890 Messages
•
17.3K Points
Question for Wayback Machine experts.
Being that the name pages have been redesigned and recently changed, I find that the Wayback Machine that only seems to snap the main page does not contain any way to view all credits on recent and future page snapshots.
So is there any way to access full credits still and I'm not savvy enough to find them or has the WBM become obsolete beyond late 2022 for name pages?
Col_Needham
Employee
•
8.2K Messages
•
190.5K Points
3 years ago
@VonPunk Why use the way back machine when you can get a live view of the “All credits” page on IMDb.com? Via a reply on the main announcement thread ->
Taken from a longer recent update here, for those people seeking a quick route to view all credits, please see the "All credits" link in the "All topics" menu as shown in this screen-grab (see red highlight to activate the menu and yellow highlight to access the all credits link):
2
jeorj_euler
10.7K Messages
•
226.1K Points
3 years ago
What about archive.today?
3
VonPunk
890 Messages
•
17.3K Points
3 years ago
Let me hijack my own thread for a 2nd ask. Can anyone with access to Apple+ do me a screenshot of Snoopy in Space S1 E10 cast credits, I'm missing a screen of just that one ep.
0
0
keyword_expert
2.7K Messages
•
47K Points
3 years ago
I have noticed this problem too. The only solution I have come up with is to simply use the Wayback Machine for retrieving archives of the full credits pages.
So, for example, I just archived the full credits for James Franco here.
The obvious problem with my solution is that since the full credits pages are hidden behind a couple different clicks including a pop-up menu, the Wayback Machine will naturally archive a lot fewer of the full credits pages, because its web crawlers simply won't ever come across these pages.
I have to wonder if that is one of the ulterior motives for IMDb to make the full credits a lot more difficult to access: to keep scrapers, spiders, and the like unable to pull the data. After all, there has been repeated clamoring on this forum to make the full credits pages more readily accessible, but those pleas have so far fallen on deaf ears. While I understand the goal of thwarting scraping, the result is that us human beings find the new design more cumbersome and less data-friendly, not to mention the fact that legitimate web crawlers like the Wayback Machine are thwarted just as the same as commercially motivated bad actors.
While we're on the topic of the Wayback Machine, I should mention that I just barely missed a chance to archive a new thread by the user you interacted with yesterday who was making up lies about this review from 20+ years ago supposedly being plagiarized. The new story was that the review was written by their unnamed "friend" on a completely different website -- this time they came up with a website that originated in 1999, so they couldn't be busted for the temporal holes in their story like the first time. Anyway, I called them out on several new lies, and within minutes they closed their new Sprinklr account and fled (just like they did with their other account yesterday). I was kicking myself for not archiving the new thread in order to preserve it for entertainment value.
11
keyword_expert
2.7K Messages
•
47K Points
3 years ago
I will start up a new subthread here, to continue the discussion about the plagiarism troll, which is slightly off-topic from your basic questions about the new design, but still a valuable discussion involving the use of the Wayback Machine that should be continued, and there is nowhere else to continue that discussion now that the plagiarism troll has deleted both of their Sprinklr accounts.
First, regarding this by @jeorj_euler:
Here there was a very valid reason to do so: the plagiarism troll was trying to get legitimate reviews that had been on the Internet for 20+ years taken down from the IMDb site. Who knows if the troll would have been successful at that. But it is important to preserve this information, especially given the illegitimate campaign to remove it.
And second, it wasn't until I read @VonPunk's latest thoughts on this topic and saw the linked archive to this profile that I realized that the plagiarism troll arbitrarily selected two completely different reviews, both written about Titanic (1997), both written in 2002, and both with hundreds of "helpful" votes, and complained about these two reviews as supposedly plagiarized. In short, the screenshot in the first Sprinklr forum post taken from the "Kibin" website complains about this IMDb review, while the text of both forum posts (written using two different Sprinklr accounts) complains about this completely different IMDb review.
Here was the first complaint (since deleted):
And here was the second complaint (also since deleted):
They also added a bunch of comments on the second thread, for example saying that they are "desperate" to get the review removed from IMDb.
I have come up with a few theories as to the motivation(s) behind the plagiarism troll. I thought perhaps they are a spammer who had found a clever way to promote a website that sells paid reviews and essays. I thought perhaps they themselves plagiarized the review (this was when I assumed all posts involved the same review) and they wanted to hide the evidence of their plagiarism. I thought perhaps they are mentally ill and had just latched onto 2002 Titanic reviews as the focus of their obsession.
But now that I realize this involved two different IMDb reviews, both of which are time-tested and have proven to be very popular, with hundreds of votes apiece, I wonder if the motivations might be vanity and jealousy.
This link sorts all Titanic reviews by number of "helpful" votes. Interestingly, the two reviews complained about are ranked #1 and #6 at that link. I am guessing that the plagiarism troll also has a popular review of Titanic -- perhaps also in the top 10 most "helpful" reviews -- and they are simply trying to eliminate the competition.
Regardless of their motivations, their campaign to get these legitimate reviews taken down is definitely nefarious, as evidenced by the blatant lies they were willing to tell as well as the collateral damage they are willing to engage in to get them taken down.
I am glad you spoke up about the first thread or else I might not even have noticed it, and it's because I did notice it that I was able to bust them the second time they showed up on Sprinklr.
(edited)
1