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

  • 1813 Posts
  • 3113 Reply Likes
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1813 Posts
  • 3113 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

  • 1813 Posts
  • 3113 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

  • 1813 Posts
  • 3113 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.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.