Uncredited TV work

Just a guess....it's the Internet Movie Database and primarily about movies.  Changes in how TV is listed has evolved slowly.

And/Or, data is legally listed for display here because it is public information in that it's appeared on screen.  So, the site primarily lists on screen credits and say they make some "exceptions" for "uncredited" work.  So, stuff not appearing in on screen credits again takes a back seat.

Sure, it could be more consistent.  What would be greatly helpful is if people stopped trying to get credit where it's no due and would either not list things not credited on screen, or would at least submit it properly.  But, people try to skirt the rules continually.  People want their IMDb page to be a resume and that's not what it's there for. If they want a resume on IMDb they should pay for one and attach it to their pages.

re: "Do the editors just genuinely not know how tv works"

It should not matter (but they probably know more than you think they do).  IMDb primarily documents on screen credits.  If a name is there, it should be listed.  If not, it should either not be listed or at least submitted with the "(uncredited)" attribute. It's a little more difficult to sit and compare faces on screen to other pictures or sit and try to figure out if documents are faked or not, in order to decide if an an uncredited credit is eligible or not. Sure, they could just accept all claims of uncredited work...then that's all they'd get is a flood of "i worked on this," "I worked on that" and the whole thing will be riddled with errors and faked credit almost immediately.

Just a guess...

edit to add:  From their mission statement page:

We rely on the credits as they appear in movies and TV episodes to be the final arbiter of credit based data on the site. Most contributors take great pains to ensure the accuracy of their submitted data. Data submitted with comments, explanations and links to sources will be verified and published faster.

I'm fine with all of that, as long as they're being consistent with things. Most people on TV shows don't get listed, but most of them get their submissions posted without issue. I've had most of mine posted without issue. I've had producers ask me to print out IMDB pages before, so unfortunately it does work as a resume from time to time. It's important to some people.

If they didn't want to deal with TV crew, why bother having them at all? The site is already riddled with errors and faked credits as it is, so the process isn't exactly preventing that. It doesn't make sense to give people the (uncredited) option and then ignore properly submitted proof, like what happened to me.

As far as the "re: "Do the editors just genuinely not know how tv works"" part goes, I brought that up because this was the first reply I got from IMDB when I was trying to get the episodes added:

"I can see I have to re-do, again, the visual effects wannabes who have to have their precious credits. 
And, btw, if there is a company credit for Hive, all those visual effect credits are actually in-eligible to be listed, the company is credited, they don't get individual credits. 
Me, I don't care much for that rule. 

Trouble is, I do the on screen credits. If you're on the screen I'll add it. 
If it's not there, I don't know who does what on a tv show. 
So you are going to have trouble finding easy proof (screen credits) to back you up." 

That was 8 months ago. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. If they want to do it right, that's great. If they don't want to deal with uncredited submissions at all, that's great too. Half-assing it like this isn't doing anything for anyone, unfortunately.

Most contributors take great pains to ensure the accuracy of their submitted data. Data submitted with comments, explanations and links to sources will be verified and published faster. 

I've done all that to varying degrees and have gotten zero results. Just frustrated, I guess. Do I really need more proof other than call sheet screenshots and 52 already listed episodes?