We Have Always Lived in the Castle needs better primary image

Why should the IMDb staff override the studio partner or otherwise forward our sound feedback to such a partner, over a matter so insignificant as the one at hand? Is there a precedent for it?

Why should the IMDb staff override the studio partner

If a studio partner does something wrong or something that goes against the guidelines or against what IMDb wants, IMDb staff should override the studio partner. In this particular case, IMDb won't list the poster as the primary image while on almost all other titles that have images, IMDb *does* list the poster. Not very consistent.

Sabotage? No such thing is occurring, and that is a rather serious accusation. Fighting words, very disrespectful. Regardless, I appreciate the answers to the questions. Wonderful.

Thanks for the examples forthehorde. It gives me hope that this particular insignificant issue will get fixed as well and it suggests that even though IMDb is jumping through some hoops for people in the business (people buying their IMDb page, people having their birth name and/or aliases removed), they don't seem to be jumping through this one.

Well, the whole point of Title Scorecard (or other programs of IMDb) is to provide filmmakers some control over the vanity of the title pages about their works. Sometimes, however, those pages are abandoned or at the very least neglected. If an image does not contradict a specific prohibition, which could probably get it removed altogether, why complain about a choice, so to speak, a "choice" that is essentially cosmetic even if it is not aligned with expectations?

Also, it does not appear that anybody is under the impression that Title Scorecard is a paid feature. I only brought it up, just in case there as anybody might have been unaware of the relationship between "studio partners" and programs of which potentially any filmmaker could make use. I didn't want to do a name drop at the time, but to the best of my understanding, Nikolay Yeriomin, a fellow participant of this forum, is effectively the representative of a studio partner with IMDb. I do believe that marco was presenting a general criticism of how the IMDb site authorities seem to extend so much leeway to IMDbPro subscribers in regards to IMDb image guidelines, likewise with IMDb Title Scorecard participants. I didn't want anybody to go on being oblivious to how studio partners might perceive things or experience the site.

Hahaha! That's right. There is a target on my back. Wait. I don't sound very friendly, do I? References to "fighting" and targets, or reticles, can be confusing to say the least. Outside of that, I do know from experience that inaccurate accusations of willfully-mean behavior ought to be avoided, and probably sweeping generalizations should also be avoided, unless they are flattering in nature.

@Grayson: Thanks for changing the primary image for this title. For the record, I don't have a problem with people in the business being able to upload posters and photos, but more and more, IMDb gives these people the power to slowly bring down the database. For years now, IMDb has been allowing people who had no business being in the database - and who could not get an IMDb page if they didn't pay - a place in the database under the condition that they paid IMDb some money. I know IMDb doesn't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, but I personally am in no way eligible for a Wikipedia. And you what happens when I give Wikipedia money and ask them to create a page for me? Nothing.

Apart from that, lately, because people in the business don't want their ego's to be hurt, names can be added to posters while people are not in it, previously used names on actual credit rolls of titles can be removed from name pages, birth names can be removed from the database all together and the long-standing rule that IMDb doesn't want uncredited people to be listed as credited and vice versa is thrown out of the window for showrunners and creators.

I realize this is a long introduction to this post, but I hope it does explain why my OP was a bit passionate. It's possible this fierceness has lead to reactions from others that might be more subtle if my OP was more subtle. (of course, I can't say for sure because I can't look inside the heads of the people who responded).

That being said, while I completely understand you when you ask us to be civil, I would also like to point out that it would be nice if staffers would be respectful as well. And I don't mean respectful in the sense that you don't SHOUT and don't use (racial) slurs. I know members of staff don't do that. No, I mean a deeper and perhaps more subtle layer of respect. I mean respectful in the sense that every message a customers posts is at least read (which is currently not the case. I would get fired from my job if I did this.), that questions get answered (example: for literally years now, it is unclear for contributors what the status of the five new genres is due to an enormous lack of communication that has been going on for about ten years now, ever since former staff member Jon Reeves was fired) and that contributors - who freely dedicated quite a bit of time - don't see their contributions removed because of the feelings of people in the business (birth names being removed) or other reasons (the admissions for titles have been removed a few years ago and I'm still not sure if/when they will come back, again, a lack of communication).

So you are absolutely right to call for respect. It is very important that people treat each other with respect. Therefore I hereby ask you - a staffer I greatly respect because of the fact you always seem to take the time for a response and sometimes share insights that help us understand some things better - to try and make IMDb also show the respect to its customers and contributors that they deserve, because at this moment, IMDb is not doing that.

@Karen: I strongly disagree with you about your relative. Said relative didn't seem to care at all about any feelings of any people on this forum. That is his right, but I wasn't surprised that his account was deleted, I was surprised it took so long. In real life he may be a very nice, loving and caring person, I obviously can't say anything about that. I can just say however that on this forum, he was none of those things and on several occasions, suggested he was proud of that.

Edit: to avoid a going back and forth on this and because I've also said the above in another thread, this'll be the last thing I say about this particular issue.

@Grayson Thanks for answering, I appreciate it very much.

That being said, being able to buy you're way into a database you wouldn't be able to get in for free is simply wrong. That is one of the points I tried to make in my message upthread. I personally don't have an IMDb page and I shouldn't have one. But if I give IMDb money, I will be able to get a name page and I will also turn up in search results for people with a name similar to mine and thereby cluttering the search results. Are you saying that my journey is interesting to people if I give money to IMDb and not interesting to people if I don't give IMDb money?

IMDb has always said it is a title-based database. So in order for a person to be eligible for a name page, this person should have worked on and/or be credited in a title that IMDb considers eligible. I think it's that simple. Obviously, given the current media/entertainment world with all its (online) platforms, it is sometimes debatable which title should or shouldn't be eligible, but that's a different and more nuanced matter.

(I know about the enormous amount of submissions that make it online without any problem in record time, but this issue is not about (specific) submissions but about policy.)

The option of one being able to buy one's way into the listing often serves a function, though. That's is the case for agents, representatives, managers, executives and publicists, regardless of whether they have any IMDb title pages linked to their IMDb name pages. So, this is not inherently wrong. Where there is a problem is when somebody creates a new claimed IMDb name page through IMDbPro but somehow never winds up being associated/attached (in the context of IMDb records) with any other person, and also not with any company or any title, not even a casting breakdown. Maybe IMDb name pages having certain manners of composition should simply be excluded from the search results of the regular IMDb, outside of the submission interface and IMDbPro.