assmn108's profile

145 Messages

 • 

3.8K Points

Saturday, May 7th, 2022 2:06 AM

No Status

-1

submitting goofs

when submitters describe where a goof is located by saying "if one was to look closely", it may not be sufficient enough so may I suggest submitters rephrase it to " the goof can be found approximately one hour, thirty-two minutes, and ten seconds", or rephrase it to "if one were to pause the film at approximately….”, that way the viewer can pause the movie, tv episode, etc., to spot the goof easier, and know when to start looking. I realize it may be difficult to spot the exact second so may I also suggest submitters include the approximation time within five to ten seconds of when the goof can be seen, including the keywords “approximately” and “pause” within the description is crucial. If we rephrase it this way, it will be easier for the audience to notice the goof, including the imdb staff, hence the more likely the goof will be approved

thanks

Champion

 • 

14.4K Messages

 • 

329.9K Points

3 years ago

There is a suggested format for timestamps in the style guide for goofs. It is added at the start of a goof item:

  • Timestamping a goof where possible is encouraged, but the format must adhere to strict rules.
  • Please use the format (at around xx mins) or (at around xh xx mins).
  • Additionally, to account for regional variations and alternate versions, please round down the timings using the following thresholds:
  • 00:00:01 - 01:30:00 -> down to the nearest minute
  • 01:30:01 - 02:59:59 -> down to the nearest 5 minutes
  • 03:00:00 and over -> down to the nearest 10 minutes

Since these guidelines don't recommend specifying times down to the second, another solution may be to describe what is happening on screen at the time you are referring to.

(edited)

124 Messages

 • 

2K Points

3 years ago

Due to widely varying versions these days--broadcast (chopped up with commercials), DVD (perhaps with extras), on-demand (actual running time only, or chopped up with fewer commercials than other sources), cable (chopped up differently by different channels), and so on, the time method isn't foolproof.

What I do, and I think this works well, is give info about what's happening at the time--and also RIGHT BEFORE the time. So I might say, "Just after John and Mary pull up to their house, Mary looks down and..." and then describe the goof. If a similar scene happens multiple times, I'll specify which one it is, i.e., "The first time John and Mary pull up...." I'll also use a loose time-frame, such as "Near the beginning..." or "Right after the closing credits start rolling..." This way, the reader has some idea of what to be looking for before the actual goof.

145 Messages

 • 

3.8K Points

@SoCalGrace​, 

I realize that there's different versions of a movie, tv show episodes, etc., on different mediums,. but that's why I emphasize including the word "approximately", which has a similar meaning to the words you use "right before, near the beginning", etc., whatever method we use to describe the location of the goof, I'm sure imdb users, viewers, including the imdb staff will appreciate the effort we put in, right?  

124 Messages

 • 

2K Points

@alfred_chu​ Yes, I see what you're saying, but when you think about how much variation a movie, especially, can have from version to version, 'approximately' may be way off! Certain channels that I don't even include in my DirecTV channel guide are SO BAD about chopping up movies and sticking in gigantic blocks of commercials that I can't watch them. (I don't know how anyone can!)

Let's say the movie's unadulterated running time is 90 minutes. When it's shown on Channel XYZ, its running time is 135 minutes. If I said "at approximately minute 37..." WHICH minute 37 should the reader look for?! Whereas if I say, "right after the opening credits...." or "the first time John enters the restaurant, blah blah blah happens..." that's definite. (Unless those scenes are missing from the version being watched!)

Anyway, I'm really not trying to be argumentative, just merely pointing out that some methods of specifying an incident's time-frame work better than others. I heartily agree with your premise!