Talk:IMDb/Archive 4

Amazon Account
And i still can't register for their messageboards.

Now look at the article under 'messageboard'section.

"A user must be verified to use the message boards. This can be done either by logging on to an amazon account".

I have an account and they still block me. The register screen says you must have made a purchase within one year. Why can't this be added to the article? They are obviously leveraging IMDB to sell. Yet there is ZERO mention of this. Please add just a few more words on this in messageboard section.--Ericg33 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Try adding something about it. If you can add something without ranting and claiming it's all a conspiracy then it'll probably remain in the article. Remember that everything on Wikipedia should take a Neutral point of view. You mustn't say if it's a good thing, or a bad thing or a conspiracy by Amazon to take over the world. No opinion, just the facts. Remember as well that there's nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Right that says you must be allowed to use the message boards. They have offered you three ways to do it. At least one of them will be completely free of charge to you. But you must give them the information they require. If you don't give them the information then you won't be able to use the message boards -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And you still can't sign your posts :)

Imdb forum/messageboard access now requires creditcard verification or Amazon purchase
Credit card verification,Amazone acct. and purchase from Amazon within one year. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not actually true. There are several options available. Although I don't think there are any free options, I know an Amazon account is not the only one. UB65 (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you do NOT KNOW then why are you questioning it. I have seen it first hand. I just got a screen when registering that asked for all that information.  Asked for a purchase from 1 years time.  Do not delete my edits. I sense astroturfing here.  Censorship.


 * I've been using the IMDb for years but to investigate this claim I just connected as a brand new user. First, the message boards are still free. Anyone can read them, you don't even need to register as a user. When you do register you need to authenticate your registration before you can write a message to the message boards. But this is free as well. You can do it by giving the details of an Amazon account where you've made a purchase - at any time, not just in the last year. Or you can give your credit card details, no charge is made on that credit card, they just verify the card. Or you can have the system send an SMS text message (not a premium rate message) to your mobile phone. None of these authentications need cost you any money to authenticate your account but they let the IMDb tie the account to a real person. They give quite valid reasons why they consider this to be necessary -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ::: I placed a citation template so we can avoid an Edit war. You need to calm yourself and discuss this in a civilized manner. The Pro interface and other industry accesses can be used instead of Amazon which is what I was referring to. They are not free which is why I said I didn't know if there where any free options available. I believe what SteveCrook said above shows that free access is still available though and should be reflected in the article. UB65 (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, no evidence that anything on the non-pro side of the IMDB isn't free. All evidence says it's still free. Verification isn't the same as a charge, it's still free. If you can provide evidence that you've had to pay for IMDB message board access then please show. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How does it make sense to say that you need to purchase from Amazon to post a message and call it FREE. What does the term free mean to you? Also doesn't it strike you as coniving and exploitative that they would ask for credit cards to post on a messageboard.  Please add some mention of this and that other movie review boards don't do such disgusting sales tactics. No doubt they store numbers on their database.


 * No where does it insist that you need to purchase something from Amazon to post a message. I have no Amazon account but can post happily. Even creating a new account I don't need to buy something from Amazon. Free means you don't have to pay money for it, which in this case you don't. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote conjecture and personal opinion against something. Canterbury Tail   talk  00:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried registering YESTERDAY. How's that for first hand evidence. When they ask you to buy something then that means it's NOT FREE. Are you that dense?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To Ericg33, you have made lots of comments in this discussion area and you haven't managed to sign any of them yourself. Despite the instructions clearly telling you to sign every contribution. Do you have trouble reading and understanding instructions? As I said above, I registered as a new user with the IMDb to see what this fuss was about and if you do have to pay anything. As I said above, there are various ways of authenticating your registration. Using your Amazon account is just one of three methods offered. None of the methods cost you anything to authenticate your registration with the IMDb. 1. If you have an Amazon account and you have bought something from them, then you can use that Amazon account to authenticate your IMDb registration - you don't need to buy anything extra from them. It doesn't cost you anything. 2. If you don't have an Amazon account but you have a mobile phone then you can let the IMDb sent you a message to your phone. This might cost a few pennies depending on the agreement you have with your network operator. There is no premium charge made, the IMDb isn't charging you anything. 3. If you don't have a suitable phone then you can just use your credit card. They will validate the card details but they won't make any charges on the card.

If you don't like any of those methods then there's one other option open to you. Don't use the IMDb message boards. Using the boards isn't compulsory and you don't have an inalienable right to use them. If you do use the IMDb boards you agree to abide by their rules. This authentication of your registration is a part of their rules. If you don't like it, go away -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't buy anything from Amazon and got this... http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/1151/ama33dz2.jpg   I don't want to buy anything from them.   I want an edit change in page about it not  being free anymore  and maybe a little mention about them gathering database information on users.  Shouldn't be difficult & someone tell me how this isn't another business scheming to get creditcard numbers and other private info including cellphone no's. Everyone here takes Amazons word. i don't.  How do you know they don't sell that info? Just make a minor edit about some of this stuff would do --Ericg33 (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe they are allowed to make some assumptions like that everybody in the world - except you - either has or can easily get a credit card or a mobile phone. How else can they verify that you are who you say you are? And it's not so much about preventing spam, although that is a part of it, as preventing abuse. Some people can get very abusive on the IMDb message boards and they need a way to find those people should steps need to be taken against them. There aren't any Wikipedia moderators taking part in this discussion as far as I know. It's all just being done between Wikipedia users. None of us work for the IMDb or for Amazon (AFAIK) No, I don't automatically accept Amazon for their word. But I don't automatically disbelieve and mistrust everyone either. As I said above, I have been a customer of Amazon and a contributor to the IMDb for years and I have never had any reason to mistrust either organisation -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So try methods 2 or 3 above, the message to your mobile phone or the direct use of the credit card. They are both free. If you are so paranoid as to not trust them, that's your choice. You are perfectly entitled to not trust them. But that means you can't use their message boards. They have certainly offered you enough ways to authenticate your registration without it costing you a penny -- SteveCrook (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not paranoid. I am just savvy to shady business practices.  Do you give your email address to just anyone? How about your social security number? Hopefully you understand now. E-businesses sell that information to database companies. What was wrong with the previous way of just using email to register? Nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I give my email address to anyone and everyone, I have very good spam filtering. I only give my credit card number to companies I trust. Amazon have had mine for years and I've never had any trouble from them or seen anything suspicious. I'm in the UK so I don't have a social security number or any other ID number that will do anyone any good. Identity theft does happen, but nowhere near as often as newspapers will have you believe. The IMDb give their reasons for this authentication process on the page where you are asked to authenticate. There's a big side panel with the heading "Why authenticate?". It starts off with the question "Why do I need to do this?" and their answer starts by saying "You don't". As I said above, if you don't want to authenticate, then don't. Using the boards isn't compulsory and you don't have any automatic right to use them. But don't keep trying to claim that the only way to authenticate will cost you money. We have shown you various methods that are completely free. And finally, no I'm not an Amazon shareholder. I don't have any connection with them apart from being a long term user of Amazon and of the IMDb -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do NOT have a credit card or cellphone then it is NOT free. That simple.  Also one of the reasons they give for authentication is because of SPAM.  I have rarely seen spam on Imdb. Anyone who thinks this is just to help the users and not to help Amazon gain access to private information is someone very gullible. Also funny is that all the so called moderators here automatically accept Amazon for their word.  Umm. Are you people European? Are you taking everything bigbusiness says as truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Core tenant of Wikipedia, verifiability. Can you verify your claims that Amazon is using it to get data for nefarious purposes and that their claims are false? We have written information from the IMDB, but nothing for otherwise. What you claim is just not verifiable. Also what has European got to do with anything? Canterbury Tail   talk  12:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't have an internet connection then you can't use it either. And as you have to pay for an internet connection it can't be free. It's a conspiracy by Amazon!! :)

IMDb wiki
I have opened up a request for a IMDb wiki at Wikia.com. If you think this wiki is useful, please go to the request page and write --~ or if you don't think it's a good idea write --~ at the comment part, including any personal comments you might have like why you like it. If there are no responses from other users then it will likely be rejected. For starters the Wiki page will mostly be translations of occupations to help users to submit credits from a non English film, but it can easely extend as far as you want it to. This includes, for example, keyword explanation. I hope to see you there. --Steinninn 13:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The site is now up at IMDb WIkia. I invite everyone to contribute what they can.--Steinninn 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image
Hi. It was me that change the image to the the front page, rather then just a profile page, since this is how most web page articles around here are displayed. But because of tecnical dificulties I couln't add the footnoter. Could someone upload a new version where all the front page is seen? See for example Wikipedia --Steinninn 12:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Steinninn, I don't understand what it is you want. They look fine to me. The current IMDb front page is shown in the Info Box for the article. Further down in the article you show examples of previous styles of pages. They all have footnotes -- SteveCrook 13:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi SteveCrook. I'm talking about the foot-footnoter, "Copyright © 1990-2007 " and all that. I wanted to include it, but I just have a 'free download' image software. I would have included it if I had Photoshop, but I don't. --Steinninn 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Section
There was an extensive section on criticisms that existed until January of this year, when it was inexplicably removed. This is an important part of the article. If you wish, edit the section, but do not remove it wholesale. Afabbro 07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please readd the Criticism section. The deleted information is probably due to 'astroturfing' from Amazon shareholders.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I love the way you make these wild assumptions about people just because they disagree with you -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A list is not a good wiki article. There are some interesting facts there, and it's good that you brought it back up to the list. But. There are a lot of original research that needs citation. --Steinninn 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it was discussed here --Steinninn 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Criticisms section are not encyclopedic, they often become POV dumping grounds. Relevant criticism should be integrated into the article. Aaron Bowen 05:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So should we remove it? --Steinninn 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Aaron Bowen 23:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

^^ 2 shills is more fun than 1 shill
 * I am not entirely familiar with wiki standards, I tend to leave my edits in discussion until someone more knowledgeable implements them. That being said, I feel a criticism section, or similar, is entirely accurate here. As an avid movie buff, I use IMDB constantly. I recognize frequent errors by IMDB, even if only simple things (for example frequently the same "trivia" is listed twice, or spelling mistakes etc.) for an edited source this is unacceptable, and it makes me question how well I can trust their content. But these are frequent mistakes, and can be detailed objectively, after all I see the mistakes constantly but still find IMDB to be a great source. If I can be objective about it, others can be too. --67.185.245.221 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Size?
The article states it's the largest online movie database. Any idea of how large? Like, how many movies are on there at the moment? 82.69.28.55 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, http://imdb.com/database_statistics 376,851 Theatrical released titles. --Steinninn talk 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And 2,269,572 people! (further down the same page) -- SteveCrook 22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
NOTE: I moved this to talk I'm going to work on integrating it into the article in the next couple of days. Aaron Bowen 23:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people regard IMDb as unreliable, even by the standards of a wiki. Common complaints leveled against the site include the following:

- Until all entries are converted, the main pages for TV shows may not display the Series Cast or tenure without reference to individual episodes. (e.g. The Virginian and James Drury) - This has introduced profound TV omissions in the 'actor' listings, as many 'Series Cast' actors are only credited for their 'non-regular' episode appearances on a show.
 * The 2006 transition to "Full Episode Support", as described in the section "TV Episodes" above, has seriously impaired the use of the database for TV references.


 * The database doesn't accept every vote submitted for movies to be placed on the "Top 250" or "Bottom 100" list. They only count votes from "Regular Voters," and they refuse to publish the criteria for what a "Regular Voter" is. The staff claims that it is to prevent people from taking multiple accounts and voting for their favorite or least favorite films repeatedly, but many users question this claim. Accusations abound that the voting is "rigged."


 * The site's listing of titles for foreign films does not list any alternate titles except under "Also Known As." This leads to problems in searching for foreign films and titles, given that many people only know their language's translations of the titles, or have incomplete information about the original titles of the films.


 * Staff members gauge the validity of contributed data based on the past reliability of the contributor, as none are themselves experts in all of the significantly varied areas of film history to know what is valid themselves. The volume of submissions and the number of volunteers who submit information are therefore likely to result in frequent errors.  This is especially true for foreign cinema, which the staff appear to be much less familiar with, and where credits in a foreign language or alphabet may easily be misinterpreted by members of the predominately English-speaking user base.


 * Submissions of product data are processed by categories of personnel contained in the submission, meaning the data for any one film is broken up into several components and examined independently of the other components, then reassembled without checking the continuity of the whole, which may be further disrupted if one manager's section(s) is/are backlogged, an unfortunately regular occurrence at IMDb.


 * IMDb follows stringent rules on displaying cast lists only according to "the order shown on the screen in the most complete cast list shown." This was one of Col Needham's earliest rules.  Such complete screen cast lists are frequently based on order of appearance or, occasionally, alphabetical listings of players. In either case, the rules for listing may result in the names of a film's stars appearing well into the cast list even though a list of main actors may have appeared at the beginning of the film or shortly after the end, as well as in advertising for the film.  Consequently, visitors to the site may first encounter an abbreviated entry on a film which displays a list of cast and crew members who are not major actors in the film.


 * Conversely, a fixed display by categories is used instead of screen order of credits. Only the writers category allows multiple names to be listed in the order of screen appearance within its confines.


 * IMDb does not follow the eastern name order, meaning that Hong Kong Superstar Chow Yun-Fat is listed in the database as "Yun-Fat Chow", for example.


 * Submission policies have become more stringent over the years, and approval of new titles to be added has become more cautious, but errors still occur while the added restrictions have made it more difficult to add information to the database or correct mistakes.


 * IMDb also retains the right to publish and not to publish information in such categories as a film's trivia, goofs, celebrity information, etc., regardless of how true it is. It is not uncommon for an item to be published one day, only to be removed the next; the criteria are secretive. In other cases, it can be difficult to get a demonstrably untrue piece of information removed.


 * There are increasingly recurrent complaints on general boards by certain users of a severe lack of moderation for its message boards. Thus, certain users complain that irrelevant, attacking or obscene messages, and general trolling is a problem on the boards of films and personalities, as well as the board set up by IMDb for the explicit purpose of being an outlet for screed (The Soapbox). Although offensive messages can be reported with the "Report abuse form", their removal takes some time (up to 2-3 days) and only one report per offending poster can be filed by each user under a revised system introduced in late 2005, replacing a system which allowed multiple abuse reports against an offender. However, users have an "ignore this poster" option as a sop: the function blocks the message from the view of the user who has placed someone on his/her ignore list. (Of course, the offending poster's contributions remain live and visible to anyone who does not have them in "ignore" status.)


 * Regular complaints can be seen on general boards that posts and accounts are being deleted without any reason (particularly on-topic posts which have not violated any of IMDb's Terms of Service), which has raised the question of whether trolls (especially trolls with vendettas against posters they do not like) or other users have found a way to delete users' posts or even accounts. (If a post or thread is deleted by an administrator, it appears in the message board as "post or thread deleted by administrator" ). In response to this complaint, the board administrators comment that "the problem they describe simply does not exist. The only people who can disable accounts are IMDb staff members on the boards administration team. For instance, the possibility has been posited that specific kinds of abuse report would result in automatic post deletion, such as posts which encourage illegal acts such as online piracy. The quantity of reports has also been questioned. Another recurrent issue raised on the IMDb general boards is whether the administrators thoroughly investigate reports of abuse or instead simply delete posts or accounts without verifying that the IMDb's terms and conditions for the message board have been violated. A recent issue coming up on the boards is that legitimate complaints filed by posters of trolling committed by ill-intentioned users are being ignored by the administrators.


 * The "Mini biography" section on each actor's entry has information which is often very out-of-date and in many cases unverified (such as the information in the 'Height' and 'Trivia' sections). The information regarding the most popular and established performers is often (but not necessarily always) correct, while the quality and veracity of data for less well-known players is correspondingly less reliable.


 * Complaints have been made about the advertisement being intrusive, however the IMDb says that it is working with advertising enterprises to reduce the impact that ads may have on the usability of the service


 * Some actors and actresses have no information associated with them. These are usually in the process of being linked.


 * Studios and people otherwise involved with a particular film will cast high ratings or post applauding comments prior to its release in order to generate buzz.


 * While the staff are not expert enough to confirm actors in uncredited cameo parts, they simply ignore these submissions. Follow up e-mails are ignored, which means there is no appeal or escalation procedure.


 * If proof is supplied and it matches the IMDb criteria for inclusion, then uncredited roles can be, and often are included. Have you had such a request refused?
 * The criteria for inclusion of uncredited roles are laid out at http://uk.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?uncreditedcredits
 * The IMDb responds to appeals made on the Contributors Help Board
 * -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am extremely disturbed by IMDB's attitude towards contributors. I worked on a glbt-themed television show. An issue arouse on the IMDB board for that show. A poster posted the same message in 57 different threads in the span of one day. Here is the first sentence (I apologise for the language): "S**tstained aids ridden f***s should all be killed. KILL ALL F***" It continued on in this tone, with many references to "s**tstained d***s" and aids, also invoking the Bible and repeatedly urging others to "kill all f****" for several paragraphs. Over the following week the poster posted the same message several hundred more times, on the message boards for various glbt shows. I reported it by using the 'report abuse' feature, nothing. I used the 'report abuse' feature on this person's posts three times over the course of a week, after the third report I received a very nasty PM from the IMDB moderators telling me they would not be "bullied" into deleting posts, that they would never delete those posts so "deal with it" and that if I or others (presumably others had reported the posts) attempted to have the posts deleted, our accounts would be deleted. I was "punished" by having my ability to use to 'report abuse' feature disabled and my between post time hugely increased. It was not until we contacted a glbt magazine who threatened to 'out' IMDB in print as promoting homophobic violence that they agreed to delete the posts. Despicable behavior. I understand this is OR and not approprate for Wiki but it needs to be said somewhere.81.1.83.51 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the above revelations incredibly shocking and my opinion of IMDB (very low of late) has been lowered even further. But things make more sense now, as my ID on IMDB is the same as it is here.  It makes sense then, given how obviously GLBT-themed my user name is, that any contributions I make would be ignored there.  • Homoaffectional (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above revelations are shocking, but are they true? If they are true then the posts would still remain there for all to see. But the anonymous poster doesn't say which films they were for -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One problem I have with IMDb is its Americocentricness (what I call the "we-are-the-world syndrome", after the US song cobbled together in hasty and poor-quality response to the UK's Do They Know It's Christmas?); for instance, they insist on the first Harry Potter movie being called --Sorceror's Stone despite the fact that it's only known by this title in the US market (and then only because, reportedly, people in the US are too dumb to know what "philosopher" means). The correct title worldwide (including Canada) is --Philosopher's Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.70 (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI The IMDb started off in Britain and quite a few of the senior people are British and still live in Britain -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IMDb.Logo.png
Image:IMDb.Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

problematic sentence?
i took offense to this sentence: "Films aimed at audiences not in this demographic are absent from the list, including Titanic, the highest grossing film of all time, and all the Harry Potter films, the most successful film franchise of all time (so far)." all this says is that the most popular movies must be the best ones and of couse the classic retort is: nazism was popular too.User:ashburn247 07:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is there to take offense at? That paragraph is actually saying the opposite to what you seem to think. It is saying that films that are very popular with the cinema going public in general might not appear on the Top 250 list because they aren't very popular with IMDb voters. It is pointing out how the list can appear to be skewed -- SteveCrook 10:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ashburn247. More importantly, the sentence in question is one editor's opinion, there is no attribution (the footnote simply links to a list of box office rankings showing that Titanic and the Harry Potter films are high-grossing): it is not verifiable and seems to be original research. It does not seem to be rational opinion, since there is no direct link between the number who have seen a movie and its IMDB score. A much more interesting (and likely, veriable though I can't remember where I read this) point to make is that the IMDB list has a bias towards recent movies, or to put it another way, a recent movie will typically enter the Top 250 list at a higher point than its final resting place. Anon user (CM) 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The section is about the Top 250 (& other similar lists). A reference earlier in that section gives a link to the IMDb Top 250 list which explains how it is arrived at, including which votes are counted. The reference after the mention of Titanic is to the Box Office figures to show that Titanic did well at the box office. There is no link between the number of people that have seen a film and its score in the Top 250, why should there be? The box office figure counts the people that saw a title, the Top 250 counts the people that liked it. However, as is discussed earlier in the section, because of the way the IMDb selects those that are eligible to vote, the Top 250 list can appear skewed -- SteveCrook 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion and a question
I reverted some obvious vandalism, but also noticed that someone removed the "overview" section also. I'm not sure it needs to be in, but no discussion of removal appears here, so I'll revert that also, and let the discussion begin. --Rocksanddirt 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

db content, copyrights issues
A lot of website are parsing, and using the content of the imdb website, is it legal to do that ?

No. IMDb has a web service and is happy to provide licensed data for a fee. See http://imdb.com/Licensing/ for details. Kirbyk 22:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. The IMDb makes certain claims, but they have never been litigated. The authors of all contributions own the copyright in their contributions. The IMDb has no standing to make copyright infringement claims against copyists, which is why they have never litigated. The individual contributors do have the power to make copyright claims, but in practice this be unlikely to happen, and the only sanctions realistically available would be injunctions to cease the copying, since monetary damages would be difficult to prove and without registration, statutory damages are unavailable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.216.99.100 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says that the "For automated queries, most of the database can be downloaded as compressed plain text files". Is this information up-to-date? --91.152.105.212 18:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, see their page about Alternate Interfaces. Particularly the section "The plain text data files". I tried the first FTP site listed and the files were dated 12 October 2007, just a couple of days ago -- SteveCrook 19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDb is mostly credit list information, and that can not be copyrighted. So unless they are copy pasting trivia or other hand written information it is very likely ok to do. --Steinninn 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection
IMDb is the most vandalized article on my watch list. Dose anyone els think it should be semi protected indefenetly. I'm not very familiar with the policy on when to protect pages. --Steinninn 02:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Preview 10 syndrome
Speaking of astroturfing, has there been any discussion of how user reviews of movies posted before they've entered general release suspiciously often give a movie a 10 out 10 rating? (A random example I happened to come across just now is the 3 November 2007 review by "greggandkristi" currently on the Enchanted page...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been discussion of it on the IMDb, certainly in the Contributors Help board. But there's not too much that can be safely done about it. It's hard to prove they aren't genuine reviews or votes after people have seen previews or have seen the film at a festival. The hope is that as soon as it does go on general release that the reviews and votes from more "real" people will balance things out -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributing experience
That's twice now that 68.162.244.22 has added a comment like:
 * Some members who subscribe only to IMDb and not to IMDb Pro have complaints against the fact that Pro members have the rights to edit biographies, trivia, and other related information. Non-Pro members are met instead with a message advising them to "get experience" before editing or revising biographical or trivial information. As it is impossible for a member to get experience editing biographical information when they aren't allowed to in the first place, regular members of IMDb complain that they should not have to pay for these rights, especially if they are correcting false information.

That's not true, or not as stated. You do have to get some editing and contributing experience before you can edit/create certain biographical information. But you can get that experience by contributing cast or crew credits, plot summaries and in many other areas of the database -- SteveCrook 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

INTERNATIONAL Movie Database?
According to this little post on this little forum, IMDB used to stand for INTERNATIONAL Movie Database:

http://reginaspektor.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/454107688/m/2031078171?r=1891075271#1891075271

Is that true? INTERNET Movie Database is elementary, and it took me a while to get the hang of not accidentally calling it INTERNATIONAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.126.158 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to IMDB's website (http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?history) it started as the Internet Movie Database...not sure where that rumor came from. :-/ --Wootonius (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They might think that - they're wrong. Ever since it's used the initials IMDb they have stood for Internet Movie Database -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the I stood for "International", the IMDb would refer to the first Harry Potter film by its international title of Philosopher's, and not insist on calling it solely by the US-only title of Sorcerer's. -- 217.171.129.70 (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's always been Internet, not International. Even from my early days of accessing it as part of Cardiff University's site it was always Internet. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Social hacks on IMDB
As of about autumn 2007 the "user comments" section has been plagued by professional promoters. Most of the new and popular films have these pay-per-favourable-comment-on-first-page feeling. This is nothing new in the internet advertisment, you hire somebody to promote. And it works.

Please help me to include this on wikipedia, help fight the bad stuff in todays internet freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.57.178 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wentworth Miller
I want to write to Wentworth Miller by e-mail. Who knows his e-mail? My e-mail: anechna@list.ru —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.63.176 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page about encyclopedic material. Please use other channels. Wurdnurd (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

IMDB as a Reliable source
Whilst wondering whether I could use IMDB information as a reference I came across this conversation Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5 which indicates that it is not. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See "Pot calling the kettle black" -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is quite open about not considering itself a reliable source - "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources" - Verifiability. Is IMDB ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 22:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is a reliable source. However, Wikipedia at least cites its sources, while the IMDB does not. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

whats wrong with it?
i tried to log in and it wouldnt let me it said unnavalibe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanyboy nazz (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I tried accessing it in the last few days and can't even access it. All I get is a "cannot find page" page. Maybe they're having server errors. Megumi997 (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to check some of the shadow sites. If you usually use [www.imdb.com] try [italy.imdb.com]. These are shadow sites in other countries, but they're all in English -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been using it ever day for the last week or more. They do occasionally have down time when they rebuild the database. But when that happens they usually show a page telling you that it's currently unavailable. If you're not even seeing that, and you can't get onto it for a few hours, then check with your ISP as it's more likely to be a problem somewhere in the connection between you and the IMDb rather than in the IMDb itself.


 * Thanks :) I think it may be an ISP problem since its been doing this the last few days. But I tried your suggestion (going to italy.imdb.com) and it works. :) Thanks again ^^ Megumi997 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Somethings happened again now, what I keep getting is "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" I click on Diagnose connection problems and get told that Windows can't find it using DNS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, something is definitely wrong. I've been trying to access it from my Mac since last night. The web browsed won't recognise the server... Something must have happened at their end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emlodik (talk • contribs) 12:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case you've got a bad DNS. Tell your ISP. It's nothing to do with the IMDb that you can't connect to them, it's to do with the people who provide the connection -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Its been happening to me too I could go to any web-site but IMDb 18:26, 6 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.239.16 (talk)


 * But if you're getting the message "Windows can't find it using DNS" then it's your DNS (probably run by your IP) at fault, not the IMDb. Or you ISP is choosing to block connections to the IMDb. In either case, the IMDb is available to everyone else, it's not them that's preventing you from getting to them. Ask your ISP about it. And sign entries on Talk pages with ~ to get your name (or IP address) and the date added. -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's happening to me too. I go to IMDb pretty much everyday; I'm what's called a "reg" on the Lost board. But all of the sudden I haven't been able to access the site since Wednesday. But I'm going back home in a few days (I'm from Cincinnati, Ohio and right now I'm in Maryland, so I don't think I need to fix it. ṃўɭĩє  What did I do wrong 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that IMDB has been a victim of a Denial-of-service attack according to an article on CNET Networks. DrAvatar (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They haven't denied it much :) I've been using the IMDb quite a lot over the last few days and haven't had a single failure -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Imdb96.jpg
Image:Imdb96.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[Funny comic breaking down the type of people who post on IMDb (courtesy of 2-D Glasses). 8 Types of People Who Post on IMDb] —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredoP (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDb Language
IMDb Is written in Perl and PHP. The database server's are MYSQL and Oracle Database. .NET and Java is used aswell. 
 * Funny, I was going to ask about the Available language(s)
 * English, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish
 * Is this true? I can only find Italian and German. --Steinninn 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The other "language sites" mentioned in the main article under Foreign-language films were the systems that started off as just other sites carrying the same information to act as co-location hosts. But they have started experimenting with them and quite a few have a few words in the appropriate non-English language. Usually in the pull-down menu for the search at the top of the main page, or close to it. The site at http://french.imdb.com/ has "Tous" instead of "All" and "Personnages" instead of "Characters" -- SteveCrook (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Green Pastures (Play)
I saw Green Pastures ONCE as a small child. I've looked every where for it. My own mother has never seen it. Does anyone know how I could get a copy of the play. I would love to do it as a church project. Thanking you in advance 68.119.12.61 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)}

Financial reason for creditcard verification
This article reads completely like a commercial and ad. Imdb is now owned by Amazon. They require an Amazon purchase to use their forums. This is clever business exploit but at what price. Where is the integrity that they want people to talk about their movies? They obviously want financial information for other reasons than verification. This is fact. Deleting this and calling it vanadalism is ridiculous. --69.154.214.28 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yawn, not this old complaint again. If you look through the talk page archive it's already been covered many times. You don't have to buy anything from Amazon to become an authenticated user. That is one way to do it, there are other ways. Read the page at, particularly the details when you open the sections on the right Do I have to pay for this? and Isn't this really just a way for you to make money? -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by "vandal control"
It is ironic that Beeblebrox boasts about his vandal control, when he is actively vandalising other people's contributions.

On 15th September IMDb rolled out one of its biggest developments yet - the ability to actually WATCH the items which you look up. As a thorough encylopaedia it is important that Wikipedia mentions this, as lacking one of the main features in an article damages its credibility. Beeblebrox's continual vandalism of this new information shows bias against IMDb, and makes his own position on this site extremely questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.108.154 (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you finally came to the talk page instead of edit-warring. I tried to explain to you on your talk page that this information needs to come from a reliable source, and that your analysis of the "irony" and use of hyperbole like "orgasmic" was the problem. Your accusation that I have some prejudice against IMDB is ridiculous. I can see as well as you that this feature actually exists, but the way you described it was wholly inappropriate and your accusations of vandalism were completely unfounded. Feel free to re-write in a way that does not express your personal opinions, and maybe try to find appropriate sources. This is the talk page for discussing this article, if you actually believe I am a vandal, you need to go here to report me. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You were so busy removing my work that you failed to notice that on my 2nd edit I actually added the reliable source which linked straight to the announcement page on IMDb itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.108.154 (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS for details on what constitutes a reliable source. Prince of Canadat 09:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is IMDB listed here?
I understand it's a pretty big website. Very popular. Giant and all that. But it's still another 'website'. So the page looks more like an advertisement for that site. Seeing that, other people would want their sites listed and detailed here as well. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaunty mellifluous (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol what? Should we also delete the article on George W Bush since he's "another 'politician'", and other politicians will want their sites detailed here as well? I hope you're trolling. 96.237.59.92 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets start deleting with Google, Microsoft, EA Games, Half Life, Coca Cola... they are all advertising here I suppose... WHAT A BRILLIANT IDEA!!! "Delete IMDB, it is advertisement" I cannot believe those people are using and EDITING Wikipedia. Get A LIFE kid.--hnnvansier (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And there's an article on Wikipedia that effectively promotes and advertises Wikipedia! Quelle horror! Quick, get rid of it before it makes anyone use the Wikipedia site :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * yeh. .. hehe. . . what he said. . . yeh. . . hehehe. . . delete. .  .. yeh. . .  . .i love ducks. CarmenAutre (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Digital Equipment Alpha involvement
I recall back in 1995/1996 at PC Expo in NY that Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) was showing off their Alpah Chip technology by showing off imdb.org -- which they claimed was their "technology demo" site for their product. It was really fast for the time. I can't seem to find any record of this. But they seemed to claim that they sponsored and built the site to show off how fast they could search data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.192.1 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Website is not working
This website does not work at the moment... or at least for me. If it doesnt work for everyone it should be noted on this page
 * I've been having the same problem for several weeks now. Jellevc (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the Spanish and the UK sites are working. The US is not. Perhaps it is just a matter of them moving pages.--Nauki (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

POV discussion
It seems to me that a lot of the article about IMDb's recent history and practices is rather negative in tone. It sounds as if the author of the article is unhappy with IMDbPro, and the purchase of IMDb by a private corporation. It seems to me that, after reading the article in full, the specific locations of the negative tone and POV should be apparent. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley→ &#x2709; 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would help if you cited the "specific locations of the negative tone and POV" you are unhappy with. Some things just are negative, no matter how you look at them. But if your POV is brighter, why don't you just add it?
 * By the way, I am quite sure the article wasn't written by one person. 62.226.3.143 (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You want examples? Here are some POV sounding bits: Peter Ballard (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "and the need for more full-time managers, who would of course want to be paid"
 * "None of this activity was made known to the several hundred volunteers who were contributing the vast majority of information now incoming to IMDb."
 * "Volunteer contributors were not advised in advance of even the possibility of IMDb—and their contributions along with it—being sold to a private business, which created some initial discord and defection of regulars."
 * "Thus non-US and non-European contributors are effectively excluded from ever achieving complimentary IMDbPro membership via this incentive scheme."
 * "This lack of oversight is acceptable, however, because very little new data is sent in"
 * "giving the impression that it is generally the work of Col Needham and his small staff of "data managers""
 * "The fact that the primary qualification for section managers is their knowledge of programming, rather than film or the parts of film with which they deal, also allows for addition of misinformation, urban legend, rumor and human error by relative novices."


 * Pieces like that are usually added by people who have tried to get a credit listed on the IMDb and found that they don't meet their eligibility rules. So they come here and say nasty things about it :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Internet "Media" Database
Does anyone know if IMDB has ever considered calling themselves "The Internet Media Database"? As the article states, "The IMDb website consists of one of the largest accumulations of data about films, television programs, direct-to-video products, and video games", and has profile pages for people in all forms of media. I can foresee the whole operation undergoing a name-change soon, because new IMDb visitors have no way to get the drift that they cover a lot more than just movies, and thus will utilize the site a lot less. Unsigned comment from 68.111.167.64 14:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What's in a name? The biggest selling TV listings magazine in the UK is still called the Radio Times. I don't think anyone ever buys it thinking that it only contains radio listings. Does anyone ever use the IMDb thinking that it just contains information about movies? Most people will find it by doing a search for a title or person that they are interested in rather that hunting around for a web site with a name that implies that it will contain what they want -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

cite #4
cite #4 says "post deleted" on all posts for me. 212.247.86.210 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of Website & Headquaters
I was just wondering why it doesn't like several pages on websites (EG. Google, Yahoo, Amazon.com) (Google is an American public corporation) how it is not listed as a certain nationality, british, american whatever it is? Someone explain that to me please? thanks. Secondly why is there no "headquaters" is this information missing or unknown. Thanks --Tukogbani (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It says in the body it's incorporated in the U.K. Also, they use British English in their news feed (series instead of season, drink driving instead of drunk driving, etc.) Ace of Sevens (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay cool, do they have a headquaters or is it strictly based online?--Tukogbani (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Authentication in the message boards
I have an account on imdb and participate in the forums, and have never used any of those features to activate my account. I created the account several years ago, have they changed the requirements and just grandfathered in those of us who have had accounts for years? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The original research of the Message Boards' section wrongfully makes it look like authentication was always a given. It was only something IMDb added a decade later. Alas, IMDb also had a grandfather clause that let existing unauthenticated users post and report about bad posts. In other words, the authentication demand was only applied for new users (since the moment of the demand).


 * That is, until they recently abolished the grandfather clause out of the blue without any explanation. Is there any reliable source that discusses this whole situation?


 * -79.176.10.57 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason this kind of thing should be in the article? Doesn't seem at all encyclopaedic to me, it's a minor trivia. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDb's message boards are the unofficial official choice for the average user who wants to discuss a certain film, TV show or TV episode. Turning such a choice into a private small community within a click of a button (when it comes to posting, not reading) is not trivial in my eyes. -79.180.25.233 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Grandfather clause still works for me .I've never authenticated my account and can still post freely .Garda40 (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * News to me. All I provided was an email address which is not the same as the email I have associated with Amazon... =//= Proxy User (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you two talk about the boards specifically? I too lost the grandfather clause in August 2009. It's very odd if you two claim you still have it unlike others. -82.80.56.119 (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Very odd; I signed up with IMDb in 2006, never gave any 'financial information' and, to this day do not have ANY sort of registration with amazon.com, yet I can still post just fine; how long as that "citation needed" tag been sitting there? Empath (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rating People
So how does it end up coming with the change for rating people? MMetro (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As of September 16, 2009 this site's look was updated.
The site has a new look. I tried to re-size this screenshot of the frontpage but it didn't look right. Can someone else re-size it upload the image on this side please? Thanks.  FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  16:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable?
Is IMDB a reliable source for Wikipedia?Iminrainbows (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've twice encountered Wik-users who reverted edits based on, in their opinion, IMDB not being reliable.  That's just two times (articles Greater Manchester and Terry Ward) but its not like users leap up to defend IMDB.   In my own experience at least, IMDB --at least for the last couple of years-- has been reliable and well self-policed.   However, if a few users or admins disagree, it seems to be enough to taint it as a source for some articles.  Cramyourspam (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam


 * I should add that I'm speaking only of IMDB main, goofs, trivia, and extended cast pages. I do not claim the forum boards of theirs are reliable; by their very nature, those boards allow pretty much anyone to write whatever they want ---accurate or not. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam
 * IMDb can be used for its news stories and its release dates. A lot of it is user submitted, making it not reliable, though. That is how I understand it. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the Donald Fullilove article I created last year? He was in Up (as Nurse George) and quite a number of other films, but there are few other mentions of him on the Internet other than his IMDb page. It's not like he doesn't exist! Is there any way to keep this article, or will it be deleted solely because IMDb is its only source? dogman15 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you find some other sources of information about him then they can be added to the article. It is a bit sparse. That's nothing to do with the IMDb being used as a source of information. There's just not a lot in the Wikipedia article about him -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

i practically grew up with imdb. it is, perhaps, my favorite website. it was great in the early years of the site seeing listings for obscure (but arguably historically important) features come online. that, for me, was the real thrill of the site. but now imdb has become so exclusive in its approach to project listings that it has defeated its purpose (or one of its purposes), that of documenting filmdom's past. there are a lot of "undocumented" films still out there. ("undocumented" in the sense that they are not listed in the imdb, the de facto filmography site of record). due to these circumstances, an alternative to imdb should be found for films that, for one reason or another, DIDN'T make it into the database. does such an alternative database exist? if not, is there any chance that one might go online in the not-to-distant future? this is a real need that apparently isn't being met........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbecker03 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should you need an alternative? Have you had a few personal projects that haven't been listed? They have got a bit more exclusive over the years, they've had to. Otherwise every home movie video and YouTube clip would have to be listed to say nothing of all those student projects that won't be seen by anyone except the rest of the class and maybe the family of the people that made it. If there are any historically important, or even significant films that are missing from the IMDb then they can be added. The IMDb is only as good as we film fans can make it -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of opening up a huge discussion, I am interested that you say that IMDB is "only as good as we film fans can make it", yet even the Wiki page (IMDB) states that this is not possible. Is it that your comment is perhaps an old one, or is it still Wiki belief that IMDB is self-edited - which it most certainly is not. I say this from experience as my boyfriend has had to repeatedly and formally request IMDB to correct some information that was not included on a film reference and the only way of changing it is to fill out a long, detailed form verifying who you are and your connection to the project etc. and then they take several weeks to correct the info before it appears on-line. Isn't it time that it was generally agreed that IMDB IS considered a reliable source? Manxwoman (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Manx, its an unfortunate stance that many uninformed WP Users take regarding IMDb. Its a for profit site owned by Amazon that contains the work histories of thousands of actors, actresses, and associated production crew. Why Editors are so ignorant and naive as to this fact is just disappointing. Worse yet, we are all being deprived of a usable and credible source of citations because of the prevailing opinion that much of the factual information on the site is User generated. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've long been of the opinion that Wikipedia refuses to allow the IMDb as a source as revenge for the IMDb refusing to allow Wikipedia as a source :) I know which I put more faith in, neither are 100% reliable, but what is? -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting viewpoint, possibly credible and yet completely juvenile on either parties part, but stranger things have happened in the High Tech and Entertainment communities. It's still a waste that editors are being denied the use of a credible source. Its ignorance that fuels the misconceptions about IMDb. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Policy
I've removed the policy section as it is inappropriate for article space. The applicable policy and guideline pages concerning the reliability of sources are WP:V and WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That section was about IMDb's policy on Wikipedia, not Wikipedia's. Though I agree it shouldn't be in the article either, but wanted to clarify.  Mike  Allen   02:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh! color me sheepish. Dlabtot (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Ratings
I don't have sources but I'd like to discuss it. I don't wanna start an original research row, but to motivate others for finding better sources, probably sources that are not even related to imdb or the internet specifically. What I mean is, the article here states, for example, that it's 'criticism' that "some" movies get a high rating after they are first released, while they gradually degrade in rating. But that's obviously because people are excited in the beginning after exiting a theater; as the time goes by they gradually vote more sanely. Also, as the time goes by something becomes (more) dated and hence only very few reach a chronic high rating. This is all common sense and it applies in any art form. e.g. a new book, a new tv program for news, even a new product on the shelf. i.e. what I'm trying to say, attacking imdb for people's discrepancies is silly. --195.74.252.192 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i don't know how to joint you dear mister clooney. A lot of french people want to know what is realy the truth problem in Darfour ? I believe very stronger in your beautiful action. Please,tell me what is the absolute situation in this country ? knows that the new wold is coming to help the Darfour and try to save the poor people on our planet. thanks a lot mister Clooney because if humanity could be in peace maybe life will be better,speachaly if all the traders could be out that way. thank's to answer me. CYRIL SEMPE le 13/11/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.160.203 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Users Reviews
I have noticed many times in the IMDB that users reviews with much worse ratings than others are presented in the front page of a movie. One characteristic example is "The Take"(2004). I think a critique about this should be added in the article. Tryfonaration (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The User Review that is shown on the main page for a title is selected at random. Or at least, they vary every day. It might be chosen according to some magic sequence, but they all get chosen eventually - unless they are marked as containing spoilers -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of adult film actors from search results?
Just a heads up, but several attempts at doing searches for notable adult film performers suggests IMDb is no longer including those names in search results. The listings themselves appear to still be there (I used the IMDb link a Erica Boyer as the key). Might be a glitch or it might be a new policy. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the situation can update the article should the latter be the case. (This may also have ramifications for many Wikipedia biographical listings if the actual IMDb listings for performers such as Erica Boyer are deleted). 68.146.64.9 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * works fine for me....--Stemoc (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to be a registered user and set the relevant preference to see those results. Floatjon (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Rating Formula Accuracy
I am not a math major, but my first impression is that the rating formula presented in this article can be greatly reduced. As a result, I have my doubts whether it is accurate.

I am not familar with how to use all the math symbols, but it seems that the two variables for the size of the audience and the number of reviews (expressed as v + M) could be factored out of both the numerator and the denominator leaving the formula as just the sum of the average weightings for this movie and the total population.

Hwilly (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not a maths major, that's obvious. But have you ever done any maths? They can't be factored out. Try replacing them with simple numbers and see if the results are the same with and without the v & m values -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Popularity Contest
There's a paragraph in the section on Criticisms of IMDb ranking that starts by saying Some other general criticism of the ranking system is that it serves as a "popularity contest". But isn't that the whole point of a ranking system, that it shows which titles are the most popular? -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that no, it is meant to be about quality not quantity. Whilst a million people had seen liked movie A, Movie B may have only been seen by 100,000, but loved by each. The ranking system is meant to show highest rated movies, opposed to most rated. The fact is, on imdb, if those million people could rate their movies that they liked 10/10 for the sole purpose of moving its ranking, instead of rating based on its attributes in comparison to other movies and past on entertainment for personal taste, and the 100,000 with a 9/10 opinion on arguably the greater film are powerless. Deadagain33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Language of the titles
"The non-English language sites display film titles in the specified language. While originally the IMDb's English-language sites displayed titles according to their original country-of-origin language, in 2010 the IMDb began displaying titles by either their US or UK AKA, depending on the user's location"

When I go to the IMDB (english version), it display the titles in Portuguese (I live in Portugal) - I think that the english version of IMDB now display titles in the language of the user, even if is not a variant of English.--194.38.144.2 (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

POV
Please try to adhere to neutral point of view, and, particularly with this article, don't use weasel wording. I had to remove a fair amount of sly negative POV and weasel wording from the article. Some guy (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia with IMDb
There are several templates available in Wikipedia, to provide external links related to IMDb:
 * Template:IMDb title - for work (e.g. movies, TV series, Web series, games) titles
 * Template:IMDb name - for person names
 * Template:IMDb episode - for episode titles of a TV series or Web series
 * Template:IMDb episodes - for episode lists of a TV series or Web series
 * Template:IMDb company - for company names
 * Template:IMDb character - for character names

Above section removed form article as self-ref. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC).


 * And it was apparently re-added. I'll remove it, but it'll probably come back. I expect some education is in order. &mdash;Al E.(talk) 17:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ranking (IMDb Top 250)
This section states "An extended listing of the Top 500 – following the same formula – is available to IMDbPro subscribers." Does anyone know where? I'm an IMDbPro subscriber and can't find it anywhere -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * http://pro.imdb.com/chart/bubbling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.38.162 (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Contents of "Instant viewing" seem mixed up ...
Hello,

Could someone please review the section "Instant Viewing" ?

Here is the copy of content that I could see today. But I think second paragraph seemed to be taken from some other article? How can I find out who added and reviewed this?


 * On September 15, 2008 a feature was added that enables instant viewing of over 6,000 movies and television shows from CBS, Sony and a number of independent film makers, with direct links from their profiles.[13] Due to licensing restrictions, this feature is only available to viewers in the United States.[14] she as been established in 1993 she use to dance in Dubai night club where she could earn per hour 100 $.
 * MARRIAGE She got marriage in 1995 January 25th during her Dubai Career with her Tamil boy friend. Once both of them are not happy in there married life and they had decided to divorce it was on 1995 November 14th. On hare danced one of the African (Ghana) boy impressed then they got married in Dubai Court in 1995 November 28th. Then Mr.......... Came to visit in Dubai, unfortunately he Entered on that dance club and he who Purnimas performance he bounds to offered her to work with Bangladeshi Film Industry - Purnima got ladder to reach the moon. she worked so hard one by one she succeed 34 movies. she married once again with an Bangladeshi Sylethy boy but she did not divorced her African husband. we have news till now she use to meet him once a year at least.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreeneewas (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreeneewas (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

this artical contains an error (erronous snippet) IE...

Instant viewing On September 15, 2008 a feature was added that enables instant viewing of over 6,000 movies and television shows from CBS, Sony and a number of independent film makers, with direct links from their profiles.[13] Due to licensing restrictions, this feature is only available to viewers in the United States.[14] she as been established in 1993 she use to dance in Dubai night club where she could earn per hour 100 $. MARRIAGE She got marriage in 1995 January 25th during her Dubai Career with her Tamil boy friend. Once both of them are not happy in there married life and they had decided to divorce it was on 1995 November 14th. On hare danced one of the African (Ghana) boy impressed then they got married in Dubai Court in 1995 November 28th. Then Mr.......... Came to visit in Dubai, unfortunately he Entered on that dance club and he who Purnimas performance he bounds to offered her to work with Bangladeshi Film Industry - Purnima got ladder to reach the moon. she worked so hard one by one she succeed 34 movies. she married once again with an Bangladeshi Sylethy boy but she did not divorced her African husband. we have news till now she use to meet him once a year at least.

Rick Sparks 1/8/2013   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.185.31 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

IMDb Pro
Mention IMDb pro--88.111.123.155 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Characters filmography
What is this section trying to say? The Character filmography is taken from the main filmography. You can only create a character entry when there is a character of that name in the main filmography so as such it doesn't need to be verified by IMDb staff. The problem I see with it is the number of characters created who just have a single entry, didn't have a leading or even an important part in the film, and where there is no other information given about the character - no character biography. As such, they seem to be useless entries that don't tell anyone anything useful -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that section needs to be rewritten and someone needs to mention swiki within the article as those character pages, FAQ pages, parental guide pages are run by the swiki software and thus can be edited and/or created by anyone with a registered account. ..--Stemoc (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies/slants/history references
As a former employee/co-founder, I probably shouldn't make these edits, but let me point out a few problems with this article that someone else may care to fix:


 * History: Last sentence makes it sound like IMDb was desperately looking for a buyer, but in fact Amazon approached them. In fact, the way the current last sentence is written I find highly objectionable and a complete misstatement of history. True, Amazon's purchase allowed IMDb to go to the next level, but it's not something IMDb was actively seeking. See various references below.
 * It seems excessive to have the Junie Hoang lawsuit in two different sections ("As Amazon.com Subsidiary" and "Criticism"), especially when the latter is not identified as the same lawsuit.

I have some other quibbles, but I probably can't discuss them in public without violating confidences.

Some references for early history from my (paper) archives; these should answer several of the "when?" and "citation needed" tags, and hopefully get rid of that whole "Unreferenced section" box. All italics and brackets in originals, as well as all strange capitalizations of IMDb.


 * "The site developed as part of a USENET discussion thread in 1989 and grew to the point where it became a sponsored (and therefore potentially profit-making) site in 1996." --
 * Sites in various locations: "Our experience with the site in South Korea was very negative. The best sites are the original Cardiff host ... and the one at the University of Mississippi ..." [the problems were with response time and timeliness of updates]
 * "...having originated in August of 1990 in the rec.arts.movies newsgroup... The IMDB moved to an FTP site in 1991. Then in July of 1993, the IMDB moved again, to the Web..."
 * "The Web traffic soon overwhelmed Cardiff's server capacity, and Needham put out calls for more universities to host. He ended up with sites in Mississippi, Germany, Italy, Australia, South Africa, Korea, Japan and Iceland. ... In January 1996, Needham launched IMDB.com as a commercial Web site. ... By January 1998, IMDB was becoming one of the most popular Web sites in the world... Next thing Needham knew, he was contacted by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos (one year before Bezos was named Time magazine's Man of the Year). ... The two men talked about potential partnerships and decided that acquisition would be the best route. 'Amazon was looking for someone to help build out the video store. And we were a scrappy little start-up looking to grow bigger,' Needham says."
 * "In February 1996, the hobby turned into a business. IMDb sold its first banner ad for $25,000 to Digital Equipment Corp., which was testing software that predicted which movies people would like based on what they had seen -- similar to what Amazon does now."
 * (On the Amazon acquisition, Needham): "We had been approached before, but we were not interested. We had a very clear direction that we wanted to take the company, and we were profitable, so we didn't necessarily need to be in that position where we needed to raise capital. [Amazon founder] Jeff Bezos explained how Amazon was moving from, at the time -- don't forget, this was 12 years ago -- from selling just books into music and then into VHS tapes and these shiny new things called DVDs. He could see that it would be beneficial for Amazon to partner with a movie-related site, and how IMDb data could be used in the Amazon Video Store."
 * "By 1998, the database had established itself as a favorite on the early Internet, and Mr. Needham was amused to receive a number of buyout approaches. One was an invitation to a London hotel in January to meet with Jeffrey P. Bezos, the founder of Amazon. Mr. Bezos told Mr. Needham that he thought the movie database could help Amazon sell VHS cassettes and DVD's -- Mr. Needham points out that it was in that order in those days -- but also recognized that the site would need to be run separately to maintain its personality."

I hope these references are useful for someone to improve the history section.

I don't happen to have a copy, but as far as I know, the first published article about IMDb was in Database, about a year before the one quoted above, cited in that article as Floatjon (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jon, please sign your submissions to the talk pages :)  -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I did sign it, just above the reflist. Or are you talking about a signature other than the standard Wikipedia 4-tildes? Floatjon (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you did, sorry. I was looking for a signature at the end of the submission, after the reflist -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning
Unregistered user User:2002:7a92:b029::7a92:b029 is repeatedly trying to insert badly formatted, badly placed and badly referenced data about the Hoang v. Amazon.com case. Also some hearsay and rumour about criticism which cites the Hoang v. Amazon even though that's inappropriate for the criticism mentioned. This user is in danger of being reported under the 3 Revert Rule -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but is there a reason you nuked the section I had added to this talk page? I spent hours gathering those references... Floatjon (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed that. TJRC (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, SteveCrook. I've given him a 3RR warning on his talk page; but am close to 3RR myself reverting his edits. His restoration of the material also deletes the current and properly-sourced info on the case. TJRC (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * He's still at it. I reverted and left him a note on his talk page, a final vandalism warning and the explanation: "Your constant reversions are now reaching the point of vandalism.  There is a discussion of your edits on the talk page.  Go there and participate in the discussion.  If you still believe the passages you are including belong, make your case there and attempt to reach a consensus.  Do not reinstate your edits without a consensus."  I don't know anything more to get him to engage here; I suspect if he keeps it up our only recourse is to go for a block.  Page-protection is probably not appropriate when only one IP editor is misbehaving. TJRC (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jon, oops, my bad -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TJRC -- and yeah, I almost reported this guy for 3RR myself. Even started an edit on the page where you report it. Probably would have finished/submitted if it wasn't just before lunch time when I spotted his last edit. Note that his only edits are to this page. Floatjon (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:2002:7a92:b029::7a92:b029 is now barred, thanks everyone -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Top 20 of the 250
This is totally f*ed up. The table in this page bears no relation to the real Top 20 of the 250. It seems to be changed more than anything else on this page. I would suggest getting rid of it and just replacing it with a link to the real Top 250 -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's not even about IMDb, for that matter. TJRC (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree and have removed it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Auto-archiving
Any objection to turning on auto-archiving of this talk page? It has archives, but that seems to have been a manual process. When you start to see 30 threads, with replies to threads that have been dormant for almost a year, that's a pretty good indication it might be worth archiving. TJRC (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No objections noted in almost 3 months, so I'm turning on auto-archiving. TJRC (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism"
The current criticism section is actually just a specific court case, which IMDb won, from some trolling B movie actor (who lost a similar lawsuit against Amazon). Rename it or remove? 78.146.206.190 (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a common criticism of the IMDb that they won't remove dates of birth and many people then blame them for not getting jobs saying it's because casting agents look at the date of birth listed and think the actor is the wrong age. Of course this is really a problem between actors and casting agents but the actors daren't attack the casting agents (even via their union) in case they get blacklisted and so they blame the IMDb. Of course it might also be that the actor simply wasn't good enough or wasn't right for the role, but they attack the IMDb anyway, even though their dates of birth are matters of public record. The IMDb warns people before adding a date of birth and this court case reminds people how pointless it is taking the IMDb to court over an issue like this. It only makes the lawyers richer -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be okay with either renaming or removal, although I think renaming is the better approach. The section used to have other material in it, see, but largely insufficiently sourced, and looks like it was subsequently deleted.  I believe I added the lawsuit information, and this preexisting section seemed like the best place for it. But with the other material now gone, there's not a good reason to keep the section name "Criticism".  I think renaming is better ("Litigation"?), but if the entire section is removed, Hoang v. Amazon.com should be added as a "See also". TJRC (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"Naming"
Does anyone have info about why imdb choose western naming name for chinese/korean actor/actress? like ng man tat to man tat ng, Song ji-hyo to ji-hyo Song. thx 125.160.241.178 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask them as to why they chose that method, but they did. Their submission guide says that Asian names can be submitted as Family-Name, Given-Name(s) like "Chow, Yun-Fat" but that will then be displayed as "Yun-Fat Chow". They don't record if it's an Asian name or a Western name, and it isn't always obvious -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is IMDB a reliable source for birth dates and death dates and appearances

 * Identifying reliable sources says: "Questionable and self-published sources ... This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB),"

In various places in Wikipedia it says you cannot use IMDB because it is crowdsourced and not reliable. There is no evidence that dates of birth and death are crowdsourced, or not under editorial control of IMDB or that appearances are not reliable. On the contrary, IMDB was sued for displaying the real age of an actress and not what she submitted to the editors. "Hoang also made an issue of how IMDb had allegedly used credit information when she signed up to IMDb's Pro account and how IMDb's employees used a third party verification website to gain information to use in her profile." see this article The submission rules on the webpage for adding yourself as an actor say that "[biographical information] will be sent to the IMDb Data Editors for checking." You can submit a plot summary, you can rate a movie, you can leave comments, you can report an error for review. You can not go in an change Denzel Washington's birthday like you can in Wikipedia. Does that wording at Identifying reliable sources need to be changed? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Film Rankings"
Its worth noting here that The Credibility Formula listed is almost certainly no longer used by IMDB. It was once posted by IMDB themselves as the equation that resulted in the IMDB "rating" or "weighted average". Around 2003, they removed any information about how their rating is calculated in an effort to avoid use of that information to "game" the system and skew one's film. At the same time, they mentioned that they are constantly adjusting their approach for calculating the IMDB rating based on other criteria, including giving greater weight to votes from members who fit certain criteria (perhaps "regular voters") and incorporating the median. One bit of evidence that this Formula is no longer in use is the data from the previous section:  Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience is considered to be the worst film with a weighted average of 2.1 as of 2014, but has a rather ordinary arithmetic mean of 3.9. That information is correct, and the Formula listed could not generate that result. Unless anyone objects, I'll probably make some very minor edits to clarify that this was "once" the credibility formula used. Not a big deal, but its inaccurate for us to imply that it is still in use, when we can do basic math to demonstrate that its not.Deproduction (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Some useful info from IMDB, indicating that we might want to delete this formula, as they make it clear they are no longer using it The scheme combines a number of well-known and proven statistical methods, including a trimmed mean to reduce extreme influences and, most importantly a complex voter weighting system to make sure that the final rating is representative of the general voting population and not subject to over influence from individuals who are not regular participants in the poll. The scheme has been developed internally over the 10 years which the poll has been in operation and tuned on a regular basis to make sure it remains fair.

Most of the feedback we receive about our votes is based on the incorrect assumption that all votes cast by our users for a film have the same impact on the final rating. This is not the case. Different votes may have different weight when they're used to calculate the final weighted rating. Most people think of the arithmetic mean when they hear the word average. When calculating an arithmetic mean, all votes are treated equally: the average is the sum of all the votes divided by the number of votes.

A weighted average, however, is defined as "an average that takes into account the proportional relevance of each component, rather than treating each component equally". There's nothing arcane or mysterious about it: it's a very simple, universally accepted statistical method, commonly used in a wide variety of fields (from financial analysis to student reports).