What do you have to do to convince IMDB that some submitter made absolutely unsubstantiated drivel in t their contributions

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 6 months ago
  • Solved
I've tried resubmitting with the upmost detail and I still get rejected.    For example:

On the movie Mr. Desitny (1990):  

When Larry goes to the bar in his new office, he picks up a bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Scotch and calls it "the good stuff". Johnnie Walker Black is actually only a 12-year old Scotch and is one of the lower quality Scotches in the Johnnie Walker family. It would have been more appropriate to have him pick up a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue which is a 60-year old Scotch.Factual Mistake

This is bogus for the reason I submitted:


This is true today, but not true in 1990 when this film was made. See the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Walker In the table at the bottom you'll see that the only 1990 blends were Red, Black (the good stuff), and Swing (this being just a special bottle type). Blue didn't hit the market until 1992. Two years after the movie. The other blends came out even later.

I even showed a reference for the fact that there was no "better" Johnny Walker in 1990 when the movie was made.

It appears you can make up just about any nonsense you want and call it a goof, but it's near impossible to get this garbage deleted from entries.


Photo of Ron Natalie

Ron Natalie

  • 4 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 7 months ago

  • 1
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 2302 Posts
  • 3789 Reply Likes
Might help if you included the 18-digit Contribution number so a staffer can take a look.
Photo of Owen Rees

Owen Rees

  • 278 Posts
  • 442 Reply Likes
If more help from non staff is wanted then explaining what correction or deletion was attempted would help.

A character expressing an opinion about the quality of a particular whisky does not look like a goof to me however much I might disagree with any blend being described as the good stuff.

Deletion as not being a goof would be my preference but given that it is there now perhaps incorrectly regarded as goof might be appropriate.
Photo of Ron Natalie

Ron Natalie

  • 4 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
The contribution number on this particular one is:  191219-131756-650000

But there are others.   191219-132223-283000 on 50 shades of gray, the original "goof" was obviosly written by someone with know clue how helicopters fly.   But despite an initial rejection and then a longer explanation of why the original submission is way off base, I still get "can't verify.:"

I can't even get a simple "THIS ONE NEEDS AT LEAST A SPOILER TAG" as it gives away the KEY clue that unravels the mystery in an old Columbo:   191219-134048-542000
Photo of Jaime

Jaime, Employee

  • 689 Posts
  • 931 Reply Likes
Hello Ron, 

I have submitted two of your updates again on your behalf.

Please note that in the case of submission 191219-134048-542000  you submitted a deletion rather than a modification, please submit to change the spoiler tag.

Thank you in advance.