How do I handle an implied threat from one of your contributors?

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Doesn't Need an Answer
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: No longer relevant

After a  LONG thread on the (uncredited) designation, one BluesmanSF, Champion wrote this, "edit to add:  Oh, and I just watched a film you produced and found, out of a cast of about 25, 19 errors and one or two omission, and half a dozen Producer credit errors (omissions, wrong job title, etc.) and finally got tired and might go back as there are probably a couple hundred more credits to review (damn those 'pay for credit' deals!).

Your time might be better spent with the credit errors and omissions (at a 75% rate) on your other more current films rather than removing a completely valid entry from a 60 years ago...just a thought (I am sure your cast/crew would appreciate it, as would this site's staff, users and data contributors)..." and then he closed the thread, NOT allowing any reply.

I therefore do not know the title he is referring to, or the course of action he is threatening. All I would say is, I may have been ONE of the producers on the title he watched and not responsible for posting the entries that he found egregious.  I have been fastidious in trying to maintain and uphold the integrity of IMDb and the validity of the entries. For I, too, believe that an accurate representation of all credits is for the betterment of the site as a whole and therefore for the industry as a whole. I use, and pay for IMBdPRO for that purpose.

I came to this GETSATISFACTION site at the recommendation by e-mail from an IMDb employee, and all I received was pain, misery, condescension and a lecture.  Well, not quite, but it was not the pleasant experience I expected.   Hey! Ho!
Photo of CFT

CFT

  • 22 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 1
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
What threat? No one has threatened anything? I corrected dozens of entries for you. How are you threatened? There were at least 19 errors, just in the cast, for The Dark Place and many omissions (no music writers' credits. A couple credits missing "uncredited" attributes. Name and job title errors. Etc.

What reply is needed? I told you I was correcting it for you? The thread was long since answered. You asked to have "uncredited" removed but since the work was not credited, that's not appropriate.

I also added the soundtrack list and corrected other entries on your Mickey Thomas dvd. I will check on some of the others if I can find credits for them as there is a good possibility of other errors and omissions.

If you take review of the entries as a "threat" of some sort, that's kind of your issue. But it's a regular thing on IMDb and the reason there is an edit button on all pages. It makes the site more accurate.
Photo of CFT

CFT

  • 22 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
BluesmanSF, for the THE DARK PLACE the entries were mostly made by one of the producers. You will note that I was a consulting producer on that title, even though you incorrectly said, "one of the films your produced."  Many entries were probably made by "The Front Office."

 I was chatting with Dean Devlin this morning about IMDb credits. His company Electric Entertainment produces a huge amount of television programming, mostly for TNT. He says that usually the Production Secretary enters the credits from the Unit Production Lists.  These are very accurate.  However, the Network can have the final say on screen-credits, often months later. This is the way the industry works, certainly network TV and major cable.

By "threat" I think you have got on my case. I don't like it.  I think you are now singling me out. I have TOTALLY accepted your "rulings" and quotes from the IMDb regulations re "Child in the House" and (uncredited). But now you keep banging on about it.

By "threat" you wrote the above, especially, "and finally got tired and might go back as there are probably a couple hundred more credits to review (damn those 'pay for credit' deals!) and then had the right to close the thread.   

I frankly no longer know whether you are staff at IMDb, paid by IMdb to do this work or a vigilante.  But you obviously have some programming rights beyond regular users. In any case, I will ask for an ombudsman from IMDb to intervene if I feel my fears are founded.

Or are you saying that you have hit the "edit" button (for example Mickey Thomas dvd) and added the soundtrack list waiting for approval as everyone else would, for I see no list on the site yet? 

I really thought that GETSATISFACTION meant just that. That this would be light-hearted and formulative. But you seem to have taken a real dislike to me.

To quote from the movies, "Say it ain't so!"

 
     
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Get Satisfaction is a clever title to a site. It's not run by IMDb. It doesn't mean you post your wishes and they're granted, though. IMDb uses this board because it has capabilities beyond those on its own message board system.

IMDb has a board called "The Sandbox"...there's no sand there. There's one called "The Watercooler"....there's no water, nor a cooler...funny how that works, eh?

For someone who has a problem with me (for which you should simply ignore me) you seem to keep asking me many questions.

Again, I am not an employee of IMDb or anyone else. We've covered this ground a few times. Employees answering questions on this forum are https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/details/employees. There are also users/contributors that respond regularly. They are https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/details/champions. None on this second list are employed by IMDb or Get Satisfaction.

They are identified, again, by "employee" or "official rep" appearing on their name tags.

You took, from me saying I was tired and would have to come back to fix the errors as a "threat?" Really?? That's the oddest thing I've ever heard...by far. Is there some definition of "threat" that I'm unaware of?? Very interesting. I am currently battling several life threatening medical conditions and tire easily...sorry that I tired and that you took that as a "threat" of some sort...couldn't help it...by being tired, I simply meant I was tired and since there seemed to be many, many, many errors, I thought it best to return later. As to the "damn those pay for credits..," I simply meant that there was, therefore, a lot of names listed and to be checked. Again, no threat, just me being tired and having a long, long way to go seeing as there were already 75% of the info I'd checked having errors. By the way, before coming back here, I made another 15 or 20 corrections. Names listed wrong, names listed twice (one guy, but his name was there twice as so-and-so (II) and so-and-so (V), etc.

It's not that I "singled you out" for being the one listed in credits needing tremendous amounts of attention...I am currently doing the same for several other titles or filmographies that have come to my attention.

I simply answered your question and you kept responding with more and with statements that were plain wrong, so I replied back.

As to the Mickey Thomas soundtrack list, submissions take 1-7 days to process and I submitted it last night. But, still, it is in fact there (though I see I missed a quotation mark and will have to correct it and another I can't find any info on yet). Go to the page for Rock 'n' Roll Greats: Starship Featuring Mickey Thomas. On the right side of the screen are quick links to the separate related pages. One is, under Did You Know?, Soundtracks. If you click it, you see the soundtrack list:

Soundtracks

"It's Not Over ('Til It's Over) (uncredited)
Written by John Van Tongeren, Phil Galdston and Robbie Nevil
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas

Jane
(uncredited)
Written by Paul Kantner, Craig Chaquico, Jim McPherson and David Freiberg
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas

Sara
(uncredited)
Written by Peter Wolf and Ina Wolf
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas

Stranger
(uncredited)
Written by Jeff Lynne, Pete Sears and Jeannette Sears
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas

Nothings Gonna Stop Us Now
Written by 'Diane Warren (I)' and Albert Hammond
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas

Find Your Way Back
(uncredited)
Written by Craig Chaquico and Tom Borsdorf
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas

We Built This City
(uncredited)
Written by Martin Page, Bernie Taupin, Dennis Lambert and Peter Wolf
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas

Fooled Around and Fell In Love
(uncredited)
Written by Elvin Bishop
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas

Somebody To Love
(uncredited)
Written by Darby Slick
Performed by Starship featuring Mickey Thomas



Re:
 I was chatting with Dean Devlin this morning about IMDb credits. His company Electric Entertainment produces a huge amount of television programming, mostly for TNT. He says that usually the Production Secretary enters the credits from the Unit Production Lists.  These are very accurate.
I would recommend going by, instead, the actual on screen credits as that is what IMDb documents and goes by (and users of the site look at and for-they don't care what your paperwork back at the office says...just what the credits say). Compared to the on screen credits for The Dark Place they are not even close to accurate. As I said, they're about 75% inaccurate (when you count names being entered wrong causing the credits to go to wrong pages, character or job titles being wrong, cast order being wrong and incomplete, credits completely missing from the page, etc.). Again, if you go by your paperwork but it differs from the on screen credits, others will forever be editing the pages you, or your colleagues, create. We/they cannot see your paperwork...just the film and the on screen credits.

re:
For I, too, believe that an accurate representation of all credits is for the betterment of the site as a whole and therefore for the industry as a whole. I use, and pay for IMBdPRO for that purpose.
Again, Pro or non-Pro, the process for adding/correcting credits from the on screen credits from films/shows is the same. Pro is not needed to add or correct data. You can use your Pro account or any free, regular, account. I know you know that but I am clearing that up in case someone is considering Pro to get their credits posted or corrected and they might be mislead by your comment (people ask about that often)...so bear with me...

I hope that helps.
Photo of LuvsToResearch

LuvsToResearch, Champion

  • 716 Posts
  • 827 Reply Likes
Feel better soon, Blues..
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
I'm trying! I made it over a few big hurdles...but have more to come. Just trying to keep on my feet and keep moving forward!

Thanks, Luvs!
Photo of CFT

CFT

  • 22 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
"I would recommend going by, instead, the actual on screen credits as that is what IMDb documents and goes by (and users of the site look at and for-they don't care what your paperwork back at the office says...just what the credits say). ..............................Again, if you go by your paperwork but it differs from the on screen credits, others will forever be editing the pages you, or your colleagues, create. We/they cannot see your paperwork...just the film and the on screen credits."

Blues, you wrote this. And in a perfect world the sterile IMDb rules, written up so many years ago, could and should be followed to the letter. But I believe the editors do have some flexibility. Equally I wonder how many have actually worked in production. A Feature Film credits are fairly straightforward and can/will follow these rules.

But let's talk about TV. The unit list goes to the editorial department. The Network/cable company Bluebook has already designated who can get a crew screen credit. Cast credits have been negotiated by the CD between agents and SAG/AFTRA. So when I say the unit list is accurate, THAT is the list I am talking about. And that is translated to the credit roll on the Edit Master with BOTH credits and a separate element sub-master "non-credit" (credit-background) that is delivered to the Network.

The Network often drops or squashes the end credits on broadcast. Sometimes it even re-lays the front credits except the contractual cast regulars. The original Edit Master with all the Crew credits, or many more crew credits than the Network broadcast, may never be seen - or turn up years later as a DVD Boxed Special.

So, Blues, which is the "Original" in IMDb's eyes? The first broadcast bastardized by the Network to crash in yet more commercials, or the pristine Edit Master seen years later as a DVD Boxed Set?

THIS, I believe is why so many crew member add themselves to crew lists. I think it is arbitrary whether the IMDb editors put (uncredited) or not. I truly believe you are being just too.............................................
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
You're welcome to your opinions. But, if your actions violate the rules of the site, perhaps you should stay off the site and contribute to wikipedia or some other site where you can simply make up anything you want.

IMDb is probably never going to cater to the whim of each contributor and let them simply put up whatever they like. They simply document the on screen credits. It's a simple idea. Nothing you've said above is relevant to the situation about what you're asking.

If you're truly asking what the original is...I guess I could explain...but can't believe it really, really needs explaining.

Titles list an original and earliest date of eligibility. That is, when it first aired or screened. That's what IMDb documents. So, if you're really asking what the original version is, it's that which is indicated by the earliest release date, not a DVD made 60 years later, etc.

If people add themselves when not in those original credits, IMDb considers and grants exceptions, but demands they add the "uncredited" attribute because it helps users...not confuses them. That's why your original post, demanding the removal of such an "attribute" was answered, then closed. There is no reason to be still discussing this. If you truly think IMDb should change what and how they list data, you should create a suggestion (called "idea" here) thread and suggest it. Otherwise, your concern has been explained dozens of times now. Uncredited, by IMDb definition, means your name does not appear in the credits of the original version of a film...so your listing for the film you're asking about is correctly displayed and cannot be changed...as you've discovered many times when your submissions were rejected.

I think it is arbitrary whether the IMDb editors put (uncredited) or not
I think you're wrong. They are quite clear in their many explanations. If an uncredited work does not have the "uncredited" attribute, it simply means they accepted the word of the submitter. Those are likely to be corrected or removed at a later date (I've had many removed or corrected just in the past week or two, including titles you've worked on that were inaccurately or fraudulently listed by someone either not knowing the rules or someone like you that just didn't care and thought he/she could simply make his/her own rules to manipulate their own pages to show inaccurate data.

Further, IMDb does not have sterile rules written so many years ago...the rules are continually changing and being fine tuned. I don't know what you base the statement you made on, but you're completely wrong. There are even warnings in the Help area that the rule is the current one and can be changed at any time.

See, for example: I worked on a film but did not receive a screen credit. Can I be listed in the database?

Which states:

Some important notes:

  • Uncredited work can be removed at any time. We periodically revise and adapt these criteria and reserve the right to retroactively restrict our eligibility rules for uncredited work.
A page, by the way, I've linked for you before, that you seem not to want to read and understand while choosing, instead, to go by your own opinion and imagination instead. But, changes in policies happen all the time. Current rules probably do not resemble the original ones much at all.

I hope that helps.
Photo of CFT

CFT

  • 22 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Blues.  I now have no idea what you are now writing about. But you obviously don't really READ what I write. You continually bang on about the 60 year old credit. I am WAY beyond that.  I wrote above about the every day event of creating the credit roll for TODAY's TV shows.  You really cannot let go our previous tread. GEE WHIZ.  Therefore I must suspect you do not know current TV production.

These are not opinions but the REAL world. Now I am at a disadvantage. You opine under a pseudonym, a nome de plume, yet you know exactly who I am. I work under my real name. You once said (paraphrasing) " "Never again, not going back into that world." So, com'mon, who are you? Your name. Let's see your IMDb credits, the shows you have worked on.

Now, more disturbingly, an entire thread that I wrote, querying about how you viewed your product, how you viewed the DARK PLACE, how you viewed the STARSHIP FEATURING MICKEY THOMAS has been removed. In no way did I imply your personal piracy, (congratulating your use of Fandora)  while stressing OUR Industry's work on Piracy in general,  but I did request your methods of viewing.

Because YOU may have been looking at pirated versions. The very DVD versions that you warned me that were not valid!!!

I must assume that you removed this submission under some "rules of the site."  You are therefore wielding a great sword of power, Blues-boy, yet under a cloak of pseudonymism (is that a word?

p.s. Your first 4 paragraphs above were really VERY condescending. PLEASE re-read my submission. It was in no way intended to be bombastic or argumentative. Networks change the credits all the time for the first broadcast of a show, especially co-star cast and crew end credits. If you, "Guess you could explain" you would be the true God of the many Network Bluebooks and Redbooks out there, yet alone Legal Standards & Practices Departments.          
Photo of CFT

CFT

  • 22 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
And, Bluesman, WHY do you KEEP referring back to the "Child in the House" (uncredited) credit time after time after time after time in almost every paragraph, as you have done above.

I have told you, I have read your "referred to" rules, I have understood them, I have accepted them.  You just go on and on and on and on like a broken record.  My hundreds of hours of delivering TV shows to Networks and cable entities "Deliverables, including the Title-less submaster" has NOTHING to do with this original query./ 
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
re:

Therefore I must suspect you do not know current TV production.
I know a little (I have friends and family in the business but as I've said, I am not). But that's not what we're talking about. If you have a question or concern about TV production as it relates to IMDb, surely you can post and someone can answer or explain. I know you referred to the lack of on screen credits on TV...I am well aware of that and it bothers me somewhat. I agree they should give credits and the damn networks should actually roll them so people could read them. But that's got nothing to do with anything about which you've posted in either thread. So when you replied about it, changing the subject to "prove" a moot point, I ignored it and left it for others to chime in if they could.

You opine under a pseudonym, a nome de plume, yet you know exactly who I am. I work under my real name
I was not aware of that (and didn't care) and actually know nothing about you outside of what you've said about yourself and about your IMDb listings.

Let's see your IMDb credits, the shows you have worked on.
I am not sure what it matters or why you'd ask but I have no IMDb credits. I mentioned this previously but...(who is not reading whom?)

These are not opinions but the REAL world
Your opinion is IMDb should list you for uncredited work, theirs is they should not...it's not the business their in. Yes, it's your opinion and nothing real at all.

Now, more disturbingly, an entire thread that I wrote, querying about how you viewed your product, how you viewed the DARK PLACE, how you viewed the STARSHIP FEATURING MICKEY THOMAS has been removed
Sorry. I never saw that. It was a separate thread? Your account shows you have started two conversations. I have never seen you ask how I saw them.

I own a DVD of the Mickey Thomas show that I purchased on Amazon, from Amazon (not an individual selling there). I bought it several years ago. It's not the best performance (I've seen him many times in small clubs with house bands, but years ago...like 80's to early 90's where he sounded much better) but I picked it up anyway.

I saw The Dark Place on Amazon instant video. I have no reason to believe it was a bootleg.

And, yes, I saw the other on Fandor.

I sincerely doubt that someone would create a bootleg and fiddle with the credits. But, I also doubt any of these were bootlegs at all.

I must assume that you removed this submission under some "rules of the site."
If you mean the post about where I saw the titles, I never saw it but doubt it violated any rules of the site. If I didn't want to, for some reason, reveal how/where I saw them, I could certainly just not reply. But I sincerely have no idea what happened to the post. Was it in this or the previous thread? Or a stand-alone new conversation? Your account just shows two conversations started.

Networks change the credits all the time for the first broadcast of a show, especially co-star cast and crew end credits
Yes...I am aware of that. If it's the "first" then yes it's the original version of the credits. That's what I meant about explaining...that yes, the first one is the first one and the one IMDb goes by. I am sure people submit screen caps of newer versions and are granted the credit, but that's outside of the rules. Unless IMDb already had on file the real originals, they'd probably just accept it.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
I actually only purchased the Mickey Thomas DVD a year and half ago:



This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.