Talk:IMDb/Archive 3

Can I have someone’s IMDb account?
New users are required to sign up on sister sites (ex. amazon) which is just a money grab before that use can post topics on IMDb.com Very disappointed with IMDb for that.

So, can someone send me their old IMDb account? I’d very much appreciare it.

-G


 * There are many other ways of getting an account. For example sending a simple sms and other things. Look around IMDb, there are lots of help pages there where you they will tell you how it works. YOU DO NOT NEED AN AMAZON ACCOUNT. --Steinninn 03:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen on wildly distributing my personal phone number, which may be sold for commercial purposes. But, I’ll reconsider it and may just have to “bite the bullet” in order to use IMDb. But I’d still appreciate someone offering their old or multi account.

-G


 * They never phoned me up to confirm my phone number :) -- SteveCrook 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't have any acounts to give out. And how can I contact you? You don't have a user name, no email, no way of contacting you. Just a G, how can we give you an acount if the only thing we know about you is G and your IP address. Nada --Steinninn 12:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not a forum. Unless this conversation is intended to improve the article somehow. Aaron Bowen 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Google groups mention?
Under the History section,

"Google Groups coverage of rec.arts.movies is incomplete during the relevant time period, with a 6-month gap in late 1988 and early 1989 and a number of missing articles after that. [2]"

Is the timeframe for that correct? Or is it referring to Yahoo! instead? Diulama 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The timeframe is correct AFAIK. Google Groups are a way to access and search old Usenet newsgroup entries when they aren't available on most other archives - unless you know of somewhere that still has them. But Google Groups don't hold a complete archive. The earliest references to The List by Col Needham or others is only available from 1990/91. But they reference earlier newsgroup messages which are no longer available. -- SteveCrook 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Searching IMDb message boards?
I've been unable to find a way to search the IMDb message boards, and imdb.com/robots.txt does not invite spiders to visit the boards. Surely, this limits some aspects of their usefulness. Is there any way to search the message boards? Should this lack be noted factually in the article?
 * There used to be a special search facility that searched the message boards. But it was never all that good. It is sometimes a nuisance that you can't search the boards. We've asked for the boards search to be reinstated quite a few times, but there's no sign of it being done. Especially given their blocking of the boards in the robots.txt file I think it could be considered to be a limit to the usefulness of the IMDb. SteveCrook 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

POV and verification problem continued
To the user who made the following comments in an edit: ''Restore legitimate criticims minus POV words, which should have been edited in lieu of suppressing the criticisms entirely. Article needs monitoring against pro-IMDb POV vandalism''

Regarding your comments above, would you mind referring to Civil guidelines which asks editors not to make "ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another"? Please also assume good faith on the part other editors. If you look at my contributions, you will see that I have made quite a detailed analysis of the flaws of the rating system used on IMDb. Although it is tempting to use emotive or extreme terms in making points, in my experience the points are actually made far more compellingly by letting facts speak for themselves.

A balanced decision must be made regarding whether edits are worth amending given the quantity and nature of issues pertaining to Wiki guidelines and policy. Please note that the whole ‘’criticisms’’ section is still subject to a request for verification as per Verifiability. While I think some important points are made, unfortunatley most of the section does not meet the necessary criteria. I will soon be recommending that most of the section is deleted. I personally spent some time researching material to support these criticisms or related points. I appreciate the difficulties in doing this but without meeting reasonable criteria, as I’m sure you will understand, there is no way to know objectively verify whether the criticisms are valid.

I note that you have not cited any sources in support of the criticisms you made. On balance, however, most of them appear to be sensible statements of fact that can be verified by looking at the site itself and so forth, so I did not raise this issue. However, I have made more amendments to conform to NPOV. Common sense needs to be used on this and most guidelines. Please let’s work together to make points for and against in line with the Wiki policy and guidelines – not for the sake of it, but because the guidelines are valuable for developing quality articles. Cheers Holon 02:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do something productive, like searching for the kind of citations you want yourself? And before you go deleting entire sections because of a word or sentence you perceives as POV, why don't you figure out a compromising rewrite? You seem to be one of those people who make Wikipedia impossible to take seriously or work with, a chronic fault-finder and nit-picker who is unable to contribute anything of value to an effort, but has plenty to say about what's "wrong" with it. Your lengthy POV defenses of IMDb from any and all criticism - to the point of threatening to recommend the entire Criticisms section (which appears only to bother you and Steve Crook) be summarily deleted at the wave of your magic wand - are becoming most tiresome. What is your real name? 12.73.196.186 14:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone should give their real name and not hide behind a nom de plume - or an anonymous IP address :) SteveCrook 16:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Holon 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your constructive comments 12.73.196.186.
 * You're welcome. Just following the examples set by the IMDb contingent on this talk...

The verifiability policy is as follows:

The policy
Please take particular note of 3 in response to your question "Why don't you do something productive, like searching for the kind of citations you want yourself?".
 * Now, there's a "policy" that just invites either passing on common mistakes or else getting involved in deletion wars. Which seems to be your greatest interest in this matter (the other being, throwing your weight around as a big, hotshot Wikipedia Editor.  Ooooh!) 12.73.201.87 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you please leave out the personal attacks? You've made one off the mark accusation after another, and it's getting us nowhere. I've been very critical of IMDb's ratings in my edits, so you can leave aside conspiracy theories, seriously. Your comment here is just confusing. The point of a policy on verifiability of material is so that people don't insert whatever nonsense they feel like without there being any possibility of verifying it. So I have no idea what you mean by passing on 'common mistakes' - the point of the policy is precisely the opposite, it is to prevent people inserting material that has no basis. BTW, it is one of the most fundamental policies for Wikipedia -- I'm only bringing it to your attention, I didn't have anything to do wtih introducing it for goodness sake. I have no interest in following a policy just for the sake of it, but let me ask you a simple question. If the criticisms are genuine (which I don't doubt they are), shouldn't it be possible to verify them? If not, how on earth can I or anyone else be confident they are legitimate? This is an encyclopedia -- the material needs to be bona fide. All I'm asking is that people cite at least some of the criticisms for the sake of credibility. If no-one else cares, so be it. I'll take of the tags and we'll leave the article. I edit in my spare time and don't come here to get accused and absued. Holon 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well there's at least two of us who want things done properly according to the Wikipedia policy. SteveCrook 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific crticisms require verification
I have placed the Fact tag on the comments I think are most in need verification. As per Wikipedia policy, the criterion is not that the truth of criticisms is necessarily verified, but it must be possible to at least verifiy that the criticisms have been made in a reliable source. I think that if at least a few of these points are verified, the credibility of the section will be enhanced and it may become reasonable to remove remaining tags on the basis that the section is on balance generally well researched and founded. I did some research and found an article which mentioned specific errors being incorporated on IMDb then removed, so this should be verifiable (I'll do so if I can find it again). Criticisms should be voiced for balance in achieving a NPOV, however the additions to the section frequently read like complaints and are unverifiable (I know some of them to be either valid or plausible from experience with use of IMDb, but this is not enough). Specific points need to be verified to be retained. It does no good to the credibility of the article as a whole to have a number of points that cannot reasonably be verified in reliable sources. Holon 03:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

IMDb's contributors
Hi. I'm new here, so delete this if you don't like it, I woun't mind. I just wanted to pass a idea for an article about where imdb get's its data. Most of it is from volintary contributors, and the site lists the top 100 anually. So I thought it would be nice to have that on wikipedia as well as some aditional info. What do you think? (contribution by 213.213.134.251, 3 May 2006)

It's already there, in the main Overview it says Information is largely provided by a cadre of volunteers with expertise in various areas of film history. Please sign all comments using four tildes  SteveCrook 23:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice to have an article about the top contributers? --Steinninn 13:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychometrics
Is the discussion of the statistical properties of the rating system really appropriate? Besides the fact that it just reads as being out of place, the lack of citations makes it perilously close to violating WP:NOR Liamdaly620 13:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The first question is a good one -- I added detail where the original synopsis was confusing and misleading and it may have made the section too long. Perhaps it should be shortened back to some essentials so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. Thoughts? As for OR, I'm not sure which points you're referring to. Points made regarding reliability and validity, sampling, use of averages for ordinal data, weighted means, trimmed means, etc. are very well known and widely accepted (as can be checked through the links to other articles on the topics). None of it is vaguely original as far as I can tell; it's just making clear the relevance of the considerations to the situation. Are there specific points you are concerned about? Cheers. Holon 02:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current length is diruptive to the article and kind of out of scope to the point of the article as a whole. Maybe you could reduce the currect section just to a quick summary of the current ratings system and an enumeration of the lists available, then move the discussion of the flaws of such a system to another article?  It seems to me that this kind of rating system exists all over the web and it might be nice to have a good article about the issues with it.  After that's written, then this section of this article could be only a short paragaph and link to the other article for those interested in more details. Skrewtape 00:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Skrewtape, that is an excellent idea. When I first read your comment, I was not sure that there was an appropriate encyclopedia article to cover this. Then I realised it would be good to have an article on rating scales (there is one on scales (social science) but not rating scales). You are dead right -- the same method is used widely all over the web. What I can do is create an article that explains what a rating scale is when used well, then devote sections of the articles to widespread usage as on IMDb, Amazon, Epinions, Yahoo! Movies, etc. and the problems. Links can be included wheverver reference is made to the rating methods used online which helps increase accessibility to the material for those interested when reading about other websites. I may not have time in the next few days. Edit if you feel inclined, and I'll take what I need from history. Otherwise, I'll get to it asap. Cheers, Holon 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant by original research was not that the methods with original -- they are, of course, established statistical methods. My question was where the application of the methds came from -- it seemed as if someone sat down to write here what they thought was wrong with the IMDB system, rather than reporting widely disseminated positions others had taken about IMDB (which would need cites) Liamdaly620 01:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved the majority of the information to Rating scale because it is more generally applicable. Also, see discussion lower down on same topic -- I've commented on positions taken specifically about IMDb versus positions taken on widespread misuse of rating scale data. I think the suggestion to move the material is best. I'd welcome feedback. Cheers Holon 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki movie data base
It could be factible to made one. A wiki is a great idea,all people can review the reliability of the data and it his update super instant. has more advantages than the IMDB.- Atenea26 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving the flaws of rating system to critiscism.
I agree. About moving the flaws of rating system to criticisms. While it is appropriate to make a brief comment there, the plan still remains to move a substantial amount of the rest of the discussion to another article. Holon 12:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"... directly have other users' posts" deleted
I deleted this text:


 * In addition, there are also frequent queries regarding whether users can directly have other users' posts

because I couldn't figure out what it was trying to say. What does "directly have" mean? -- JHunterJ 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this means that admins/staff sometimes just delete a post that someone has complained about without checking to see if anything was actually done wrong. This is already covered in the article, so there's no need to include that sentence.  Just of note - one extreme case was on the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie board, where a topic with over 100 well-written (no trolling/spam) posts about Douglas Adams' atheism and the effect it had on his work was completely deleted by someone (presumably an admin) with no explanation or warnings given.  These things do happen - you sometimes get the feeling that from time to time someone in a position of power just has their own agenda to get out and deletes certain things that they don't like.  Esn 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading use of averages
I have referenced the article which has appropriate information about use of averages for ordinal data. I am happy to cite any number of texts which say the same thing: averages should not be used for ordinal data. This is unnecessary though as Wikipedia already has an article on the subject with references, including to the original 1946 article by Stevens on the topic. The burden of proof lies with the person collecting data and computing averages to show that this is justified. It is not necessary to cite evidence that data are not interval-level when no evidence at all has been provided that they are interval-level. It is simply an observation related to a fact that is readily verified in any text on elementary stats and the like.

Also, I'm happy to leave out very in the description very misleading. Here are the facts though. (1) IMDb does not publish any information which would be accepted in a peer-reviewed article to support the fact that the data are interval-level measurements which means that at best they might claim they are ordinal data. (2) It is widely accepted that averages cannot be calculated for data ordinal data. (3) IMDb claims to be using proven statistical methods including weighted averages, when no kind of average is justified for the data. It is not just misleading -- it's plain nonsensical. So leave it out if you want. Let's not pretend though that this is a POV statement. It is actually an very tame description of patent nonsense. Holon 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reference in that section is to the IMDb's claims. Yes, a text that says averages should not be used for ordinal data would be a good start.  A citation of a publication applying that guideline to the IMDb's ratings would be ideal.  Because, as it stands, it reads like an ax being ground.  I don't use the IMDB's ratings, so I'm ready to believe you, but Wikipedia isn't the place make the uncited claim that IMDb's statistical justifications are patent nonsense. JHunterJ 12:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my tone may not have been the best above, no offense intended. The main reference that is relevant here is: Stevens, S.S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677-680. I was the one who added this reference to the article on levels of measurement. The essence of Stevens' paper is repeated in most texts on elementary statistics and pychological measurement (reference to the scales is made in SPSS. I don't think it's appropriate to add this sort of reference in this article; it's best just to link to the article in which it is already referenced. Assigning integers to categories is, at best, ordinal classification. You may as well hear it from the horse's mouth:


 * "A classic example of an ordinal scale is the hardness of minerals. Other instances are found among scales of intelligence, personality traits ..." ... "...means and standard deviations on an ordinal scale are in error to the extent that the successive intervals on the scale are unequal in size" (Stevens, 1946, p. 679). "Most psychological measurement aspires to create interval scales, and its some times succeeds. The problem usually is to devise operations for equalizing the units of the scales". Progress was made on this problem by L. L. Thurstone and then Georg Rasch. IMDb has produced no evidence that it meets the necessary criteria: in any class on stats, if students were asked what level of scale the data on a rating scale like this are, the answer would be ordinal (at best). The burden of proof lies on the person constructing a scale to demonstrate they have met the criteria to justify greater than ordinal-level measurement. I have no axe to grind, but if IMDb wishes to publish 'averages' without any justification, it is entirely in order to point out the problems with doing so. Cheers Holon 13:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense taken, we're all adults here. :-) It sounds to me like we can get citations for (1) IMDb uses ordinal scale ratings and (2) one shouldn't applying averages to ordinal-scale data. Drawing the (however obvious) conclusion that (3) the IMDb shouldn't use averages for its ratings would IMO be best left to the reader, because it strays needlessly into "original research".  If it's truly obvious (as it appears to this non-statistician), it doesn't need to be stated, and if it's not as obvious as it looks, it definitely doesn't need to be stated. JHunterJ 13:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good attitude. I'm not saying they "shouldn't" publish averages, just that misleading information is stated regarding proven statistical methods (they're not even appropriate ! :). I don't like misinformation and believe Wiki should strive to counter it. From burden of proof -- outside of legal context "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". What I am actually saying is that they have not supported an implicit claim (which is verifiable by looking up the page on which the statements are made). Can make this clearer perhaps. Don't really care all that much tho'. It ain't original research; it's pointing out there is no research. Anyhow, I don't much care, I'll let others make up their minds over time. Take care and thanks. Holon 13:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Third example I found of ordinal data on a credible site included movie ratings, so added reference. As you no doubt realise, very few people would dispute this point. Also to put in perspective, while it is not justifiable, it is commonplace so mentioned this. Comments welcome. Holon 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm looking at anything you're "pointing out" that hasn't been pointed out somewhere else as original research. And if it has been pointed out somewhere else, it can be cited. But I could be wrong.
 * People point out these things in different contexts often. For example 'When is a mean meaningless?' 'Although ordinal data should not be used for calculations, it is not uncommon to find averages formed from data collected which represented Strongly Disagree, ..., Strongly Agree!'  I have a PhD in psychometrics, so I take certain things for granted. I'm not sure exactly which part you look at as original research. People won't bothter publishing research specifically on IMDb, but the points are commonly made in relation to precisely the same situation. Which particular point are you concerned about? Cheers Holon 01:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's it: people won't bother calling out the IMDb in particular, then why should Wikipedia? That Wikipedia is doing it "alone" is what catches my attention. But I wish someone else would chime in here. :-) JHunterJ 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a point I take on board. I have started the article Rating scale to outline the way rating scales should be used and the problems with the way they are actually used. This was a suggestion above. A lot of the material in IMDb (specifically) can then be taken out, with just a reference to the other article. That said, it should be kept in mind that most articles in Wiki have some analysis from pepole who know the material -- this is a good thing, and the original research policy should not be applied to something that nobody would bother trying to publish (because its just use of analysis using well-established concepts) imho. Original research, to me, is research that makes a consequential new claim or demonstrates a consequential new result. I am about to submit a paper which is original research in psychometrics -- it extends a new model and shows the connection between two existing models. I wouldn't dream of putting it in Wiki. So perceptions of 'original research' obviously differ quite a lot. So would it be better to you if the points were mostly in another article? This is the plan Holon 01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Name, POV
1. The site does not call itself "The Internet Movie Database" throughout as Thorpe stated above, if you read the help pages and other info pages they generally refer to themselves as "IMDb" more than anything else. Unsigned contribution by 69.157.104.89 23:41, 29 May (UTC)


 * On their home page they call it "The Internet Movie Database" as the title for the main body of the page and as the HTML title. They then usually abbreviate it to just IMDb elsewhere for convenience. SteveCrook 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Should I move White House to The White House, because they use it on their front page once? Unsigned contribution by 69.157.104.89 05:19, 30 May (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments using four tildes . SteveCrook 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You may have thought that was a facetious example. But in fact yes, I would rename it to The White House. That's how it's usually referred to. Not many people mention just A White House meaning that one. SteveCrook 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No encyclopedia uses such a naming convention. Please do not make up rules off the top of your head. --Tysto 23:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

2. POV. I came here looking for some DATA about the history of IMDb. Although I did find the DATA that I was looking for, I came away from this article with the impression that someone with an axe to grind wrote it. It has a very negative tone and strikes me as the rantings of someone who got banned from their chat boards. In particular, this phrase:

"The use of any kind of average is inappropriate because the level of measurement of movie ratings of this kind is ordinal"

is not appropriate at all here. To sum it up, after trying to plow through all the pointless garbage above, IMDb's opinion is that their statistical analysis methods are acceptable and this jackass' opinion is that they are not. THAT IS OPINION. NOT DATA. Take it somewhere else.

As I see more and more crap like this in Wikipedia, it encourages me to use it less and less, and even discourage others from using it as well. Wikipedia just can't be trusted. Unsigned contribution by 69.157.104.89 23:41, 29 May (UTC)


 * There are attempts to clean up all the axe grinding and to leave just the facts. But it's a struggle. SteveCrook 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I sound kind of rough above but this stuff is really starting to get on my nerves. POV is steadily increasing and each time I come here to find information, and instead find POV thinly veiled as "reporting criticisms" it damages the credibility of the site as a whole.  Generally, I come here to find information and therefore don't feel that it would be appropriate to modify the articles.  After all, I'm reading the entry generally because I don’t know enough about the subject at hand.  Wikipedia is a wonderful resource but I fear that it may collapse upon itself due to its own success. Unsigned contribution by 69.157.104.89 05:19, 30 May (UTC)


 * That's why we want to clean it up. But if we do so without specific references then the axe-grinders will just change it back again. And they'll be justified in doing so. I can't demand that they cite all their comments if I don't do the same. SteveCrook 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of your complaints seem to be with the Wiki itself rather than with just this article. SteveCrook 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To sum it up, after trying to plow through all the pointless garbage above, IMDb's opinion is that their statistical analysis methods are acceptable and this jackass' opinion is that they are not. THAT IS OPINION. NOT DATA. Take it somewhere else.

I have to wonder why you'd want to comment on something about which you clearly know nothing at all. This sort of point has been responded to above. I continue to be perplexed as to what leads people to believe that IMDb is an authority on measurement and statistics. It is not. It does not cite any scientific research to support its claims. I am not aware of it having any links to research institutions. No authority is invoked on its page regarding the use of weighted means and "proven" methods.

So while I agree with the general comment regarding some of the crticisims, it's not just this jackass' 'opinion' the data are ordinal or that averages are not justifiable for ordinal data .... for example (restaurant ratings)  (rating displays)  (ref to rating scales)  (comment on rating stats appropriate to rating scales). (rating bands as example of ordinal data) (ref to ratings)  (ref to movie ratings)  (rating food as example). IMDb is free to publish data in this way if it so chooses. However, it is entirely legitimate to point out the problems associated with doing so. Plenty of others publish these sorts of averages, and so it is reasonable to point out the problems in every case, which is the reason for creating a new article as per the good suggestion above. Holon 09:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Inaccurate Movie Database"
I could not find any parts in the article that mentioned that the IMDB is infamous for being innacurate, hence its nickname. If there isn't anything in there, there probably should be. (posted by KX-34 on 8 June 2006)
 * I haven't heard the nickname before, but if it is so, just find a reputable source to cite and add it. (And use ~ to sign your additions to talk pages.) -- JHunterJ 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard it called that either. It might be called that by people who can't get their project listed on it. The eligibility requirements are more strict now than they used to be. SteveCrook 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I've come across it (the nickname) at least twice on different websites. Mostly referring to innacuracies in the cast lists and stuff.  http://www.digg.com/movies/Spiderman_3_Plot_Revealed There is one of the sites, and if you search "inaccurate movie database" in Google, a number of results come up. 65.30.36.139 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That number was 38 for me. By comparison, "inaccurate wikipedia" got 85 hits. A search in a news database for "inaccurate movie database" turned up 0 hits.  Doesn't seem infamous enough. -- JHunterJ 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I searched for "inaccurate movie database" imdb just in case they were referring to a different inaccurate movie database. That got just 19 hits. Not really enough to warrant inclusion. Probably just a few disgruntled individuals. SteveCrook 23:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's also in violation of WP:NPOV, though I agree about the inaccuracies. Mike 7 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User Comment order
The user comments for a film are not in chronological order. How is the order decided then? I have only skimmed the article and searched for 'user comments'. To my surprise no hits. I suppose this is one of the most used parts of imdb, so is it named differently? Surely there should be some mention of it. DirkvdM 07:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The default is to sort according to the 'rating' of the comment, which is, how many people clicked "Yes" in response to whether they found the review helpful. However, the user comment that appears on the front page of a movie's entry doesn't fit this pattern (it is almost invariably not the #1 rated comment).  I'm not sure how they determine that one. SubSeven 08:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They're just selected at random. The #1 comment can appear there, but so can one slating the film. SteveCrook 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Would IMDb not be better as a wiki also?
The accuracy would probably be greatly improved, as it is currently rubbish, and the more obscure shows would get more coverage. {````} - Unsigned comment by 195.82.104.122 22:04 8 July 2006


 * I don't think that the accuracy of the IMDb would be improved at all by making it a Wiki. It is often discuissed on the Contibutors Help message board - and it is always dismissed out of hand as a bad idea, by the contributors, not by IMDb staff. They have no need to comment. If it was made a Wiki then there would be absolutely no validation. At least now we have some even though it may not be perfect. But why do you say that "it is currently rubbish"? - SteveCrook 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No because we use it to determine the validty of movies on wiki. It would just make it that much harder to state that a movie based on pure speculation is not valid. User:Lord Hawk 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, duh :-) Yes, it would be much better as a wiki.  Right now, all contributions bottleneck through a small group.  I've had some contributions pending for over two years...

Blocking this page to vandals
I't seems that IMDB is objective for vandal attacks. Today there are 2 reverts. what do you think about blocking this page to anonymous users, in order to prevent vandalism? -- User:Atenea26, 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there are that many attacks by vandals. There are quite a few of us that watch this page and we usually manage to revert the vandalisation quite quickly. - SteveCrook 16:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea - BTW, I'm one of the imdb posters the vandalizer is mentioning as a stupid user. - Mr_Beale

Sorry with the mess
I was trying trying to put a reference, but the format was wrong so I messed the page-- User:Atenea26, 10:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation question
A citation is called for the following passage: Over the last five years the George W. Bush, Michael Jackson and Soapbox message boards (and, to a lesser extent, the Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ message boards and other message boards for political and religious personas) have been major targets for heated debate, ranting and trolling. Would a link to those message boards, where one could see this is the case, suffice? --Mr Beale 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that someone unfamiliar with the boards would be able to "see" that they have been "major targets" of heated debate, ranting and trolling by looking at them. Ideally the citation would be of some site or news items making the observation. -- JHunterJ 23:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't believe that those boards offer a permanent record. I think that messages are removed after some time -- SteveCrook 23:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You now also have to be a user of IMDB to view the forums, so just linking them can't possibly suffice as a citation. Unless its been mentioned in the press or on another website, this claim can't really be made, despite how true it is. NadaPlissken 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

SteveCrook
Re: your following "correction":  "TV episodes - Not true. There is now no distinction between regulars and guests)"

Sorry, but the information about IMDb confusing guests and regulars is VERY true. While the IMDb does shy away from actually using the words "guest" and "regular," all you have to do to verify the inaccuracies is look up a few TV shows on the IMDb. Neve Campbell (to list just one example out of dozens, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about) was a regular on the show "Party of Five" for years. The IMDb lists her as having appeared in only eight episodes. Meanwhile, actors who really have appeared on the show only once or twice or a handful of times (and would thus qualify as "guest stars") are often listed in the show's cast list rather than the page for specific episodes, which would be much more accurate. My reference/source is the IMDb itself, and it bears repeating that, before you argue with me or casually remove this information again, please look up a few shows on the IMDb to see for yourself. -- Minaker


 * I'm a long time IMDb contributor and I do know what's going on at the IMDb. All the example you give means is that Neve hasn't been properly credited for the episodes she appeared in. Most IMDb contributors aren't happy about the latest change that they have made which means that if people haven't been properly credited on each episode, or the episode details haven't been submitted yet, then those people just aren't shown. The latest change in the IMDb means that someone that has been properly credited for the episodes they appear in is now listed ahead of someone that appeared more often, but hasn't been credited for all their appearances. The upshot is that the IMDb should realise that episode migration is nowhere near as complete as they thought it was and they should revert the last change, and that everyone that can should submit more information to get all the cast properly credited for every episode. But what I said was true in that the IMDb now has no distinction between regulars and guests. The sentence before the one you added said "At present, the database entries for TV series are in a state of flux, as listings are migrated from series titles to individual episodes." This is still true, and was made worse by the IMDb's latest change. But it doesn't alter the fact that there is now no distinction between regulars and guests. Everyone that has ever appeared in a TV series should be credited for the episodes they appeared in and the main page for the series is generated automatically from the appearances in each episode. -- SteveCrook 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the wording of your latest alteration is very confusing, but at least we're getting somewhere, and I appreciate your trying to clarify matters in the article rather than just reverting or launching into some sort of verbal attack as some Wikipedia editors do with each other. (By the way, this was not my intent either, and I apologize if my statements above seem too aggressive.) I still feel that this article, as it's currently worded, does not adequately convey the state of confusion in so many of the IMDb's TV pages. You may provide an explanation here on the talk page, but that doesn't change the fact that many cast members (as I had originally stated) are not mentioned at all in the cast listings for such shows as "Kidnapped," "The Nine," and many others. This is a glaring omission that occurs time and again on the IMDb. And while it's true that the IMDb doesn't specifically use the words "guest star" and "regular," as you correctly point out, if Neve Campbell (to use my above example) appeared in nearly every episode of "Party of Five, she is a regular, while the IMDb's statement that she was in only eight episodes indicates that she was merely a guest, even if the words "guest star" aren't used. These are the IMDb inaccuracies I have been referring to.  You're welcome to try to clarify these points in the article, but I still think that they need to be addressed; your explanation on this talk page for the reasons behind the errors doesn't make them any less worthy of mention in the article.  For now, I will refrain from changing the article again, because I don't want to get into some sort of revert war, but I do think that my original statements have some merit, even if they needed clarification. -- Minaker


 * There are lots of other people making the same point on the IMDb Contributors board. It is possible for you to cure the situation for Neve Campbell or anyone else, just add any missing episodes and then credit all those people that appear in it. Then, when Neve or anyone else, has more credits in episodes, she will be placed nearer the top of the credits list on the main page for the series. The IMDb didn't "state" that she only appeared in 8 episodes as some unalterable decree. It's just that nobody's bothered to submit the correct information yet. Any database is only as good as its information and most of the information for the IMDb comes from volunteer contributors, each submitting data in areas that they know about or care about. If you care enough to write these comments, you should care enough to do something about it and submit the correct data for the series that you know about. As for "regular" and "guest", it's not just the naming convention. They used to be treated quite differently in the database. They aren't any longer. They are all just people credited as appearing in episodes in the series. Those that are credited in the most episodes will be nearer the top in the cast list on the main page for the series. -- SteveCrook 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that "If you care enough to write these comments, you should care enough to do something about it and submit the correct data for the series that you know about": I don't mean to sound lazy, but it's one thing to make corrections or engage in discussion on Wikipedia, a site which makes it easy (some even say too easy) to alter content. The IMDb is an entirely different matter, in which every single correction is a several-step process. Then, once you've finally submitted any one correction, let alone the dozens that we're talking about here, the people who run IMDb take an indefinite amount of time to review the new information. Surely you know about this failing if you're a "long time IMDb contributor"; these issues are even addressed (to a degree) in this very article. Sorry to be a bit repetitive here, but your argument that I should correct errors on the IMDb if I see them still doesn't change the fact that those errors exist (until they are corrected by me or someone else) and therefore deserve mention in this article. -- Minaker


 * So it looks like we'll have to wait for someone else to correct the entries you mention. It does take time, but it's really very straightforward. And I don't regard the length of time it takes to get data into the database. Given the wild claims that appear in some articles in the Wikipedia, I regard the time (& the checking) a positive asset that makes the IMDb a lot more reliable -- SteveCrook 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your argument that someone should correct errors on the IMDb still doesn't change the fact that those errors exist and therefore deserve mention in this article. At this point, you are no longer trying to work out a solution, nor are you concerned about Wikipedia accuracy; you're just being stubborn, as you have clearly ignored both the arguments above and the point of Wikipedia accuracy. Specific examples are cited, but you choose to ignore those too. Your own opinion on whether the IMDb is reliable is purely subjective, an argument backed up by specific examples is not. Unless you have some sort of actual REASON for changing this other than your own stubbornness or RESPONSE to this argument other than the fact that you just don't like people complaining about a site you contribute to, please do not revert changes. Once again, and I only repeat this because you have not listened to it the previous times I've said it, an argument that someone should correct errors on the IMDb doesn't change the fact that those errors exist. Wikipedia is about facts, not a reflection of how you think the world should be.Minaker 04:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Steve, I would encourage you to update the data for that particular series if you feel so strongly about it. I also don't think that the article should give any specific example of missing data, since that can change quite abruptly from one day to another, if anyone decides to contribute the data. Nonetheless, the fact is that TV series entries in IMDb are far from perfect for the time being, and the article should mention it. Most readers won't care of how easy or difficult it is to contribute the data. I've tried to reword that paragraph; hopefully we can get a consensus rather than a revert war. Pruneautalk 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm clearly outvoted here, so I guess I won't fight this anymore if the decision is apparently to just throw accuracy and Wikipedia rules out the window. You've got me convinced, Wikipedia is no place for actually talking about stupid things like details and facts. Minaker 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator
How does one apply for board administrator?


 * AFAIK only people that work for the IMDb can be a board administrator -- SteveCrook 13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Update IMDB homepage image
Not a priority, but as IMDB's homepage has been slightly redesigned {searchbox), can someone update the image in the article to reflect the change? Bswee 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Old versions?
Are there any pictures of the IMDB homepages in older verious??? Like ones from when it first started and on wards, it would be interesting to see them. RaptorRobot 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You can find the old versions at http://www.archive.org --Steinninn 13:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just added a few images. --Steinninn 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

RAJESH KHANNA SUPERSTAR OF INDIAN CINEMA
RAJESH KHANNA THE ROMANTIC HERO OF ALL TIMES IS THE ONLY SUPER STAR OF INDIAN CINEMA. HE IS A GREATEST OF ALL ACTORS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.163.88.180 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

YMDb.com
Whatever happened to this site? It used to be a fantastic site where people could make their own top-20 alltime lists of movies, but suddenly it's just gone, and it seems like it never existed. When you try typing www.ymdb.com it just goes straight to the www.imdb.com, did IMDb buy the rights to the popular YMDb-name, or did they sue their way to getting the name, or what? KnatLouie 30 December 2006
 * I don't know, but I just noticed this as well, and find it rather annoying. Owen 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good news. I was looking around, and it still exists; it's just been moved to http://www.shompy.com/. I'm guessing they sold the domain to IMDb and just moved there. Owen 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question...
Should something be mentioned about the IMDb user who was arrested for the posts he made? In case you don't know, some User was arrested for threatening to kill teenage actresses, and posting pics of him with guns. I'll need to do a bit more research, but I think it at least deserves mention. --MasterA113 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only references to this I could find were in the Worcester Telegram  and the Shrewsbury Chronicle, both local newspapers from Massachusetts. I don't think that makes it notable enough, especially since IMDb has little to do with the case. All message boards are prone to being used by weirdos, unfortunately. Pruneautalk 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. From what I was reading on the site, they made it sound more important. --MasterA113 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all "message board weirdos" that make threats on forums end up being arrested and found with a supply of weapons like this one did. The arrest happened as a direct result of his posts on IMDb, so it appears that IMDb were involved if they gave the police his IP address. This appears to be significant enough to be mentioned in this article, and there are many more than two references, although they are all local news services, they are still reliable. Saikokira 00:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
The IMDb section doesn't seem right to me. I won't make the changes now, because I think we need to agree on what to include: do we need to say which actor is 00000001? What should the threshold for votes be? Do we want to list the actual oldest movies in the database (two titles from 1888)? Pruneautalk 11:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The first actor listed in the database is Fred Astaire. (and the next three, similar items) This is really saying that Fred Astaire's IMDb number is 0000001; it doesn't mean that he was the first to be added to the database (at the beginning, the URLs had a different format, without numbers; when they changed format, they used an alphabetical order). When I read "the first movie listed", I understand that it either means the first movie to be added, or the oldest movie in the database. If the information is really noteworthy, the entries need to be rephrased.
 * The trivia items about the ratings are wrong. For example, "The Tony Blair Witch Project" has a weighted average of 1.0/10, for 502 votes; "Planet Earth" is a TV series with an average of 9.9/10 (518 votes), and there are a few titles with an average of 10.0, though they have a very small number of votes. The statistics given are true if you only look at titles with more than 1000 votes. Given that only 112 series (including mini-series) have more than 1000 votes, that seems a tad restrictive.


 * I believe wikipedia policy is to NOt have sections of article devoted to 'trivia'. The information shuld be encorporated into the main article or deleted. There is a tag saying this somewhere, but I am notreally very good at wiki-ing. 203.206.100.60 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The trivia section is out of this world. I'm removing it. --Steinninn 13:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Top 250 wrong ?
When i look at http://www.imdb.com/chart/top then I see: 1.	9.1	The Godfather (1972) 202,883 2.	9.1	The Shawshank Redemption (1994)	243,043

When I look at the pages of these movies ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111161/ ) then I see that the shawshank redemption has User Rating: 9.2/10 (243,043 votes) and the godfather has User Rating: 9.1/10 (202,883 votes)

So the godfather has a lower user rating and less votes, doesn't this mean that number 1 and 2 should be switched in the top 250 ? Or am I missing something here ?

--Garo 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can query that with the IMDb on the Contributors Help board (Imdb staffers visit there quite often) or at their Help Desk. But the way they work out all these ratings is very complicated and it could well be that they are using different methods for the figures given in the Top 250 and the figure given on the movie's page. Or maybe Shawshank is just about to overtake Godfather and the ranking has been increased to 9.2 for Shawshank but the Top 250 (and the positions in it on the movie's pages) hasn't been updated yet. -- SteveCrook 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently the score on the movie's own page isn't used for the Top 250. See http://www.imdb.com/help/search?domain=helpdesk_faq&index=1&file=notintop250 -- SteveCrook 09:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to IMDb
Just like CNN this article should be under the name it's most commonly referred to as, which is IMDb rather than Internet Movie Database. Yonatan talk 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It redirects from "imdb", so I don't see any reason to change the name. That is its official name, imdb is just an acronym. 204.115.253.51 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe Screenshot
Could we change the screenshot to someone less cliche? Like Sean Connery or Leonard Nimoy or something. Except not either of those, but you get my point. How about Samuel L Jackson --Krakko 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's cliched about Marilyn? No, I don't get your point -- SteveCrook 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Authentication
Something needs to be mentioned about the new authentication system (new accounts must be verified with an amazon.com account, credit-card or (some) cell phone sms networks before new users are able to post on the board system). This is quite a burden on new users. McDanger 17:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But it does cut down (somewhat) on the rubbish that was being posted to the boards. It also means that spammers & trolls are easier to identify when reported -- SteveCrook 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, but if a user just wants to ask a simple question (like "what's the name of that movie...") he or she has to buy something at amazon.com., and many phone-networks aren't covered by their SMS service. I think they should implement a non-public email verification system (eg, ISP, university, work etc.) like man other sites do, that way trolls can still be identified without the burden of buying at amazon. McDanger 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to actually buy anything at Amazon. Just provide details of a credit card that can be checked. They are an Amazon company. Amazon already have the facilities for verying credit cards. So it made sense to use them. -- SteveCrook 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but for those of us (me) without a credit card it leaves very little options! Luckily I had a pre-existing account at imdb I rarely use. Cheers. McDanger 07:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can still use their Help Desk for your "what's the name of that movie..." query if you are registered but not authenticated -- SteveCrook 11:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Overview
At the end of the Overview section, it says:

"Many of these (message boards) are quite heated and sometimes slump into endless pages of insults very easily."

Although I agree with the sentiment (indeed, they can get quite insulting), is this a valid thing to include in Wikipedia or does it stray into original research? Ccm043 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Internet Movie Database → IMDb — just like CNN, the more commonly used name Yonatan talk 22:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.


 * Oppose This is not like CNN, you never hear someone say "Cable News Network" (and if they do, they are usually talking about cable news channels in general). Internet Movie Database is just as common as it's abbreviated form. TJ Spyke 23:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've seriously heard someone say, "I'm gonna go look at the cast of x on the Internet Movie Database." rather than referring to it as IMDb? Yonatan talk 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. I do hear people say Internet Movie Database far more often. TJ Spyke 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Yonatan talk 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose When the full name is also common (and yes, I often hear Internet Movie Database as well), it is best to avoid abbreviations. I agree with TJ that the comparisions to CNN fall short. You also avoid those best capitalization issues with the fuller name. 205.157.110.11 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The full name is much too common, and they're not like KFC in abbreviating it. They both abbreviate it and spell it out. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per common use. The CNN example is not really applicable, as imdb.com refers to uses the full name in its title, while cnn.com uses the abbreviation. - Cyrus XIII 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the initials are only used by people that already know about it. If I want to tell someone about it I always refer to it in full the first time I mention it. -- SteveCrook 11:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
99.6 million results for imdb compared to 42.7 million results for Internet Movie Database. Yonatan talk 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent change in titles formatting?
I noticed that some of the articles (for example The, A, An in English) are now placed at the beginning of titles, and not at the end (with a comma) as it was before. I'll appreciate any information regarding these recent changes, as the relevant FAQ (http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?titleformat) does not mention them. -David Born —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.130.142.194 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
 * They've shown titles with the article at the beginning for some time, on the page for the title. But when you're giving a title to enter a new title or to add a qv link to it, then you have to put the article at the end. It is confusing and many people have complained about it. It's because they are stored in the database with the article at the end so that they effectively ignore the article when sorting alphabetically. The page for a tile converts this to put the title at the start, as do a few other places, but that's not done everywhere. The FAQ page you refer to is explaining how to format the title when you enter a new title. That needs to be done with the article at the end, so the FAQ is correct. -- SteveCrook 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, Would you please supply some refernece regarding this issue? I'm really interested in this. Thanks, David
 * Regarding what exactly? I mentioned quite a few different things -- SteveCrook 22:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the way titles are displayed on title pages vs. the way they are are stored in the database. David
 * I don't know the exact date when they changed to display titles with the article at the start. I could ask, on their Contributors' Help board -- SteveCrook 09:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that won't be necessary. I'm more interested to know if there are any other de facto formatting rules which contradict those described on the FAQ (http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?titleformat). David
 * That was my point, or one of them. That FAQ is correct. You do still need to put the article at the end when you're creating a new title. That's how they're stored in the database. But when you search for a title or when the title is displayed, the article is at the start -- SteveCrook 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I'm not interested in creating new titles etc. I only want to know what are the exact rules that define how titles are DISPLAYD on the title pages. Ad you mentioned, those rules are different from those on the FAQ (or at least one of them is). So, are there any other differences between the rules mentioned on the FAQ and the actual title display on the site? Thanks, David
 * But the FAQ isn't about how the title is displayed on the page for that title. So there's no discrepency. The titles are displayed with the article at the beginning -- SteveCrook 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)