Suggestions: Don't penalize contributors when declinations are wrong

  • 7
  • Idea
  • Updated 1 month ago
When a contributor's contribution is declines and it never should have been, then imdb should take active steps to correct any negative impact on their account.

Based on a reply, contributor's are penalized when they have rejects even if those rejects were completely wrong. For example, I was rejected on over 500 film credits when I was only fixing credits where they were attributed "as" and it was the same name as the person. They should never have been rejected either by a bot or a person. All of these were "corrected" (although some still haven't been), but it still left me with countless rejects that impact my future contributions.

There should be a way for the reversal to change the "declination" to "approved" so as to give full credit to the contributor.  IMDB looks to contributors to fix errors, but there are other posts where fixing obvious errors are rejected because either a bot or a person fail to do the job. If the contributor then gets this reversed either by using "contact us" or her on GS, then the contributor they still have those negative marks against count against them and this is wrong and contrary to supporting contributors wanting to do further corrections. Why should I try and fix errors if they might be rejected? The answer is I shouldn't.

This would be a very easy thing to fix thru programming, and if IMDB is serious about wanting people to help, then they should implement a fix.

The post where it is stated that wrong declinations penalize the user is at
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/submission-declined-sami-sutker-attribute-is-identical-to-na...

Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes

Posted 2 months ago

  • 7
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1183 Posts
  • 1468 Reply Likes
Very good of you to post this here. Although it's been asked several times, this issue hasn't been properly dealt with yet by IMDb.
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 2063 Posts
  • 3494 Reply Likes
The most recent case for me to receive a decline is, perhaps, the most pictorial:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/problems-when-adding-or-correcting-links?topic-reply-list[se...

I had the standard penalty when just adding to my previous submission (auto penalty or what?) that is an option in the official guidelines. Plus, from practical point, I underwent an additional penalty when lost the opportunity to re-submit those data (huge volume) - now I need to analyse and input them anew.
Photo of Phil G

Phil G

  • 143 Posts
  • 317 Reply Likes
Although I agree with Will that individual declines likely have little effect and aren't worth worrying about, the problem as I see it is not with individual declines, but the cumulative effect of many incorrect declines.

When 1200+ items are initially declined in a single day, what effect is that having? (thanks to Joel every single one of those initially declined items was later accepted exactly as I'd submitted it)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17331 Posts
  • 19783 Reply Likes
Getty is an agency, so can not be deleted:

Wrong.
This is where you constantly run into trouble. Your interpretation is simplistic in nature.
It contains no extrapolation of a premise. Therefore you give advice based of this simplicity. Bad advice. You do this constantly.

From the topic you just referenced.
https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/general-information/can-i-use-a-photo-from-your-site-for-my-web-site-or-publication/G7V6PHXKDLLK7AS6?ref_=helpsrall#

Most of the photos on our site are licensed to us for our own use only.


Key here is the word "MOST".....Not ALL of the photos. Some of those Getty photos are not licensed to IMDb. They are upload by individuals and staff may have missed the Getty Watermark. I have realized this from following Mikes postings and was told by Peter IMDb Champion) that Getty Images be NOT USED in polls as they have a chance of being removed. I had to pull 20 photos and replace them with non Getty images to satisfy his wishes. I do not believe a Champion would lie about this.
So there is no hard and fast rule when it comes to the Getty Images.


Now, I have not taken the time to explore this, but that same topic has these 2 lines in it. It kinda explains that there is a way to check whether or not it is copyrighted to IMDb.

For images from agencies like WireImage, Getty Images and MPTV, their names are linked on pages where we display their photos. You may click on their names for more information about the agencies and links to their web sites where you can get licensing information.

Now your second link is confusing the issue at hand here and is not even remotely germain to this topic.

https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/names-biographical-data/links-to-external-sites-for-names/GJ6MHXQ7AHEMZL2Q?ref_=helpsrall#

I know you mean well, but your lack of comprehension of the IMDb help pages needs improvement MtP.
Thanks
Ed
:):)
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 2063 Posts
  • 3494 Reply Likes
I know you try to mean well, cEddy, but you constantly prefer to criticize other contributors and advisors more than to do a contribute. Your personal interest in keeping high the STARmeter prevails as always. You may keep thanking contributors for their hard work in maintaining the base.

Have a nice day
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17331 Posts
  • 19783 Reply Likes
No I don't. It is just 3 persons, You and two others. And the last time I DID thank you you got depressed over it and asked that I not praise you!!!!!
You give bad advice about 40% of the time.
I give bad advice about 5% or less of the time.
You would be so much better at this if your comprehension skills were better.
You Get an A+ from me for your effort. There is no denying you care. But your application is a B-. I hope you understand what A+ and B- is. I don't want you to misinterpret the meaning!
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 2063 Posts
  • 3494 Reply Likes
Edwin this your last warning.
Please do not speak to other contributors this way,
see the contributors charter.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17331 Posts
  • 19783 Reply Likes
I have spoken the truth and have not violated any portion of the contributors charter.
Please state anything above that violates ANY portion of the charter. You cannot.
To help you out in the future, don't try and interpret the help topic, just post the help topic in it's entirety. Stop using little snippets of the topic for interpretation. High-lite instead what you believe to be relevant if you like. But it's best to post the whole topic.
And if the truth bothers you....so be it.
Cheers
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17331 Posts
  • 19783 Reply Likes
It has been stated to me by an IMDb Champion that IMDb does not disclose the criteria for declined contributions and it's affects on your overall accuracy ranking. So those declines that we see on the beta really have no actual correlation to when or what triggers the higher level of proof needed criteria referred to in the help guide. My best guess is that it is only enforced when we post here after being rejected and are rejected verbally several times over. If we are rejected and are approved here, no flags are raised. So there is no real computer tabulation. Just staff observation and implementation that flags your contribution status as problematic. So worrying about rejects not being erased in the beta page is not to be worried about.

That is what I was told.
:):)
Cheers Mike
I wish there was a way to be able to identify a "Frequent Flyer" (Trusted) contributor, that gets given a no reject "Hall Pass"
(Edited)
Photo of Phil G

Phil G

  • 143 Posts
  • 317 Reply Likes
Ed, yes it's very unlikely that we'll get a clear answer about how the system really works, although Will's comment (linked from the first post) does seem to offer a hint.

But even if they won't tell us the answer, I'd hope that the issues raised here will be discussed by staff internally, and perhaps changes made to the system if appropriate.
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes
There's two problems. 1) Not knowing truly how rejects impacts one's future contributions 2) imdb undervaluing the problem of wrong declinations that should never have been rejected.
It's well established that we won't find out more to #1, but it's clear there is some impact based upon statements over time. If there's an impact, then it should be incumbent upon imdb to be helpful to contributors when the system fails. If imdb wants contributors to do the work, they should treat them with some respect and helpfulness.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17331 Posts
  • 19783 Reply Likes
How you post your rejects can effect your status.
Won't elaborate, but I have watched contributors act and type their way on to the untrusted with extra proof required list with their diatribe directed at staff.
Pays to be polite to "Mother Nat >IMDb< ure".
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes
It always pays to be polite, and I try. I think I've been polite here. If I haven't been, having over 500 items rejected that shouldn't have been might have something to do with that.

I'd also offer that contributors that have to work extra to get items accepted and they are, might also be taking on work that others don't want to do and should be recognized and rewarded for that as well. If someone has a lot of rejects that indicate a systemic problem, then one might want to realize they're trying to be helpful and there's an advantage to helpful them since they're helping us (imdb).

Most of my rejects come from trying to fix things, and not from original contributions. Based on what I've read, that's where contributor vs contributor rating comes into play. Someone who's made say 1k original contributions that are 50% wrong but were accepted can it seems be viewed as being better than someone who's tried to fix 1k errors and had 500 rejected wrongly. For example, I just fixed an error on a 1939 movie title that was 100% false and I don't know if a bot accepted or a person. I gave url's supporting that it was wrong. But I also just tried to fix some credits and they are just hanging and I'm very confident I will have to post here to get them accepted. That's where I think the impact of over 500 bad rejects causing a negative problem that could be fixed internally by imdb. So if I'm right and my credits' fix is rejected, it's because I've had 100s rejected that were then reversed, but had those been accepted in the first place or when reversed they then didn't count negatively, I wouldn't have to work so hard to fix 2 random errors.

So based on my experience, the contribution category matters towards things being accepted. In other words, one might be able to get some categories thru easier than other categories.  But that is my guess based on usage.
Photo of Mecki

Mecki

  • 147 Posts
  • 177 Reply Likes
If I understand correctly what an IMDb Champion stated to Ed Jones (XLIX), then the contribution history would be merely a display list. Staff would not take this list into account when they judge a contributor. They have other ways to do so.
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes
I'd have to look, but I'm pretty sure I've read where a contributor's %age "correct" is some sort of factor.
Have I read that wrong?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17231 Posts
  • 19653 Reply Likes
Yep. IMDb has never disclosed the formula, nor the percentage.
Photo of Phil G

Phil G

  • 141 Posts
  • 316 Reply Likes
As far as I'm aware, the only thing we know for sure is what's stated in the Contributors' Charter:
IMDb tracks each contributor's accuracy over time and if any contributor repeatedly submits data which is inaccurate or which violates our policies, their contributions will require increasing levels of additional proof in order to be processed.
Anything else (unless it comes from staff) is just speculation. Champions may have a lot of experience to base their speculation on, but as far as I know they don't have any 'inside knowledge' on the subject.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1183 Posts
  • 1468 Reply Likes
Did I already say I hope a staffer will respond to this?
Photo of SarahJ2022

SarahJ2022

  • 4 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Let me clarify. For the record, I've never worked for IMDB but my ex does or did. I saw the frustration with the system. Reviewers do not like the system IMDB uses as they seek to keep contributions high and stay within the service level. The service level is the problem as it forces reviewers to often just guess and accept the default so that they can reach their quota.


The system when it presents a contribution defaults to the contributor with the higher accuracy rating. Also a factor is that new contributions are scrutinized less than fixing current data particularly if it's trying to remove an item. This is why so many picture deletions are declined unless certain keywords are used that indicate nudity. Remember the key is for IMDB numbers to continue to grow and meet the service level. Rarely will a new item be denied. This usually will only happen where the system indicates there is a paying customer that might be impacted.


Accuracy ratings are divided based upon badged categories, such that it may be easier to fix one type of contribution but not another. The overall key is so that IMDB's numbers grow with content, so anything trying to remove any items are actively pushed back against.

Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17331 Posts
  • 19783 Reply Likes
I suspected as much.
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes
Not sure I buy everything. I submitted two trivia deletes that were duplicates and they got accepted within about an hour.
But some seems plausible. While I would like transparency, at the same time I understand the need to keep some things secret to help prevent people from working the system. But as someone who spent over 30 years ferreting out fraud at many levels using data, the bad guys will figure out how the system works. If not precisely, then close enough.
I'll use a well known example that is used to teach. When the IRS in the 80s made people provide SSNs for their children to be used as dependents, millions of kids disappeared for a few years. Then the bad guys figured out they could use any SSN since at that time IRS didn't verify dependent SSNs. Then IRS began verifying SSNs and again kids disappeared for a few years. Then bad guys came up with schemes to obtain real SSNs that would validate resulting in real parents being denied their own kids, so IRS changed how it validated the SSNs. There was also a time when kids under a certain age didn't have to have a SSN to be claimed, and so some would have a new kid every year and the prior kid would just disappear. Mind you that all of the fraud around this totaled billions of $s while I'm not sure where imdb loses $s so the incentive is much smaller for people to figure out the system except for the people that want to screw with titles, names, or create a huge credit history for themselves.
But the bottom line is if people want to figure out and game the system, no matter what is done it will be figured out.
I have so many stories. I loved figuring out and finding the guys that I was after that did fraud. And trust me, it's everywhere. Just look at the pill mills that the DoJ just shutdown. The doctor figured out close pharmacies wouldn't fill prescriptions and he sent patients further away. Ultimately the data caught the guy, but he profited with over $700k before being caught.
Maybe someone knows what the profit interest for people working the system on imdb cuz I don't see it. Sorry for being long winded, but when you spent a huge chunk of your life doing something, it sometimes takes over.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1183 Posts
  • 1468 Reply Likes
The service level is the problem as it forces reviewers to often just guess and accept the default so that they can reach their quota.
Could very well be. Back in the day, one was happy if IMDb updated something within a week. Nowadays, some people start to be annoyed if they have wait more than a day. People should have a little more patience and focus a little less on themselves sometimes.

The overall key is so that IMDB's [sic] numbers grow with content, so anything trying to remove any items are actively pushed back against.

The first part seems very plausible, the second part doesn't seem to be true. I have literally deleted over 10,000 (duplicated) plot summaries, 1000's and 1000's of bio trivia items (for going against the guide), a handful of title trivia items, 100's of (duplicated) pictures, 100's of movie connections (for going against the guide) and removed 1000's of episodes from general posters/dvd box covers of tv shows. And that's just me. :)

Apart from that, titles get deleted as well: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/please-delete-this-never-shot-film and https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/found-a-fake-title and so do wrong release dates: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/american-beauty-release-date . Of course, these are just three recent issues that got deleted via this forum. The real number of data that got deleted in that time period is obviously (much) higher.

Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 824 Posts
  • 1110 Reply Likes
""People should have a little more patience and focus a little less on themselves sometimes. " - I 100% agree!!! I'd gladly wait a few days (or longer, but there does need to be a cutoff at one point) if reviewers simply can't keep up.  Although I put above having two deletes taken quickly, I've had a few others that weren't that took a little more time which would seem to be more indicative that a person was involved. On them, all it took was to read and see it was a duplicate and the only reason for denying is not taking the time, or not having the time, to do so.
(On the greater delete's are harder question, I don't see removing tags as a deletion but simply as a descriptive change. I wonder though what #s imdb does report out as that might be more indicative of what they try and preserve if the supposition is to be believed. I know I've seen a listing but I can't find it at the moment.)