why would IMDb allow really offensive posts like this?

That leads me to think that the theory of posters being in good or bad standing isn't a realistic one.

One more try (this is why staff does not enter into these discussions...they never end and the complainant never believes either anything you say, or believes their complaint is misunderstood)...you might think that...but it's not accurate.

If your theory is, you keep reporting the same person over and over, you're likely now being ignored.  Which would account for reporting and seeing deletions, then seeing no effect at all.

That aside, as I described, at some point, staff does review reports. I've seen it take weeks. The system is not fully automated which is why I said,

The system is mostly automated

You cannot take anything away from looking at other instances of abusive posts and what happens to them because you don't have any idea who else might be reporting them (nor whether their accounts are in good or poor standing).

Of note:

Message Boards Top Frequently Asked Questions

Which includes:

Please read these notes carefully before contacting us: we will not, under any circumstances, respond to questions or complaints that are already addressed here. Help desk requests about one of these issues will be deleted with no reply.

As to automated vs. having live moderators, that some posts get deleted immediately while others take hours, days, maybe even weeks in some cases, (and the results might be the person gets a raised quota, history wiped or removal of authentication...which is all at the hand of a live person) is evidence it's a combination of the two.

As to the comments above of "sock" accounts, the site wishes to allow users to have multiple accounts (I've usually had two, one to post on the old Help board, then one to post normally, since I don't want disgruntled users to follow me around the boards because their account got banned or something ridiculous that they caused with their own activity), or to be able to create one or more extra accounts to be used by their children (some children don't have credit cards, cell phones with text for authenticating...and I am sure some parents want access to the account to monitor what their children are doing).  So, in some of the comments above about "socks" you should think of the activity with which they're doing with the accounts rather than simply having other accounts.  Just wanted to clarify that...multiple accounts are permitted as long as they are not used to abuse the system and other users (and, if the user who created them used the same ID to authenticate, all accounts will suffer whatever actions are taken against any of the accounts. So, back to how to report a user and all of his/her "socks" (actual sock puppetry, not simply owning a second account), you're probably better of making one report and using the "none of the above" (which is more evidence the system is partly moderated by people, as this type of report isn't instant...it goes into queue to be reviewed) and explain what the user is doing (preferably with facts, not guesses at which accounts, etc., if there's a chance you're wrong).

Hope that helps.

So, keep in mind, the boards are somewhat like a swimming pool with no lifeguard on duty.  Swim at your own risk. Use the system in place and do what the site recommends, report once, then use ignore (which is the best action to make pests go away).

Good luck folks!!

One more try (this is why staff does not enter into these discussions...they never end and the complainant never believes either anything you say, or believes their complaint is misunderstood)...you might think that...but it's not accurate.

Well, thanks for the patronising response!  The reason I don't think your theory that 'All it takes is for the the poster to be in less than good standing and the reporter to be in good standing' holds water is because:

1. genuinely bad posters would by now be phased out due to the number of reports the've received from posters of good standing.  But that's not the case here.  This username has been posting offensive messages for almost three years.

2. genuinely good posters are being maliciously reported by the trolls which of course also puts them into the 'posters of bad standing' category.  As the system is mostly automated, there's no stopping this from happening, and happen it does - often.

As I said, maybe IMDb thinks it's using this system but the reality is that either they're not or it isn't working.

I'd like to be clear that I'm not doubting your comments that the system is mostly automated. That much is clear.

-----------------------------------------
Your comments about reporting posts too often is for someone else, not me, so not a relevant point.

The sock puppet conversation is another subject again entirely. 

It wasn't really a theory.  But...

As to phasing people out, that's what "authentication" addresses.  It's nearly impossible keep someone from coming back. At least, with authentication, they come back and use the same account, which still has raised posting quota and the account's history of abuse intact.  It's likely the user has not yet run out of ways to authenticate. I'll assume you know how authentication works. If not, you can ask.

As to point 2, at some point the reports would be reviewed, or the person will over-use the report function and will be ignored.  You're right, it is also abuse and it happens.  They should probably find a way to deal with it.  But, as we've discussed above, the boards are a very low priority and it's not likely to be fixed any time soon, I'd think.

It's likely the user has not yet run out of ways to authenticate.

Apparently not.  This person not only posts offensive comments like this one but has done so for almost five years under this username among others, and I've lost count of how many sock puppet accounts she's created over the years. 

I don't know how strict the verification process is but there's obviously a way around it.

I don't know how strict the verification process is but there's obviously a way around it.

It's not "strict" at all. You simply need to have a valid email and a valid credit card number or cell phone number to authenticate.

As it is, many people complain because they have trouble authenticating and/or they don't have (or don't want to give out) cell numbers or credit card numbers. 

So, the site has to balance combating abuse with ease of registering to use the site's features.

I was not referring to the posting of personal information....indeed I suggested K Dot go to the police if the attacks are targeted at him/her and brought into the real world.....not sure why that is considered a 'cavalier attitude'?

However for all the silly nonsense of someone attacking a celebrity....throw it on the pile of YouTube, Twitter and anywhere that people can post with their real names and lives hidden from view......there are millions of them - all I can do is use whatever the reporting system is on the site I am on, then move on and try not to let them affect my mood or life.....usually by paying them no attention.

You saw what I see when i look at this user's posts....I think it looks better this way.

bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb

Of course it looks better but if the ignored posts were about me/my personal info, then I'd find them far harder, if not impossible, to ignore. That's what I was referring to as cavalier. I don't disagree with your approach (which is for the most part my approach) but It's easy to be objective and practical when it's someone else's 'problem'. My point is, it's all our problem and our responsibility to stop this type of trolling when we can, and since it's clearly in breach of the imdb T&Cs, this should be an easy 'can'.  The fact that it's not for reasons yet to be properly and logically explained is precisely why (I would imagine) we're all on here discussing it and trying to do something about it.

Go to the police to report harassment on IMDb???  I live in a really remote location in what's pretty much a developing country and I don't speak the language.  Sorry, but no, the police aren't going to be of any help.

No, I guess I'll have to hope that IMDb assist with deleting these posts, but I won't be holding my breath while I wait. 

I live in a really remote location in what's pretty much a developing country

Okay, so the 'personal details' this person claims to have for you are clearly not correct....so aside from them trying to annoy you....what is the issue?

For sure, if they are posting stuff falsely claiming it is you, then the police do not need to be involved.

So, like you said, "ignore her craziness, report where applicable and keep the normal conversation going around her stuff"....

....and no, don't hold your breath...I do not make excuses for IMDb administration of their boards (mostly because it is inexcusable), but will millions of message boards on their site, perhaps looking for them to be omnipresence and active is not a reality we will see anytime soon...

bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb

Alerting law enforcement to a real world threat has nothing to do with IMDb (other than, it was conveyed via IMDb). If someone was calling you on the phone and threatening violence, you'd call police, not the phone provider, right? The phone provider can't protect you...neither can IMDb.

If you choose to live where police cannot help you, that's on you. All the more reason to keep your personal information to yourself and simply use a film information database for it's main purpose and don't get into heated discussions on the attached message boards.