Last topic: IMDb mistakes

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Answered
Hello there.

IMDb recently removed all of our titles, but all of them had votes and they had links still available (although unlisted/private links, but available, and they still are). The reason was that unlisted links were not enough public release. We have recently received a lot of different statements about IMDb policies, for example: "Any title that has votes or was ever seen cannot be removed. That applies to titles that have had links removed and are no longer viewable", "This film is elegible because it has an unlisted link", "This movies have been deleted because they had unlisted links"... 


Miguel 18: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5609696/
Aramburu's Magical Mystery Tour: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5889746/ 
Aramburu Star: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8233480/ 

This titles have unlisted YouTube links as 12 of the deleted titles from our filmography. They are not or have never been available to the public. Never. Note the case of Aramburu's Magical Mystery Tour, which was specially debated with Col Needham himself (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/accepting-a-title). This title was published with and unlisted YouTube link as the other films that has been deleted. IMDb decided to make this film "elegible" and resurrected the title. Three months later, they deleted everything of our filmography for the same reason: they had unlisted YouTube links, and that meant the titles weren't elegible. If this movie is staying on IMDb, the others must return, as they are in the exact same condition. If the other movies are not elegible, this film is not elegible either, so it should be removed from the site. The other two titles are in the same condition: just unlisted links. It seems easy. 

Asesinato: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5612240/ 
Lo mejor de lo peor: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5615172/

And about this two titles, they have never been available to the public. Never, in any circumstance of the history of mankind. This titles have never been available to the public, never. 

So... what is the exact IMDb elegible criteria about links, unlisted links, available in the past links... and why IMDb doesn't stick always about it? Maybe its our problem that we don't understand, but it seems weird that IMDb doesn't apply the same judgement for titles with the same condition.



Cheers,

Grupo Manupedro. 
Photo of Grupo Manupedro

Grupo Manupedro

  • 70 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes

Posted 2 months ago

  • 2
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1776 Posts
  • 3018 Reply Likes
Photo of Grupo Manupedro

Grupo Manupedro

  • 70 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Exactly :)
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1776 Posts
  • 3018 Reply Likes
Grupo Manupedro
I haven't watched any of yours that keep to be in(ex)cluded...
it seems to me, and such situation points to this, that you keep trying to make your vlog accepted as a movie piece or smth alike?
(Edited)
Photo of Grupo Manupedro

Grupo Manupedro

  • 70 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
We do not want to cause more problems or bother IMDb. But it is difficult as IMDb answer emails with contradictions or simply ignore the real problem. The situation is simple:

We wanted to make some of our projects accepted by IMDb. After months and months, IMDb has decided to eliminate them all after months of weird statements. But the titles that are mentioned in this topic are in exactly the same conditions that the ones that were deleted: they just have unlisted links or even they never had any links at all (preivously explained up there). So... why are this titles alive and the others have been killed? They are in exactly the same conditions. It seems weird, especially when IMDb says "they are elegible as they have unlisted links" (some of them even doesn't have links at all, they are not elegible), and days ago the other titles were elimited because "they are not elegible as they have just unlisted links".

If the others are not elegible, this titles aren't either, therefore they should be eliminated. If they are elegible, the others are too. 

¿?
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1776 Posts
  • 3018 Reply Likes
Maybe the simple situation becomes complicated when you say not all the things that should be said, or understand not all the things that others told (e-mailed) you?

If there is your official channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCee7d3CfyZiGroxa8ncy8TQ/videos
the majority of clips there are promos (trailers, teasers, announcements) that are not proper to be titles on IMDb. They may be linked as clips to existing titles or pages of yours. And for sure, they are not of "the same elegibility" as, for example, this music video of Manuel Valentín Fdez & Adrián Meunier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTt0tYNplKo
If the two above-named are what Grupo Manupedro is, then that short movie is eligible for your page, I think. If they are third guys, this short is eligible as title, but no "Grupo Manupedro" is expected there... And so on, and so forth.

If you really don't want any problems for other people, just create the eligible titled products, and contributors of IMDb will be happy to keep that data consistent.
Photo of Grupo Manupedro

Grupo Manupedro

  • 70 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes

But that doesn't have anything to do with our post. Forget everything previous. Just this, clear:




Miguel 18: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5609696/
Aramburu's Magical Mystery Tour: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5889746/ 
Aramburu Star: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8233480/ 

This titles have just unlisted YouTube links, they are not or have never been available to the public (at least that we could demonstrate). Note the case of Aramburu's Magical Mystery Tour, which was specially debated with Col Needham himself (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/accepting-a-title). This title was published with an unlisted YouTube link (as the other films that have been deleted). IMDb decided to make this film "elegible" and resurrected the title because of this link. Three months later, they deleted everything of our filmography for an interesting reason: the titles just had unlisted YouTube links, and that meant the titles weren't elegible. If the other movies are not elegible, this just mentioned titles are not elegible either, so they should be removed from the site. 

Yes, we are not trying to add anything to IMDb, just understand why some titles have not been deleted while the majority of them have been deleted... and they are in the exact same condition. If the others titles are not elegible because they just have unlisted links, this titles aren't either, therefore they should be eliminated. If they are elegible, the others are too.

 

Asesinato: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5612240/ 
Lo mejor de lo peor: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5615172/

And about this two titles, they have never been available to the public. Never, in any circumstance of the history of mankind. This titles have never been available to the public, never. Why are they still alive?

Nothing else, and nothing more. 
(Edited)
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1776 Posts
  • 3018 Reply Likes
Title eligibility

"For a work to be eligible for inclusion in the database it must be of general public interest and should be available to the public or have been available in the past...

General public interest is assumed if a work has been:

  • Released in cinemas.
  • Shown on TV.
  • Released on video or the web or prints have been made available to the public.
  • Listed in the catalog of an established video retailer; (i.e. Amazon.com).
  • Accepted and shown on film festivals.
  • Made by a (now) famous artist or person of public interest.
  • Made famous for some reason and is widely talked about/referenced in media or the 'film community' or is now of general historic interest for some reason.

NOTE: Unless general public interest is assumed for one of the reasons stated above, general public interest is NOT given for titles:

  • Made for private home use only (i.e. like a home movie, which is of a strictly private nature).
...IMDb retains the right to reject any work whose eligibility according to above rules is dubious and/or unverifiable. This may include works which are in their very first development stages."
___________________________________________________

Nothing else, and nothing more, as you wished. 
Photo of Grupo Manupedro

Grupo Manupedro

  • 70 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
You have highlighted "should be available to the public or have been available in the past..." and "have been made available to the public", but still didn't answer our initial premise: 

Is an unlisted link enough condition by IMDb elegibility criteria? If it is not enough, why that three projects previously mentioned are still on IMDb? And why not deleting the other two titles that have never been available to the public? It looks like IMDb doesn't apply its own criteria. 
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1776 Posts
  • 3018 Reply Likes
First. There are more things highlighted. 
Second. What is not highlighted is also rules of IMDb.
Photo of Grupo Manupedro

Grupo Manupedro

  • 70 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
What is the point then?

Yes, we are not trying to add anything to IMDb, just understand why some titles have not been deleted while the majority of them have been deleted... and they are in the exact same condition. If the others titles are not elegible because they just have unlisted links, this titles aren't either, therefore they should be eliminated. 

Could someone explain why the titles previously posted in this topic are still on IMDb if they doesn't meet elegibility criteria? 

Thanks! 
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1776 Posts
  • 3018 Reply Likes
I believe you have the official explanations sent to your e-mail. 
Even if you trying to get any third words that could be opposite to the official's, it may be of no such help. Anyway, in the previuos 4 threads (episodes of this web-series :) been started on this topic, I see no enough persuasive explanations and evidences from your side concerning (in)eligibility of the declined titles.
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 3540 Posts
  • 4132 Reply Likes
Hello Grupo,

I can see that you've already been in contact with staff via the contact form, please continue to do so there.

Regards,
Will

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.