in psychometrics -- it extends a new model and shows the connection between two existing models. I wouldn't dream of putting it in Wiki. So perceptions of 'original research' obviously differ quite a lot. So would it be better to you if the points were mostly in another article? This is the plan Holon 01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name, POV

1. The site does not call itself "The Internet Movie Database" throughout as Thorpe stated above, if you read the help pages and other info pages they generally refer to themselves as "IMDb" more than anything else. Unsigned contribution by 69.157.104.89 23:41, 29 May (UTC)

On their home page they call it "The Internet Movie Database" as the title for the main body of the page and as the HTML title. They then usually abbreviate it to just IMDb elsewhere for convenience. SteveCrook 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Should I move White House to The White House, because they use it on their front page [3] once? Unsigned contribution by 69.157.104.89 05:19, 30 May (UTC)
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). SteveCrook 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You may have thought that was a facetious example. But in fact yes, I would rename it to The White House. That's how it's usually referred to. Not many people mention just A White House meaning that one. SteveCrook 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

2. POV. I came here looking for some DATA about the history of IMDb. Although I did find the DATA that I was looking for, I came away from this article with the impression that someone with an axe to grind wrote it. It has a very negative tone and strikes me as the rantings of someone who got banned from their chat boards. In particular, this phrase:

"The use of any kind of average is inappropriate because the level of measurement of movie ratings of this kind is ordinal"

is not appropriate at all here. To sum it up, after trying to plow through all the pointless garbage above, IMDb's opinion is that their statistical analysis methods are acceptable and this jackass' opinion is that they are not. THAT IS OPINION. NOT DATA. Take it somewhere else.

As I see more and more crap like this in Wikipedia, it encourages me to use it less and less, and even discourage others from using it as well. Wikipedia just can't be trusted. Unsigned contribution by 69.157.104.89 23:41, 29 May (UTC)

There are attempts to clean up all the axe grinding and to leave just the facts. But it's a struggle. SteveCrook 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I know I sound kind of rough above but this stuff is really starting to get on my nerves. POV is steadily increasing and each time I come here to find information, and instead find POV thinly veiled as "reporting criticisms" it damages the credibility of the site as a whole. Generally, I come here to find information and therefore don't feel that it would be appropriate to modify the articles. After all, I'm reading the entry generally because I don’t know enough about the subject at hand. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource but I fear that it may collapse upon itself due to its own success. Unsigned contribution by 69.157.104.89 05:19, 30 May (UTC)
That's why we want to clean it up. But if we do so without specific references then the axe-grinders will just change it back again. And they'll be justified in doing so. I can't demand that they cite all their comments if I don't do the same. SteveCrook 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I think that most of your complaints seem to be with the Wiki itself rather than with just this article. SteveCrook 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


'To sum it up, after trying to plow through all the pointless garbage above, IMDb's opinion is that their statistical analysis methods are acceptable and this jackass' opinion is that they are not. THAT IS OPINION. NOT DATA. Take it somewhere else.'

I have to wonder why you'd want to comment on something about which you clearly know nothing at all. This sort of point has been responded to above. I continue to be perplexed as to what leads people to believe that IMDb is an authority on measurement and statistics. It is not. It does not cite any scientific research to support its claims. I am not aware of it having any links to research institutions. No authority is invoked on its page regarding the use of weighted means and "proven" methods.

So while I agree with the general comment regarding some of the crticisims, it's not just this jackass' 'opinion' the data are ordinal or that averages are not justifiable for ordinal data .... for example [4] (restaurant ratings) [5] (rating displays) [6] (ref to rating scales) [7] (comment on rating stats appropriate to rating scales). [8] (rating bands as example of ordinal data) [9] (ref to ratings) [10] (ref to movie ratings) [11] (rating food as example). IMDb is free to publish data in this way if it so chooses. However, it is entirely legitimate to point out the problems associated with doing so. Plenty of others publish these sorts of averages, and so it is reasonable to point out the problems in every case, which is the reason for creating a new article as per the good suggestion above. Holon 09:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Inaccurate Movie Database"

I could not find any parts in the article that mentioned that the IMDB is infamous for being innacurate, hence its nickname. If there isn't anything in there, there probably should be. (posted by KX-34 on 8 June 2006)

I haven't heard the nickname before, but if it is so, just find a reputable source to cite and add it. (And use ~~~~ to sign your additions to talk pages.) -- JHunterJ 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard it called that either. It might be called that by people who can't get their project listed on it. The eligibility requirements are more strict now than they used to be. SteveCrook 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I know I've come across it (the nickname) at least twice on different websites. Mostly referring to innacuracies in the cast lists and stuff. http://www.digg.com/movies/Spiderman_3_Plot_Revealed There is one of the sites, and if you search "inaccurate movie database" in Google, a number of results come up. 65.30.36.139 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That number was 38 for me. By comparison, "inaccurate wikipedia" got 85 hits. A search in a news database for "inaccurate movie database" turned up 0 hits. Doesn't seem infamous enough. -- JHunterJ 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I searched for "inaccurate movie database" imdb just in case they were referring to a different inaccurate movie database. That got just 19 hits. Not really enough to warrant inclusion. Probably just a few disgruntled individuals. SteveCrook 23:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's also in violation of WP:NPOV, though I agree about the inaccuracies.

[edit] User Comment order

The user comments for a film are not in chronological order. How is the order decided then? I have only skimmed the article and searched for 'user comments'. To my surprise no hits. I suppose this is one of the most used parts of imdb, so is it named differently? Surely there should be some mention of it. DirkvdM 07:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The default is to sort according to the 'rating' of the comment, which is, how many people clicked "Yes" in response to whether they found the review helpful. However, the user comment that appears on the front page of a movie's entry doesn't fit this pattern (it is almost invariably not the #1 rated comment). I'm not sure how they determine that one. SubSeven 08:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
They're just selected at random. The #1 comment can appear there, but so can one slating the film. SteveCrook 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Would IMDb not be better as a wiki also?

The accuracy would probably be greatly improved, as it is currently rubbish, and the more obscure shows would get more coverage. {````} - Unsigned comment by 195.82.104.122 22:04 8 July 2006

I don't think that the accuracy of the IMDb would be improved at all by making it a Wiki. It is often discuissed on the Contibutors Help message board - and it is always dismissed out of hand as a bad idea, by the contributors, not by IMDb staff. They have no need to comment. If it was made a Wiki then there would be absolutely no validation. At least now we have some even though it may not be perfect. But why do you say that "it is currently rubbish"? - SteveCrook 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No because we use it to determine the validty of movies on wiki. It would just make it that much harder to state that a movie based on pure speculation is not valid. User:Lord Hawk 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking this page to vandals

I't seems that IMDB is objective for vandal attacks. Today there are 2 reverts. what do you think about blocking this page to anonymous users, in order to prevent vandalism? -- User:Atenea26, 13:30 , 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there are that many attacks by vandals. There are quite a few of us that watch this page and we usually manage to revert the vandalisation quite quickly. - SteveCrook 16:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea - BTW, I'm one of the imdb posters the vandalizer is mentioning as a stupid user. - Mr_Beale

[edit] Sorry with the mess

I was trying trying to put a reference, but the format was wrong so I messed the page-- User:Atenea26, 10:30 , 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation question

A citation is called for the following passage: Over the last five years the George W. Bush, Michael Jackson and Soapbox message boards (and, to a lesser extent, the Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ message boards and other message boards for political and religious personas) have been major targets for heated debate, ranting and trolling. Would a link to those message boards, where one could see this is the case, suffice? --Mr Beale 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that someone unfamiliar with the boards would be able to "see" that they have been "major targets" of heated debate, ranting and trolling by looking at them. Ideally the citation would be of some site or news items making the observation. -- JHunterJ 23:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't believe that those boards offer a permanent record. I think that messages are removed after some time -- SteveCrook 23:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You now also have to be a user of IMDB to view the forums, so just linking them can't possibly suffice as a citation. Unless its been mentioned in the press or on another website, this claim can't really be made, despite how true it is. NadaPlissken 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SteveCrook

Re: your following "correction": "TV episodes - Not true. There is now no distinction between regulars and guests)"

Sorry, but the information about IMDb confusing guests and regulars is VERY true. While the IMDb does shy away from actually using the words "guest" and "regular," all you have to do to verify the inaccuracies is look up a few TV shows on the IMDb. Neve Campbell (to list just one example out of dozens, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about) was a regular on the show "Party of Five" for years. The IMDb lists her as having appeared in only eight episodes. Meanwhile, actors who really have appeared on the show only once or twice or a handful of times (and would thus qualify as "guest stars") are often listed in the show's cast list rather than the page for specific episodes, which would be much more accurate. My reference/source is the IMDb itself, and it bears repeating that, before you argue with me or casually remove this information again, please look up a few shows on the IMDb to see for yourself. -- Minaker

I'm a long time IMDb contributor and I do know what's going on at the IMDb. All the example you give means is that Neve hasn't been properly credited for the episodes she appeared in. Most IMDb contributors aren't happy about the latest change that they have made which means that if people haven't been properly credited on each episode, or the episode details haven't been submitted yet, then those people just aren't shown. The latest change in the IMDb means that someone that has been properly credited for the episodes they appear in is now listed ahead of someone that appeared more often, but hasn't been credited for all their appearances. The upshot is that the IMDb should realise that episode migration is nowhere near as complete as they thought it was and they should revert the last change, and that everyone that can should submit more information to get all the cast properly credited for every episode. But what I said was true in that the IMDb now has no distinction between regulars and guests. The sentence before the one you added said "At present, the database entries for TV series are in a state of flux, as listings are migrated from series titles to individual episodes." This is still true, and was made worse by the IMDb's latest change. But it doesn't alter the fact that there is now no distinction between regulars and guests. Everyone that has ever appeared in a TV series should be credited for the episodes they appeared in and the main page for the series is generated automatically from the appearances in each episode. -- SteveCrook 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the wording of your latest alteration is very confusing, but at least we're getting somewhere, and I appreciate your trying to clarify matters in the article rather than just reverting or launching into some sort of verbal attack as some Wikipedia editors do with each other. (By the way, this was not my intent either, and I apologize if my statements above seem too aggressive.) I still feel that this article, as it's currently worded, does not adequately convey the state of confusion in so many of the IMDb's TV pages. You may provide an explanation here on the talk page, but that doesn't change the fact that many cast members (as I had originally stated) are not mentioned at all in the cast listings for such shows as "Kidnapped," "The Nine," and many others. This is a glaring omission that occurs time and again on the IMDb. And while it's true that the IMDb doesn't specifically use the words "guest star" and "regular," as you correctly point out, if Neve Campbell (to use my above example) appeared in nearly every episode of "Party of Five, she is a regular, while the IMDb's statement that she was in only eight episodes indicates that she was merely a guest, even if the words "guest star" aren't used. These are the IMDb inaccuracies I have been referring to. You're welcome to try to clarify these points in the article, but I still think that they need to be addressed; your explanation on this talk page for the reasons behind the errors doesn't make them any less worthy of mention in the article. For now, I will refrain from changing the article again, because I don't want to get into some sort of revert war, but I do think that my original statements have some merit, even if they needed clarification. -- Minaker

There are lots of other people making the same point on the IMDb Contributors board. It is possible for you to cure the situation for Neve Campbell or anyone else, just add any missing episodes and then credit all those people that appear in it. Then, when Neve or anyone else, has more credits in episodes, she will be placed nearer the top of the credits list on the main page for the series. The IMDb didn't "state" that she only appeared in 8 episodes as some unalterable decree. It's just that nobody's bothered to submit the correct information yet. Any database is only as good as its information and most of the information for the IMDb comes from volunteer contributors, each submitting data in areas that they know about or care about. If you care enough to write these comments, you should care enough to do something about it and submit the correct data for the series that you know about. As for "regular" and "guest", it's not just the naming convention. They used to be treated quite differently in the database. They aren't any longer. They are all just people credited as appearing in episodes in the series. Those that are credited in the most episodes will be nearer the top in the cast list on the main page for the series. -- SteveCrook 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that "If you care enough to write these comments, you should care enough to do something about it and submit the correct data for the series that you know about": I don't mean to sound lazy, but it's one thing to make corrections or engage in discussion on Wikipedia, a site which makes it easy (some even say too easy) to alter content. The IMDb is an entirely different matter, in which every single correction is a several-step process. Then, once you've finally submitted any one correction, let alone the dozens that we're talking about here, the people who run IMDb take an indefinite amount of time to review the new information. Surely you know about this failing if you're a "long time IMDb contributor"; these issues are even addressed (to a degree) in this very article. Sorry to be a bit repetitive here, but your argument that I should correct errors on the IMDb if I see them still doesn't change the fact that those errors exist (until they are corrected by me or someone else) and therefore deserve mention in this article. -- Minaker

So it looks like we'll have to wait for someone else to correct the entries you mention. It does take time, but it's really very straightforward. And I don't regard the length of time it takes to get data into the database. Given the wild claims that appear in some articles in the Wikipedia, I regard the time (& the checking) a positive asset that makes the IMDb a lot more reliable -- SteveCrook 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your argument that someone should correct errors on the IMDb still doesn't change the fact that those errors exist and therefore deserve mention in this article. At this point, you are no longer trying to work out a solution, nor are you concerned about Wikipedia accuracy; you're just being stubborn, as you have clearly ignored both the arguments above and the point of Wikipedia accuracy. Specific examples are cited, but you choose to ignore those too. Your own opinion on whether the IMDb is reliable is purely subjective, an argument backed up by specific examples is not. Unless you have some sort of actual REASON for changing this other than your own stubbornness or RESPONSE to this argument other than the fact that you just don't like people complaining about a site you contribute to, please do not revert changes. Once again, and I only repeat this because you have not listened to it the previous times I've said it, an argument that someone should correct errors on the IMDb doesn't change the fact that those errors exist. Wikipedia is about facts, not a reflection of how you think the world should be.Minaker 04:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Steve, I would encourage you to update the data for that particular series if you feel so strongly about it. I also don't think that the article should give any specific example of missing data, since that can change quite abruptly from one day to another, if anyone decides to contribute the data. Nonetheless, the fact is that TV series entries in IMDb are far from perfect for the time being, and the article should mention it. Most readers won't care of how easy or difficult it is to contribute the data. I've tried to reword that paragraph; hopefully we can get a consensus rather than a revert war. Pruneautalk 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm clearly outvoted here, so I guess I won't fight this anymore if the decision is apparently to just throw accuracy and Wikipedia rules out the window. You've got me convinced, Wikipedia is no place for actually talking about stupid things like details and facts. Minaker 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator

How does one apply for board administrator?

AFAIK only people that work for the IMDb can be a board administrator -- SteveCrook 13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update IMDB homepage image

Not a priority, but as IMDB's homepage has been slightly redesigned {searchbox), can someone update the image in the article to reflect the change? Bswee 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternet_Movie_Database_634a.html"