Suggestions: Don't penalize contributors when declinations are wrong

I'd have to look, but I'm pretty sure I've read where a contributor's %age "correct" is some sort of factor.
Have I read that wrong?

Let me clarify. For the record, I've never worked for IMDB but my ex does or did. I saw the frustration with the system. Reviewers do not like the system IMDB uses as they seek to keep contributions high and stay within the service level. The service level is the problem as it forces reviewers to often just guess and accept the default so that they can reach their quota.


The system when it presents a contribution defaults to the contributor with the higher accuracy rating. Also a factor is that new contributions are scrutinized less than fixing current data particularly if it's trying to remove an item. This is why so many picture deletions are declined unless certain keywords are used that indicate nudity. Remember the key is for IMDB numbers to continue to grow and meet the service level. Rarely will a new item be denied. This usually will only happen where the system indicates there is a paying customer that might be impacted.


Accuracy ratings are divided based upon badged categories, such that it may be easier to fix one type of contribution but not another. The overall key is so that IMDB's numbers grow with content, so anything trying to remove any items are actively pushed back against.

Not sure I buy everything. I submitted two trivia deletes that were duplicates and they got accepted within about an hour.
But some seems plausible. While I would like transparency, at the same time I understand the need to keep some things secret to help prevent people from working the system. But as someone who spent over 30 years ferreting out fraud at many levels using data, the bad guys will figure out how the system works. If not precisely, then close enough.
I'll use a well known example that is used to teach. When the IRS in the 80s made people provide SSNs for their children to be used as dependents, millions of kids disappeared for a few years. Then the bad guys figured out they could use any SSN since at that time IRS didn't verify dependent SSNs. Then IRS began verifying SSNs and again kids disappeared for a few years. Then bad guys came up with schemes to obtain real SSNs that would validate resulting in real parents being denied their own kids, so IRS changed how it validated the SSNs. There was also a time when kids under a certain age didn't have to have a SSN to be claimed, and so some would have a new kid every year and the prior kid would just disappear. Mind you that all of the fraud around this totaled billions of $s while I'm not sure where imdb loses $s so the incentive is much smaller for people to figure out the system except for the people that want to screw with titles, names, or create a huge credit history for themselves.
But the bottom line is if people want to figure out and game the system, no matter what is done it will be figured out.
I have so many stories. I loved figuring out and finding the guys that I was after that did fraud. And trust me, it's everywhere. Just look at the pill mills that the DoJ just shutdown. The doctor figured out close pharmacies wouldn't fill prescriptions and he sent patients further away. Ultimately the data caught the guy, but he profited with over $700k before being caught.
Maybe someone knows what the profit interest for people working the system on imdb cuz I don't see it. Sorry for being long winded, but when you spent a huge chunk of your life doing something, it sometimes takes over.

The service level is the problem as it forces reviewers to often just guess and accept the default so that they can reach their quota.

Could very well be. Back in the day, one was happy if IMDb updated something within a week. Nowadays, some people start to be annoyed if they have wait more than a day. People should have a little more patience and focus a little less on themselves sometimes.

The overall key is so that IMDB's [sic] numbers grow with content, so anything trying to remove any items are actively pushed back against.

The first part seems very plausible, the second part doesn't seem to be true. I have literally deleted over 10,000 (duplicated) plot summaries, 1000's and 1000's of bio trivia items (for going against the guide), a handful of title trivia items, 100's of (duplicated) pictures, 100's of movie connections (for going against the guide) and removed 1000's of episodes from general posters/dvd box covers of tv shows. And that's just me. :)

Apart from that, titles get deleted as well: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/please-delete-this-never-shot-film and https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/found-a-fake-title and so do wrong release dates: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/american-beauty-release-date . Of course, these are just three recent issues that got deleted via this forum. The real number of data that got deleted in that time period is obviously (much) higher.

""People should have a little more patience and focus a little less on themselves sometimes. " - I 100% agree!!! I'd gladly wait a few days (or longer, but there does need to be a cutoff at one point) if reviewers simply can't keep up.  Although I put above having two deletes taken quickly, I've had a few others that weren't that took a little more time which would seem to be more indicative that a person was involved. On them, all it took was to read and see it was a duplicate and the only reason for denying is not taking the time, or not having the time, to do so.
(On the greater delete's are harder question, I don't see removing tags as a deletion but simply as a descriptive change. I wonder though what #s imdb does report out as that might be more indicative of what they try and preserve if the supposition is to be believed. I know I've seen a listing but I can't find it at the moment.)