Sick of ridiculous "Unable To Verify" declines

  • 6
  • Question
  • Updated 3 months ago
  • Answered
I'm fed up with rejected submissions with abstruse reasons like "unable to verify"! This is way too much work. That reason is ridiculous on the face of it. It's used far too much as just an easy out for the editors' laziness, and is completely meaningless as well as irrelevant and incorrect. I get these rejection reasons on contributions where I provide a detailed explanation and evidence, so it's obvious that no editor has any valid "reason" for the rejection.

Here's a simple and stupid example I just got:

----
22 March 2020
#200322-212516-156000
tt12013658
Bean T-Shirts (25 July 2019)
Series: Handy Bean (2018-)

1 item: Running Time
Declined (1)
Reason: Unable to verify.

RUNNING TIME ADDITION
8 (expanded Wix version)
----

An explanation of this is necessary to see how ridiculous the rejection is. This timing is described on IMDb for this title under Alternate Versions: 8 minutes for the "expanded Wix version", and the version is listed on IMDb for this title under the 2nd Release Date: 10/8/2019 for the "expanded Wix version". So the details are already in two places under this title.

You can even see the episode timing yourself on the official copy on YouTube (just remove the extraneous advert at the end) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjlOR...

But such explanations included with a submission should be unnecessary, yet even when they ARE included they fall on deaf ears.

Do I really have to post every single rejection I get on Get Satisfaction and wait for them to be done manually? That's more work than I'm willing to do, beyond the VOLUNTEER work I do contributing in the first place! I had this same problem, oodles of rejections last Summer, I gave up and quit contributing. I'm back now and here it comes again with this nonsense.

I hadn't done much with IMDb for a couple years, after always having every single one of my previous hundreds of contribution submissions accepted (and fast), then last Summer I return, and almost everything is rejected. AND it takes up to 7 days to get that rejection, nothing immediate anymore. Same now (March 2020) after a 7 month break because of disgust. This is torture.
Photo of GoodFlixGary

GoodFlixGary

  • 175 Posts
  • 152 Reply Likes

Posted 3 months ago

  • 6
Photo of DrProfessor

DrProfessor

  • 10 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
I've had this issue also. I've even posted up to half a dozen verifiable resources which must be completely ignored. I have no idea what they are doing to miss these clearly verifiable values, but it makes me feel as though my efforts are completely in vain.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7537 Posts
  • 9611 Reply Likes
Gary: As I've stated before, "unable to verify" seems to be used far too often when verification is not actually the problem. See https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/is-unable-to-verify-the-right-term-to-use. I am giving you a "me too" vote on this.

Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1810 Posts
  • 2371 Reply Likes
How many (different) running times can actually be listed to each title? The guide kinda mentions one, but then again doesn’t outright forbid adding several.

I personally add all the alternate running times to the ”Alternate versions” section (where you can also explain the differences etc). I rarely try to add them to the actual ”Running times” section.

( https://help.imdb.com/article/contrib...# )
Photo of Jaime

Jaime, Employee

  • 678 Posts
  • 919 Reply Likes
Hi there,

I can see we have been in contact via our Help Site please keep communicating with us via those means.

Thanks!
Photo of GoodFlixGary

GoodFlixGary

  • 175 Posts
  • 152 Reply Likes
The so-called help site (via email response) is no help at all with either this issue or my and everyone else's being sick of it. This is something IMDb admins need to deal with yourselves internally, as it is an increasing problem with your "editors".

For all we know, the admins (or "employees") like you could be the so-called editors. Jaime, your response here, as well as your irrelevant, cryptic, and totally unhelpful "unable to verify"-type response to me in email, is indicative of that possibility.

Also interesting is the fact that your email response to me was a reply to an issue that was not of an "unable to verify" issue but of something entirely unrelated: infinite "pending" contributions, which I've talked about in another thread. That could be a technical issue or a personnel issue. But your irrelevant response is indicative of a larger issue that is possibly at least one cause of the "unable to verify" responses: failure or refusal to read our submissions (or help desk emails obviously), especially the explanatory boxes you are so hepped up on.

Obviously no amount of material in explanatory boxes will help if nobody reads it.

Your attitude, and similar or even worse attitudes like shills, denials, and coverups that we've seen here in this public forum, also might explain why there are personnel problems like this, as well as other technical and personnel problems, that we contributors face every day.

Nothing is ever going to get solved, and it's only getting worse over the past decade.
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 201 Reply Likes
I feel you, I provide first-hand sources, lots of proofs and they just don't even look at them and blindly decline while some people somehow can get things like this approved: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/someone-made-an-imdb-page-for-me-without-my-consent


Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 377 Posts
  • 229 Reply Likes
I feel you too, meka --- LOL!!!!!

Seriously, I know I provide sourcing or explanations and get the "Unable To Verify" response way too often.
(Edited)