Question about external review submissions (description field)

@mbmb​ My thoughts exactly. I think the title of the blog is at least as telling when it is named as merely the name of the website that follows the http

but strictly-speaking the rule is to state the website

Quote:

WebsiteName [ReviewerName] (Language if not English)

Examples:

GreatDirectors.co.uk [Alan Smithee]

DVD Review - Season 2 [Mike Teevee] 

BestMovies.de [Hans Gruber] (German)

WaterSources.fr [Jean de Florette] (French)
end of quote

In my example, it would be on https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6791350/externalreviews/ if you scroll down far enough "Film Horst" that it got changed into. It was basically the same procedure for 3 or 4 others. Oh and no I did not include the specific review headlines. I understand that's a no-go. (Oh and let's not get into detail about including the reviewer name. I know I didnt, but it's on my list to change soon and so far they always got accepted without this addition too.)

@Horst​ I still didn't understand what you submitted and how it was changed. Can you say what was the description you submitted and what was the changed one?

Your Oene Kummer example looks in line with policies (WebsiteName [ReviewerName])

I've already suggest before somewhere, or so I recall, that the system needs to be overhauled in such a way that templates exist on a per-website basis and enforce uniformity of the way the names of websites appear based upon the common part of the URLs to the websites. We would be able to change the IMDb-display name/designation of every website without manually altering thousands External Links items within the database.

@jeorj_euler​ That sounds like a good suggestion. And I wish we could report spam domains to be mass cleaned and blocked easily via site. So many spam links getting added to external review section or official site section or misc. links section.

I just deleted 3 malware/spam/piracy site from this Guardians of the Galaxy page referred above for example. And one spam site deletion request on official site section is still pending. The thing is, these sites are obviously on much more titles. I deleted the same one on official site section from another popular title a few days ago.

When I report a spam domain via this forum for mass cleaning and blocking, sometimes Michelle so efficiently handles it within one day and clears all instances of it and blocks it for further submissions, sometimes she says "she forwarded it" and then nothing is done. These 3 spam/malware domains I mentioned, I reported these domains last year and Michelle supposedly forwarded it for clean-up and blocking last year, but nothing was done. I mean, if you are able to do it in one day sometimes, you obviously have the tools and ability to do it without hassle, why are you forwarding it then? And of course then nothing happens and all of them are still on the hundreds of pages.

And another report never even got a reply from her again, so I deleted the thread in the end.

So that's why a site function to report these would be better, because when you report it via here or help desk, it's a hit or miss if it will be handled or even get a reply.

One of the most absurd situations was Charlie asking me for screenshots of the malware/piracy sites I reported via help desk for clean-up and blocking. He was obviously not actually interested in screenshots, that was just something he invented because he thought I wouldn't take screenshots so he would escape from doing the job. When I wasted my time for half an hour to take screenshots to "prove" they are really piracy and malware sites and replied with these screenshots (and I was almost going to infect my pc with malware because of that request of Charlie), he didn't reply again. He was probably be like "oh damn, he really did it, I thought he would not do it and I would be free of doing this job, what I'm gonna do now, hmmm. ok I will not reply", so I wasted my time for his nonsensical request, the result was: no response from him and instead Elizabeth sending the "use edit button" canned response that starts with "It's important to know that corrections to data on IMDb are submitted by everyday users just like yourself..." and spam/malware URLs are still on the site on many titles.

Another absurdity was Elizabeth saying this to me after rejection of the submission where I tried to remove a malware infested piracy site and some non-review links from External Reviews section of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, their parent company's most expensive show: "these links all correctly link out to reviews of the trailer that recently landed for this show. It's accurate that they be listed the way they currently are on the site and we aren't able to process any future requests to remove this information."

(it was eventually handled by Michelle here after I opened a thread about it and she blocked the malware site in one day, so again, she can do it when she wants after all)

Elizabeth saying "we aren't able to process any future requests to remove this information" because I tried to delete a malware infested site from their parent company's most expensive show's title page. And for non-review links (which was only saying something like "trailer is out") she's saying this: "these links all correctly link out to reviews of the trailer" without having any clue about these policies:

"Always link to full reviews of the finished film. Links to reviews of trailers, posters and other partial elements are not eligible."

"Do not send previews or soundtrack reviews to this section (see Miscellaneous Links), only critical reviews."

It wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't always insisting what she's saying is true (everyone can make mistakes after all) despite it's clearly wrong and documented in guidelines. She always insists to me a runtime can never be added to a parent series page and can only be added to episode pages despite that's not what guidelines say (she says this always, insisted at least in 3-4 occasions despite it's clearly wrong and not what the policies say). She once insisted "Is" should be capitalized as "is" in title texts despite that's not what the guidelines say, She once was never able to understand "spoken name" rule for documentaries (that they can be added without uncredited attributes) despite I kept linking to the relevant guidelines. She never understood music video credits don't need to be added with uncredited attributes despite I mentioned Will's replies here that directly say it and music video guidelines' examples which don't show them as uncredited and kept insisting they should be added with uncredited attributes.

Some people operate multiple spam sites and spam them to basically every single title page as external review on the site, especially new and popular titles. There's a series of sites which are likely operated by same Indian guy because they are all similar, even their descriptions, and he always makes their names start with A so that they can be listed at top. I just deleted 5 of these from a popular title yesterday but I want to report these here for clean-up and blocking because they are literally on almost every title but like I said it's a hit or miss, I don't know if Michelle will say she "forwarded it" and then nothing will happen for months and years or if she will handle it and clear and block it in one day like she sometimes does.

When I notice and report a spam site to Wikipedia, an admin quickly responds and cleans it up and blacklists it so that it can never be added again, and all that happens in usually 10-15 minutes, at most an hour. No hassle, no difficulty, no non-resolution.

But when you want to do same on IMDb, all the hassle I talked about happens.

@Horst​ Hi-

Thank you for posting these submission reference numbers! I have taken a look at them and they have been approved now. The changes are already live on the site. 

Cheers!

Thanks Maya!