34 Messages
•
1.1K Points
What's going to happen when IMDb reaches 10 million titles?
Currently, IMDb has over 9,125,000 titles, in the form of "tt#######" in the URL's, which means the highest title, respecting this format, will be tt9999999 (or 9,999,999). Titles with a number under 1 million have leading 0's (like tt0072562 is SNL for example), so I'm wondering, will titles 10,000,000 and over just have an extra digit, or will it bump all titles to have an extra digit in their number (so SNL goes from tt0072562 to tt00072562)?
Let the Y2K conspiracy theories commence!
Let the Y2K conspiracy theories commence!
Official Solution
Vincent_Fournols
2.4K Messages
•
81.2K Points
6 years ago
2
ACT_1
8.5K Messages
•
176.2K Points
6 years ago
Hunters Lair (TV Series)
Savagely hogtied on the steel work table (2013)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9125000/
- - -
Title # 9,160,000
Jerusalem, Jerusalem (TV Mini Series) - added today ? ?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9160000/
Name # 10,200,000
Jacob Aaron Moody
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10200000/
- - -
Carmencita (1894)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000001
Fred Astaire (1899–1987)
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000001
.
0
wolfie_1114787
34 Messages
•
1.1K Points
6 years ago
1
MykolaYeriomin
Champion
•
4K Messages
•
244.1K Points
6 years ago
36
jeorj_euler
10.7K Messages
•
225.4K Points
3 years ago
As I recall, there was or is another thread on the forum inquiring about what would happen when the number of IMDb name page public URLs (to ever exist) exceeded one million. Such bizarre curiosities. I don't remember which inquiry came first, about tconst or nconst. We learned very quickly that an extra digit would be introduced at the front of the nconst, so the same will apply to the tconst.
By the way, 32-bit computers are going to have a problem when the number of seconds since Epoch reaches 2,147,483,648, in late January of 2038. This will be an important thing to know, for anybody still running a 32-bit system by then, a little more than decade an a half from now. It may be worse than the "Y2K" problem was.
2
0