need help with #190928-052229-354000 #190927-172350-666000 #190927-174711-714000

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
only fixing self-credits so should not have been rejected with "unable to verify". Unable to verify is completely non-nonsensical since all the reviewer had to do was read the imdb guide and the title. Very confusing.
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes

Posted 2 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Joel

Joel, Employee

  • 1007 Posts
  • 1277 Reply Likes
Hi MikeTheWhistle,

Thanks for your post.

I've re-reviewed these now and have approved them to the database on your behalf. 

I have also forwarded this information onto the necessary team for additional training.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks,

Joel 
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17433 Posts
  • 19810 Reply Likes
This is what I was talking about, Mike.
This constant re-reviewing due to rejections that should never happen.
I'll stick to my photo uploads. I may get a 1 in 50 rejection on uploads.
But removals I wont touch with a ten foot pole. Rejection rate is over 50%.
Sigh!
:):)
(Edited)
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes
Fortunately my reject rate on trivia and goof items is pretty low. I'd guess maybe less than 10%. I don't do a lot of photos but many rejects are unexplainable or nonsensical. I try to do titles that have no images, but I really spend my time correcting tags especially trying to id actors that aren't tagged. It takes work. I wish that an image on a particular tv episode would limit the actors to select from to those actors in the episode. It would make it so much easier.

Photo of SarahJ2022

SarahJ2022

  • 4 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Ed's right. This, Will's reply, is just another example of saying we'll look at this so it doesn't happen again knowing full well that it will. Based on the dates of your post and the contributions, it's obvious these were rejected by IMDB's automated system, but make no mistake, people reject stuff like this all the time. It guarantees job security because it will require another contribution to resolve. The answer is to keep an accuracy rating on reviewers to force them to do the job.
I know how the IMDB system works as my ex is one of them. The fact is they don't care if the data is accurate or not, only that there will be a continuous flow of contributions. Anyone who has contributed for a long time will see that. New items are very easy to get accepted, but changing anything, much less removing, is near impossible because the message to reviewers is the higher the numbers the better.
When I find a more appropriate message I'll give you insight to the system. It will blow your mind.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1191 Posts
  • 1477 Reply Likes
New items are very easy to get accepted, but changing anything, much less removing, is near impossible

Not (completely) true: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/suggestions-dont-penalize-contributors-when-declinations-are... (scroll all the way to the bottom please because GetSat doesn't seem to be able to link to an individual post)
Photo of Phil G

Phil G

  • 147 Posts
  • 319 Reply Likes
because GetSat doesn't seem to be able to link to an individual post
Marco, the post's time ('15 minutes ago' etc) is a direct link to the individual post, you can get the uri from there.

Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes
wow. just learned two things today. I'm covered for this week and next week!!!! lol
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1191 Posts
  • 1477 Reply Likes
Marco, the post's time ('15 minutes ago' etc) is a direct link to the individual post, you can get the uri from there.

Thanks a bunch Phil!
(so here's a better link than my previous one: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/suggestions-dont-penalize-contributors-when-declinations-are...)