General feedback

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 4 years ago

This conversation has been merged. Please reference the main conversation: IMDb submission interface feature requests

OMG thank GOD. I just went through the submission process earlier this month and it was just PAINFULLY stuck in 1993. 

I haven't seen the beta but I can offer this suggestion: You seriously need popups on EVERYTHING that quickly, succinctly, and completely explain what information you want and how you want it. Think of it like those little rollover popups when you enter a credit card that explain what a CSV is. I shouldn't have to click to one page for an explanation of writer credit numbering that literally suggests I go to another page to explain it. It's not that complicated that it can't be explained in a popup with a link therein to a page for further information if needed. 

Long story short, it's kind of appalling how the blue '?' icons aren't that helpful. And they really, really, REALLY need to be. They're not there to help the person who's gone through the process before and figured out the bizarre ins and outs of IMDB. They're there to guide first timers through so their first experience with IMDB is a complete train wreck. Which, judging by all the 'Closed For Not Being Productive' threads here means I'm not the only one who feels like that. 

Just my .02

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: IMDb submission interface Beta - official feedback thread.
Photo of Michael


  • 22 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Martin


  • 294 Posts
  • 151 Reply Likes
I'm inclined to agree with this. The help links on the submission forms aren't that helpful or informative. As a general rule, if a help link doesn't include a few examples of various typical types of data that could go in a field, it probably isn't being as helpful as it could be. An example is the variety of literature listings that can be associated with a title: the significance and typical values of fields like "Location" and "Source" should be described, and there desperately needs to be a clear distinction between "novel that is adapted into a film" and "novel that is derived from a film" to record which if the two (novel/film) was the original idea and which was the spin-off.

Fields which can only take one of several preset values (and no other value) need examples of equivalents so you can map job titles which aren't any of the preset values into the closest of those.

I'd advocate two levels of information: brief summary as a rollover and a link to a more complete description of values and their significance.

Two related entries that particularly need clarification are Cinematographer and Camera/Electrical: I always have difficulty deciding whether a particular job title in credits should go in Cin or Cam/Elec. When there is an explicit Cinematographer (or DoP or lighting camerman) credit, it's easy, because anything else that's camera-related probably goes in cam/elec, but when there is only a "camera" or "photography" credit, especially for a documentary, is that cin or cam/elec, given that the same person is probably choosing lighting placement and rigging lights for shots, composing those shots to look artistic and then operating the camera doing his own follow-focus - doing various roles that fall into both categories. All that could be explained in help.

Likewise, if the only editors in the credits are described as "on-line" and "off-line", should both go in Ed Dept or should one go in Editor on the grounds that someone is responsible for deciding which shots in the rushes should be included and what order they should be placed in - the role of an editor. Similarly, should any distinction be made between editor (or film editor) and videotape/VT editor? I've seen cases where TV programmes from the 1970s/80s which were often a combinations of filmed exteriors and VT studio interiors have the film editor in editor section and the VT editor in ed dept, when both roles probably have the same level of seniority and should both go in the same place (probably editor).

Maybe while the forms and the contributor process are being modified, the associated help text needs to be reviewed and expanded and/or made relevant to the present-day forms.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.