General Concerns Regarding IMDB's Mission:

  • 5
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • (Edited)

Greetings,

I hope Col Needham is able to review these thoughts, as I believe they echo many sentiments of the community at large.

As a filmmaker in 2009, I attempted to get a project listed on IMDB that I was passionate about and in the process of submitting to festivals, etc.  At the time, I remember reading that until accepted to an accredited festival, the title could NOT be listed. I felt that this barrier, although challenging, affirmed IMDB as a legitimate and credible source for movies of importance and achievement.  If you were listed on IMDB, it meant that you were "the real deal", and thus, garnered a reputation as a trustworthy website amongst professionals and fans alike.

Over the course of the past few years, I've seen many posts here on Get Satisfaction from both non-filmmakers and serious filmmakers pleading for their name to be removed from throwaway projects, student films, and nonsense internet uploads that have been entered into the database with zero resistance to an overwhelming degree.  In many cases, the projects never played for an audience, weren't screened outside of an educational or private setting, or exist on the internet with insignificant views or relevance.

IMDB's current policy that anything "factual" must be listed is terrific policy if it existed in concert with the original framework of being a database for legitimate filmmaking.  

My question is this:  When did "factual" become more important than "noteworthy"?

Is IMDB's current and future mission to be a "factual" storehouse of anything visual with or without sound that has credits attached to it?  In the contemporary age of digital media creation (and if the internet at large is considered an audience), then Instagram or Snapchat videos, for example, can and will be entered into the database with the same ease as YouTube and Vimeo videos.  Anything can be argued to be art.

What is most troubling, is IMDB's stubborn determination to display information on the site and therefore at the top of Google search results, against a creator's will.  I've noticed that many times, a producer, director, etc. will petition the forum in agreement that a project does not belong on IMDB and a forum member simply pastes a prewritten statement pointing back to the information being "factual".  Yes, it exists.  Is it a legitimate film?  No.

There should be flexibility that encompasses the truth that not every title belongs on IMDB, especially when voiced from the creators.  This undermines actual titles that deserve to be in the database and only adds confusion.

The same manpower that is utilized to comb for whether or not a title is "factual" simply because it exists, should instead go towards deciphering whether or not it belongs.

IMDB rose to prominence as a reliable collection of information documenting aired television and films that had played in theaters and festivals.  I fear that it has become a dustbin for anything that's touched the web.

Does IMDB foresee a change in policy in the near or distant future regarding what information "must" be preserved?

Thank you for reading and I look forward to upcoming improvements.

Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes

Posted 5 months ago

  • 5
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

Just for History : July 15 2018

https://www.imdb.com/pressroom/stats/  (Sat Dec 9 2017)
Titles: 4,734,693 - Year Range: 1874 - 2025
People: 8,702,001 - Credits: 91,169,747
- - -

https://www.imdb.com/search/title
https://www.imdb.com/search/title?release_date=1874-01-01,2025-12-31&sort=release_date,desc
Titles Released 1874 - 2025
Sort by Release Date, desc
4,687,008 titles

https://www.imdb.com/search/name
https://www.imdb.com/search/name?gender=male,female&sort=alpha,asc
Males/Females  (Other ??)
Sorted by Name Ascending
5,061,595 names
- - -

Title
Shepard Smith Reporting - TV Series
Episode dated 16 July 2018
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8705700/   # 8,705,700

Name
Maricruz Isabella Herrera
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9974000/   # 9,974,000

Some Titles  and Names pages are blank


(Edited)
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
It would behoove IMDB to re-implement requisite parameters for inclusion and be open to the database being cleaned, beginning with heeding the cries of many creators and affiliates justified in their concerns regarding their own namesakes being linked to trivial entries.  A project may even very-well be considered "serious" in the eyes of some involved, yet ineligible for IMDB, much like the quality-control I experienced when trying to submit my own title in 2009.  The grey area could easily be fleshed out by returning to the original model of having third-parties such as accredited networks, festivals, and platforms carry the burden of proof that a work is of cultural importance.  Otherwise, IMDB is the wild west with zero rules, equal to anything on the internet (which I suspect is in conflict with the true mission).  The production of media is increasing exponentially, so as a filmmaker and film-lover, I hope this is addressed in order to maintain the integrity and core purpose of the database. 
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4740 Posts
  • 5461 Reply Likes
A videographic (motion photographic) work does not have to be noteworthy or notable in order to be cataloged on IMDb. It simply has to be, with some exceptions, published. If a work is of a intimate/private nature (not intended to be interesting to the public, now or in the future) yet just happens to be published, it may not be eligible, but if somehow it became catalogued, it might also not be subject to deletion, especially if the IMDb records pertaining to it are complete.
(Part of the issue is that the very concept of publication has changed a lot over the course of the last couple of centuries.)
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

Lots more to add to IMDb:
all those fun birthday parties and weddings and graduations and vacations and parades and school sports and music videos etc
posted on
https://www.youtube.com/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube


(Edited)
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
Yeah, exactly.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4740 Posts
  • 5461 Reply Likes
Hi, ACT_1. Why should an ordinary couple's wedding be any different from that of one in which a member of the House of Windsor is groom or bride? Is the scale of the production that matters? Is it the amount of third party publicity that matters?
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
If the scope of the work cannot be discussed or defined outside of a small group of people involved in the creation, then why should it be on an Internet Movie Database?  Seems like common sense, yet the current policy has many people's names permanently entangled with bogus credits and titles.
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

by Jeorj Euler
Hi, ACT_1. Why should an ordinary couple's wedding
be any different from that of one
in which a member of the House of Windsor is groom or bride?
Is the scale of the production that matters? Is it the amount of third party publicity that matters?
- - -

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wedding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUB6zKc-Tos - 9:41 - 12,974,193 views
OUR WEDDING 
Jess and Gabriel  
Published on Dec 25, 2016
December 18th, 2016
Huge thanks to Michael Kelly for shooting our wedding!
▶Website: http://www.michaelkellyfilms.com.au/
- - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N42MQJX4KoY - 2:35:22 - 32,771,137 views
The Royal Wedding 2018: Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle

has a wikiwiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle
The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was held on 19 May 2018
in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle in the United Kingdom.

https://www.imdb.com/find?&q=The+Royal+Wedding+2018&s=tt
Displaying 71 results ? ?


Not
Royal Wedding  (1951)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043983/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043983/reference
Fred Astaire   ...  Tom Bowen



(Edited)
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 6706 Posts
  • 7356 Reply Likes
Why should an ordinary couple's wedding be any different from that of one in which a member of the House of Windsor is groom or bride? Is the scale of the production that matters? Is it the amount of third party publicity that matters?
When a royal wedding is broadcast on television in multiple countries and watched by millions of people around the world, that would satisfy IMDb's "must be of general public interest" criterion with flying colors.

That doesn't mean that the same level of public interest applies to anyone else's wedding video that they happen to post to YouTube. Maybe some of those videos should be considered to be of general public interest, but that doesn't prove that all of them should be.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4740 Posts
  • 5461 Reply Likes
Television? What's that? :P
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

This IS
https://www.imdb.com/
The Internet Movie Database


Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
Well, I think there must be a clause that denotes power to the creators in the case of an internet production.  According to Official Eligibility the requirement is simply "released on video or the web or prints have been made available to the public".  This literally describes everything posted online since the invention of the internet.  It's too broad and the database is, in many cases, clogged with titles that the creators and participants themselves are begging to have removed.  Any clip made public online in the history of Earth should not be bound to a regulation that the title and names involved are permanently documented on IMDB for the sake of "fact".  Titles that have zero legacy beyond a URL should be able to be quickly and easily removed at the creator's request.  This would solve the issues I mentioned in my original post pertaining to Google search results.  From reading many posts on Get Satisfaction, it appears that many non-filmmakers were credited in internet nonsense, jokes, school projects, etc. without any notion that they now have an IMDB which comes up first thing on Google when they are searched.  Similarly, serious filmmakers are linked to equally amateur productions that have no place on IMDB.  It should not be a struggle to remove titles in this category.  A simple rule of thumb could be this:  If the entire legacy of the video can disappear with one button click on YouTube or Vimeo, then the removal from IMDB should be of equal ease and convenience.  Honestly, who cares?  Give the people what they want.  If everyone involved wants it delisted, delist it.  Especially when there is zero firewall for listing.  It's typically something with under 1,000 views.  It's laughable.  These titles just jam the database and act as blemishes for anyone trying to showcase their profile professionally and/or not have a profile to begin with.  For example, cementing the "fact" that so-and-so cameo'd as "Farmer #3" in a high school comedy skit that only exists as a Quicktime file that less than 30 people have seen in no way legitimizes IMDB.  It makes IMDB look far less legitimate.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4624 Posts
  • 5330 Reply Likes
The more contemporary Internet has a great level of permanence of data, especially with the Wayback Machine rising in prominence. Things kind of never go "out of print" now.
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
Spooky.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 6706 Posts
  • 7356 Reply Likes
While current policy is pretty clear that YouTube videos are eligible for inclusion in IMDb (see https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/title-eligibility/G9V8J6AXTQ292S5W#), I think it's worth taking a look from time to time and reviewing the concerns expressed by T as to whether videos should be eligible just by virtue of appearing on YouTube.

Do the current eligibility criteria serve IMDb users well? Are people hoping to find YouTube videos listed on IMDb and are they unhappy when they don't find them listed? Do filmmakers, cast, and crew support having YouTube videos listed? 

I realize that technology may be changing faster than IMDb can adjust its policies. YouTube used to be primarily a site for amateur videos, but nowadays even a "TV special" starring Mariah Carey can be made directly for YouTube.

Still, I think it's worth it to discuss whether the current policies are serving useful purposes.
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes

Thank you, Gromit.  My thoughts exactly.  In my estimation, it appears that many credit-related issues previous posters describe is with their own namesake tied to online video projects from specifically the past 10 years or so, as YouTube, Vimeo, IMDB, Google, and digital technology itself has evolved.

I believe that many irrelevant small-scale works that fall under "online publication" have been entered into the database in haste without knowledge or understanding of the permanence.

My suggestion, as described in a previous comment, would be that in the case of online publications (especially from this period of time) that the creators have the power to delist works.  It shouldn't be up to IMDB.  In many cases, the projects in question are inconsequential and meaningless, yet reign supreme in search results.

If the database seeks to be so thorough that it catalogs microscopic throwaway work (including student films or random clips) by non-filmmakers (or ex-amateurs) for the sake of being factual, that surely is a detriment.  It's gone off the rails.  If the creators want it off, take it off.

(Edited)
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 843 Posts
  • 989 Reply Likes

T,

This is an excellent discussion. Here are couple of my thoughts:

1) How many creators have to agree that the title should be removed, and who qualifies as a creator? Every participant?

2) Using the number of votes as grounds to justify removing films can also work against films that came out of the studio system or its periphery in the 20th century, or the earliest experimental films created pre-1900. Of the 757 studio-released musicals I've watched since September, 539 of them have fewer than 1,000 votes. For new creations, how long would the title have to earn the required number of votes?

Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4703 Posts
  • 5432 Reply Likes
Hi, bderoes. Most likely the copyright owner, if there is a sole copyright owner, is the person in mind. I would stress unanimity otherwise, but somebody eager to remove entries from the database would see the contrary.
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes

Thanks for your interest.  I truly think this is a hot topic.

I think the grounds to apply flexibility to remove a title could simply be based on date (not site votes or views).  Post-2005 would do the trick. The issues I've gone into detail about all stem from a Post-YouTube world.

In 2018, I think people better understand that if you are credited in any video project big or small and put it online, that there is a chance someone related or unrelated to the creation could enter it into the database.  I do not think this was understood over the past 10 or so years, and thus, the many complaints regarding people's namesakes and titles of irrelevance that are "permanently" at the top of search results.

I think many creators would self-clean the site organically if the policy was loosened with these things in mind.

As for who counts as a creator?  That is a good question. I think in many cases any participant should be able to submit a title deletion request with ease, which may be sufficient.  Remember that many of the titles in question are student projects, skits, or random uploads; these do not often have an organized team behind them.  It would be easier for the title to be re-submitted by a second creator who disagrees at a later date than to continue to block titles from being taken down due to the "facts".  This keeps the conversations about relevance in the real world, amongst filmmakers, collaborators, and fans, and not behind a locked vault on IMDB's side.

(Edited)
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
I would like to add that many titles during this same period may have been entered in good faith in the spirit of "serious" work:  for example, films that were in the process of being submitted to film festivals.  Due to the progress of digital technology, there has been a boom of independent filmmakers.  However, many of these works may have never premiered, nor were accepted to festivals, only screened for friends and family, or were "published" online and then removed.  I personally have titles on my page that were "serious" entries that never made it to the festivals or for all intents and purposes never saw the light of day.  Why does premature entry qualify them for permanent perseveration in the database?  Again, yes, they exist scientifically.  But the merits and viewership in the eyes of the public is zilch.  As a filmmaker, I should have the freedom to clean my page of obscurities known only to me and not spark a debate with IMDB.  I haven't seen any posts by filmmakers trying to fraudulently wipe away titles that have been documented to have played Sundance, SXSW, Cannes, etc.  Both serious filmmakers and non-filmmakers are pleading to help rid IMDB of garbage entires that no one has seen or cares about.  Obsessively factual is perhaps interesting if we are to look back at Spielberg's first few credits shot on actual celluloid.  But in the modern age where it could be argued that anyone with a cellphone is a filmmaker, obsessively factual is counterproductive to IMDB and eerily dystopian to filmmakers building reputable profiles on the website.  If I step out into the street in front of viral video team shooting a prank video, am I forever "Man on Street" on my IMDB page?  Side-by-side with credits that I worked extremely hard for and am proud of?  This is what the future looks like if policies are not adjusted.  Because IMDB dominates Google search results and doesn't exist in its own vacuum, this topic is of the utmost importance regarding people's privacy and reputations.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4624 Posts
  • 5330 Reply Likes
If there is evidence of "publication" (and if the material is not an embarrassing shabby piece of work that only its creators "understand") then the films probably belong cataloged.
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2343 Posts
  • 1848 Reply Likes

anybody gonna look here for these ??  (͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
My point exactly is that "publication" in the form of an "upload" (2005 - Present) is not in itself sufficient grounds for permanent entry into the database. 
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4624 Posts
  • 5330 Reply Likes
T, we know what your point is. Thank you.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 843 Posts
  • 989 Reply Likes
From Jeorj's post above:
If there is evidence of "publication" (and if the material is not an embarrassing shabby piece of work that only its creators "understand") then the films probably belong cataloged.
Now you want IMDb to evaluate whether the quality of the work merits inclusion in the database? No, no, no.

And elsewhere you mentioned the "copyright holder" should be able to remove the work; I wonder how many of these entries we're discussing actually have copyright holders.
(Edited)
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 843 Posts
  • 989 Reply Likes
From T's post above:
I think the grounds to apply flexibility to remove a title could simply be based on date (not site votes or views).  Post-2005 would do the trick. The issues I've gone into detail about all stem from a Post-YouTube world.
OK, I thought you were the one to mention number of votes.

I would LOVE for IMDb to get date-specific about policies. For instance, I'd like to be able to post photos on a Name page for long-deceased actors (and others). Clearly we'd have NO photos for Cary Grant if the current policy were in place when this Db was growing, since he died before IMDb was created. Now they only want people to post their own photos and pay for the privilege to keep them online. 

In another post from T:
any participant should be able to submit a title deletion request with ease, which may be sufficient.  Remember that many of the titles in question are student projects, skits, or random uploads; these do not often have an organized team behind them.  It would be easier for the title to be re-submitted by a second creator who disagrees at a later date
I suspect that concerns about allowing any participant to request deletion include
  • disgruntled participants who want to sabotage a project
  • thrashing of data being entered, taken down and entered again
  • being expected to archive information so that when the wind blows toward posting the project again, all prior information is restored
I don't think that "any participant" should have the right to request removal. But if it's so incomplete and premature that there is no legally registered copyright holder, that leaves IMDb in an uncomfortable position of who to believe.

I don't disagree with the idea that frivolous entries should be removable. But I think you can't just toss a policy idea into the fray without laying out most of the details of how it could be implemented. 
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
Thanks for your reply.

I am "tossing a policy idea into the fray" based on an obvious observable pattern in the hopes that the community and actual policy makers can discuss changes as we have been and hopefully perfect and implement a new strategy together.

A toddler can enter a title into IMDB, but an army of professionals who are in agreement cannot remove it.  "Facts are facts" is not a pillar that serves post-2005 entries.  Otherwise, the IMDB team better get to work entering the 5,000,000,000 titles that are viewed on YouTube per day.

I do not have the exact answers to every hypothetical nuance.

Why not start with the many creators who on a regular basis unanimously petition the removal of their own frivolous titles?

Titles in the "online publication" category could perhaps mirror Wikipedia's malleability and be self-policing.  Why must IMDB be petitioned regarding inconsequential works it knows nothing of?

In the spirit of the good old days, the only thing that should etch a title in stone on IMDB is a theatrical screening (including film festivals) or a televised screening.  Those are facts that everyone can get behind. 

Measuring general public interest regarding internet publications would be most accurate reverting power back to the actual public.

The problem from the past several years is that the freedom to add a title is 100%, yet the freedom to remove the same title is 0%.  This must be fixed.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4624 Posts
  • 5330 Reply Likes
Hi, bderoes. IMDb is not interested in evaluating the quality, but a number of creators complain about being embarrassed about their own "old, rudimentary, student projects" or something to that effect. The nature of their complaints usually resonate around that idea. It's some kind of vanity thing, I guess. I'm open to the idea of them being able to request that such works of their be de-cataloged under very limited circumstances.
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
The circumstances need not be limited.  Vanity or not, these sorts of titles whose only legacy is an upload and were originally entered in haste don't belong on a Movie Database for eternity. 
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4740 Posts
  • 5461 Reply Likes
Let us not forget that you still have the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to deal with, and a whole bunch of other websites. It is not easy to expunge "folk history" as it were nowadays.
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
All creators have control of their content across the internet in real-time in perpetuity and can strip down video from YouTube and Vimeo at will.  Individuals can edit their professional histories on sites like LinkedIn in real-time or delete profiles entirely with ease.  IMDB is the only site that creates a huge impenetrable barrier between creators and their own cataloged works.  This must change.

The outcome would be a better organized website of higher quality with happier users.  

I'm not sure when those in charge become blinded by "facts are facts" with a detrimental obsession on accuracy which only negatively affects user experience, professional reputations, and crowds a legitimate catalog. 
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4624 Posts
  • 5330 Reply Likes
Wikipedia and other documentarian outlets also do the same thing as IMDb. However, IMDb is one of the few without or with a very broad "general notability guideline", and even Wikipedia's general notability guideline only really applies in regards to the eligibility of a standalone encyclopedia article to exist, meaning that a notable person's filmography in its entirety can be included.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin

Nikolay Yeriomin, Champion

  • 1655 Posts
  • 1689 Reply Likes
I am adding titles (including my own productions) to IMDb since 2010 and I am actually very much glad that many more things are eligible: YouTube productions, web series, music videos and even commercials. All of those tend to have much cultural value, are technically movies in the wider sense of the term (which comes back to "moving images") and, first and foremost, they also tend to require as much inspiration, skill and production values. It might not seem evident to many people, especially to those who are older, but some of the web efforts might have much more impact then award-winning short films just because websites like YouTube and Vimeo offer a simple and very effective distribution strategy that actually makes eligible to audience on a large scale. Potentially anything uploaded on YouTube (well, if it abides a simple plethora of rules the platform chose to instate) has a fair chance of making as much impact as some of the big budget movies do. Some productions already did. 

While film festivals and theatrical distribution are in, my humble opinion, great and much needed things, they are no longer exclusive means by which (for example) short films could be seen by people and make impact. In fact it might be argued that 2 minute video made by a single filmmaker on a budget of $1 might have more cultural impact, audience and residual results then award-winning short film that entered theatrical distribution and cost $10,000 to produce. It sounds sad from a perspective of a filmmaker who invested in his craftsmanship and reputation only to find that funny videos on the internet are on IMDb as well, are perfectly eligible and find their audiences while his works are basically on the same level of public recognition because traditional distribution strategy is not always working. 

The thing is: for some people it is industry and for some people what they do is art. Some people, me included, apply a mixed approach, but it could be agreed that IMDb is equally made for both types of people and expansion of eligibility criteria is also beneficial for both of those categories as well. Professional filmmakers who also work on music videos and/or commercials (of which there are many) finally have the ability to list some of their most known works (and I'm not exaggerating here: Xavier Dolan might be an award winning director with a resume of major award-winning feature films but his most seen work in the world is still a music video which has almost 2,5 billion views on YouTube). Those who percieve what they do as art, no matter how outsider or local that art is have an ability to have their audio-visual creations listed on a database for the purpose of their audience discovering more of their work as well having a general outlook of such. 

There are constructive and unconcstructive ways of dealing with situation. In my humble opinion suggesting that eligibility of some media obstructs abilities of other media is unconstructive because it makes people immediately argue over subjective views on what should be eligible and should be not, instead of spending their time perfecting what we already have in much more sufficient ways. And that "does not belong on IMDb" is just a classical result of Streisand effect. People don't understand simple consequences of working in filmmaking, whether as as industry or as an art form: if you agreed, signed a contract and was credited for your work that is no longer private information. You can't delete any trace of what you've done just because you don't want your early disgrace to be seen.  

And yes, "Honestly who cares?" I can pretty much take as a personal offence, because I care and I know that I'm far from only person in that regard. You don't want to hear that notion aimed at your projects and hard work, I'm quite sure about that. But still you aim it at a whole sector of both creators and audience, as well as people who go extra mile to ensure that what is listed on IMDb is listed according to all the rules and with maximum effort, regardless of medium, budget or how "professional" (which for many jobs in filmmaking seems to be a transcendent and at times even abstract term) creators are. After seeing for dozens of years how some amazingly talented people were barely able to achieve fewer things because there was no place for them in the industry hearing some other people complaining that their work should not be listed on a database of audio-visual media just because it does not appear to fulfill their personal standards is quite a sad thing. I'm sorry, but your concerns do look very much like basic jealousy over the fact that nowadays much more things are eligible on IMDb, while when you started it was not as easy. It's not necessarily what they are, but just how they might look like from my perspective.   
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
"Honestly, who cares?" was aimed at the circumstance that an unknown title of no importance or substance is disappeared from the database at the creator's request.  No one cares other than the creator.  There is zero consequence.  Let it be removed.  Please keep the discussion focused on this theme.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4633 Posts
  • 5340 Reply Likes
The person who has seen and submits the information about the movie cares.
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
We're specifically discussing titles that were submitted by the creators due to the small scope and triviality.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4633 Posts
  • 5340 Reply Likes
If you say so.
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
Additionally, I think something to consider is that anyone who is living has a right to claim their name and delist themselves from IMDB.  Why not?  It's barbaric that this is currently not the case and non-filmmakers are at war with IMDB because their name appears in Google search results from a student project, illegitimate project, etc.  There isn't a single other site on the web with such irrevocable permanence and a callous disregard for what is even entered to begin with.  

This thread isn't about what belongs on IMDB in the digital age so much as it is about allowing users the freedom and the choice to opt out.  A simple feature that is long overdue.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4740 Posts
  • 5461 Reply Likes
Photo of T

T

  • 18 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
I believe that the following point deserves its own serious consideration:

Anyone credited (2005 - present) should have a right to claim their name and delist themselves from IMDB.

Users should be granted the freedom and choice to have control of their own name and opt out.  No one seriously pursuing filmmaking will want to opt out.  Let the database be cleared of names and titles of no importance at the owner's request!  The "facts are facts" policy is going to destroy IMDB.
(Edited)
Photo of abdurahman49 .

abdurahman49 .

  • 22 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Users should be granted the freedom and choice to have control of their own name and opt out.

Absurd proposition. IMDb would be in shambles.

Might as well delete the database, and free the populace from the shackles of IMDb. 
Photo of Bucky Fuller

Bucky Fuller

  • 14 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
The original poster is clear if you read carefully.  If the titles associated to a name haven't played theaters, television, or film festivals (in other words, hasty internet uploads from the YouTube-era), then the names and titles should be easily removed at the creator's will, clearing the database of trivial entires. This makes perfect sense and is much needed.  I am excited for this to inevitably be implemented in the near future.
(Edited)
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6191 Posts
  • 3348 Reply Likes
I am excited for this to inevitably be implemented in the near future.
Of which there is zero chance, sorry.

Please see https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/i-tried-to-delete-data-but-it-st...
Photo of Bucky Fuller

Bucky Fuller

  • 14 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Thank you for your reply, sir.  There is zero chance of flexibility with retroactively correcting YouTube-era submissions?  I think many important points have been discussed above to warrant further consideration to the thesis:

 When did "factual" become more important than "noteworthy"?
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4624 Posts
  • 5330 Reply Likes
Bucky Fuller, maybe that's for you to figure out.
Photo of Bucky Fuller

Bucky Fuller

  • 14 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
There are currently around 20+ videos on YouTube featuring Col Needham that have not been entered into the database.  Do these need to be entered?
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4624 Posts
  • 5330 Reply Likes
They do not need to be entered but they also do not need to be removed should they wind up having been entered.
Photo of Bucky Fuller

Bucky Fuller

  • 14 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
What you meant is that they cannot be removed once entered.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin

Nikolay Yeriomin, Champion

  • 1634 Posts
  • 1644 Reply Likes
If videos will meet at least basic eligibility criteria, they can be added. 
Photo of Bucky Fuller

Bucky Fuller

  • 14 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
According to the current criteria which has been argued against above, they are eligible if they are on Youtube and for no other reason.
(Edited)
Photo of Bucky Fuller

Bucky Fuller

  • 14 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
These have already been detailed and discussed above.  As mentioned early on, the blanket terms as currently written for "online video" cover anything on YouTube with no actual or meaningful specifications.

Videos that have been "made available to the public" classifies all 5,000,000,000 uploads on YouTube.  

Anyone who continues to link to IMDB policy, isn't understanding or digesting the conversation.  Poorly drafted policy is the issue.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4624 Posts
  • 5330 Reply Likes
Bucky Fuller, there are exceptions if you bother to take note of them.
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes
.

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/learn-how-to-make-imdb-poll-on-youtube-easy-tutorial-for-beg...

IMDb Poll FAQ:
Learn How to Make IMDb Poll on YouTube | Easy Tutorial for Beginners

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZBWzC1BF8A

Hello IMDb Universe!
I have made this video for the IMDb users 
who love to discuss movies, TV shows, video games, celebrity news 
and wants to participate on IMDb Poll program, 
but not getting an audio visual way of how to make IMDb Polls.
I hope this video will help you to understand.
by Dibyayan Chakravorty, Champion


Posted July 30 2018
by Dibyayan Chakravorty, Champion
Joined on August 23, 2014
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/people/dibyayan_chakravorty
- - -

A great video!
I have a feeling it will end up being a title on IMDb one day. :)
by Nikolay Yeriomin, Champion
Joined on October 12, 2017
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/people/nikolay_yeriomin
- - -

OMG!!! Am I going to have an IMDb 'name' page...!!! HA HA HA...!!!
by Dibyayan Chakravorty, Champion



(Edited)
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

Can not EDIT above after a 'Like'. Need to add:

Hello IMDb Universe!
I have made this video for the IMDb users
who love to discuss movies, TV shows, video games, celebrity news
and wants to participate on IMDb Poll program,
but not getting an audio visual way of how to make IMDb Polls.
I hope this video will help you to understand.
by Dibyayan Chakravorty, Champion


Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin

Nikolay Yeriomin, Champion

  • 1655 Posts
  • 1689 Reply Likes
Sorry for that, it was hard to resist liking that commentary. Added it to your initial comment via admin abilities. :) 
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes


.
Someone want to check and see if these are listed at IMDb and add any that are  missing ? ?

Col Needham YouTubes:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Col+Needham+imdb - About 415 results

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Col+Needham - About 1,080 results

- - -

Col Needham
Founder and CEO of the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1000000/



(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4740 Posts
  • 5461 Reply Likes
In order to catalog them, some more information would be needed to be known. Who is the biographer? Who is the producer? Who is the director? Who is the cinematographer? Who is the editor? What was the budget? It is not enough to only be able to identify the interviewee.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin

Nikolay Yeriomin, Champion

  • 1655 Posts
  • 1689 Reply Likes
I doubt I will conduct a search for eligible titles with Col Needham in them on purpose (I am enthusiastic, but I have my limits)  but if I'll ever encounter one with credits and eligibility I won't find on IMDb, it will go either on my list of "to add" (especially if it will require further research) or straight to IMDb if I will have free time on my hands and the title will grab me enough. For now I'm aware of at least one special thanks credit on an eligible title that I will hopefully add soon.
(Edited)
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

Why does someone add a title without credits ? ?

Lady Liberty  (2018)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8797000/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8797000/reference
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8797000/releaseinfo
we don't have any release dates for this title yet

No credits

- - -
PS
This was added today



(Edited)
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin

Nikolay Yeriomin, Champion

  • 1655 Posts
  • 1689 Reply Likes
The only title I have ever added that lacks credits completely is this. It makes sense because it is a pirate television broadcast. It is certainly to influential for pop culture to ignore. 
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

Nikolay Yeriomin, Champion

The only title I have ever added that lacks credits completely is this.

- - -

Max Headroom Pirating Incident  (1987)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2048805/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2048805/reference
Anonymous   ...  Max Headroom (uncredited) 

Runtime 2 min


(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4740 Posts
  • 5461 Reply Likes
Hi, ACT_1. It's not unusual for an "in-development" or "pre-production" title to lack credits, yet ordinarily the release year is not the same year as material to be shot in September or so.
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes
Tom Jones - "It's Not Unusual"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGRZBa4cKWA

Why not wait until there is some credits to add ?
Not helpful to anyone with just a title here

Well... this is Not the ACT_!Db...

Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

Lady Liberty  (2018)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8797000/reference
Director: Taylor Nagel
Writer: Julia Lindon
Star: Julia Lindon
Produced by
Emily Dalmas 
Julia Lindon
Taylor Nagel 

Julia Lindon
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7103252/



Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

.

Wed Aug 8 2018

another must see movie added today!

Intervallo (A Day in the Life of a Cow)  (2018)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8812000/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8812000/reference

Plot
A regular day in the regular life of a regular cow.

Directed by Piero Tonin  
Written by Piero Tonin  ... writer
Produced by Piero Tonin  ... producer
Animation Department Piero Tonin  ... animator

Runtime 4 min

Country Italy

It looks like we don't have any release dates for this title yet

Piero Tonin (V)
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10034521/

.

(Edited)
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 2428 Posts
  • 1921 Reply Likes

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/how-to-delete-a-title

How to delete a title?
A commercial was added by someone from the crew,
that person lied about the project and added to the site.
How can I remove it?
It's a commercial.

Post-It  (2015)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4155376/
Director: Carinne Leduc
Writer: Carinne Leduc
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2335171/
Stars: Sara Sue Vallee, Christopher Webb
 
posted August 16, 2018
by Carinne Leduc
Joined on August 16, 2018
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/people/carinne_leduc


Photo of Bobby Hall

Bobby Hall

  • 12 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
What if I have scenes from a particular movie I made (actually it's a ridiculous video on youtube, but apparently on IMDb it qualifies as a "movie")? There are several scenes on youtube that are part of a larger project  that I completed and someone added them to IMDb. The finished project is on IMDb, so can I have these scenes removed since they're redundant?
Photo of Ed CliffJ Jones D. Weaver III

Ed CliffJ Jones D. Weaver III

  • 3355 Posts
  • 3228 Reply Likes
I had seen this post earlier, but made no reply as all that replied seemed to have said all that could be said about this subject. But the above post made me re-read this. The one idea that no one came up with is so simplistic, that it should be easily instituted without so much as a software fix, or the making or pleading here to remove a credit.
Solution:
Put in a contribution ticket. It would need a deletion for credit request and a submission request to move the credit to the "Other Works" category. A combined submission would be the only ones accepted for transferal. Parameters would be set up by IMDb for eligibility. This would remove it from the main web searches but maintain the completeness of the data by shifting it.
A short uncompleted project is much like a commercial that only airs for 30-45 days.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed CliffJ Jones D. Weaver III

Ed CliffJ Jones D. Weaver III

  • 3355 Posts
  • 3228 Reply Likes
Nikolay................................Your thoughts?
Idea/Solution above?