Correcting Trivia and/or Goofts

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Answered
I just don't get it - why is it so easy to post literally any garbage cut-and-paste from Wikipedia "trivia", but correcting or removing is so onerous? Some of the trivia items are just a waste of space, completely irrelevant to the entry, or are just plain wrong. How can we fix this so the trivia is useful?
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 3 months ago

  • 1
Photo of GMJ

GMJ, Champion

  • 3128 Posts
  • 5537 Reply Likes
Timothy,

First of all, welcome to the IMDb Get Satisfaction page. 

Do you have a question about a specific submission? Please post the 18-digit reference number of the update so an IMDb representative can review the update and respond. 

Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
#190808-015429-289000

This is a prime example. Why was this declined? 
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
#171112-152814-545000

Many of these "trivia" entries were about roles that actors have had in other movies that are tangential to the movie itself.
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
#180806-135654-724000

Again, circumstantial trivia entries that either are unsubstantiated or tangential to the TV show.
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
#180807-014205-797000

What more information do you require? This item is clearly subjective.
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
#180807-010853-562000

This trivia item has nothing to do with the TV episode at all.
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
#180807-010129-040000

This information is duplicative of other information on the IMDB pages.
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Do I need to post more? 
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
#180806-134853-033000

Subjective, speculation, or incoherently written trivia.
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1590 Posts
  • 2014 Reply Likes
Timothy, if the trivia doesn’t have real errors or wrong information, IMDb is reluctant to remove them. A better approach often is to edit/correct the trivia (with explanation). Improving/updating the trivia is better than just trying to delete them. Some information may be ”waste of space” to you, but interesting to others.
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree about attempting to "correct" some trivia, but some of it is cut-and-paste from the Wikipedia page (like an entire plot summary), or is just saying "this actor was in this movie with this other actor five times!". That's not really trivia directly relating to the movie, you can find that out by looking at the IMDB entries. 
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7265 Posts
  • 9469 Reply Likes
What does it matter if there is trivia not "directly" related to the movie?
Photo of Timothy M Wade Jr

Timothy M Wade Jr

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
There's no need to repeat information that's in other places on IMDB, like this actor starred in this movie with this actor, or in the case of a city, the modern-day events that have nothing to do with the movie or when the movie was shot there. 
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1103 Reply Likes
Maybe something like this which someone put on every ep these two and a 3rd were in as well as the overall series. I guess in case someone forgot.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7265 Posts
  • 9469 Reply Likes
O, I see. But as far as "together again" trivia items go, I don't see the problem with them.
Photo of Ardan Tüzünsoy

Ardan Tüzünsoy

  • 66 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
I had started a topic about the very same issue, except I was saying the opposite: I asked why it was so EASY to change or remove trivia additions of other people. (some of my own trivia additions, giving actual and correct information about the movie or actors, had been either reworded, shortened, or completely deleted, by someone who decided that he wanted to do so, because he could.)

I do agree that some trivia additions are not only repetitive, but just plain stupid. (There are some souls that actually write a movie's plot points as trivia) But these are not that many, and there's a "not interesting" vote specifically for that.

Now, you could perhaps propose a new rule. If a trivia addition has, let's say, 80 percent or more "not interesting" votes (and provided it's got at least, let's say, 100 votes altogether) then it may be subject to deletion. But implementing this kind of thing would be rather hard, and quite frankly, unnecessary.

 And most importantly, as stated by the poster above, "interesting" is subjective.
Photo of J.

J.

  • 410 Posts
  • 622 Reply Likes
A social media site called Minds.com is working on something interesting. A post is reported. The staff agrees that the post broke the rules and removes it. The poster disputes the decision. And then ten to twenty trusted users, randomly chosen, are asked to arbitrate the decision. If they agree with the decision, the post will remain deleted. If they disagree, the post will be restored.

If the system is successful other websites may want to adapt it to their own needs. I can imagine the IMDb staff using something similar to help them with certain decisions, such as deciding whether a trivia item should be removed. Instead of one staffer making a snap decision, ten to twenty users can make it instead.

I especially like the "randomly chosen" bit. If the decision went to an elite group of permanent judges, you can imagine the groupthink that would corrupt their rulings. Randomly chosen users are much more likely to bring good results.
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1103 Reply Likes
J,
Thanks for the info on minds.com cuz it's very interesting and never heard of it. I don't know how much infrastructure would be needed, and how many users are needed to make something like that work, so question if imdb would/could do it. Once I found GS I try to ask questions sometimes when I'm not sure if a change is warranted or not and I don't want to be the one that might take away something (although correcting something I will do more freely.)

But there is a lot of trivia out there that is ridiculous. On two shows I've scanned recently, there is a trivia item on the series and on every episode that this person is in the ep. Well dah, I saw that from the credits.

Very interesting discussion.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16428 Posts
  • 18821 Reply Likes
J. nice thought. Parameters would need to be set as it relates to who was eligible. There are far too many contributors here that are too new to do that. You would need a pool of approx 100 or so that qualify and use 10 on a random basis.
Photo of Ardan Tüzünsoy

Ardan Tüzünsoy

  • 66 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
Just today I noticed that someone has corrected yet another one of my trivia additions, but this is a funny one.

I had written something like "...he also played a king in Braveheart" and this person corrected it as "...he also played a King in Braveheart." So he capitalized the word "king" only.

I always thought I was a grammar nazi, but this one is a grammar feldmarshall I guess.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7265 Posts
  • 9469 Reply Likes
I see no reason for something like that to be capitalized.
Photo of Ardan Tüzünsoy

Ardan Tüzünsoy

  • 66 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
On top of that, it's wrong. King, queen etc should be capitalized only if it's a title: King Edward, Queen Elizabeth etc. If it's a common noun, it shouldn't be capital: "He was a fearsome king" etc. 
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7265 Posts
  • 9469 Reply Likes
Exactly. Seeing it capitalized makes one think that the word is referring to a member of an organization bearing the proper name "Kings", but the may be some other use cases which would likely accompany disambiguating embellishments, say, for example, in all, "King of England".