What is going on with the display of this episode?

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 4 months ago
  • Answered
Picture Day/Agee Ientee Diogee, a recent episode of Milo Murphy's Law, has a display. Three actors are listed as "Rest of cast listed alphabetically", but they shouldn't be. They all have order names. His the current display I'm seeing.




However, all 3 cast members have order number. I think the problem is the large gap between number (thought this is correct according to the guide as many of the regular cast are also credited later as "Additional Voices")



So, what's going on here? Is the 6 number gap the problem or is there some other issue going on?
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1098 Posts
  • 1246 Reply Likes

Posted 5 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 3300 Posts
  • 3735 Reply Likes
Hi Adrian,

Yes this is likely caused by the large gap in the ordering numbers. Although this is correct in this case as you explained the gaps, in the majority of cases we wouldn't want to list these as part of the main cast as this is likely not the correct on screen order.

I hope this helps to explain the situation.

Regards,
Will
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1098 Posts
  • 1246 Reply Likes
No. It doesn't explain the situation at all and it should not be marked as answered.

These are part of the main cast per the guide as Additional Voices credits immediately follow the main cast. The ordering, also is correct per the guide. I've been doing this for a long time and never seen skipped ordering numbers cause a problem with the display. This is a bug in the system that needs to get fixed.
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 3300 Posts
  • 3735 Reply Likes
Hi Adrian,

This isn't a bug per se as the episode display is functioning as designed. As stated previously this is an intentional decision to avoid potential bad order numbers joining the full cast ordered section if there is a large gap in the sequence.

I agree that in this case it isn't correct though. You could highlight this example and suggest it as a new idea, that way other users can vote on it and it can be prioritized accordingly.

Regards,
Will
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1098 Posts
  • 1246 Reply Likes
Will, as someone who makes a living designing and implementing software for the last 20 years, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. This is the very definition of a bug. When given valid, but unusual input (what most test engineers would call edge cases) and the software does not provide valid output, that is a bug. It doesn't matter if it is a design flaw or a coding error. It is still a bug. Also, I cannot imagine a CCB or any test engineer would agree that "works as designed" is a valid excuse when the design is bad. And, the design is bad here because it does not follow IMDb guidelines. I'm actually surprised this is the first I've seen it as I watch a lot of animation and this is not all that uncommon.

Also, I would argue that 7 is not a large gap. I also, cannot, imagine a use case where not displaying a completed cast with any amount of gap is correct. The only time I've seen large gaps in ordering numbers is before a television episode appears and someone attaches a number in the hundreds to a guest cast member who probably becomes uncredited once the episode airs.

Can you give an example of where this is what you actually want to be displayed because I can't imagine it is ever correct, especially when the full cast is present and ordered.
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12134 Posts
  • 8385 Reply Likes
Hi Adrian -

I understand your perspective and agree that the display isn't ideal, although as Will mentioned above the display is working as designed.  As he suggested, you are welcome to post a new "Idea" thread with your comments to request a change of the display and hopefully other users will chime in as well with their feedback.

I have also raised your concerns with the applicable team, in the meantime, whenever you see a display like this for a title, if you have seen the episode and can verify the cast credit order numbers, submitting the order numbers for the entire cast without any gaps will adjust the display accordingly.
(Edited)
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1098 Posts
  • 1246 Reply Likes
Submitting the cast without any gaps violates the IMDb cast guide.

Where actors are listed more than once in the credit roll (as often happens in animation, for example) we list the characters as detailed in the Character Names section. Order numbers then skip the place where the actor's name appears again.

What exactly is considered a "large gap"? I don't think 7 positions is a large gap and should be perfectly acceptable. This seems like it would happen frequently when most of the regular cast is also credited with "Additional Voices".
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12134 Posts
  • 8385 Reply Likes
Hi Adrian -

I'm still waiting for the appropriate team to review the ticket I filed, once there is some traction I can clarify further the logic concerning the gap issue you raised and what gap length will determine a credit to display as "Additional Cast".
(Edited)
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12134 Posts
  • 8385 Reply Likes
Hi Adrian -

I'm just following up here to confirm that we have a 5 gap rule in place by design, if there is a gap (more than 5 in a row in the credit order sequence) then any credits below that gap are moved onto the "Rest of Cast" section.  Currently there is no plan to change this logic, however, if you have a case to argue against it, as mentioned previously, you are welcome to post a new "Idea" thread with your comments to request a change of the display and hopefully other users will chime in as well with their feedback.