Tossing who in a blanket?

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 3 weeks ago
  • Answered
Given the recent policy change stating that IMDb sometimes DOES remove valid data, what guarantees can IMDb give me that in five years time, this title is still listed as it is currently listed: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0227672/reference?

(Obviously, this is not a question about just this specific title. The question can also be read as: (Why) Should we keep bothering spending part of our free time updating the database?*)



*If I'm not mistaken, all the information regarding admission numbers has been deleted because of the software change about 1,5 years ago, but it's still gone and I know of no reason to expect these to return shortly.

Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1062 Posts
  • 1291 Reply Likes

Posted 1 month ago

  • 2
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3542 Posts
  • 3405 Reply Likes
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15448 Posts
  • 17624 Reply Likes
ACT_1. As usual, your comprehension skills are again lacking. This leads me to wonder. Just how old are you?
He is talking about censorship.
This is another response in his displeasure at "Birth Names" removal issue.
He is talking about IMDb's mission statement.
Basically the P.C. Police trampling all over the 1st Amendment andf IMDb's caving in.

So your    ? ?    is showing that you as usual, have missed the point again.
(Edited)
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1188 Posts
  • 1377 Reply Likes
This has nothing to do with the first amendment unless you believe IMDb (and Amazon) are part of the government.
Photo of J.

J.

  • 404 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
I am concerned as well. This Daily Beast article from a year ago shows that the P.C. police are interested in suppressing all kinds of information on IMDb, not just things related to transgender issues.

Notice that the author was demanding to know WHO was contributing information and WHY they were contributing it. They want to dox us.

As I've said, when IMDb gives in to P.C. demands, they can expect more demands and fewer contributors.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15381 Posts
  • 17569 Reply Likes
Love to be Doxxed. I'm in the middle of the Mojave Desert. Let Em protest outside in no shade at 110+ degree heat! Of course they'd have to find the place!
Photo of J.

J.

  • 404 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
More evidence that the P.C. idealogues - whether inside or outside the company - are having an influence on IMDb.

IMDb staff editing our reviews?
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/imdb-staff-editing-our-reviews

Rejected keyword: social-justice-warrior
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/rejected-keyword-social-justice-warrior

Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 6452 Posts
  • 7788 Reply Likes
If I'm not mistaken, all the information regarding admission numbers has been deleted

Admission numbers are displayed on Pro.
(Edited)
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1062 Posts
  • 1291 Reply Likes
Admission numbers are displayed on Pro.

That might be, but I very strongly feel they should be available on regular IMDb.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2868 Posts
  • 3698 Reply Likes
My five cents on this. Have you ever heard of a little novel by Agatha Christie named And Then There Were None? Everyone knows what was the original title and everyone can uncover what it was, because in the digital age you can't hide things like that. You can, however, understand the repercussions and act accordingly based on your moral standpoint.  

Igniting fear of censorship after IMDb's change of policy regarding birth names, which is, indeed private information doesn't seem too logical to me. After all it's nothing compared to Wikipedia which still utilizes Russian variant Kiev etc. which makes no sense in the modern world.
(Edited)
Photo of TopImdb

TopImdb

  • 6 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
Funny. Guess no one remembers when next to obituaries there was the birth names section of the paper. #birthnamesarentprivate
Photo of J.

J.

  • 404 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
I find IMDb's decision troubling, even though I would support allowing non-celebrities to remove personal information, such as age and birth name.

The decision was evidently made to appease pressure groups. Otherwise, the new policy would have allowed for the removal of other personal information.

The data we'll lose from THIS decision does not bother me. What bothers me is that IMDb may have more appeasements where that came from.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2868 Posts
  • 3698 Reply Likes
TopImdb I am Ukrainian, I was born in 1992 (so I'm 27 years old: make of that what you want: I find this age fairly strange as you still can't achieve anything with it without being a true genius prodigy but you are old enough to fully be a responsible adult and have every problem of such). I don't remember times like that because in Post-Soviet countries such tradition was eradicated with Soviet Union and never reinstated (and I'm not sure it was in full scale introduced in Russian Empire, birth records are a mess there fewer archivists and historians can make sense of on a budget). I myself can't pinpoint what my birth name is, since original documents were in Hebrew, as I was born in Israel. I have a later-issued birth certificate which is in Ukrainian, but still.  
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1062 Posts
  • 1291 Reply Likes
even though I would support allowing non-celebrities to remove personal information, such as age and birth name.

How would you define "non-celebrities"? And what if a non-celebrity becomes a celebrity? Should IMDb remove this information but put it back the minute a person has his or hers big break?
Photo of J.

J.

  • 404 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
A non-celebrity is someone who is not famous. I know there is no sharp line between famous and not famous, but the line is still worth drawing.

Keep in mind that nearly anyone could have an IMDb page. I imagine that removing the personal details of the following types would not be controversial.

The least controversial would be people who have absolutely no connection to the entertainment industry. Example: The mother who was interviewed by a news reporter at a PTA meeting; her name appeared on the screen, and now she has a legitimate IMDb page.

Next on the least-controversial meter would be someone who, at a passing glance, looks to be in the industry, but was really just a key grip on two student films.

Then we'd have someone who really was in the industry for two minutes, got barely-significant credits on two forgotten theatrical films, and now wants to live a private life.

Real controversy would probably start with anyone who is currently in the industry, but is extremely low on the StarMeter.

I'd be willing to draw a line based on the StarMeter. Inevitably, the line would be arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. We also have sharp but arbitrary lines for the voting age, the age of consent, the drinking age, etc.

What I fiercely oppose is drawing the line based on ideology, political correctness, identity politics or hurt feelings. You can't trust a database that would remove information to appease a pressure group.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1062 Posts
  • 1291 Reply Likes
I'd be willing to draw a line based on the StarMeter.

The result of which would be that there's a (small) group of people who would be able to remove their data one week and see their data back online the next week.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I feel the line has already be drawn: If someone has an eligible IMDb page, correct data won't be removed. That's where the line is. I see no reason to take the line and draw it elsewhere.
Photo of J.

J.

  • 404 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
Not even the hypothetical PTA mother who was interviewed on a news program? I would oppose removing her name, or any information that she revealed on the show. But what if her husband's IMDb-savvy ex-wife added her age, height, bust size (does IMDb still include that?) and true but embarrassing details about her private life - say, an arrest record?

I know that's an extreme example, but I would hope that IMDb would at least make an exception to their rules in this case, even if they didn't want to change the rules.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1062 Posts
  • 1291 Reply Likes
Given the fact that IMDb has currently almost ten million (!) names listed (see: https://www.imdb.com/pressroom/stats/), dates of birth can help distinguish people with the same or similar names. Especially for people with just one credit and little other information listed on site, a date of birth can be helpful. (Of course, one can argue that both for the date of birth and the height, an approximation could already be made based on the actual broadcast).
Bust size is no longer allowed: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/names-biographical-data/biographical-data-guidelines/GMT9...
As you can see in the guide, quite a bit of information can be deleted from a person's trivia page (I've deleted literally thousands of items for thousands of people), but I'm afraid an arrest record won't be deleted...


Photo of J.

J.

  • 404 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
Fair points. I don't want to harp too much on the issue, because I care much more about the central concern of this thread: which is to keep pressure groups from removing information they want to censor.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15448 Posts
  • 17624 Reply Likes
The new and getting worse.......
IPCIIMDb!
(Incomplete Politically Correct Incorrect Internet Movie Database)

(Edited)
Photo of J.

J.

  • 404 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
The inventors of LGBTQQIP2SAA approve of your acronym. (Or maybe they think it doesn't go far enough.)
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2868 Posts
  • 3698 Reply Likes
Marco, a very valid point although in my nine years on IMDb I don't remember using birth name or birth date once to distinguish people: credits are of way more use in that case.