IMDb Top 300 Data Contributors for 2021 (and Happy New Year 2022 from IMDb)

@Col_Needham Hello! A good day and a Happy New Year to all. I've been waiting the day for a long time and it seems there is an error. According to my calculations, this year I added between 35,000 and 40,000 items. Could someone take a few minutes to check my situation? https://www.imdb.com/user/ur34458014/

@Col_Needham First of all, a happy new year! Hope you and yours are well. Can you tell me how I ranked in 2021? https://www.imdb.com/user/ur0862605/

@Col_Needham Ok, I am new here so this is probably a very dumb question... but how can one person (inespape-1) possibly have made over 3 million contributions? Are we talking about goofs and stuff? Because I've contributed about four of those in ten years. This guy must spend every waking second typing stuff in!!

@Col_Needham Hi. Please check again. Between 20 and 28 December I added around 16.000 items. The pictures shows what I'm seeing on my 'Contribution Details' page.

@AlbertoTreaddur most likely a group of people or a computer program automating the process.

@Nomissimon10 Right. I guess. Thanks. I am amazed there are that many bits of information to be added, to be honest. That has to be be way more than the total number of movies in the database!

@AlbertoTreaddur It's worse than that. 3.2 million submissions over 365 days is over 8700 per day! That's roughly 1 every 9.8 seconds over 24 hours! I guess a bot is most likely. Or a s***load of people are using the same ID simultaneously, which sites rarely allow!

@Col_Needham It's me again. I will wait until I will get an argumentative answer. It there a possibility to take send you an e-mail with 4 ways to prove that my number of admissions is higher than is currently shown? On the bottom of the page you mentioned https://contribute.imdb.com/updates/history?start=3810 the 'previous button' shows my last items were added yesterday, among them: 211231-171010-642000.

@Col_Needham I will wait until I see it. This does mean that my place on the top will be higher, correct? ... for some of those ... For all. In case that there are similar 'confusion', could you write a few words explaining that the list is not final. Thank you for your time to respond all of us.

@AlbertoTreaddur Ines is female name. 👀

@Col_Needham I was wondering when the actual cutoff was as I was still making contributions yesterday.

@adrian me too and many are still open to be accepted

@AlbertoTreaddur He would have had to made a submission every ten seconds. He would have done this without sleep, food, work. I searched and found the profile. It's must be a bot or some kind of dump for a list of users who make submissions for production companies (if such a group exists), and should not be listed. https://www.imdb.com/user/ur1421253/

@DrProfessor ofc it should be listed. The board is to show all the top contributors. Just because someone knows how to automate and make the process more accurate they should not be stripped of the recognition.

@Col_Needham No.82!!! Yay!!! I think that'll be the highest I'll ever reach (and, judging by last year, the only time I'll make the Top 300, let alone 100) as all the time in lockdown has made it so much easier. I'll still carry on contributing, of course, but I think this will be my peak year. Glad to have made it.

@Nomissimon10 Obviously scripts shouldn't be included.

@DrProfessor I do realize it might come off as unfair on a scoreboard pov. But don't you think that people that spend their time on making computer programs that rapidly builds upon the IMDb database with more accurate information should be getting recognition for contributing? I do obviously have a bias seeing as I am one of those people. But it makes it so I have time to actually add data on all the Norwegian series. And add images for their episodes. And add the most popular podcasts and their episodes. Seeing as these would not be possible to do if I did not automate the process. Also, if I did them all manually there would be user errors leading to wrongful information being submitted. (It is not possible to sit 10h a day to contribute without adding a lot of wrongful information)

Why not share the bots to the public, then other contributors could use them to add other data bits which said bot owners don't do. Then the data submissions would explode. Share the (bot) love, so to speak. ;-)

@jimthing It is a good idea. And one I have had before. Only issues is that it does require more manual work than what you would think. And if a person wants to he/she can upload a ton of inaccurate data. (To ruin things for others) This would not be the case for a person that has our a lot of hours into making a program that automates it. A database is also needed for my program which would increase the workload required to set up the program. I might share some time in the future with certain interested people that already spend time contributing. Glad you are interested though. Noting your interest

Not me personally using said bots myself (I don't have such time, unfortunately). What is interesting, is the idea of clever users (such as yourself and others) who use bots to add data en masse, giving the tools to others who have the time, inclination, and are trusted enough to do likewise. Provided bot owners are not only wanting to get on the annual leaderboard, it would surely be hugely beneficial to the site getting more data each year – obviously providing the IMDb staff can increase to manage to all, lol!

If people don't want to share the use of their bots, I can understand that. But it would be nice if some of them would explain what their bots do and where the bots get their data to submit from.

@gromit82 Like I mentioned I could potentially share with a few. But for now I can answer your question. I get data from API's and webacraping. I use NRK's API for Norwegian series and podcasts. I webscrape discovery+ for series as they don't have a publicly available API. I use Spotify's API for podcasts. Hope this answers your question.

what I see is that many dont know what counts as submission, here are billions datas missing which you can add with some clicks and copy/paste without bot or so, more I dont say, I accidently found out in the summer

@Col_Needham Can you please tell me my position and the number of contributions I sent last year?

@Col_Needham I'd like to know what my puny place was, thanks

@Nomissimon10 Am I the only one that thinks this should be disallowed as the credits are not verified with actual onscreen credits but on reliant on third hand sources for their information? While I rarely edit non-English language credits (due to the fact I have to rely on Google for translations), there are a lot of credits that are just flat out wrong and I wonder how anyone that watched the title would enter them this way.

@adrian i can read German, English, French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch and a bit swedish and slovenian

@adrian I personally don't do any credits at all. So I do not have an opinion on it. However, I will say this: If a computerprogram makes mistakes in a medium-sized portion of its submission it should not be used at all. With the way the credit's adding is done I don't think that it would be effective to automate such a process as there are many people with similar names. And smaller series/episodes can have less known actors. Leading to wrong credit being given. If I were to ever automate a process for adding credits I would only trust direct sources like Spotify or in my case NRK (Norwegian state television) as they themself provide a lot of information that can be used in different settings.

@Col_Needham Happy New Year! Could I please know my total number of contributions and my ranking for 2021? https://www.imdb.com/user/ur5456783/

@Col_Needham​ I was in the top 500. Thank you very much for letting me know!

I've definitely employed some measure of automation before, mostly in regards to navigating but also sometimes manipulating the submission form. Usually it is harder to add new data than to correct existing data (such as just based off observing problems with it), since the latter requires sourcing information that is absent, and often the only way to know if something is absent is to stumble upon a page that is bereft of the kind of information expected to be found on pages for non-obscure cinema/television works.

@Nomissimon10​ That does make sense. However, it's like steroids. They are banned from competitive sports because they give people an unfair advantage. I certainly don't think that scripts should be banned after listening to your reasoning. Perhaps they should have a separate category recognizing them as such.

@DrProfessor​ This idea makes sense, however, who would decide who were using a program? And how would that get checked? If I am the only person fighing in the bot category it is no fun for me. And if one bot stays in the normal category it will mess everyone else in that category over. This would not be something IMDb would prioritize to check and verify I am afraid. What matters I think is the downsides vs the upsides, this suggestion is a great one in theory, but hard to pull off in practice due to contributors themself having to do it (Which will not include everyone that should do it) or staff having to do so. (Which would not be accurate, use staff time etc.) PS: Just me doing some critical thinking about if it would be feasible or not.

@Col_Needham​ Hi, Col! Nice to be back in the top 100 (and with my highest total in quite a while). A couple of questions, and a nagging problem: I just recently looked at the page listing/describing IMDb badges (hadn't run across it before), and a couple caught my attention, as they're not on my page but should be (in at least one case). I don't have the Beta Tester badge, but I know I was involved in that capacity with the rollout of Full Episode Support, and possibly when the site-based (replacing email-based) submission system was introduced a few years earlier. I also noticed the Contrib. Helper and IMDb Champ badges for providing advice and assistance to other contributors. I know I haven't been involved on Sprinklr, but perhaps you recall that I did a LOT of that on the old Contributors Help board for several years, and I was hoping that at least one of those badges might be posted to my profile to recognize that. As for the nagging problem, I've been having a LOT of difficulty in the last few weeks with cast deletions/corrections (generally for talk/news shows), for submissions completely in line with previous submissions that have gone through without any problem. Sometimes I send in completely identical revisions for multiple titles, and only some are approved while others are rejected on the basis of needing more details or not meeting guidelines; it's really puzzling (and exhausting, as I sometimes resubmit with lengthy explanations - sometimes more than once - before they get approved). Here's a few of the more puzzling recent examples (some were eventually approved after multiple attempts): 220113-231236-323000 220113-215039-367000 220113-220550-832000 220112-031545-850000 220111-225354-051000 220111-224413-964000 220111-223501-079000 220107-164708-167000 220107-163845-116000 220104-160535-277000 211231-044503-575000 In addition, I've submitted a number of changes for episode "titles" of daily news/talk shows that haven't gone through; if you look, it's obvious that in a number of the cases, one of the guests submitted titles and plot summaries that focused on themselves: 211226-164416-620000 211226-164528-651000 211226-164746-957000 211226-170629-443000 211226-171236-757000 Anyway, thanks for any assistance you can provide, and here's looking forward to another great year!

@Col_Needham​ OK, thanks; disappointing about the badges, as that seems to favor newer contributors, so here's hoping you're right about the "missing" badges. Some (though not all) of the processing problems have been resolved; I know there are always issues with vacations and people filling in around the New Year, and some of it might be chalked up to that. Thanks again.

@Col_Needham​ OK, here are a couple of new rejections for Michelle to ponder: 220116-043634-661000 220116-043557-941000 220116-044637-678000 220116-044557-514000

@Col_Needham​ Hello How did I go last year? Thanks Silitonga's Profile - IMDb (www.imdb.com/user/ur22084305/)

@Col_Needham​ And here's another exaspersting series of submissions for one credit, a simple correction of cast ordering that's been repeatedly declined for unfathomable reasons (two people currently credited 3rd, and I'm simply trying to shift one of them to 5th): 220203-041502-189000 220205-175217-508000 220205-212449-950000

@gary_krause_dsb3tl1xamjcb​ You should start a thread in the problem section for these posts like Col advised in his post, you'll stand a way better chance of it being taken care of than lost in the crowd of an old announcement thread. Good luck.

@Col_Needham can you public a list for December too?

@Col_Needham how many i did add in December?

@Col_Needhamno problem, i did find out i had 338.527 in december

And Happy New Year for everyone too

@Col_Needham i didnt see the new view till now, its wonderfull

@Col_Needham the problem with the new view is it shows not everything, its the oldest shown

@AlbertoTreaddur I started to add info about series from the NRK (Norwegian state televisjon) since they have an API and most of the stuff was missing. Then I moved onto podcasts from Norway. And then other countries. So my submissions are mainly new series, episodes, podcasts etc.

@Nomissimon10 Well.. .let me just say a personal HUGE THANK YOU to all of you. IMDb is absolutely wonderful and I use it every single day of my life for something or other. Your collective work is very much appreciated.

I am concentrating on series, mostly german but worldwide too and much on the program of Arte, the german-french TV station

and everything i find what is missing, TV documentaries, short movies, release dates, distributors etc. etc.

i started in spring cause i wanted to add an movie to my watchlist but couldnt find it, than i added this movie here and than it got more and more

@AlbertoTreaddur Thanks for the kind words.

@adrian to get better is always good, i want first place this year

@clematt1000 I will probably fall next year. It's hard to enter this much data manually. I feel like this is about all I do all day long!

@adrian yes its much work but its fun too

Borrow a bot...?

Thank you for such a prompt reply. Stay safe. KAS

Happy New Year

@Col_Needham It ends up here: https://www.imdb.com/user/ur78137797/

@DrProfessor I gave a reply to the two different ways this can work. But I can recap: 1. Collective group of people adding on the same account 2. Bot/Computer program This would mean the person has made a computer program collecting and uploading information from different sources. This is done (almost) automatically.

Happy New Year everyone! May I please ask which number I reached?