Vande's profile

112 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

Mon, Apr 11, 2022 11:28 PM

No Status

Is there any point my contributing any more?

This week I have had too many rejections to count.  Normally I would list them here, but it would take too long.  Almost all of them were credits which were attached to the wrong person, and with every one of them I supplied evidence, such as a good website link.

After 19 years as a Top Contributor, this is the worst it has ever been.  I have just been going through and resubmitting them in different ways, and I managed to get some through, but the more I did the more there seemed to be, and I have just run out of energy.

It's wasting so much of my time when I want to be getting on with new contributions, not going over and over old ones which I have already done.

When will you start having some respect for someone who has spent 2 decades improving this site?  After all this time, and with my track record, if anything it should get easier for me to get things through.

5.8K Messages

 • 

150K Points

3分前

? ?

Michelle
Mon, Apr 4, 2022
Top 300 Contributor Leaderboard for March 2022

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/top-300-contributor-leaderboard-for-march-2022/624b0337453e2f45c8bc711f

rank nick      total
40 vande 10,587

Michelle
Thu, Mar 3, 2022 
Top 300 Contributor Leaderboard for February 2022
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/top-300-contributor-leaderboard-for-february-2022/6220f4b3f212b77ddab77de1

rank nick   total
27 vande 14,302

Top Contributors: All Time (2021)
https://contribute.imdb.com/czone/hall_of_fame

RANK TOTAL      NICKNAME
52       643,554   vande

- - -

vande
IMDb member since May 1999
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur0335397/

Lifetime Total : 600,000+

.

(edited)

VonPunk

252 Messages

 • 

4.3K Points

2分前

I know how you feel, like the years of service mean nothing, the fun hobby of helping building a database instead becomes a daily misery. Had the same experiences and doing corrections even with iron clad proof can be the biggest grind on a contributor.

I can only say one thing that helps me get by, take a break or just submit new data that stands a much higher chance of being approved.

I've had to mostly leave corrections in my rear view and add cast and crew for new releases and try my best to make sure it's all complete and correct from the off so it hopefully reduces the need for future corrections. A change can be as good as a rest.

I spent this February here demoralised but now my mojo is restored somewhat.

Also note they've employed alot of new staff recently that are only just learning the ropes at the same time as having a massive increase in contributions, this'll have contributed a huge increase in declined contributions if my own numbers are an example.

I've asked IMDb before to research the history of regular top 100 contributors and bestow the best, most accurate ones with some visible status that gives them more free reign to work, a status that can be removed if they prove to be disobeying the rules and interests of the site. Other sites with user generated content do this to great success and hopefully IMDb can try this out one day by building it's own trusted squad of contributors to fight the growing inaccuracy of the site instead of sucking the life out of people that care about an accurate complete website.

112 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

@VonPunk​ thank you, it's good to hear from someone else who is experiencing similar issues.

I remember when the western expert and author Les used to have so many problems getting his stuff through, despite the fact that his expertise was so evident he had published books on the subject!  He used to get similarly frustrated on the old forum and think about stopping contributing, and that was years ago, so you would think things would have improved by now!

Similarly to you, I have not been having problems getting new stuff through, as I do add some daily episodes too.  But not much point keep adding stuff to the site, if the existing things are not accurate.

I think your idea of trusted contributors is brilliant and would really work.  I mean, even prisons full of criminals have trustees!

VonPunk

252 Messages

 • 

4.3K Points

@Vande​ Thank you.

And yes, I had to reply so you know it wasn't just you. Having people like you on the site working hard for years to make it what it is, is great, even though we all work alone on it, all us rule following, accurate hard workers are all part of a great team and through this forum we inform and sharpen our knowledge to help millions of visitors source the information they are looking for, but we have to be happy and willing to do it, so I hope IMDb treats you kinder and you continue to do what you enjoy.

Employee

 • 

13.7K Messages

 • 

274.2K Points

Hi VonPunk -

I just wanted to follow-up on your comments above, I'm sorry to hear that you are also experiencing declined submissions, and especially wherein you have taken efforts to provide solid evidence. 

If you continue experiencing these issues, I encourage you to  continue reporting them here in the community so that our staff can escalate them to the appropriate teams for investigation.  From my experience assisting you in the community, I have seen how valuable your contributions are to the site and I will continue to do my best to push for these improvements to help prevent these ongoing data processing errors.

VonPunk

252 Messages

 • 

4.3K Points

@Michelle​ Thank you, I do acknowledge things sometimes do not run smoothly and having your help when that happens really lessens the frustration.

I always appreciate your help and will post up any issues as I go.

Employee

 • 

4.8K Messages

 • 

149K Points

2分前

@Vande  So sorry to hear about this.  I will flag this to the appropriate team for investigation as this should not be happening.   We ask for your patience and understanding in the meantime.  

Employee

 • 

4.8K Messages

 • 

149K Points

2分前

@Vande I should have asked this upfront, sorry, please can you supply 3-5 example contribution IDs which were incorrectly rejected? 

112 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

@Col_Needham​ 220410-010431-621000 This is a ludicrous one, as I even supplied the official BAFTA website listing all the nominees for the relevant year to show that this credit was attached to the wrong man!  I used to be able to get credits attached to the wrong person moved without any evidence, which I assumed was on trust because of my previous work, but now I can't even get it through with!

220410-181939-787000 I supplied the official website link of Democracy Now explaining the guest list and even that didn't get the credit moved to the correct person!

#220410-181501-377000 I supplied the official website of Dr. Steve Peters to prove that he is the same psychiatrist!  Maybe your staff member needs to combat their inner chimp while monitoring submissions!

220410-181152-404000 I supplied Sue Nelson's official website to show that the broadcaster is not the same person as the sculptor.

220410-112915-684000 I supplied articles on the Silent Twins to show that the Self credits for them do not belong to June Gibbons (I) the actress who has a different Date of Birth (+ death).  Oddly I successfully got the pictures moved across, but they have now reappeared on both the June Gibbons again.  I also cannot get the duplicate cast credit for The New Boy (2002) removed for June Gibbons (II), and these used to be really easy to do.




Employee

 • 

4.8K Messages

 • 

149K Points

@Vande​  Thanks for these and sorry for the problems in processing them (and the other cases).  This provides enough data for us to follow-up with the team and update the processes which are clearly broken (sorry) here. 

59 Messages

 • 

856 Points

@Vande@Col_Needham Holy Crap! 

These are terrible. Worse even than my own long list of declined submissions. 

There is simply no excuse for this level of incompetence. 

I really do feel your pain. 

I remember when this site was actually easy to use. 

I ask, again, who are these editors? And why are they not being held accountable for such bad work? 

Employee

 • 

13.7K Messages

 • 

274.2K Points

2分前

Hi Vande -

I understand the frustration you expressed with the recently declined submissions, especially given that you have taken the time and effort to contribute so much valuable information to IMDb over the years, which we truly appreciate. 

Thanks for posting these examples, upon researching them I found the following:

220410-010431-621000: The BAFTA award is now displaying on the correct IMDb page for Phil Davies.

220410-181939-787000: The credit has since been moved to the correct IMDb page for Mark Stephens.

220410-181501-377000: The credit has since been moved to the correct IMDb page for Steve Peters (V).

220410-181152-404000: The credit has been moved to the correct Sue Nelson (V) IMDb page.

220410-112915-684000: The credit has since been split and is now listed on the separate IMDb page for June Gibbons (II), I have also moved the images accordingly.

Concerning the updates above, these credit updates should have been approved based on the additional supporting evidence you provided.  I have escalated these examples to the appropriate team for visibility and to help improve our data processing. 

Again, we truly appreciate your contribution efforts, and appreciate these recent call outs.

112 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

@Michelle​ Thank you.  These must have been actioned based on @Col_Needham 's interaction, as they had all already been rejected on my

Your Contribution History (Beta)

page.  In some cases more than once, due to my trying different ways to get them through.

I'll keep monitoring and let you know if things don't at the least go back to the level they have been for years in my getting my well-researched corrections through.

Employee

 • 

13.7K Messages

 • 

274.2K Points

Thanks @Vande​, yes, please do let us know if you continue observing these occurrences. 

112 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

@Michelle​ things are showing improvement, but now I've got them accepting my name corrections, but doing them the wrong way round!


220411-235701-863000

As mentioned on the BBC and the Guardian, both of which I supplied in the link, as well as many other websites, her name is Sylvia Nicol not Sylvia Nichols!   It was even spelt correctly on the screen in the Netflix Savile documentary.


Employee

 • 

13.7K Messages

 • 

274.2K Points

Hi @Vande​ -

Thanks for the update, I'm glad to hear that you are seeing improvements.  Regarding the name corrections/merges, I'm not certain why the updates are being approved yet the names are being reversed.  I have alerted the appropriate team to investigate these occurrences further.

In the meantime, I have corrected the name text to "Sylvia Nichol" and it is now displaying correctly on the site.

Thanks again for your patience as we work through these issues!

112 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

@Michelle​ Thanks.  I have supplied the links again, to experiment and see if it does correct to Sylvia Nicol now.

112 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

Yes, it's worked.

59 Messages

 • 

856 Points

2分前

I totally understand how you feel. I've been contributing since 2005 and IMDb is at an all-time low point. The editors are terrible and almost nothing I submit any more gets accepted. Everything is declined. They simply will not change mistakes. You can add new info, without proof of any kind. But no proof will convince them to change wrong information. I've tried screengrabs without success. Even if you clearly show that an actor is in a TV episode, the editors won't change it. Even if you clearly show that the wrong actor is listed in IMDb, the editors won't change it. Even if you clearly state that an actor listed on IMDb isn't in the episode they won't change it. This last one is my favourite, because you'll be asked to provide a screengrab. How, I've asked on more than one occasion, do you prove an actor isn't in an episode with a screengrab?! 

I would love to know who these editors are. And add some sort of accountability. 

This used to be fun, and rewarding. Now it is a nightmare.