Warning for more words added to the bio trivia section

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 11 months ago
  • Answered
Thanks for adding warnings for the words 'favorite', 'favourite' and 'vegetarian' to the bio trivia section (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/warning-for-word-favorite-added-to-the-bio-trivia-section).
I would like to ask to expand this list of warning words a bit. Can you please add 'vegan' (https://www.imdb.com/search/name-text?trivia=vegan), 'hobby' (https://www.imdb.com/search/name-text?trivia=hobby), 'hobbies' (https://www.imdb.com/search/name-text?trivia=hobbies), and 'enjoys' (https://www.imdb.com/search/name-text?trivia=enjoys) as well? The guide states that "Bio trivia items should add directly or indirectly to the distinctive attributes of a person and provide/give an insight to that particular person rather than common trivia that could apply to most other people (i.e. "is a vegetarian" or "likes dogs")." and these words are triggers for exactly the kind of non-distinctive attributes you don't want.

Also, but I don't know if that's possible or not, but I feel the word combinations 'blood type' (https://www.imdb.com/search/name-text?trivia=blood+type) and 'never married' (https://www.imdb.com/search/name-text?trivia=never+married) could also do with a yellow warning.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1181 Posts
  • 1464 Reply Likes

Posted 1 year ago

  • 3
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 6762 Posts
  • 8302 Reply Likes
I checked the links, and I think a good deal of the hobby trivia are interesting if you are interested in that person.

This is the best one:

Melissa Joan Hart
Hobby: collects great paintings; owns 3 Picassos
(Edited)
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2901 Posts
  • 4891 Reply Likes
Even though owning 3 Picassos (50,000+ works registered) is not the same as earning 3 Vermeers (32 only!)
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 6762 Posts
  • 8302 Reply Likes
But if they are truly great paintings, they must be worth a lot.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1181 Posts
  • 1464 Reply Likes
I checked the links, and I think a good deal of the hobby trivia are interesting if you are interested in that person.
There are a few that are interesting, I totally agree. Therefore, I want a yellow warning instead of a red one. But I do feel we really need a yellow warning because the lion's share of them go against the guideline I quoted in my OP.
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12888 Posts
  • 9973 Reply Likes
Hi Marco -

Thanks for your request, I have forwarded your comments to the applicable team for consideration, as soon as I hear back I will post the status here.  Thanks!
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 4016 Posts
  • 5192 Reply Likes
Hi Marco,

We've taken a look at your list and unfortunately we feel like these blocks and warnings would lead to us putting off users from adding information to the bio trivia list that other users could otherwise find interesting as shown above. Also there would be a high chance of false positives with these examples which would be frustrating for people trying to enter valid information to IMDb. Unfortunately blanket blocks and warnings cannot judge the full context of the submission, that is the job of us data editors.

If you notice any bio trivia items which contravene the policies laid out in the submission guide then please feel free to submit a delete against the item and our data editors will be happy to review the request.

Regards,
Will  
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1181 Posts
  • 1464 Reply Likes
we feel like these blocks and warnings would lead to us putting off users from adding information to the bio trivia list that other users could otherwise find interesting as shown above.

To me, this seems a rather strange response.
First of all, I've not asked for a block but only for warnings, so why do refer to blocks? I do not understand.
Secondly, upthread, a contributor indeed pointed out that some trivia items are interesting and should remain online. I've said I totally agree and explained that that is the reason I don't want any blocks. Therefore, I don't see why you should give this as an example to me to make your point. I already know of the example and I agreed with it! (Also, this contributor didn't say it might put him off from adding information.)
Thirdly, if a contributor is put off from adding information because some words (like, for example, "favorite") trigger a warning that can be dealt with with literally one mouse click and is only there to keep the database as good as it can possible be, it seems to me said contributor doesn't seem to care very much about IMDb, so I see no reason why you'd want to try to keep such a contributor around.
Fourthly, putting off users from adding information that goes against your own guidelines seems exactly what I'd think you want. If you have guidelines that are violated, you should either try to keep the violations to a minimum, or change your guidelines. You seem to be saying that IMDb doesn't really care about the violations and also isn't going to change the guidelines. I do not understand that.

Also there would be a high chance of false positives with these examples which would be frustrating for people trying to enter valid information to IMDb.

I don't think is true. Example: Your own guidelines explicitly state that information should be specific for that person and also explicitly states that dietary information should be listed. So why do you think a trigger for the word 'vegan' would lead to a high chance of false positives? There are currently 416 hits for the word vegan (https://www.imdb.com/search/name-text?trivia=vegan). From the first page of 50, 46 (!) items go against two (!) of your guidelines and should therefore be deleted.

Unfortunately blanket blocks and warnings cannot judge the full context of the submission

Why do you again mention blocks while no one else has done so?
Also, nobody said that blocks and warnings can judge the full context of the submission. That is - as I've also pointed out earlier in this thread - the reason I do NOT want a block, but a yellow warning.

that is the job of us data editors.

Are you saying that with the current number of staff, the enormous (and probably growing) number of submissions you receive on a daily basis, the number of fanboys and whatnot entering information that goes against the guide and the lists of literally thousands of items (example of 2000 wrong items: https://www.imdb.com/search/name-text?trivia=blood+type) that goes against your own guidelines, a little help from a yellow warning would NOT make this a better database?

If you notice any bio trivia items which contravene the policies laid out in the submission guide then please feel free to submit a delete against the item and our data editors will be happy to review the request.

You do realize that a sentence like this in a thread like doesn't do any good don't you?
Obviously, I know how to submit deletion requests. And - if you've read this thread properly - I've pointed out thousands of items that should be deleted. I've asked for your help in making sure these numbers don't go up too much. This help, you decided not to give me. That is your choice and you of course have the right to make that choice. But would I not be an utter fool if I would then go about trying to fix these issues one by one, in my own spare time, not getting a dime for it, while the number might keep rising? For the record: Let me stress that I personally feel you absolutely have the right to think I am an utter fool. I'm a big believer in free thought and free speech. It's just that your own Contributor's Charter suggests you promised me you wouldn't. So again, I do not understand. (but maybe that just proves how much of a fool I am :))


This all being said, there is one question that hasn't been answered yet. Is it technically possible to trigger a warning for a combination of two words (like 'blood' + 'type')?


(FWIW, the reason I might seem passionate about this issue is not only that I personally feel the bio trivia section is - with the keywords section - one of the poorest sections of the database, it is also something (along with the movie trivia section) I hear from people around me who feel everything else about IMDb is superb or close to it.)