IMDB PLEASE HELP I WILL PAY YOU AT THIS POINT

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Not a Problem
I am desperate to get some things off of my IMDB page...they make me look very unprofessional. I have asked...I have begged...I have attempted to get them removed over 10 times. I am now willing to PAY someone to please please please remove them from the page...someone please please help me. This is so frustrating and upsetting and as an IMDB Pro paying member I feel like I should get some customer support...no email...no phone number...please help WTH man?
Photo of Leslie Kimbell

Leslie Kimbell

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
  • VERY FRUSTRATED

Posted 4 years ago

  • 2
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
What are you trying to get off IMDb's page about you? Is it inaccurate or just your preference? If it can be corrected, it's usually no problem. If it's accurate but you don't like it, it won't be removed. Unless you mean a resume you created, an IMDb Name Page is not yours. It's IMDb's and they won't remove accurate information.

Unless you are more specific it's difficult for people to assist you.
Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1454 Posts
  • 705 Reply Likes
... an IMDb Name Page is not yours. It's IMDb's ....
(Emphasis added.)

BTW, that is why I've previously suggested that IMDb consider eschewing
the phrase "your pagein help documentation and support replies.

IMO, the phrase could conceivably confuse some newcomers.  Of course, as you've noted, an IMDb name page is never "yours" (in the sense of ownership or exclusive control).  It would only be "yours" in the sense that it contains information they've collected about you.

During the past week, the phrase "your page"  has appeared in several discussions on this board, including at least 3 replies from official reps and others by volunteers.  Of course, some reps and staff and volunteers have used the phrase before in various other earlier discussions.

The phrase appears on some help page such as this:
http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?resumeaddexisting
The phrase "your page"  appears 4 times on that page
(once in the title, twice in paragraph 2 and once in paragraph 3).

Another example:
http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?nameclaim
The phrase "my page"  appears in the title, then in the first paragraph "their name page" (referring again to the person described on a name page, in this case a subscriber who may "claim" the page, which again does not confer ownership or exclusive control of the name page), and then: "...Click on 'Claim your name page'...."  (Really, even the Claim button itself calls it "your name page" as if it were ever "yours"?)

IMO, a loose but roughly illustrative analogy would be this:
Imagine if someone independently wrote a paper about you (aiming to provide accurate information, perhaps including some stuff you wish they'd leave out).  Then, imagine that the author of the paper called it "your paper": That would be silly.  ... Likewise, IMO, for a similar reason, it is arguably silly for IMDb to call a name page "your page" when (just as you said) it is not yours.

That's my view on that.
(Edited)
Photo of DavidAH_Ca

DavidAH_Ca, Champion

  • 3261 Posts
  • 2916 Reply Likes
IMO, a loose but roughly illustrative analogy would be this:
Imagine if someone independently wrote a paper about you (aiming to provide accurate information, perhaps including some stuff you wish they'd leave out).  Then, imagine that the author of the paper called it "your paper": That would be silly.  ... Likewise, IMO, for a similar reason, it is arguably silly for IMDb to call a name page "your page" when (just as you said) it is not yours.
The analogy is a very poor one.
 
A better one would be if someone wrote a paper  that dealt with a group of people, and had a different chanter on each one.  The author might then send a copy of that paper to one of the people discussed saying "You might want to read at least your chapter before it is published.

I will, however, admit that 'your chapter' would most commonly mean 'the chapter you wrote' and a more common phrase would be 'the chapter about you'.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Is this the same issue you asked about before and got the response:

Michelle, Official Rep


Hi Leslie -

Thanks for the additional information.

According to our sources and our own research, the credits will need to remain on the site.  Our aim is to be the most complete and reliable source of movie information on the web.  Therefore, in order to keep offering our users an accurate and trustworthy service, it is our policy not to alter or delete any kind of correct/factual information or credit from our records.

Photo of Leslie Kimbell

Leslie Kimbell

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yes...but it is NOT accurate...but somehow you think it is...and refuse to believe otherwise. I'm not sure how you determine something to be accurate when it is in fact...not
Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1454 Posts
  • 705 Reply Likes
(Disclaimer:  I'm not an expert or authority on anything,
and I hope I don't sound like one.)

In the earlier discussion, a rep's reply mentioned IMDb's
use of information from "sources" and IMDb's "own research."

Regarding "Cell"  (2016), this happens to present one
example of something that I've been curious about: 

Sometimes IMDb may list a number of "uncredited" roles in a
film that has not yet been released or (AFAIK) publicly screened?
But according to one help page about "uncredited" listings
(http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?uncreditedcredits):
... For [uncredited] cast/acting appearances, you must be identifiable and featured on-screen in the final released cut of the film. ...
How can IMDb insist on listing some "uncredited" roles even before a film's release?  Since "sources" are not disclosed in this instance, we are not informed as to where the information came from.

(BTW, I've noted before that I think IMDb could be improved if they could disclose sources of information whenever it may be practical to do so.  IMO, openly identifiable sources can often be more usefully informative than unidentified or undisclosed sources.)

The aforementioned help page also mentions this:
... On new and/or yet-unreleased pictures all credits we list are not final and are subject to change, especially until we can check them against an actual film print. ...
So they may eventually check "against an actual film print"?  Maybe, but of course (staff time being limited) I'm sure they can't personally view and verify every screen credit and personally research every uncredited role in every release.  They must frequently rely on their (apparently often undisclosed) "sources"?
(Edited)
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Leslie,

I notice your complaint was not that information is false but only that it makes you look unprofessional. But only after the mention that accurate data won't be removed does the issue become inaccuracy.

Your replies so far here are from users and not staff. So it's not me who has determined anything. It was the page editors who are the ones receiving your dozen or more requests.

As to what staff might have....screeners, cast list from production, submission from an individual including a screen cap....

To Nobody...."Contributors" will indeed eventually check all credits against tbe screen...that's what IMDb is/does. Ultimately, one will mark it verified, then another will verify that and it'll get marked as verified as complete and locked. Then you'd need a whole lot of evidence to prove an edit as no less than three people have said it's complete.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Is it possible someone is confusing you with this woman (Devil's Knot )?: