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 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.