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.
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
- - -
Titles Released 1874 - 2025
Sort by Release Date, desc
Males/Females (Other ??)
Sorted by Name Ascending
- - -
Shepard Smith Reporting - TV Series
Episode dated 16 July 2018
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8705700/ # 8,705,700
Maricruz Isabella Herrera
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9974000/ # 9,974,000
Some Titles and Names pages are blank
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
IMDb Poll FAQ:
Learn How to Make IMDb Poll on YouTube | Easy Tutorial for Beginners
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
- - -
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
- - -
OMG!!! Am I going to have an IMDb 'name' page...!!! HA HA HA...!!!
by Dibyayan Chakravorty, Champion
Why does someone add a title without credits ? ?
Lady Liberty (2018)
we don't have any release dates for this title yet
- - -
This was added today
Wed Aug 8 2018
another must see movie added today!
Intervallo (A Day in the Life of a Cow) (2018)
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
It looks like we don't have any release dates for this title yet
Piero Tonin (V)
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.
Director: Carinne Leduc
Writer: Carinne Leduc
Stars: Sara Sue Vallee, Christopher Webb
posted August 16, 2018
by Carinne Leduc
Joined on August 16, 2018
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.
Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any IMDb Service, or any products or services sold or distributed by IMDb or through the IMDb Services will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify. The Federal Arbitration Act and federal arbitration law apply to this agreement.
a. There is no judge or jury in arbitration, and court review of an arbitration award is limited. However, an arbitrator can award on an individual basis the same damages and relief as a court (including injunctive and declaratory relief or statutory damages), and must follow the terms of these Conditions of Use as a court would.
b. To begin an arbitration proceeding, you must send a letter requesting arbitration and describing your claim to our registered agent Corporation Service Company, 300 Deschutes Way SW, Suite 304, Tumwater, WA 98051. The arbitration will be conducted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) under its rules, including the AAA’s Supplementary Procedures for Consumer-Related Disputes. The AAA’s rules are available at www.adr.org or by calling 1-800-778-7879. Payment of all filing, administration and arbitrator fees will be governed by the AAA’s rules. We will reimburse those fees for claims totaling less than $10,000 unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. Likewise, IMDb will not seek attorneys’ fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. You may choose to have the arbitration conducted by telephone, based on written submissions, or in person in the county where you live or at another mutually agreed location.