Skip to main content

3 Messages

 • 

130 Points

Fri, Dec 6, 2019 7:29 PM

The 'uncredited' thing has gone way too far

It devalues the database to have a long list of 'uncredited' players added to movies - these mostly seem to be extras adding themselves, which of course skews the listing (because only a subset of the extras in that film get added).  A good example I saw today was 'Maxwell Craig' who has apparently appeared in over 100 movies/TV but not once has he/she had an on-screen credit - and there's not a single example of what he/she looks/looked like. What's the policy - is it that if you pay for a premium account you can add yourself willy-nilly?  Clearly Maxwell Craig didn't provide evidence of 100+ production appearances, so how does he/she end up in cast lists?

Responses

Champion

 • 

1.2K Messages

 • 

43.6K Points

10 months ago

Hello DustyD,

The rule used to be that you couldn’t have any uncredited listings until you had at least one credited listing.


Has that rule changed?


The credited listing didn’t have to be in the same section as the uncredited entries. You could have a few hundred acting credits as long as you had at least one credited listing, even if it was for s personal appearance (as themself) or as a production assistant.


The other rule that used to be in place was that to get an uncredited acting listing you had to be recognisable on screen. Not just by your mother either, but by anyone. So not a person in a big crowd or just the back of your head.


I wonder if that rule’s been changed as well.


Steve

1.6K Messages

 • 

57.6K Points

The rule used to be that you couldn’t have any uncredited listings until you had at least one credited listing.

Not quite. From the guide (https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/i-worked-on-a-title-but-did-not-recei...#): "You need to have at least one pre-existing credited entry in the database. We will not display filmographies consisting exclusively of uncredited work. We may make an exception in very rare/specific circumstances (e.g. on movies released before 1990, episodes released before 2000 and/or for high-profile credits, such as an uncredited cameo appearance by a celebrity)".
(FWIW, the cut off-year used to be 1980, but for some reason IMDb changed this to 1990 a few years ago.)

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.8K Points

These credits date from 1961-1985.
I only saw 1 that was not uncredited:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2382053/

3 Messages

 • 

130 Points

I looked - that short is 35mins, only the main stars get vox pops with captions, and the end credits comprise Vivian Kubrick, the editor, and the music composer. That's it! 

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.8K Points

So if that gets "corrected" to uncredited, the whole filmography page might become blank?

3 Messages

 • 

130 Points

Yes, get rid of the entire page - this isn't an extras database or a vanity site.  And the ballroom sequence is covered from 25'20" to 28'05" in that short - no identification (let alone credit) of anyone in that scene.

11 Messages

 • 

348 Points

You can pay to have an IMDbPro page (vanity) with no credits.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.8K Points

DustyD, since you have the video, and can take screenshot(s) of the end credits, you would be the best person to edit that item on his filmography (add "uncredited"). You can post the screenshots here, and provide a link to here in the explanation box.

1.6K Messages

 • 

57.6K Points

So if that gets "corrected" to uncredited, the whole filmography page might become blank?

No. As you said yourself, these listings are from before 1990, making them eligible to be listed, even if this person has zero credited listings.