Allow instant editing approval for veteran contributors

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 7 months ago
  • Answered
I have been a contributing member here for 12 years. It is 'extremely' rare that one of my contributions is not eventually approved. My issue here is that the larger the site grows, the slower the contributions are being applied, which drastically eliminates my inspiration to continue contributing.  I now find myself waiting for approval of each contribution before I add my next one.
My suggestion is that if a contributor has X amount of years here, and has made X amount of contributions, and he/she has proven that he/she has writing skills, as well as insider information about the entertainment industry, that his/her edits should be "instantly" applied. Then, the IMDB staff can review his/her edits weekly/monthly, and confirm them as permanent. This will add to the experience here for the viewer, the contributor, and the site.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 781 Posts
  • 801 Reply Likes
[quote] My issue here is that the larger the site grows, the slower the contributions are being applied[/quote]That is not true. There were times when it took half a week or a week or even two or more for stuff to be added. Nowadays, most of the contributions are added within a day or two and some contributions within a few hours.
(Edited)
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Marco, do you think you are on the boards? You had to quote me first? Your answer is not true. I've been here longer than most, and although some edits like Nicknames, and Trivia seem to show up quicker, the Bio, casting, and other major contributions take way too long.
There is no reason an experienced editor that works in the industry, and is privy to info, and has proven to be a trustworthy contributor, shouldn't have instant edit privileges.
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 268 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
I find that most updates seem to be processed very quickly - in the case of trivia (title or person) and locations it can be within literally a couple of minutes. That's on the normal www site. This is a fantastic improvement on how things used to be. I can remember, probably around 2002 when I first joined IMDB, when the site was only updated once a week, so you had to wait up to a week to see the fruits of your labour actually published.

Things have moved a long way from there.

Cast corrections can take a bit longer, although they are often visible on the pro site within a few hours, and usually on the www site by the evening (UK time) of the day after submitting the data. That's on the "reference view" which preserves the data as it was submitted (eg with cast ordering rather than arbitrary order of actor's "importance"): reference view is IMHO the only way that IMDB data should be viewed.


The thing that is intensely annoying is the delay before added/modified data can be again modified: for some reason, submitted data is visible on www or pro long before it is visible on the update page. This means that if you make a typo in a submission, you have to remember the correction that you need to make and remember to go back and make it several days later when it is visible on the updates system. It seems a very strange system which maintains two copies of the data: the out-of-date copy which is visible to the updates system and the current copy which is visible to www/pro.

I keep all the confirmation emails and I edit them if there are further corrections to what I've just corrected, so I can see the corrections that I must make highlighted so I spot them when I do my check to make sure that every submission has been processed, and know that this is a submission that I'll need to revisit.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
I have never joined pro, nor have I claimed my page with Pro, so I can't relate to your Pro experiences. I only have a few credits on my page, and I could care less if my photo is up there or not. I know there are many other advantages to Pro, but the cost is about 3 times higher than it should be. $5.00 per month sounds a lot better than $14.00.

The locations edits are almost instant now, and the Trivia and other minor edits are faster now. I agree totally with all that. However, the Plot Summaries, and Bio's are like snail mail. I've never had either of those turned down, so why not instant editing privileges? I'm only speaking about those old timers like us with a proven track record. It would make the edits fun, and would certainly inspire me to make many more contributions than I care to make under the current system. Thanks for your reply.
Photo of Bulma PunkRocker

Bulma PunkRocker

  • 45 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
Hello:
I am not a senior contributor at all, but most of us Top Contributors have access to IMDb Pro as some kind of "reward" for our hard work.
Greetings.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Very interesting information. It doesn't solve my issue, however, I had no idea Pro was being given out as presents for Top Contributors. I haven't reached Gold level yet, but I'm close. Perhaps there will be a Xmas present under my tree soon. Thanks for the preview.
Photo of moodri

moodri

  • 68 Posts
  • 74 Reply Likes
Pro has been a freebie for everyone on the annual Top Contributors list for several years now. I would never pay for it myself.
Photo of Walter

Walter

  • 268 Posts
  • 84 Reply Likes
Yes, common knowledge and like you I would never pay for it.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 772 Posts
  • 791 Reply Likes
Jock, having a Golden badge doesn't mean you're a Top Contributor. Top Contributors are the 250 people who have added the most live data items in a given year. So, yes, every Top Contributor has Golden badges, but a contributor with a Golden badge is not necessarily a Top Contributor.
Photo of Eymen Tarık

Eymen Tarık

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Thanks Marco. It seems that I would have to spend a whole lot more time over at IMDB to become a top contributor. I don't have that kind of devotion or time to spend there. Still...would be nice to have instant edits however. :-)
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 781 Posts
  • 801 Reply Likes
Jock, I know I'm no longer on the boards, but I find it can come in very handy sometimes to quote someone so it's clear to what part of the message I'm replying. I'm sure this site has a way to do that, I just haven't found it yet (the same goes for the ability to be able to respond to all posts instead of just a few).
Anyway, I don't think we're gonne agree on the processing times and I personally am very happy with the processing times.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
There was only one point being made, so quoting it was kind of a waste of time..lol
Of course you must realize that I don't use the handle "Jock LeStank" on the main site. I don't know why we had to come up with new names here. Still a mystery to me,
and yes, we will never agree on the speed of approval, or the need for approval.

If everything we submit gets approved and posted, it seems like a waste of time to me. Like I said: I'm only speaking about instant edit approval for those who've proved they deserve it.
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 5433 Posts
  • 5933 Reply Likes
For what it's worth, I think there is some degree of instant approval for certain data types, such as genres and keywords.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
And others as well such as locations.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Here is an example of when it is extremely frustrating for me not having instant approval:

In 1985, I introduced a very popular celebrity (won't mention names here) to her future husband. The potential husband at the time had been a friend of mine for at least a decade, and the celebrity (woman), about a decade as well. Five years later they were married, and have two children together.

Over a week ago, I decided to check in on my friend the celebrity's page. When I went to her spouse section, it had my friend's name spelled incorrectly, however, it was blue so I clicked it. The link took me to a complete stranger that works in the electrical Dept. with the studios. He is at least 25 years younger than my friend, and looks nothing like him. I couldn't help but wonder how long this error has been up there, and how many fans think she married a man 20 years her junior.

My friend the husband does have two acting credits for small roles in major movies he did before he met my female celebrity friend. So when I did a search on his name his page showed up no problem.

So there were three (3) correction edits to be made. My friend the husband didn't have a spouse listed at all (his page was totally unattended), 1 edit to change the female celebrity's spouse, and 1 edit to delete her from the wrong husband's page.
I also wrote a biography for the correct husband to add something to his ghost town page.

It has been about eight (8) days at this writing since I made the necessary corrections and additions. The bio on my buddy's page went up about 2 days later.
However, absolutely nothing has been corrected concerning the link to the wrong husband. Every time I visit the pages in question to see if the corrections have been implemented..... well you get the idea. It sucks. There is no excuse for this lag time,
and since the boards are closed now there should be plenty of employees around with the time to make these changes in a timely manner.

If they can't keep up, then IMDB should give those of us with a proven track record instant approval. 
(Edited)
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 268 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
[quote]since the boards are closed now there should be plenty of employees around with the time to make these changes in a timely manner.[/quote]
Surely the same staff who used to monitor the old boards are now monitoring the GetSatisfaction forum instead, with the only change that they only have to look in one place rather than two. Surely (!) when the old boards closed, they didn't take away with one hand without giving back like-for-like with the other hand.
(Edited)
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 268 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
If understand correctly you went to the woman's page and eduted her marriage details to correct the name of her husband, ticking the box to say that he had his own IMDB entry. And 8 days after you submitted that, it hasn't appeared?

Something's seriously wrong because whenever I've made that sort of correction the result has been visible within a few minutes.

I suggest you open a new thread of type Problem quoting the sumbission ID and aking what's gone wrong. And hope that a staff member sees it abd replies and fixes the problem.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Yes, I corrected the spelling in the spouse section, and added the correct URL in the explanation section, and also explained that these two guys have similar names, and the link is pointing to the wrong guy. The response time page says that 'spouse' is "GOLD", but I've seen that take 3 weeks or more to update. I've made the right edits, now it's up to IMDB to get off their butts and update the modifications. There are 885 spouse corrections on the backlog list. This ain't my first Rodeo. Thanks.
Photo of Billy

Billy

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
@Jock LeStank, and what would be the criteria for this 'instant approval' you talk about. 
1000 edits a year?
500 edits over 5 years?
10,000 edits plus a free subscription to IMDb Pro?
Being an 'insider' to all the Hollywood gossip?
Invited to Opera's house for coffee and a gossip?
Put a figure on it so we all understand what you are proposing.

Or there is an easier way, become an employee of  IMDb Amazon .
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Billy, the criteria for instant approval is up to IMDB to establish. I am just suggesting that they establish it.
I'm not looking for "Free" anything. IMDB knows how many edits I've made, and what color all my badges are. They know who they can trust in the editing department here. Your post is silly actually. Thanks.
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 268 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
Billy, you ask what the criteria should be for being given instant edit privilege. Maybe it should be based on minimum number of edits per year, with a proven track record of submitting accurate info and no record of malicious vandalism Genuine mistakes eg typos and misunderstandings that are corrected promptly don't count as vandalism.

But the biggest change is not how soon you can see your submission but how soon you can correct any trivial errors in it. At present we see submissions quickly but have to wait a day or so before we can edit them. That is the most urgent thing that IMDB needs to address. As soon as data is visible it should be editable becausr the update system should use the identical piece of data that is used by the display system, not a several-days-old copy of it. That needs a fundamental change in data design - but it should have been designed like that when IMDB was first designed many years ago. There are far too many cases where different views if the data eg actor versus his titles or episodes of a series versus one specific episode show different values rather than all being updatef simultaneously.

For me, simultaneous and consistent changes are even more important than immediate ones.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Again......that is up to IMDB to decide.
Example: If I made a total of 300 "significant" edits as a member here, and every single one was eventually approved, do you think I can be trusted to have instant edit approval? Of course I could. I'm not talking about "Locations" or "Plot Summaries", they are almost instant now anyway. When I say significant, I mean insider edits like Spouse, Bio, and Cast etc.

It would be much easier for IMDB to check my edits once a month if they choose to, as opposed to approving each and every one individually before allowing it. It's just common sense. What editing numbers criteria they put on it isn't important as long as it makes sense.

Also, I think the length of time a contributor has been a member should also be part of the equation.The criteria issue is something that IMDB would have to be comfortable with. Right now, there is NO criteria, there is just this thread asking that there should be. Thanks.
(Edited)
Photo of Billy

Billy

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Oh well without a firm proposal with criteria I doubt IMDb is going to look at it. 
What you have at the moment is too vague. 
We need figures and facts.

At present TOP contributors get FREE IMDb Pro, so maybe the proposal could be they also get 'instant access'.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Firstly, I am not concerned at this point "what we get". That is a whole new issue.

If the IMDB management staff isn't smart enough to know what criteria would make them comfortable to allow an instant edit approval, who is?

Don't you get it Billy? I am just asking them to establish a criteria they would be comfortable with. My proposals would mean nothing, because "I am risking nothing".

IMDB has every stat of every member's contributions. If they wanted to ease up on their workload, and make the site run faster, more efficient, with more participation from its members at no monetary cost to them, they should consider establishing a criteria for instant edit approval for trusted members with a proven track record.
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 268 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
As one of the top 250 I think I might qualify. But I think the honour should be open to more than just just the top 250.

There need to be some qualifying criteria. I'm not sure whether it is for us to suggest criteria and for IMDB to agree/disagree, or whether we should suggest the principle and let IMDB set the criteria, maybe under our guidance.

Maybe we should establish a dialogue with IMDB about the principle of a two-tier system, with some of us qualifying for faster processing because we are more trusted and don't need every submission approving.

Given the speed at which some of my submissions are approved, which can be as little as a few minutes for locations, marriage and person/title trivia, I wonder whether all of my submissions are being approved by IMDB staff, or whether some of them are going through automatically. I know that typos are not usually corrected or trapped, which makes me think that a lot of the submissions are going through on the nod. But then suddenly I find that one submission, very similar to all the others, takes ages to be processed.

I'd welcome a second-opinion sanity-check of my submissions to catch accidental trivial errors (typos, missing words etc), providing that processing was fairly quick.

I think the main thing is that if our submissions are vetted and are refused for any reason, that IMDB should do us the courtesy of establishing a dialogue with us, to explain why a submission is being refused and for us to present a case why it should be accepted. At present it is a bit of a black hole: you submit and you hope that your submission will be published - 99.9% of the time it is, but the other 0.1% of the time it is refused without specific explanation. Failure to appear within the normal timescale is not as good as an email at the beginning that says "are you sure about this - where's your evidence?" or "we can't accept this entry because...".

Occasionally you get data that repeatedly fails to be published, but without any explanation you are powerless to know how/if it should be changed to make it acceptable.

As an example, I've had a few cases where I've submitted location corrections which apply to all instances of the location, rather than for a specific title, and they steadfastly refuse to be published. Usually I bite the bullet and submit a separate correction for every individual title, and those go through within a few minutes. But when I raised a GetSatisfaction ticket for one of the all-title location corrections, I got a "sorry, our mistake, should be all right now" response, but the correction has never appeared.

Maybe we need an enhancement to the updates/history page so for every submission you can see the status in the form "pending", "accepted", "refused because..." with a detailed explanation in the last case and a means of corresponding with whoever refused it.

I emphasise that all of this is for the very rare exception. The vast majority of what I submit (and I hope it's the same for you) appears very quickly - impressively so!
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Yes, in the 12 years I've been contributing, I have experienced everything you mentioned, and sometimes as you said, it doesn't seem to make sense. I imagine it is a massive undertaking to keep everything flowing perfectly considering the preponderance of the clientele on all ends. They do a good job considering the workload, and I think it could run a lot smoother if we shared that workload by having instant approval.

Perhaps instant approval shouldn't be granted outside of a member's expertise. For example, I have uploaded almost 200 photos, including posters, stills, and talent. That shouldn't give me any priority to add a cast member for instance. I'm just using that as an example. The truth is I have uploaded over 150 cast members as well, but you get what I'm trying to say.  We all have our strong areas. I have written many bios. They've all been approved. Why should I have to wait even 5 minutes for a bio approval. Same thing with something as simple as a review. I've written gobs of them. They all get approved by the end of the day with an email notice, but that is unnecessary as well. What are they thinking? Like...one day I'm going to write a review with nothing but curse words in it? DUMB.
Thanks Martin, your post was great.
(Edited)
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 268 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
IMDB has every stat of every member's contributions. If they wanted to ease up on their workload, and make the site run faster, more efficient, with more participation from its members at no monetary cost to them, they should consider establishing a criteria for instant edit approval for trusted members with a proven track record.
Yes, Jock, I agree wholeheartedly with you there. Well said.

I've sometimes wondered whether there should be a panel of users who get consulted on proposed changes to IMDB so we can offer advice and "have you considered this implication". And the key thing is for that consultation to happen before the change is implemented. A few years ago IMDB tried to remove "reference view" and make everyone, even submitters, endure the luvvified default view of titles/actors, with cast lists in "starmeter" order rather than in the credits order as it had been submitted, and with loads of stupid "rate this title" and advertising furniture. Thankfully enough of us protested that they backtracked and gave us the "reference view" option. How much better if they'd told us in advance what they were proposing so we could say "oi, no!" rather than only finding out when it was a fait accompli.

I think that's part of what we are asking: for trusted people who are proved to be on IMDB's side, who can actually write in coherent English, who know where to put capital letters and where not (we're not German, we don't need every noun to have a capital letter), and who are not out to try and wreck the data with gratuitous and incorrect changes, to be treated with some respect in getting privileges like quicker publication times, consultation about refused data and consultation about proposed changes while there is still time to tweak the proposed changes.
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 268 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
Billy, let's get IMDB on our side about the principle. The fine details like the qualification criteria can be agreed later. But there's no point in our debating whether you should need to submit 200 or 300 entries a year, or whatever, if it turns out that IMDB are against it on principle, no matter what the qualification criteria are.

Let's get the ball rolling by saying:

- 1000 submissions a year
- 2 years proven track record of submitting good reliable data
- automatically include the top 250 people and maybe the Gold Badge people

OK, maybe some people reading this thread will think "hey, that excludes me". OK, so we could fine-tune the criteria so as to include who we think are worthy and exclude those who we think aren't. The main thing is to make sure that "vandals" are kept out.

The only thing that I'd disagree about Jock's original proposal is "insider information about the entertainment industry". I think that you can make a good contribution to IMDB by reliably and accurately transcribing on-screen credits and/or advance listings from Radio Times etc (correcting any credit-ordering errors in advance listings if necessary!) without working for the entertainment industry or having a friend who does. All that matters is an interest in accuracy and the films/programmes that you are submitting data for. The ability to write concise, good English in complete sentences that don't involve "txtspk" is essential for trivia, plot summaries etc.




Thinking further ahead (and this is a separate issue) I wonder whether we need to help IMDB produce a "Contributor's Charter" with a list of common mistakes and house-style rules, so as to enforce some consistency in the database. For example:

- In cast lists, all uncredited extras should have an "(uncredited)" attribute.

- All character names/roles in cast should ideally be transcribed as seen in the closing credits, in that order, with the only exception being to rationalise pronouns such as character "Jack Spratt" followed by "His Wife" in the credits would be rationalised to "Jack Spratt's Wife" so that credit makes sense in isolation (eg as viewed for the actress's credits) and doesn't need to be seen in the context of the credit that precedes it. Likewise a group of credits with a series of actors under a common heading (eg "Children") should be in the singular ("Child") for each actor.

- In cases of ambiguity, all character names/roles in cast should have each word capitalised except for prepositions, articles etc. So "Bald Spear Carrier with a Limp", not "Bald spear carrier with a limp". That rule is primarily for on-screen credits which are in all-capitals, and for uncredited characters.

- Crew credits that include the name of a company (eg "Executive Producer [for] BBC" should be in the standard "executive producer: BBC" syntax, with a colon separating the job title from the company, and with the company in initial or full capitals, depending on whether it's a name or a set of initials.

- Guidance on which section some crew entries should go in. Should "commissioning editor" go in Producers or Editors? What about "Production Executive"? Where should "Post Production Coordinator/Manager" go? My understanding is that the first and second go in Producer, POst Production Coordinator (and Team) go in Editorial Department and Post Production Manager goes in Production Manager.  But I've not seen a definitive list anywhere.

- In free-flowing paragraphs (trivia, plot summary) write in complete, comprehensible sentences and don't capitalise words at random or fail to capitalise people's names.

and so on.

Producing and being seen to stick to rules like this will help establish our credibility and trustworthiness, because we won't need IMDB staff to sub-edit what we submit.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
I just wanted to comment on your "1000" submissions a year example. I hope that was comedy Martin. That would be a full time job, or for a person that has 'no life' to speak of. :-) Making 3-4 contributions a day would be waaaaay over what I had in mind. I'd like to go outside and smell the roses once in a while, or actually keep working at my real job. :-)

My logic is that if someone has made X amount of lifetime submissions, (say: 400), and they were all, or 99.9% approved, and his /her grammar was passable, that person would pose no risk to IMDB to make an instant edit. Then, IMDB can approve the 'contributor', and not the individual contribution. A review of his/her work on some 'to be decided' schedule, would be much easier to control than each and every edit by every member.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
I also have an idea how to keep other family members from using Daddy's computer to make bad instant edits. Once someone at IMDB shows an 'ounce of interest' in this concept, I'll be happy to disclose that idea, along with many other concerns that they may have.

 Side Note: Has it ever entered anyone's mind here that the boards closing is the first step in closing the site?
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 781 Posts
  • 801 Reply Likes
Jock, why would they want to close the site?
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
The older I get, the smarter I get, just from my own life experiences. I've seen this scenario before many times. I hope I am wrong, and IMDB is forever. However, when a site, or a business is getting ready to shut its doors, the first thing to go is its biggest pain in the butt.

 I'll tell you another thing that disturbs me: Have you noticed that even though 99% of a movies reviews are terrible, the IMDB ratings are not?? That is very disturbing, and makes me think IMDB ratings are bought, and worthless, and the boards were reflecting the true feelings about the movies being discussed, and it didn't fair well with the bogus IMDB ratings. Example being a movie like: "Star Trek beyond". A majority of member reviews are under a 4, however, IMDB rates it a 7.1.

That movie was the worst Star Trek in the history of Star Treks. In fact, I would have to say the movie absolutely sucked, and the director, and Simon Pegg the screenwriter, should be thrown out of Los Angeles, never to return...lol. Kinda makes you think however...doesn't it? :-)
Photo of kiwi1

kiwi1

  • 23 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
If they are closing down how come they are fighting all the way to the supreme court to keep data on the web site.
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/california-law-requires-imdb-age-removal
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Number one: the URL you sent me to has nothing to do with them shutting down or not. They certainly are still a website and are still in business, so they are still conducting themselves as such.
Number two: I never said they were shutting down, I simply asked if it entered anyone's mind that they may be. Let's not get carried away here. It was just food for thought, however, it wouldn't surprise me if they were on their way out. Closing their main food chain might have been more than just a bold move.
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 268 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
I'm not sure why everyone has made such an issue out of the closing of IMDB's own message boards. As Jock says, the boards were effectively out-sourced to forums on GetSatisfaction. They are still read by users and by staff, and are still a means of reporting problems and getting them fixed.

Now all we need to do is get IMDB to clear the backlog of quotes and goofs that has built up over the past few days. It seems to be confined to brand new entries for a title, and doesn't affect corrections to existing entries for the same title.

I'm sure it will be cleared soon. IMDB is becoming a victim of its own success: processing times are becoming so fast (brand new title submitted this morning and fully visible on Pro about 90 minutes later) that it raises our expectations, so the odd blip in processing times really stands out, when previously it would be the norm.
(Edited)
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 5433 Posts
  • 5933 Reply Likes
Uhm, Martin, there were thousands of message boards for names and titles and dozens of main discussion boards that have not in any way been moved here.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
To Martin:
Yes I agree that things in the editing dept. have sped up a bit in the last week or so, and that is a welcome sign. I had to email the site directly to resolve the issues I mentioned above about the 'wrong spouse situation', but they were very gracious and fixed the problem within 12 hours after contacting them. I'm sure as soon as they get their ducks in a row there, the editing may be so quick, it may even resemble instant editing a bit. However, if IMDB was ever going to consider 'instant editing approval' for its veteran members, I think they may have showed up here by now and discussed the issue. Fine...I gave it a shot.

As far as the boards  are concerned, I'd like to make a few comments about my take on that issue:

I think the boards could have been controlled better. Rather than fix the problem, IMDB chose to close them, however, I think it was a very fixable issue.

Trolls and nasty members that made personal attacks to anyone that didn't agree with their opinion, should have been booted when it first began happening. IMDB should have set a precedent early and implemented strong penalties to keep the boards civil.

The boards were great fun, and I miss them. I think what I miss most is hearing others with the same take on a movie as my own, and the shear disbelief of hearing others with the exact opposite opinion. It gave me a sense of how different we all are, as well as how much we are the same.

Also, the real scoop on what to expect from a movie, truly revealed itself in those boards. They were a worthly resource of pertinent info about the 'actual' movie, and not the one the trailer, and the hype would have you believe. It's truly sad they couldn't be controlled better, and remain the valuable resource they were.
(Edited)
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Side-note: IMDb has dropped from the top 10 websites in the world, to number '59' since they closed the boards. 00PS!
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 781 Posts
  • 801 Reply Likes
Jock, they've never been in the Top 10. They've, for quite some time now, been in the 40's, 50's range: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/imdb.com
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Sorry, you're right. I read somewhere on Google a while back that IMDb was in the Top 10, then when I went to Wikipedia this morning, I saw the number 59. Should have checked Alexa.com instead. They have only dropped around 5 spots down since the boards closed. It will be interesting for sure to check those stats every month and see what the board closing really brings. Thanks Marco.
(Edited)
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
P.S. @Zdjęcie: If you don't like what we're discussing in this thread, stay out of it.
Photo of Zdjęcie

Zdjęcie

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Anger will get you even more stressed and upset.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 781 Posts
  • 800 Reply Likes
I just remembered that Alexa.com is "owned by Amazon". So any IMDb site ratings are more than likely Baloney. Better find an alternative independent source.
Do you know of such a source? The only source I know for this kind of information is Alexa. And they may be owned by Amazon, but of course that doesn't automatically mean they sabotage data or something.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 781 Posts
  • 800 Reply Likes
I just remembered that Alexa.com is "owned by Amazon". So any IMDb site ratings are more than likely Baloney. Better find an alternative independent source.
Do you know of such a source? The only source I know for this kind of information is Alexa. And they may be owned by Amazon, but of course that doesn't automatically mean they sabotage data or something.
Photo of Jock LeStank

Jock LeStank

  • 62 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
I agree with you Marco, it certainly doesn't guarantee a false rating, however to be honest, if I owned Amazon, I would have a serious conflict of interest issue rating one of my own sites. And no, at this time I am not aware of other web rating sites. Perhaps we should start one.  We can call it "Stank-Mark". I can think of some pretty funny slogans, but they're not appropriate to mention here. :-)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6233 Posts
  • 7564 Reply Likes
The plan sounds good, but it would best be supplemented by reversal principle in the event of the decline of a contributor's reliability.