Hi, I tried to update heights for Idris Elba, Brendan Fraser, Jim Carrey, Gustaf Skarsgard, Bill Nighy, John Travolta and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have plenty of evidence to prove the current listings for these celebrities are wrong and submitted the updates but still, they have not been changed. I simply don’t understand why they would believe the current listings are factual but when you look at photos at them with other celebrities and see their own claims, they obviously are not factual.
Posted 1 year ago
Steve Crook, Champion
Hello Ian,
When did you submit them?
What’s the submission reference?
Steve
When did you submit them?
What’s the submission reference?
Steve
I had just submitted them over a day ago. Some of them I had submitted before several times and waited as long as 7 days but still were not changed. I noticed other celebrity heights I had submitted before were done a day after I had asked for an update.
Please the old submission numbers of the rejected items.
Thanks
Thanks
Idris Elba: 190102-152956-439000
Bill Nighy: 190102-153154-073000
John Travolta: 190102-153436-981000
Arnold Schwarzenegger: 190102-153705-224000
Jim Carrey: 190102-154047-955000
Gustaf Skarsgard: 190102-162642-920000
Brendan Fraser: 190102-172056-060000
Bill Nighy: 190102-153154-073000
John Travolta: 190102-153436-981000
Arnold Schwarzenegger: 190102-153705-224000
Jim Carrey: 190102-154047-955000
Gustaf Skarsgard: 190102-162642-920000
Brendan Fraser: 190102-172056-060000
Thanks. An IMDb employee hopefully will give details on these shortly.
How long will it take for an IMDB employee to give details? It’s been over two days.
Will, Official Rep
Michelle, Official Rep
Will, Official Rep
So all them should be processed within 5 days?
Unless things are really bogged down, yes.
I saw that Elba and Fraser have been changed. There are 4 more left but I saw for unprocessed items for height, 3 have not been processed yet which makes me wonder if one of them has been rejected, despite sharing links to all of them to prove the current listing is wrong.
Col Needham, Official Rep
You should be able to locate and check the status of the submissions via the new experimental tracking system at https://contribute.imdb.com/contributions/history ... does this help?
Yes Col thank you very much. While I am satisfied Elba, Fraser and Nighy have been changed, I am still puzzled on why they would think Travolta would be 6’ 2” even though he himself claimed to be just over 6 feet and looked a couple inches shorter at least than Samuel L. Jackson. Should I just resubmit them again and find more evidence to prove the current listing is wrong?
Joel, Official Rep
Hi Ian,
Thanks for your response.
That's right, if a contribution is rejected - the best thing you can do is re-submit the changes with more information to help our editors vet this for you.
Please make sure you provide as much evidence as you can (from reliable sources) and our editors can look into this further for you.
Joel
Thanks for your response.
That's right, if a contribution is rejected - the best thing you can do is re-submit the changes with more information to help our editors vet this for you.
Please make sure you provide as much evidence as you can (from reliable sources) and our editors can look into this further for you.
Joel
I'm starting to get really irritated with the editors. I just checked and even though I added more evidence (for John Travolta, I put three links to prove the listing is wrong), they were still declined. I don’t understand, I have photos that shows that the current listing is wrong right there. It makes no sense to me why they would continue to reject it over and over again even though the evidence is right there. Also I noticed some of my earlier contributions have been reverted back to their original listings.
Pictures are not evidence. Forced perspective shots. Camera Angles. Footware. Platform shoes. Actors wearing no shoes for shot framing issues. Standing on uneven surfaces. Sometimes as much as one foot or more. Check out the actual height difference between Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny in long shots. In the close ups she has grown by a foot! Milk Crate acting! So photos can't be proof. The old saying....It's done with mirrors!
And don't forget, there is no trusted link list. You links may have already been proven to be "Bad" Sources from others submissions..
Will, Official Rep
Also Ed, I had a few days ago sent this photo of Paul Bettany and Brendan Fraser to IMDB and they changed Fraser’s height http://m.zimbio.com/photos/Brendan+Fr.... Zimbio isn’t on your list, plus they aren’t showing footwear but IMDB accepted anyway but it’s weird how they won’t do it for the others.
Data Editors are overwhelmed with work. Just like an Umpire in Baseball, they miss a few calls now and then.
Hey Ed, would this source cut it? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dail.... Even though you said pictures are a bad source, in every shot whenever they’re standing up straight or not, Daniels always looks an inch taller than Jim Carrey. Plus there is a source called celebheights.com which I find to be Incredibly reliable. The guy who’s in charge of celebheights lists celebrity heights based on photographic evidence and has found numerous articles to figure out how tall these celebrities actually are. Jim Carrey is listed on celebheights as 6’ 1.5” and Daniels is listed as 6’ 2.75” and also is on IMDB.
The best advice is what Joel Official IMDb Employee and Will IMDb Official Rep said, is to re-submit the changes with more information to help our editors vet this for you.
The rest of the advice is from volunteers on the forum.
The rest of the advice is from volunteers on the forum.
Then explain THIS! Jim Carrey IS TALLER. That's why photos ARE A BAD SOURCE
Stop with the photo stuff.
IT IS INACCURATE.
The guy who’s in charge of celebheights lists celebrity heights based on photographic evidenceHis photographic "EVIDENCE" has been "DE-BUNKED"!
Stop with the photo stuff.
IT IS INACCURATE.
(Edited)
Ed Jones is correct here, if you're relying on photos then you're pissing into the wind. The IMDb Data Managers won't accept any of this.
Were all volunteers advising and the only people who can accept your edits are the IMDb Data Managers.
Take Ed Jones advice it's good.
Were all volunteers advising and the only people who can accept your edits are the IMDb Data Managers.
Take Ed Jones advice it's good.
I'm a Photographer. Amateur. It's been a Hobby. But I know what I can do with a camera to make you think you see the truth I frame. A filmmaker here has complimented me on my shot framing.
Anyway, that reply was my second to him that pics were unreliable. That one photo was a photo he made me look at. Not something I dug up. Bad part about it is his beliefs are based on what someone else believes is fact. We allow this phenomenon of, "I Read it Somewhere so it Must Be True", to be our basis for what is true and false. We all need to THINK and analyze for our own selves.
My thoughts
Cheers
Thanks Joel
Anyway, that reply was my second to him that pics were unreliable. That one photo was a photo he made me look at. Not something I dug up. Bad part about it is his beliefs are based on what someone else believes is fact. We allow this phenomenon of, "I Read it Somewhere so it Must Be True", to be our basis for what is true and false. We all need to THINK and analyze for our own selves.
My thoughts
Cheers
Thanks Joel
(Edited)
I'll take your advice Ed. Photographs are a bad source. However, pretty much every source I've come across other than Google and IMDB lists Carrey between 6' 1" and 6' 1.5". Same thing with Schwarzenegger I'm not sure with Travolta, information I got from celebheights says Gustaf Skarsgard is listed as 190 cm or 6' 2.75" by his agency but is listed on IMDB as 6' 4".
The Agency listing is something that IS NOT a photo. That's the kind of data you should use. Weather IMDb accepts it? Your guess is as good as mine!
Happy Contibuting!
Cheers!!
Ed
Happy Contibuting!
Cheers!!
Ed
Would the different listings on the other sources cut it Ed? They aren’t photos
Like this one for example http://www.heightdb.com/person/john-t....
I doubt it.
But if you had several of that type that had all listing the same height, maybe. Best way to find out is make a submission and see if it is accepted. The best are the IMDb news partners.
But if you had several of that type that had all listing the same height, maybe. Best way to find out is make a submission and see if it is accepted. The best are the IMDb news partners.
(Edited)
Would Wikipedia cut it as well? Wikipedia actually lists Travolta’s height at 6 feet tall, much to my surprise.
In addendum, but not as a sole source. Wiki is not a favored nation. LOL.
Use as many things as you can find. They had all better match. If you are researching and find 3 of one and 3 of another that be your own approval editor. Don't submit it. Overwhelming proof is better. That is how the news used to get on the air. Not like today. Rumor is news today. Well rumor should not be aired. That stuff is for the National Uninquirer (SIC). Do the submission the old fashioned way. Have multiple verified identical source references. Not "A" reference that fits your fiction.
Facts.
Verified Facts.
6 Ways from Sunday verified facts.
Lots of em, and keep em coming facts.
No photo Zone Facts.
Are We There Yet?
Cheers
Thanks Ian.
Use as many things as you can find. They had all better match. If you are researching and find 3 of one and 3 of another that be your own approval editor. Don't submit it. Overwhelming proof is better. That is how the news used to get on the air. Not like today. Rumor is news today. Well rumor should not be aired. That stuff is for the National Uninquirer (SIC). Do the submission the old fashioned way. Have multiple verified identical source references. Not "A" reference that fits your fiction.
Facts.
Verified Facts.
6 Ways from Sunday verified facts.
Lots of em, and keep em coming facts.
No photo Zone Facts.
Are We There Yet?
Cheers
Thanks Ian.
Thanks Ed for your help. I’ll do what I can and see what happens.
Did you provide multiple corroborating sources, or single.
You will need overwhelming evidence to make a change on an established actor or actress to be approved.
You will need overwhelming evidence to make a change on an established actor or actress to be approved.
Michael Shannon's 18 number and the sources I used: 190122-215606-907000. https://www.celebheights.com/s/Michael-Shannon-1023.html, http://hollywoodmeasurements.com/actor/michael-shannon-height-weight-body-measurements/, https://marriedwiki.com/wiki/michael-shannon, https://www.celebrityhow.com/michael-shannon/, https://heightline.com/michael-shannon-bio-net-worth-wife/.
Here are Peter Dinklage's: 190122-220237-874000. https://heightline.com/peter-dinklages-height-weight-measurements/, https://starsunfolded.com/peter-dinklage/, https://celebrityinside.com/body-measurements/actor/peter-dinklage-height-weight-shoe-size-age-bio/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dinklage.
Also Ed I couldn't find any other sources that said Shannon was 6' 3" except for sources that I thought IMDB would not accept. Also, other sources have him at 6' 2.75" which I think is a bit too short for him. And like I said, only two or three list him at 6' 3.5". There aren't a ton of sources that have a listed height for him so his height is a little all over the place.
Here are Peter Dinklage's: 190122-220237-874000. https://heightline.com/peter-dinklages-height-weight-measurements/, https://starsunfolded.com/peter-dinklage/, https://celebrityinside.com/body-measurements/actor/peter-dinklage-height-weight-shoe-size-age-bio/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dinklage.
Also Ed I couldn't find any other sources that said Shannon was 6' 3" except for sources that I thought IMDB would not accept. Also, other sources have him at 6' 2.75" which I think is a bit too short for him. And like I said, only two or three list him at 6' 3.5". There aren't a ton of sources that have a listed height for him so his height is a little all over the place.
Do you know what an IMDb news partner is?
Michael Shannons??? Find the news article....That is a credible source.
https://www.celebheights.com/s/Michael-Shannon-1023.html,
This link mentions this........(Its a credible source).
USA Today is not a celeb height "Source" It's a major newspaper. A GOOD source!
These sources you are using are fan driven or worse, may use the photo guys info!!
Use credible sources. Big well known sources. This will be my last reply
Good Luck.
Cheers
Ed.
https://www.celebheights.com/s/Michael-Shannon-1023.html,
This link mentions this........(Its a credible source).
USA Today is not a celeb height "Source" It's a major newspaper. A GOOD source!
These sources you are using are fan driven or worse, may use the photo guys info!!
Use credible sources. Big well known sources. This will be my last reply
Good Luck.
Cheers
Ed.
(Edited)
I am not sure what an IMDB news partner is Ed. I am new to IMDB I just started in November of last year.
Good to see you settling back in with your new guise Ed. Keep up the good work.
What Noel? or Just being able to use my real name? The XLIX is there for a reason.
(Edited)
Who's Noel?...LOL
Yes I know the names are combined.
Yes I know the names are combined.
(Edited)
Use common sense.
Use Big News sources
ESPN
CNN
MSNBC
USA Today
New York Times
Washington Post
Chicago Sun Times
Boston Globe
People Mag
Us
Elle Magazine
BIG BIG BIG Names
Cosmopolitan
Stop using those little sites that have no real NEWS in them.
Newspartners can be found at the home page.
Use Big News sources
ESPN
CNN
MSNBC
USA Today
New York Times
Washington Post
Chicago Sun Times
Boston Globe
People Mag
Us
Elle Magazine
BIG BIG BIG Names
Cosmopolitan
Stop using those little sites that have no real NEWS in them.
Newspartners can be found at the home page.
CNN can’t be trusted though it’s fake news. Jk
Sorry Ed but I asked the guy in charge of celebheights.com if he still had the link to the interview from USA Today where Michael Shannon says he’s 6’ 4” and he said that he doesn’t think the USA Today archives are free, so unless someone archived it, he doesn’t think it is freely viewable.
Then you are out of luck on that source.
Find sources
Be resourceful.
Find sources
Be resourceful.
How about if I add the celebheights source where it mentions him saying he is 6’ 4” from the USA Today interview and give an explanation on why I can’t provide the interview. Would that work?
Thanks,
Ian
Thanks,
Ian
I found three sources with a 6’ 4” listing for him, one of them is a New York Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/th..., one of them is from The Telegraph which wasn’t on your list Ed so I don’t know if it will qualify https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f..., and this one which might be one of those sites that characterized as a little site which has no real news on them https://www.celebsdetails.com/%20stat....
Try the first two sources for your submission.
If it is rejected start a new post withe the contribution number, and ask why they were rejected. Those are the kind of sources that you would think would be beyond reproach
If it is rejected start a new post withe the contribution number, and ask why they were rejected. Those are the kind of sources that you would think would be beyond reproach
Hmmm...it was declined. I guess I’ll just resubmit them with the contribution number. However, Col Needham provided with a contribution tracking list so I’m able to see if it was approved or not and why. It said for Michael Shannon “not enough evidence”. If your confused, I am too because those are two incredibly reliable, trustworthy sources I have provided and yet it was still declined.
I tried resubmitting it again but it was still declined! This. Is. So. Infuriating! Here is the contribution number: 190127-152649-396000. And this is the reason why it was declined: “not enough evidence”. I did everything you told me to do Ed by adding no photographs and providing big reliable, trustworthy sources yet they were still declined. Even you said those were the kind of sources that would almost guarantee an approval from the editors. Due to my high decline rate from the editors, I’m probably never gonna get an accepted contribution ever again because these editors are so overly picky about what evidence I put on there. It’s like I’m trying to help IMDB by providing more realistic information to the public that’s my main focus as a contributor but the editors keep on thinking this information is “factual” are consistently rejecting my contributions. It’s honestly insulting to me.
Make a new post. Contribution number and repost the 2 sources and ask why they were declined.
You may be getting declined because of your previous track record too.
You may be getting declined because of your previous track record too.
I’m not sure what you mean Ed. Do you mean resubmit it with the submission reference and add the two links and ask why they were declined which is what I did or create a new post here and ask why they were rejected?
A new one focused on one Contribution number, and the two reference proofs you provided. And of course ask why they were rejected.
(Edited)
Will, Official Rep
