Another Crazy Credit ... no, two more

Hi @hutch48 - This one would actually be considered a quote, reason why it was not accepted as a crazy credit. If you see any other, like in this case, that do not belong you are welcome to report them. Thanks!

Thank you, but this is not a quote, since H.P.Lovecraft is not a character in the movie, and is not in the cast list, making this impossible to treat as a Quote. Do you mean that the automatic machinery assigned to this decided it was a quote because of the presence of inverted commas? Most titles which reference another work of fiction usually contain inverted commas. If this is the case, the bot needs to be recoded, and the guidelines rewritten, to make errors like this more unlikely.     True to form, the latest two submissions (in my post titled "Another Crazy Credit ... no, two more") have now also been rejected.                                                    hutch48

@hutch48​ Although an old staff reply suggests Crazy Credits section, a newer reply by Michelle says they should be added to Quotes section. Michelle also says "I have put in a request to update our guides with this information." in that reply but it seems that was not done. But I feel this part in quotes guidelines may be relevant: For those rare cases where no character is associated with the quote (e.g., it's on a title card), use "unknown" from the pulldown and enter the character name as Title Card (or Intertitle, or whatever you feel is appropriate).

This is a complete turnaround from the original policy. If this new provision is not in the Crazy Credits guidelines, how will a user find it in the Quotes guidelines? Thank you for pointing out this alternative possibility, it's the rationale I was looking for above, even though it seems ridiculously complicated. But now, what constitutes a Crazy Credit? And "rare case" it is not, to have a film introduced by a title card with a quote. I've added five in the last month or so.     The "old staff reply" (from April 2019) is interesting; it was mainly concerned with the question, "Should the author of a quote on a title card have the quote entered into the author's credits?" I would say, emphatically not; it would just make Name pages impossibly dense. And, of course, the author may not have a Name page. It's a can of worms.                            hutch48

@Bethanny​  Here are two current submissions which have been rejected. 230414-020741-436000 230503-000818-596000 I suppose I could add them as Quotes (or "epigraphs" seems to be a description being tossed around for this kind of thing). But there are no guidelines in Crazy Credits to suggest how these should be treated. Somebody should remedy this omission, so that future contributors are not beating their heads against a brick wall.                      hutch48

@Peter_pbn​  Yes, I did include the links to the latest two above. If all of the rejected submissions were available to be compared together, there might be a hint to whatever "problem" is common to all of them. However, I usually delete items from my submissions list once they're accepted. ( "My work here is done." [rides off into the sunset])

P.S. True to form, the two items linked above have now been rejected.                                       hutch48

@hutch48​  Only you and IMDb staff can see your contributions. Staff can presumably see them whether or not you "delete" them from your history.

I thought everything in a post was visible to anyone watching. If you click on the links in my original post, what do you get? I can no longer access successful submissions, or ones finally OKed here, having cleared them out of my list.                                              hutch48

I suppose I could wrangle the last few and display the actual texts side-by-side (if I can remember them). Once they go live on the site, I tend to forget about them.                                                         hutch48

I suggested posting the contents of those edits that were declined, not those that were accepted. These should be available to you in three forms: the update history that you linked, the tracking feature, and email confirmations. You can probably get to the tracking page with these links, which I edited: https://contribute.imdb.com/contribution/230414-020741-436000/ https://contribute.imdb.com/contribution/230503-000818-596000/

Thanks for the response. The thing is, all the submissions on Crazy Credits which I've brought to the attention of this forum have ultimately been accepted. This suggests that there is nothing wrong with the submissions themselves, but the way in which they should be treated, as defined by machinery which decides such things. Crazy Credit guidelines don't explain how to treat quotes from external sources ... an internal IMDb failing on someone's part, apparently.      There is a longer discussion on this at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/crazy-credit-declined/644cab2ca110963ad3340d02?commentId=64551a0ed62cb1311e92bf15&replyId=6455993b77e1151e97048319. (Sorry, I lost my tinyurl link.) This suggests that quotes, even those from people not in the cast list, should be submitted as quotes, not Crazy Credits. Sounds like baloney to me.                    hutch48

I like this viewpoint, posted by gromit in a discussion that you were also a part of: **In that discussion, staffer Will said that when "A title card or a subtitle includes a quotation and credits the person who said it" (which would include epigraphs), "the individual shouldn't be credited in the filmography section. You may record these details ... in the crazy credits section and potentially as a trivia item given the context, but these shouldn't be listed as filmography credits."**

But that was from August 2020. Apparently this thought is now out of favour.                                hutch48

Sometimes members of the IMDb staff provide answers that are technically bred of solitary guesswork rather than consensus among the staff or otherwise a skillful directive issued by Col Needham, so on occasion, answers can be contradictory. Also, as Col isn't an absolute expert in every department of the IMDb, he may not always give answers that match 100% the less important IMDb guidelines (be them recorded in the Help Center or directly in the submission interface). This is why everybody tries or at least ought to try to quote or reference a guide, when explaining something related to procedure or best practices. Unfortunately, sometimes the publicly-codified guideline are taken offline or altered in nuanced ways, meaning they sort of have to be quoted, not merely hyperlinked. Also, some guidelines exist that have never even been publicized.

@hutch48​ Just to link to the prior discussions related to this in which I was involved: https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/when-is-quotations-an-appropriate-credit-need-help-from-contributors-and-staff/5f4a7a0e8815453dba965195 https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/epigraph-and-commentary-as-credits/5f4a7cb38815453dba0fe9b3 Will, who posted a response in the first discussion above, was an IMDb staffer at the time, but he no longer is. Nevertheless, I believe the view that the attribution of an epigraph to a person does not constitute a filmography credit remains correct. However, as indicated by Peter, the contributors here have not yet been able to view your (Hutch's) rejected contributions. Please post your last full data submission here on this message board. You can copy it out of the receipt you would have received from IMDb by e-mail immediately after sending it in. Some of the regulars on the board may review it and, if they can, they may provide suggestions as to how to improve the submission to get it included in the database. 

@hutch48​  I thought everything in a post was visible to anyone watching. If you click on the links in my original post, what do you get? Since non-staffers can't access other people's contributions, I get something that looks like this:

Thanks! Guidelines are good, but if they are incomplete or inconsistent, where is one to turn? Here, I suppose! If only everybody agreed on everything! ("All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." - George Orwell)                                        hutch48

Thanks, gromit! I was unaware of this, obviously. Here are the two latest rejections: 230414-020741-436000 CRAZY CREDIT ADDITION               Sensoria (2015) Pre-credits title card: "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction between the real and unreal." - H.P. Lovecraft, The Tomb (1917) Reason Badly Formatted. Your contribution has been declined.Your contribution did not meet our formatting standards. Please review our submission guides. 230503-000818-596000 CRAZY CREDIT ADDITION              A Dark Song (2016) Pre-credits title card: "For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." - Psalm 91 Reason Does not meet contribution guidelines. Your contribution has been declined. Please review our submission guidelines.  Interesting that there are two different error messages. What differentiates the two submissions?

Both of these are formatted exactly the same as three previous Crazy Credit submissions that were initially rejected, then accepted via this forum. The latest response from a staffer suggests I submit them as Quotes. This doesn't really sit well with me.                              hutch48

Guidelines have this to say: "You can now track the status of your Crazy Credits submission and if it has not been approved, we'll tell you the reason why." (My italics) Not so far ...

@hutch48​ Thanks for posting your submissions. Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions as to what the problem is, so hopefully a staffer will intervene.

@Michelle​ Thank you! And as for "a review our our Help Guides", please don't be offended if I say, "High time!"                                                 hutch48

Perhaps there should be a brief separate paragraph on submitting Epigraphs, which are apparently more common than previously thought.                                                     hutch48

@Michelle​ You say "I have put in a request to update our guides with this information." here 3 years ago when you suggested using Quotes section, what was the result of that ticket? Was there any change to the guides as a result of it?

Hi @mbmb​ - As per the older thread you referenced, I can see that the ticket requesting documentation of epigraph placement had been resolved as the information was covered on the Quotes Guide under: For those rare cases where no character is associated with the quote (e.g., it's on a title card), use "unknown" from the pulldown and enter the character name as Title Card (or Intertitle, or whatever you feel is appropriate). In the past, we had been flexible in listing epigraphs under the Quotes section, however, I raised the issue with our Policy team and it was confirmed that (with the exception of Silent films) Crazy Credits is the correct placement for title card epigraphs, as we prefer lines of voiced dialogue under the Quotes section. Concerning the Help Guide passage I noted above, I filed a ticket for the appropriate team to modify accordingly.

Hi @hutch48​ - Thanks for the suggestions, I have included it on a new ticket to the applicable team!

So, if I'm reading this correctly, Epigraphs do not belong in the Quotes section (despite the current instruction quoted above as part of the Quotes guidelines), but do belong in Crazy Credits (whose guidelines contain nothing about Epigraphs, but soon will). Is that about right?                           hutch48

Hi @hutch48​ - Apologies for the delayed response, that is correct.  The Quotes section on a title page should only include spoken dialogue from the title, whereas, title card quotes or epigraphs belong in the Crazy Credits section.

Thank you.

I believe the Crazy Credits guidelines have also been amended. Is that also correct?

Hi @hutch48​ - Yes, I can confirm that the first line on our Crazy Credits Help Guide includes this information.

Quite possibly a spammer trying to evade detection. I doubt a troll, as I don't recall ever seeing a bonafide troll (like a shade-throwing, feud-instigating, dox-posting, psychological operator) on this forum.