General Concerns Regarding IMDB's Mission:

It would behoove IMDB to re-implement requisite parameters for inclusion and be open to the database being cleaned, beginning with heeding the cries of many creators and affiliates justified in their concerns regarding their own namesakes being linked to trivial entries.  A project may even very-well be considered "serious" in the eyes of some involved, yet ineligible for IMDB, much like the quality-control I experienced when trying to submit my own title in 2009.  The grey area could easily be fleshed out by returning to the original model of having third-parties such as accredited networks, festivals, and platforms carry the burden of proof that a work is of cultural importance.  Otherwise, IMDB is the wild west with zero rules, equal to anything on the internet (which I suspect is in conflict with the true mission).  The production of media is increasing exponentially, so as a filmmaker and film-lover, I hope this is addressed in order to maintain the integrity and core purpose of the database. 

A videographic (motion photographic) work does not have to be noteworthy or notable in order to be cataloged on IMDb. It simply has to be, with some exceptions, published. If a work is of a intimate/private nature (not intended to be interesting to the public, now or in the future) yet just happens to be published, it may not be eligible, but if somehow it became catalogued, it might also not be subject to deletion, especially if the IMDb records pertaining to it are complete.

• https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/you-tube-entires-should-not-be-allowed-to-masquerade-as-tv-series
• https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/why-this-youtube-vlog-video-deserves-an-imdb-page;
• https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/cheating
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication

(Part of the issue is that the very concept of publication has changed a lot over the course of the last couple of centuries.)

Well, I think there must be a clause that denotes power to the creators in the case of an internet production.  According to Official Eligibility the requirement is simply "released on video or the web or prints have been made available to the public".  This literally describes everything posted online since the invention of the internet.  It's too broad and the database is, in many cases, clogged with titles that the creators and participants themselves are begging to have removed.  Any clip made public online in the history of Earth should not be bound to a regulation that the title and names involved are permanently documented on IMDB for the sake of "fact".  Titles that have zero legacy beyond a URL should be able to be quickly and easily removed at the creator's request.  This would solve the issues I mentioned in my original post pertaining to Google search results.  From reading many posts on Get Satisfaction, it appears that many non-filmmakers were credited in internet nonsense, jokes, school projects, etc. without any notion that they now have an IMDB which comes up first thing on Google when they are searched.  Similarly, serious filmmakers are linked to equally amateur productions that have no place on IMDB.  It should not be a struggle to remove titles in this category.  A simple rule of thumb could be this:  If the entire legacy of the video can disappear with one button click on YouTube or Vimeo, then the removal from IMDB should be of equal ease and convenience.  Honestly, who cares?  Give the people what they want.  If everyone involved wants it delisted, delist it.  Especially when there is zero firewall for listing.  It's typically something with under 1,000 views.  It's laughable.  These titles just jam the database and act as blemishes for anyone trying to showcase their profile professionally and/or not have a profile to begin with.  For example, cementing the "fact" that so-and-so cameo'd as "Farmer #3" in a high school comedy skit that only exists as a Quicktime file that less than 30 people have seen in no way legitimizes IMDB.  It makes IMDB look far less legitimate.

While current policy is pretty clear that YouTube videos are eligible for inclusion in IMDb (see https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/title-eligibility/G9V8J6AXTQ292S5W#), I think it's worth taking a look from time to time and reviewing the concerns expressed by T as to whether videos should be eligible just by virtue of appearing on YouTube.

Do the current eligibility criteria serve IMDb users well? Are people hoping to find YouTube videos listed on IMDb and are they unhappy when they don't find them listed? Do filmmakers, cast, and crew support having YouTube videos listed? 

I realize that technology may be changing faster than IMDb can adjust its policies. YouTube used to be primarily a site for amateur videos, but nowadays even a "TV special" starring Mariah Carey can be made directly for YouTube.

Still, I think it's worth it to discuss whether the current policies are serving useful purposes.

I would like to add that many titles during this same period may have been entered in good faith in the spirit of "serious" work:  for example, films that were in the process of being submitted to film festivals.  Due to the progress of digital technology, there has been a boom of independent filmmakers.  However, many of these works may have never premiered, nor were accepted to festivals, only screened for friends and family, or were "published" online and then removed.  I personally have titles on my page that were "serious" entries that never made it to the festivals or for all intents and purposes never saw the light of day.  Why does premature entry qualify them for permanent perseveration in the database?  Again, yes, they exist scientifically.  But the merits and viewership in the eyes of the public is zilch.  As a filmmaker, I should have the freedom to clean my page of obscurities known only to me and not spark a debate with IMDB.  I haven't seen any posts by filmmakers trying to fraudulently wipe away titles that have been documented to have played Sundance, SXSW, Cannes, etc.  Both serious filmmakers and non-filmmakers are pleading to help rid IMDB of garbage entires that no one has seen or cares about.  Obsessively factual is perhaps interesting if we are to look back at Spielberg's first few credits shot on actual celluloid.  But in the modern age where it could be argued that anyone with a cellphone is a filmmaker, obsessively factual is counterproductive to IMDB and eerily dystopian to filmmakers building reputable profiles on the website.  If I step out into the street in front of viral video team shooting a prank video, am I forever "Man on Street" on my IMDB page?  Side-by-side with credits that I worked extremely hard for and am proud of?  This is what the future looks like if policies are not adjusted.  Because IMDB dominates Google search results and doesn't exist in its own vacuum, this topic is of the utmost importance regarding people's privacy and reputations.

Let us not forget that you still have the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to deal with, and a whole bunch of other websites. It is not easy to expunge "folk history" as it were nowadays.

All creators have control of their content across the internet in real-time in perpetuity and can strip down video from YouTube and Vimeo at will.  Individuals can edit their professional histories on sites like LinkedIn in real-time or delete profiles entirely with ease.  IMDB is the only site that creates a huge impenetrable barrier between creators and their own cataloged works.  This must change.

The outcome would be a better organized website of higher quality with happier users.  

I'm not sure when those in charge become blinded by "facts are facts" with a detrimental obsession on accuracy which only negatively affects user experience, professional reputations, and crowds a legitimate catalog. 

I am adding titles (including my own productions) to IMDb since 2010 and I am actually very much glad that many more things are eligible: YouTube productions, web series, music videos and even commercials. All of those tend to have much cultural value, are technically movies in the wider sense of the term (which comes back to "moving images") and, first and foremost, they also tend to require as much inspiration, skill and production values. It might not seem evident to many people, especially to those who are older, but some of the web efforts might have much more impact then award-winning short films just because websites like YouTube and Vimeo offer a simple and very effective distribution strategy that actually makes eligible to audience on a large scale. Potentially anything uploaded on YouTube (well, if it abides a simple plethora of rules the platform chose to instate) has a fair chance of making as much impact as some of the big budget movies do. Some productions already did. 

While film festivals and theatrical distribution are in, my humble opinion, great and much needed things, they are no longer exclusive means by which (for example) short films could be seen by people and make impact. In fact it might be argued that 2 minute video made by a single filmmaker on a budget of $1 might have more cultural impact, audience and residual results then award-winning short film that entered theatrical distribution and cost $10,000 to produce. It sounds sad from a perspective of a filmmaker who invested in his craftsmanship and reputation only to find that funny videos on the internet are on IMDb as well, are perfectly eligible and find their audiences while his works are basically on the same level of public recognition because traditional distribution strategy is not always working. 

The thing is: for some people it is industry and for some people what they do is art. Some people, me included, apply a mixed approach, but it could be agreed that IMDb is equally made for both types of people and expansion of eligibility criteria is also beneficial for both of those categories as well. Professional filmmakers who also work on music videos and/or commercials (of which there are many) finally have the ability to list some of their most known works (and I'm not exaggerating here: Xavier Dolan might be an award winning director with a resume of major award-winning feature films but his most seen work in the world is still a music video which has almost 2,5 billion views on YouTube). Those who percieve what they do as art, no matter how outsider or local that art is have an ability to have their audio-visual creations listed on a database for the purpose of their audience discovering more of their work as well having a general outlook of such. 

There are constructive and unconcstructive ways of dealing with situation. In my humble opinion suggesting that eligibility of some media obstructs abilities of other media is unconstructive because it makes people immediately argue over subjective views on what should be eligible and should be not, instead of spending their time perfecting what we already have in much more sufficient ways. And that "does not belong on IMDb" is just a classical result of Streisand effect. People don't understand simple consequences of working in filmmaking, whether as as industry or as an art form: if you agreed, signed a contract and was credited for your work that is no longer private information. You can't delete any trace of what you've done just because you don't want your early disgrace to be seen.  

And yes, "Honestly who cares?" I can pretty much take as a personal offence, because I care and I know that I'm far from only person in that regard. You don't want to hear that notion aimed at your projects and hard work, I'm quite sure about that. But still you aim it at a whole sector of both creators and audience, as well as people who go extra mile to ensure that what is listed on IMDb is listed according to all the rules and with maximum effort, regardless of medium, budget or how "professional" (which for many jobs in filmmaking seems to be a transcendent and at times even abstract term) creators are. After seeing for dozens of years how some amazingly talented people were barely able to achieve fewer things because there was no place for them in the industry hearing some other people complaining that their work should not be listed on a database of audio-visual media just because it does not appear to fulfill their personal standards is quite a sad thing. I'm sorry, but your concerns do look very much like basic jealousy over the fact that nowadays much more things are eligible on IMDb, while when you started it was not as easy. It's not necessarily what they are, but just how they might look like from my perspective.   

"Honestly, who cares?" was aimed at the circumstance that an unknown title of no importance or substance is disappeared from the database at the creator's request.  No one cares other than the creator.  There is zero consequence.  Let it be removed.  Please keep the discussion focused on this theme.

Additionally, I think something to consider is that anyone who is living has a right to claim their name and delist themselves from IMDB.  Why not?  It's barbaric that this is currently not the case and non-filmmakers are at war with IMDB because their name appears in Google search results from a student project, illegitimate project, etc.  There isn't a single other site on the web with such irrevocable permanence and a callous disregard for what is even entered to begin with.  

This thread isn't about what belongs on IMDB in the digital age so much as it is about allowing users the freedom and the choice to opt out.  A simple feature that is long overdue.

I believe that the following point deserves its own serious consideration:

Anyone credited (2005 - present) should have a right to claim their name and delist themselves from IMDB.

Users should be granted the freedom and choice to have control of their own name and opt out.  No one seriously pursuing filmmaking will want to opt out.  Let the database be cleared of names and titles of no importance at the owner's request!  The "facts are facts" policy is going to destroy IMDB.