Now this is just plain ridiculous

  • 4
  • Problem
  • Updated 8 months ago
  • Solved


Does someone of your staff just press buttons randomly or what?
Photo of Saluton

Saluton

  • 72 Posts
  • 61 Reply Likes

Posted 8 months ago

  • 4
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3408 Posts
  • 3259 Reply Likes

Now this is just plain ridiculous
by Saluton
Joined on December 16, 2017
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/people/saluton
- - -

? ?

Cimarron  (1931)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021746/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021746/reference

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021746/trivia
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021746/trivia?item=tr0679221
This film has the lowest IMDb rating (6.0)
of all Best Picture Oscar winners as of December 2017,
along with Cavalcade (1933).

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021746/ratings
4,617 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 6.0 / 10
- - -


Cavalcade  (1933)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023876/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023876/reference

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023876/trivia
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023876/trivia?item=tr1911150
As of December 2018,
this film has the lowest IMDb rating (6.0, along with Cimarron (1931))
and the fewest IMDb votes out of all Best Picture Oscar winners.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023876/ratings
3,812 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 6.0 / 10
.

Photo of Saluton

Saluton

  • 72 Posts
  • 61 Reply Likes
What's the point of your reply?
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3408 Posts
  • 3259 Reply Likes

Cavalcade  (1933)
As of December 2018,
this film has the lowest IMDb rating (6.0, along with Cimarron (1931))
and the fewest IMDb votes out of all Best Picture Oscar winners.

Changed from
As of December 2017,
this film has the lowest IMDb rating (6.0, along with Cimarron (1931))
and the fewest IMDb votes out of all Best Picture Oscar winners.


What's the point of your original comment ? ?.

.

Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14404 Posts
  • 16454 Reply Likes
Saulton, you will have to excuse Act_1.
He means well.
He is a data miner.
He just puts up data without regard to it's usefulness, which in this case is not.
I see what you are trying to say.
An IMDb employee should address this.
They may or may not get to it today.
Don't know if they are having a short day because it is new years eve.
They are based in the UK so their day is pretty much over.
I'm would be willing to bet they reverse the declined one.
I do see the irony though.
It's a little funny if you ask me.
Happy New Year
Cheers.
Photo of Saluton

Saluton

  • 72 Posts
  • 61 Reply Likes
"They are based in the UK"
Seriously? I thought US.
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12506 Posts
  • 9212 Reply Likes
Hi Saluton -

I can see that this requested trivia update should have been approved, I have now corrected the year in the trivia item and the change is live on the site: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021746/trivia?ref_=tt_ql_2

Thanks again, and Happy New Year!
(Edited)
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3408 Posts
  • 3259 Reply Likes

Hi! Michelle, Official Rep

I can see that this requested trivia update should have been approved:

- - -

Now:
Cimarron  (1931) 
Trivia
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021746/trivia?item=tr0679221
This film has the lowest IMDb rating (6.0)
of all Best Picture Oscar winners as of December 2018,
along with Cavalcade (1933).
- - -

I have this posted above - was not useful to others here

Old
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021746/trivia?item=tr0679221
This film has the lowest IMDb rating (6.0)
of all Best Picture Oscar winners as of December 2017,
along with Cavalcade (1933).

.

(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14406 Posts
  • 16454 Reply Likes

Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14406 Posts
  • 16454 Reply Likes
Thanks Michelle
HNY
Cheers
(Edited)
Photo of Cass

Cass

  • 15 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Just chiming in because I had this same issue a little while back. In short, I assume it's some kind of back-door bugginess happening specifically when the "other" field is used. I don't know for sure if it was officially resolved after my last post, but it did go away after a while. However, I noticed it happening again on a recent submission, so idk...

Also, re the use of "current" dates (ie "As of xxxx..."), I remember reading in a style guide a long time ago that the language used was preferred to be timeless, so that phrases like this were actually not preferred and should be left out. Otherwise, a lot of effort would have to be made to make sure they are perpetually updated. Tbh, I always remove those phrases when I come across them (but won't here) for that reason. Has this guideline since changed?? I couldn't find it anymore.

ps My 2-cent interpretation of ACT_1's post was just to provide links and words, which were "not" provided in the original post because it was just pictures. I'm not trying to stir things up, I just also think he means well.





Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14315 Posts
  • 16322 Reply Likes
Cass,
thanks for the chime in.
I don't think anything has changed.
I also think that timeless thing is sometimes enforced, not always.

And finally Act_1 for a fact does indeed mean well. He just blindly does it without regard to the topic by the posters question. Data stats are rarely called for as a first reply. 1 picture is worth a thousand words. It also saves you from typing those thousand words. It is efficient. Endless links, that while they "May Be" relevant, are in most cases information overload. Also repeating the question annoys most questioners. As this poster was above. (Saluton)

Thanks
Happy New Year
Cheers
Photo of Saluton

Saluton

  • 72 Posts
  • 61 Reply Likes
No, correcting the dates doesn't take a lot of effort. A quick Google search once a year (not even a Google search in this particular instance), then "Edit page" and you're good. But whether trivia related to IMDb ratings should be posted is indeed subject to discussion because this information can be viewed as provoking to vote and rate differently.
(Edited)
Photo of Cass

Cass

  • 15 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Yes, I agree. If it's just a few or a few handfuls, then it's not such a big deal. The real work comes from the potential of hundreds (thousands?) of entries to be corrected yearly. Plus, you have to remember which ones or at least find them all again. You could write a code for that, but the corrections still have to be submitted by hand. And I know people aren't doing that very well because the majority I come across are several years old, like 2014, 2012, a few were even older. Out of all the corrections I did this past year, only one or two had 2017 or 2018.
Photo of Saluton

Saluton

  • 72 Posts
  • 61 Reply Likes
"Problem solved", heh heh. The problem is not that an item wasn't updated. It is that someone doesn't understand what they are doing.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7165 Posts
  • 9274 Reply Likes
Who is to say that the problem of failing to understand was not solved as well? If there is another incident of just plain ridiculousness, then please let the IMDb Community know.
Photo of Cass

Cass

  • 15 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
My point is that it's not someone per se, but some bit of code or algorithm that's not understanding.

BTW I really hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you! I think we can agree that whatever is going on needs to be fixed.