Skip to main content

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

253.8K Points

Sat, Apr 6, 2019 10:06 PM

Undefined aka titles

Sometimes when a title is corrected the former title becomes an alternate title with an undefined country and attribute. When you try to correct one the form says to delete it and add a new item. However, the deletions are not being processed.

Example:
190331-165545-981000

Responses

Employee

 • 

1.2K Messages

 • 

36.1K Points

2 years ago

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your post.

I've removed the duplicate title now, this should update shortly.

If this has occurred a few times, are you able to provide a few additional example submission references for me to dig into? 

Cheers,

Joel 

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

253.8K Points

Some other deletions that were not done (entries with attributes had already been added):

#190321-195917-299000
#181209-150631-913000
#181107-082106-800000
#181005-194352-588000

Employee

 • 

3.6K Messages

 • 

76.6K Points

Thanks Peter, I've fixed these for you now and taken further internal action to make sure you don't encounter this problem again.

Regards,
Will

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

253.8K Points

The first one I posted about (190331-165545-981000) is still there.

Employee

 • 

3.6K Messages

 • 

76.6K Points

Apologies Peter, I thought that one had already been actioned, I've removed it now.

Regards,
Will

Champion

 • 

821 Messages

 • 

45.8K Points

2 years ago

Hi, Joel and Peter:

Perhaps I can help a bit here (otherwise, I'm sorry... ). If I'm not mistaken, every alternate title with no country/region defined AND that is not tagged as (original title) needs to be deleted rather than corrected (as shown in the screenshot above).

First, a few numbers... From title.akas.tsv Apr 2019:

ALTERNATE TITLES: 3,766,128
         With a defined country/region: 3,313,625 (88.0%)
                    Original titles: 17
                    Unspecified: 2,177
                    Not original titles: 3,311,431
         Without a defined country/region: 452,503 (12.0%)
                    Original titles: 395,768
                    Unspecified: 12
                    Not original titles: 56,723

Original titles (or unspecified) aren't available in the akas update form, so actually there are 3,368,154 editable alternate titles, of which 56,723 (1.7%) are locked in the sense that can't be modified (only removed). The interesting question is, how many of those "non-original non-localized aka titles" have a correspondent verbatim "non-original localized aka title"?

Current answer is:
4,665 TITLES
[e.g. Das Mädel vom Ballet (1918) ► The Ballet Girl (1918) (undefined) & The Ballet Girl (1918) (USA)]
Maybe these titles should be scrutinized one by one and remove the unneeded entries...

Although we can't say for sure that all these locked titles have appeared because of the mechanism discovered by Peter, I think I can narrow down the list of titles to better investigate this issue because fortunately I had a copy of title.akas.tsv 31 Jan 2019. Comparing both tsv archives, 160 of those 4,665 aka titles (with the aforementioned conditions) have appeared in the last 9 weeks.

Champion

 • 

821 Messages

 • 

45.8K Points

2 years ago

Here's the list:
I could publish the complete listing of 4,665 titles if required.

Cheers!

Employee

 • 

3.6K Messages

 • 

76.6K Points

2 years ago

Thanks ljdoncel, the problem here is more how we are handling the delete requests which cause problems in our systems, but can still be applied internally if handled correctly.

Regards,
Will

Champion

 • 

821 Messages

 • 

45.8K Points

Thank you very much for the clarification, Will.

136 Messages

 • 

3.3K Points

2 years ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Almost impossible to delete AKAs with "undefined" attributes.

After a title merge, AKAs from the old title are often added to the kept title with "undefined" info for Country/Language and Attribute. This looks confusing and the information is often duplicate of correctly added AKAs. These undefined AKAs are impossible to edit; trying gives the message: "Sorry, it's not possible to correct this item directly. You will have to delete it and add a new item instead." However, deleting them is hardly ever accepted by the data editors.

For example, I have tried many times to delete the two incorrect undefined AKAs at Pokémon Red with varying levels of detail in the explanation. The most recent rejection for Contribution #190329-002145-835000 gives the standard meaningless response of "We were unable to approve this contribution. We did not capture a specific reason during processing."

Why is it so difficult to do this? And shouldn't they just be added correctly (or not at all if they're duplicate) in the first place?

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

253.8K Points

I also agree with the last question: Why add such incomplete entries in the first place?

Employee

 • 

3.6K Messages

 • 

76.6K Points

The entries exist due to a number of reasons - title merges, internal edits, historical items, but still if you are submitting a delete on that item, they should be actioned nonetheless. 

160 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

One of the ways these bogus "undefined" AKAs are created is from a title change rejection. If you submit a title change and the editors reject it, it'll likely get added (automatically?) as an AKA instead, always with no country defined and with the attribute set to "alternate title".

Many of the bogus entries (with unset countries) have no attribute, but the ones that have an "alternate title" attribute most likely came from this sort of failed title change. It's happened to me several times.

160 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

@Matt: I notice Pokémon Red finally had its undefined AKAs removed. Do you know how this was done?

136 Messages

 • 

3.3K Points

Will said below that he did it.

Employee

 • 

3.6K Messages

 • 

76.6K Points

2 years ago

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the report, I've now taken a look and done a clean-up on that title. Apologies for your poor experience and lack of clear guidance on the reason. Our technical teams are aware of the issue, though we do have an internal workaround if handled correctly. I will update this thread once this is resolved.

Regards,
Will

170 Messages

 • 

5.1K Points

2 years ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Unable to get an update approved, whch was requested by imdb.com system.

Previously this movie had 2 alternative titles, which "Country/Language" field blank. When I tried to udpate the "language" field, I get a message:

Sorry, it's not possible to correct this item directly.
You will have to delete it and add a new item instead. [do it]

When I try to do that => imdb staff accepted the update (e.g., entering the same 2 titles, this time with the "Country/Language" field completed), but while the "new entries" got approved, removing the same 2 entries (with "Country/Language" field missign) got rejected. Why? The instructions themselves said to remove and "re-add" these two entries. So I'm confused.

Thanks.

ID #190414-025849-430000 (rejected 1st time)
ID #190414-183617-749000 (rejected 2nd time)

ps. here are the screenshots:






170 Messages

 • 

5.1K Points

a year ago

Thsi is frustrating. How many times are IMDb staff going to reject such submissions?

For this movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3182620/ (referenced above) after being rejected twice before:

ID #190414-025849-430000 (rejected 1st time)
ID #190414-183617-749000 (rejected 2nd time)

I just got rejectd again, for the 3rd time, with reason given "Other. We were unable to approve this contribution.We did not capture a specific reason during processing."

ID #190504-004543-256000 (rejected 3rd time)

@Will could you please take a look at the submission and help approve #190504-004543-256000  ?


Thanks!

170 Messages

 • 

5.1K Points

a year ago

@Will Has there been any progress on this? Requests on this still keep getting rejected :/ Thanks in advance for any update

160 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

7 months ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled delete undefined country AKAs.

So many titles have an AKA with an "unidentified" country (and no attribute). These invalid AKAs cannot be deleted by a contributor. You've acknowledged over many years that this is an error, an artifact from an old system or something, and that they need to be deleted, yet here we are again and again complaining and nothing changes, no fixes, no removals.

Why not write a BOT that scans system-wide and in two steps: 1) deletes all occurrences of AKAs with no country set, for which AKA title already exists with the country code set, 2) for all other occurrences of AKAs with no country set, where the AKA title is not duplicated, scan the page for the country of origin and change the country of the invalid AKA to it.

Doing this manually by each contributor is obviously a waste of time since it never works. You have an editing anomaly. If you try to set the country on such an AKA you get an error that this can't be done. Why the heck not? Instead, it tells you, delete the invalid AKA, and create a new one with the country (this is kind of "duh" since it is *impossible* for a contributor to create an AKA without setting the country, only your broken system can (and does obviously) do that).

So you choose deletion of the bogus AKA and create a new correct one. Problem is, while the new AKA is created fine, the deletion of the invalid AKA without a country is always REJECTED by your editors! So the problem never gets fixed. I've tried resubmitting the deletion request with many different explanations including quoting the error messages that tell you it can't be changed and you MUST delete it, but every request is still denied. This appears to be a problem with training and informing your editors of this long-standing problem.

136 Messages

 • 

3.3K Points

I'm convinced most of their data editors are either bots or people who click accept/reject without actually reading the submission, like the moderators at Facebook. Perfectly reasonable edits get rejected with no explanation despite them having a feedback system. And there is so much data that doesn't meet the guidelines and so should never have been accepted, then deletion requests get rejected.

160 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

You might be right; who are these mysterious editors and why can't we edit ourselves and see the results immediately and just have them reviewed afterward and possibly changed/deleted, the way it's done on Wikipedia for instance. This is how IMDb used to be. Since Amazon bought it, it's been run steadily downhill. Don't get me started on that...

In past years, you could delete those Undefined AKAs fine, and simply add the correct defined one, both in the same edit. Now that never works.

But my bigger concern with this particular Undefined AKA issue is that the technicians have known about it for many years (at least 8 years ago when I first became a contributor), but have never fixed it. Why?

And why are we mostly ignored now (like this old thread I just got merged into without my updates)? I think technicians and sysops and moderators are just tired of hearing about the problem. But why not fix it once and for all? The mysteriousness of this boggles my mind.

170 Messages

 • 

5.1K Points

Matt unfortunately, you might be right. Which, frankly, is really said. The imdb leadership really doesn't know what it's doing with it's database and they are falling behind places like TMDb (which, despite being a "non-profit", still provides clients access to its film 100%-created-by-volonteers database (and probably not for free), to commercial places like justwatch.com etc.

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.6K Points

Wow...

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

And there is so much data that doesn't meet the guidelines and so should never have been accepted, then deletion requests get rejected.

I've submitted over a hundred deletion requests today and they all were accepted. Do you have an example of data in the database that doesn't meet the guidelines, has been reported and didn't get deleted or altered?

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

why can't we edit ourselves and see the results immediately and just have them reviewed afterward and possibly changed/deleted, the way it's done on Wikipedia for instance. This is how IMDb used to be.

This is not true. IMDb never used to be like Wikipedia when it comes to immediately displaying contributions.

Since Amazon bought it, it's been run steadily downhill.

Amazon bought IMDb in 1998. Are you saying that for the last 22 years, IMDb has steadily run downhill? If so, shouldn't they be out of business by now?

160 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

@Marco: You say you made over a hundred deletion requests in one day, of AKAs with undefined country codes, and they were all accepted the same day? I find that hard to believe. They always take at least 24 hours to respond, sometimes up to 4 days, in my experience, and are rejected 100% of the time.

We'd all like to know how you did this, and what exactly did you write in the explanation box.

160 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

@Marco: Yes IMDb used to display your edits immediately. Maybe you can't remember back that far or weren't around then. They didn't have a backlog table like they do now, of when your edit will be posted, taking in some cases up to a week.

Very difficult to contribute like that, especially when you have to wait for one edit to post before you can make another, for example when some changes require multiple steps. And then you have to monitor your submissions with the new tracking system, which never used to be necessary of course, but was instituted relatively recently simply because of the delays and the frequent rejections you might get on all kinds of data, not just bogus AKAs.

160 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

@Matt: You commented that the mysterious IMDb "editors" could be bots and people who don't read the explanation boxes when they click accept or reject. I notice that submissions never get processed on weekends (despite phony backlog Sat/Sun dates you get), which tells me that they aren't bots. I suspect these editors are out-sourced, and may not read English very well, and at least are too lazy to try, so they ignore explanation boxes (especially if they're long), which belies their more frequently encouraged use and expansion.

136 Messages

 • 

3.3K Points

Gary, you're probably right about that. Re Marco's comment, I don't think he's referring to specifically AKAs.

136 Messages

 • 

3.3K Points

Marco, here's an example of an edit that was rejected but shouldn't have been for a credit that shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. (I did everything correctly.) I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it happens enough to not be an anomaly.
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/contribution-rejected

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

Re Marco's comment, I don't think he's referring to specifically AKAs.

I was referring to contributions in general because your statement also seemed to be about IMDb in general.

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

Re Marco's comment, I don't think he's referring to specifically AKAs.

I was referring to contributions in general because your statement also seemed to be about IMDb in general.

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

Marco, here's an example of an edit that was rejected but shouldn't have been for a credit that shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. (I did everything correctly.) I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it happens enough to not be an anomaly.https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/contribution-rejected

This is an example of a very messy area indeed. Foreign dubs are a mess on IMDb, I totally agree. IMDb should create a special place for dubbers on a title's page, but this been asked since (at least) 2003 but unfortunately hasn't materialized yet.
Perhaps voting for this idea will help: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/suggestion-for-new-feature-voice-actors

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

@Marco: Yes IMDb used to display your edits immediately. Maybe you can't remember back that far or weren't around then. They didn't have a backlog table like they do now, of when your edit will be posted, taking in some cases up to a week.

I haven't always been around (I contribute since 2001/2002), but all submissions I send during that time where checked by staffers before they were added to the database. I remember creating a post on the ol' Contributors Board being very happy that a new title I submitted was online in only six days. That was very fast at that point. In the (early) nineties, e-mails had to be sent to IMDb staff members, so there was also a check by staffers before information made it online.

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

I suspect these editors are out-sourced, and may not read English very well, and at least are too lazy to try, so they ignore explanation boxes (especially if they're long), which belies their more frequently encouraged use and expansion.

I think it's simply a case of being understaffed, as most companies are. Most companies I know off have more work and/or more ideas about how to improve their work and/or the customer experience than they have people to do the work and implement the improvements. Obviously, most companies cope in the sense that they don't run out of business, but they have to cut corners somewhere because the cost of personnel is always the biggest expense a company has.
This doesn't mean I feel IMDb is doing a good enough job, because I think they aren't (see https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/does-buccaneer-island-2000-really-exist?topic-reply-list[set...), but I'm quite certain it hasn't got to do with them being lazy, out-sourced or not knowing English well enough.

180 Messages

 • 

4.6K Points

I think it's a case of a combination of bots, and admins who can't be bothered to read the explanation boxes, and certain edits are rejected practically every single time, like Gary said.

 

Some examples of edits which are rejected the majority of the time include:

 

1 - Deleting images or deleting incorrect tags/people from images (100% of the time).

2 - Adding "movie connections" (99% of the time).

3 - Deleting incorrect/false credits (99% of the time).

4 - Moving credits from one profile to another (roughly 80% of the time)

5 - Deleting/Correcting plots (roughly 80% of the time)

6 - Correcting/adding birth/death dates and/or places (roughly 80% of the time)

7 - Correcting/adding family/marriage details (roughly 80% of the time) although tbf, I've only done a few of those.

 

As you can see, deletions of any kind are the main problem, even in those cases where you've been forced to delete those incorrect entries, so you can add the correct entries, the addition will be accepted, while the deletion will be rejected.

 

I like the fact that IMDB refuse to delete factual information, however it isn't so good when they refuse to delete incorrect information.

 

I've only added around 10 films/TV shows to IMDB so far, as it's stressful searching through countless profiles of people with a common name, to find the correct one, or to see if they exist on IMDB at all, and takes ages searching for articles to back up my claim that they exist, however I've added 100's, possibly 1000's of TV episodes, 

 

Eventually I'll be adding a lot more films and TV shows which aren't on IMDB yet, and will be making sure all the cast and crew are credited especially for the ones filmed in my city.

Some of those people (mainly rappers for the ones in my city) might not want to be added to IMDB, or might regret appearing in some of the shows that they've appeared in.

However if they're credited, then they're getting added whether they like it or not, and there's nothing they can do about it.

 

Once all the mainstream TV films/TV shows that the rappers/singers/producers appeared in have been added to IMDB, and their profiles have been created, that's when I'll start increasing my title additions, as the rest should be quick and easy in comparison, as they have fewer credits, and I won't have to spend time trying to find out their real names, or their aliases, and deciding which of their various names they use the most.

I know the real names, and the aliases for quite a lot of them, however there's still a few I don't know or aren't sure about.

For example there's a group of rappers who sometimes go by their real names, sometimes they go by their comedy names, and sometimes they go by their raps names. All 5+ of the members have around 4-5 names each, so I'll have to find out which ones they use the most before I add them.

Once they're added it should be simple, as I'll just use the "as" attribute for the ones which don't match their IMDB profile name.

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.6K Points

Well, may also depend upon the reputation of the user account through which edits are being submitted. To the best of my understanding, the more declined submissions coming from an account, the more likely for future submissions to not be given the benefit of the doubt.

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

1 - Deleting images or deleting incorrect tags/people from images (100% of the time).

2 - Adding "movie connections" (99% of the time).

3 - Deleting incorrect/false credits (99% of the time).

4 - Moving credits from one profile to another (roughly 80% of the time)

5 - Deleting/Correcting plots (roughly 80% of the time)

6 - Correcting/adding birth/death dates and/or places (roughly 80% of the time

That is not my experience. Of course, if you've submitted something that was declined, you can always ask on this forum about it. Sometimes staffers will fix it because of that and sometimes other contributors will explain what you could have done better or send in a submission on your behalf.