Why doesn't read IMDb read all the message their contributors send them?
Why does IMDb - with this policy - create the situation that contributors have to create a new thread for an old issue?
Why is such a new thread - which a contributor didn't want to create in the first place - then merged with the old thread that doesn't get read?
How should a contributor then point out an issue to IMDb?
Does IMDb want said contributor to point out issues?
Case in point: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/rumored-rumour-rumoured
The Contributors Charter says a great deal about respect and listening (https://contribute.imdb.com/charter). Why is there such a great gap between those words and the everyday practice here at IMDb, eh, I mean, GetSat?
Why does IMDb - with this policy - create the situation that contributors have to create a new thread for an old issue?
Why is such a new thread - which a contributor didn't want to create in the first place - then merged with the old thread that doesn't get read?
How should a contributor then point out an issue to IMDb?
Does IMDb want said contributor to point out issues?
Case in point: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/rumored-rumour-rumoured
The Contributors Charter says a great deal about respect and listening (https://contribute.imdb.com/charter). Why is there such a great gap between those words and the everyday practice here at IMDb, eh, I mean, GetSat?
Posted 3 months ago
Joel, Official Rep
Hey Marco,
Thanks for the post and sorry to hear you feel that way.
I agree a conversation should never be merged and left unanswered, I'll look into this and make sure it doesn't happen again.
However, it's important to remember that once a conversation has been closed with the necessary tag (i.e. solved / answered), any follow up questions should be created in a new thread - an old thread (especially from years ago) shouldn't be revived.
Looking into the thread in question, I'm not able to see the same results as you:
If you're able to provide some more information and/or URL's, we can take a further look for you.
Cheers,
Joel
Thanks for the post and sorry to hear you feel that way.
I agree a conversation should never be merged and left unanswered, I'll look into this and make sure it doesn't happen again.
However, it's important to remember that once a conversation has been closed with the necessary tag (i.e. solved / answered), any follow up questions should be created in a new thread - an old thread (especially from years ago) shouldn't be revived.
Looking into the thread in question, I'm not able to see the same results as you:
If you're able to provide some more information and/or URL's, we can take a further look for you.
Cheers,
Joel
(Edited)
However, it's important to remember that once a conversation has been closed with the necessary tag (i.e. solved / answered), any follow up questions should be created in a new thread - an old thread (especially from years ago) shouldn't be revived.Okay, but this means a lot of duplicate threads. Also, it means a lot of merged threads. But I know I won't change this, so I'll just create new threads when old issues haven't been resolved and try to keep an eye on them. (which, as this very thread shows, isn't always as easy as it would be if IMDb would simply read all posts their contributors make...)
Joel, Official Rep
I'm glad the situation has now been resolved, please let us know if you have further issues.