Title Literature Pages

  • 3
  • Announcement
  • Updated 4 months ago
  • (Edited)
As Col mentioned in his recent announcement (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0), we are implementing several changes to IMDb. 

One of those changes is the deprecation of the Literature title sub-pages. The pages today are a mix of media related to the title,including: books on which the title was based; academic articles about the title; and even some written interviews related to the title. The Literature title sub-pages have generally received very little customer usage. 

While we understand that some of you may be disappointed with this decision, it’s worth noting that your contributed data will not be lost. Taking down the Literature title sub-pages will enable us to build a more compelling experience in the future.


Some areas that we’re exploring are: possibly introducing a more obvious tie between a title and a book,and potentially enabling you to vote on how closely the title aligns to the book.  When we move forward with any new Literature functionality, we’ll leverage your contributed data.

Thank you.
Photo of Leonard

Leonard, Employee

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 1 year ago

  • 3
Photo of Dalton Thorne

Dalton Thorne

  • 3 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled IMDb literature.

Frankly, the entire External Reviews section blows!  I'm not even remotely interested with what some feeb on You Tube thinks about a movie nor do I give any weight to "user reviews". I am however, most irritated to see the decimation of the Literature section at the IMDB. Literature wasn't just book adaptations and source material but also printed reviews and production process protocols and essays and all sorts of, thoughtful, scholarly information on the medium that isn't remotely in existence on the Web's braying, posturing and, frequently, infantile, collection of  social media cacophony.

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: User-submitted reviews are terrible.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6566 Posts
  • 8098 Reply Likes
That's a good point, about printed reviews.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 6937 Posts
  • 8100 Reply Likes
I would recommend that before re-introducing the literature section (which I do support), the staff should announce the proposed new policies for the section for discussion here.
Photo of HMM

HMM

  • 1 Post
  • 3 Reply Likes
Strongly disagree with the removal of literary sources, at least with respect to credited source material.  Apart from making the credits as a whole incomplete, it removes the context for writing credits:  If source material is listed, an omission of story by or written by makes sense.  It also is a disservice to authors whose plays are adapted.  Why not limit the category/submissions to on-screen credited source material only?
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6779 Posts
  • 4665 Reply Likes
This thread covers the old literature sub-page on titles which was a separate data type.  We have made no changes to policies on credited writers (nor any other section for credits).  For example, see the "Writers" section on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/fullcredits
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 289 Posts
  • 148 Reply Likes
Without the "literature" section, how does anyone who looks at a title on IMDB know whether or not there is a related book or magazine article and what its order details are.

"Because it's not being used" is not sufficient reason in my mind to ditch all the existing data. Is it any extra effort to continue to accept literature entries and to display existing ones? The code to process them is already there. Because unless it is an extra effort, literature entries should be kept if even *one* person uses them.

The Literature entries were far from perfect. In my mind, the most obvious thing that should have been fixed is to make a clear distinction between a) film that has been developed from an existing book, and b) book that has been developed from an existing film (ie clarify which came first). Currently (well, until you did a hatchet job) no distinction was made.

But that should have been a reason to fix the entries, not to bin them.

IMDB seems to be making more and more bizarre decisions (eg binning the episode cast page). I wonder what hidden agenda is behind the removal of existing features, as opposed to putting them into "no further enhancements" status.