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: Old thread
How do I make sure that the most prominent titles in my filmography show up in the "Known for" section?
Right now I have films with not nearly as much popularity showing up in the "Known for" section of my page while a film which has become a media sensation doesn't even show up there. I would imagine the media sensation film is getting a lot more IMDb page hits.
Right now I have films with not nearly as much popularity showing up in the "Known for" section of my page while a film which has become a media sensation doesn't even show up there. I would imagine the media sensation film is getting a lot more IMDb page hits.
Posted 7 years ago
Peter, Champion
Then the parameters of the automatic selection should be changed. It's as easy as setting it to list the top 3 highest imdb rated items on the list.
DavidAH_Ca, Champion
If you had read When I search for a person, each matching name on the results page has a title next to it. How is that title chosen? which was linked from the above linked page, you would have seen that it is far more complex than that.
It states, in part :
You should also note that the Known For section is set up as an aid to the site's users, not as a way to promote your work (which the title of this thread indicates is how you are regarding it).
It states, in part :
Note that that is specifically about the Known For item listed in the Search results; however, the algorithm is, I believe, the same for the Section on the Name page.
The "Best Known For" title is automatically chosen among his/her credits through a complex weighting system.
Every credit in their filmography is assigned a "weight" based on a series of factors. These may include:
The job performed on the title (a credit as director will have more weight than a credit as production assistant).
The frequency of credits for a particular job in the context of
the person's filmography (writing credits may have more weight for
someone who is more frequently credited as a writer than as a producer)
The type of title (a credit for a theatrical feature has a different weight than a credit for a short film or a TV series)
The popularity of the title (this takes into consideration the
number of hits/page views, the average user rating, any awards won by the title and several other indicators)
The relative importance of the credit among similar ones for
the same title (for example an acting credit for someone who received top billing will weigh more than an acting credit for a cameo appearance; a single writing credit on a film will weigh more than a credit shared with several other writers, etc.)
Please note that these aren't the only factors we consider, but should
be enough to give an idea of the approach used to calculate the most
representative titles in someone's filmography. The title with the
highest score is chosen as the 'Best Known For' title.
You should also note that the Known For section is set up as an aid to the site's users, not as a way to promote your work (which the title of this thread indicates is how you are regarding it).
(Edited)
I'm not sure to begin with your interesting response. I didn't put any title in the thread subject heading. The heading clearly reads "How to best use the "Known for" section of one's profile." The point was to emphasize how I saw the current imdb "algorithms" as perhaps not working properly, and I was looking for help. I have no need to publicize any of my work on "getsatisfaction.com" or imdb's help threads. That doesn't even make sense. What a hostile and odd comment.
I already read through material on the "complex weighing system." As you can see above, a kind gentleman named "Peter" already posted a link for "Known For" section questions. So you're rather just repeating what's already been said because you think I didn't read about imdb's process? Not sure. Anyway...
The current issue is as follows... When you already have a title that's more popular for a credit that is probably given more importance (as per imdb's weighing system), why are the less popular titles showing up for credits given less priority? Wouldn't an Editor credit have priority over an Assistant Editor credit or a Post Production Assistant credit?
One more thing: yes, I've read that the selection cannot be influenced since it is automatic. This last post can be taken to show that the current algorithms leave something to be desired, and if things have changed since I posted or do change in the future, and we are able to help the algorithm function more like it is supposed to or perhaps more like some might like it to, then I would love to hear about it.
If you don't work for imdb, please let a helpful user with a better manner who can provide further insight respond instead.
I already read through material on the "complex weighing system." As you can see above, a kind gentleman named "Peter" already posted a link for "Known For" section questions. So you're rather just repeating what's already been said because you think I didn't read about imdb's process? Not sure. Anyway...
The current issue is as follows... When you already have a title that's more popular for a credit that is probably given more importance (as per imdb's weighing system), why are the less popular titles showing up for credits given less priority? Wouldn't an Editor credit have priority over an Assistant Editor credit or a Post Production Assistant credit?
One more thing: yes, I've read that the selection cannot be influenced since it is automatic. This last post can be taken to show that the current algorithms leave something to be desired, and if things have changed since I posted or do change in the future, and we are able to help the algorithm function more like it is supposed to or perhaps more like some might like it to, then I would love to hear about it.
If you don't work for imdb, please let a helpful user with a better manner who can provide further insight respond instead.
(Edited)
Emperor, Champion
David is replying to Darla, not you and he (and Peter) have been very helpful - all the answers are there.
Yep, as it says in David's quote:
Feel free to provide examples - staff might look into it and see if the algorithm needs tweaking. Although, of course, this has to work for everyone so they can't adjust it for only one user, but I'm sure they won't ever rule out fine-tuning if there are problems with fringe cases that are clearly not right.
Wouldn't an Editor credit have priority over an Assistant Editor credit or a Post Production Assistant credit?
Yep, as it says in David's quote:
The job performed on the title (a credit as director will have more weight than a credit as production assistant).
This last post can be taken to show that the current algorithms leave
something to be desired, and if things have changed since I posted or do
change in the future, and we are able to help the algorithm function
more like it is supposed to or perhaps more like some might like it to,
then I would love to hear about it.
Feel free to provide examples - staff might look into it and see if the algorithm needs tweaking. Although, of course, this has to work for everyone so they can't adjust it for only one user, but I'm sure they won't ever rule out fine-tuning if there are problems with fringe cases that are clearly not right.
(Edited)
I apologize to everyone for my comment. It was not said to be rude. It was just something I was thinking. I don't know what I am talking about - the technical aspects- so I do apologize. I would delete the comment but I don't see any buttons from my phone that allow me to do that, so just disregard it.
Dear "Emperor,"
I am the one asking the question and so will determine whether it has been answered. Peter was helpful, and David repeated the same kind of info. In fact, he was hostile. Not helpful. If he was speaking to Darla, he was hostile to her so what's the difference? You also don't get it. Once again, I've read about the imdb algorithm and am clearly pointing out how it's not working. That is why I am asking why mine isn't working properly. I don't need you to repeat what we covered six months ago. My editor credit for a film which is far more popular than the assistant editor credits being provided in the "known for" section is not showing up in the "known for" section. If you actually work for imdb, and aren't merely trying to defend an unprofessional online friend (you may even be David again with a changed nickname - doesn't matter), please do contact me privately so we can talk about how you can actually help me with my example. If you don't work for imdb, I am not interested in your opinion about whether David answered my question. If I provide the real example here, "DavidAH_Ca" or someone like him may once again accuse me of trying to publicize the film on which I worked on "getsatisfaction.com" or imdb's help threads, which is hilarious but not helping further the discussion.
If you are going to cut and paste sections of the Help section, please don't. We passed that point six months ago, and you're not understanding what I'm saying. Just move on and let someone else who can contribute speak up.
I am the one asking the question and so will determine whether it has been answered. Peter was helpful, and David repeated the same kind of info. In fact, he was hostile. Not helpful. If he was speaking to Darla, he was hostile to her so what's the difference? You also don't get it. Once again, I've read about the imdb algorithm and am clearly pointing out how it's not working. That is why I am asking why mine isn't working properly. I don't need you to repeat what we covered six months ago. My editor credit for a film which is far more popular than the assistant editor credits being provided in the "known for" section is not showing up in the "known for" section. If you actually work for imdb, and aren't merely trying to defend an unprofessional online friend (you may even be David again with a changed nickname - doesn't matter), please do contact me privately so we can talk about how you can actually help me with my example. If you don't work for imdb, I am not interested in your opinion about whether David answered my question. If I provide the real example here, "DavidAH_Ca" or someone like him may once again accuse me of trying to publicize the film on which I worked on "getsatisfaction.com" or imdb's help threads, which is hilarious but not helping further the discussion.
If you are going to cut and paste sections of the Help section, please don't. We passed that point six months ago, and you're not understanding what I'm saying. Just move on and let someone else who can contribute speak up.
(Edited)
Dear Darla,
There's no need to apologize. You haven't done anything wrong. :). The response to your comment (though I'm not sure how the response applies to your comment. It seems to possibly have been directed at my original query for help, but I don't know.) was hostile. You were not. You merely offered an opinion. As far as I can tell, that is not a crime. All good. Now if I could get someone from imdb to actually help me (if there are any such people on here), that would be fantastic. :)
There's no need to apologize. You haven't done anything wrong. :). The response to your comment (though I'm not sure how the response applies to your comment. It seems to possibly have been directed at my original query for help, but I don't know.) was hostile. You were not. You merely offered an opinion. As far as I can tell, that is not a crime. All good. Now if I could get someone from imdb to actually help me (if there are any such people on here), that would be fantastic. :)
DavidAH_Ca, Champion
Darla,
There is no need to apologize. There was an error on my part. I forgot to check the User Name, so I replied to your message as if it were form the OP.
The basic information in my reply is still correct, except for the last paragraph, and the tense in the first paragraph. I apologize for any misunderstanding this error caused.
There is no need to apologize. There was an error on my part. I forgot to check the User Name, so I replied to your message as if it were form the OP.
The basic information in my reply is still correct, except for the last paragraph, and the tense in the first paragraph. I apologize for any misunderstanding this error caused.
DavidAH_Ca, Champion
WIlliam:
I am sorry you felt that my reply was hostile; it certainly was not intended that way.
As I noted in a reply to Darla, I missed the fact that her comment was from a different person, not you. Because that reply totally ignored the complex algorithm that is explained in the item I linked, I assumed that you had probably missed the one-word text link to that particular page, and so I supplied the direct link as well as copying the section I was referring to.
The Subject Line of the primary thread is shown at the top of the window as (it seems to me) a title. I was referring to the text :
Since the Known For section was implemented on the base system people have been requesting changes to the items shown in that section, many of them explicitly stating that they don't best show off their latest work. My last paragraph was indicating that while IMDb provides the Resume Servise to allow the person named in the page to promote themselves with both the Resume page and the pictures they can upload, the Known For section is not intended for that, so IMDb will not change the system to allow the person named to choose.
Once again I apologize if my error on the posters or my wording came across as hostile; it was certainly not intended that way.
I am sorry you felt that my reply was hostile; it certainly was not intended that way.
As I noted in a reply to Darla, I missed the fact that her comment was from a different person, not you. Because that reply totally ignored the complex algorithm that is explained in the item I linked, I assumed that you had probably missed the one-word text link to that particular page, and so I supplied the direct link as well as copying the section I was referring to.
The Subject Line of the primary thread is shown at the top of the window as (it seems to me) a title. I was referring to the text :
How to best use the "Known for" section of one's profileI assumed you wished to publicize or promote the items you feel would best show your work. This is neither a put-down nor is it hostile; it is a recognition of the facts of the profession. Virtually every actor and director (superstars excepted) needs to promote themselves in order to get future work; it is part ot the job. (It is also necessary for any professional who works on short-term contracts, rather than as a full-time emplyee.)
Since the Known For section was implemented on the base system people have been requesting changes to the items shown in that section, many of them explicitly stating that they don't best show off their latest work. My last paragraph was indicating that while IMDb provides the Resume Servise to allow the person named in the page to promote themselves with both the Resume page and the pictures they can upload, the Known For section is not intended for that, so IMDb will not change the system to allow the person named to choose.
Once again I apologize if my error on the posters or my wording came across as hostile; it was certainly not intended that way.
(Edited)
David:
Yes, naturally I do wish to publicize the titles which best represent my work in the "Known For" section. I was responding to this comment you made at the end of your initial post where it at first sounded to me (because of the tone of the beginning of the your first reply) like you were accusing me of mentioning the title of my project in the title of the thread. Now I see that you're saying that it is set up as an aid to users, "not as a way to promote your work." Should I note that? Really? Let's be realistic. Everyone knows that having your most popular work for the "highest" (I take issue with this word but I think it gets the meaning across) position in the "Known For" section makes it immediately prominently displayed for anyone seeing your page. Whether it's intended as an aid over promotion is almost nonsensical to me. It is an aid because it is promotion. In this world of incredible media bombardment, people's attention spans are understandably fickle so it naturally helps to have that work in the most easily viewable places (the "Know For" section). As you put it yourself, self-promotion is extremely important in this industry. Won't the user looking at someone's page be aided by seeing the most popular titles for that person's most prominent positions? Do most users initially who are learning about someone care more that James Cameron created visual effects matte paintings on BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS or that he directed ALIENS? I'm fascinated by all of it, but most probably want to know about latter first. Iron Jim might also like movie lovers new to his work to know the latter first as well. If you look at his page, the imdb algorithm seems to agree with me there. This would also be the case for my page: The more prominent projects in bigger crew positions in the "Known For" section please. In other words, the user aid is promotion for whoever's page it is. They're not mutually exclusive.
With regards to your paragraph about imdb not changing the "Known For" system: Again, my point is that I've read about how the system should work, but unfortunately, it does not appear to be working that way for me. I worked on a project in a more prominent position and by fortune it became very popular. It shows up in the "Known For" section on many if not all of my co-workers pages who have it listed. However, it does not show up in mine. Instead, three of the four "Known For" poster slots have much less popular projects for a crew position which would be considered beneath the one I had on the more popular project. In other words, again, maybe the algorithm is not working the way it is supposed to on my page if I'm understanding it correctly/completely. I would love to speak to an imdb employee to whom I could privately (I'm shy) show examples of this.
The reason I misread your last sentence in the first message was that I was frustrated by your tone at the beginning of your post where you are speaking to me/Darla in the tone of "...if you had read..." and "you would have seen that it is far more complex than that." It is a bit hostile and rather condescending isn't it? Now I understand from your message above that you made a mistake and thought what Darla posted was from me. Ok, but what if Darla did read it and didn't understand it, or what if I had not understood? Or what if it was someone else and the person speaking was elderly and new to this? Please do consider that not everyone here has such facility with using the getsatisfaction.com system or imdb as you do. Some people on here, young, middle aged, elderly, don't have facility (yet) with certain technologies or certain applications, so we should all be sensitive to that. After all, they're simply looking for help, as am I. Let's help each other out.
That said, perhaps now someone can delete this entire thread? I'm not sure it's going to be too helpful to anyone else at this point.
I do believe you were trying to help. I appreciate your apology. It sounded sincere.
Peace in the Middle East,
William
Yes, naturally I do wish to publicize the titles which best represent my work in the "Known For" section. I was responding to this comment you made at the end of your initial post where it at first sounded to me (because of the tone of the beginning of the your first reply) like you were accusing me of mentioning the title of my project in the title of the thread. Now I see that you're saying that it is set up as an aid to users, "not as a way to promote your work." Should I note that? Really? Let's be realistic. Everyone knows that having your most popular work for the "highest" (I take issue with this word but I think it gets the meaning across) position in the "Known For" section makes it immediately prominently displayed for anyone seeing your page. Whether it's intended as an aid over promotion is almost nonsensical to me. It is an aid because it is promotion. In this world of incredible media bombardment, people's attention spans are understandably fickle so it naturally helps to have that work in the most easily viewable places (the "Know For" section). As you put it yourself, self-promotion is extremely important in this industry. Won't the user looking at someone's page be aided by seeing the most popular titles for that person's most prominent positions? Do most users initially who are learning about someone care more that James Cameron created visual effects matte paintings on BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS or that he directed ALIENS? I'm fascinated by all of it, but most probably want to know about latter first. Iron Jim might also like movie lovers new to his work to know the latter first as well. If you look at his page, the imdb algorithm seems to agree with me there. This would also be the case for my page: The more prominent projects in bigger crew positions in the "Known For" section please. In other words, the user aid is promotion for whoever's page it is. They're not mutually exclusive.
With regards to your paragraph about imdb not changing the "Known For" system: Again, my point is that I've read about how the system should work, but unfortunately, it does not appear to be working that way for me. I worked on a project in a more prominent position and by fortune it became very popular. It shows up in the "Known For" section on many if not all of my co-workers pages who have it listed. However, it does not show up in mine. Instead, three of the four "Known For" poster slots have much less popular projects for a crew position which would be considered beneath the one I had on the more popular project. In other words, again, maybe the algorithm is not working the way it is supposed to on my page if I'm understanding it correctly/completely. I would love to speak to an imdb employee to whom I could privately (I'm shy) show examples of this.
The reason I misread your last sentence in the first message was that I was frustrated by your tone at the beginning of your post where you are speaking to me/Darla in the tone of "...if you had read..." and "you would have seen that it is far more complex than that." It is a bit hostile and rather condescending isn't it? Now I understand from your message above that you made a mistake and thought what Darla posted was from me. Ok, but what if Darla did read it and didn't understand it, or what if I had not understood? Or what if it was someone else and the person speaking was elderly and new to this? Please do consider that not everyone here has such facility with using the getsatisfaction.com system or imdb as you do. Some people on here, young, middle aged, elderly, don't have facility (yet) with certain technologies or certain applications, so we should all be sensitive to that. After all, they're simply looking for help, as am I. Let's help each other out.
That said, perhaps now someone can delete this entire thread? I'm not sure it's going to be too helpful to anyone else at this point.
I do believe you were trying to help. I appreciate your apology. It sounded sincere.
Peace in the Middle East,
William
(Edited)
Anybody know if the algorithm for 'best known for' can be changed to exclude 'voice' acting? I think that would be a great improvement.
Peter, Champion
Except for people who are known for voice acting.
