The fall of imdb

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Back in 1998, I experienced the World Wide Web for the very first time. Before I heard of eBay, before I joined a message board, before I visited Amazon.com....there was the Internet Movie Database.

Even as the 'net evolved, the IMDb only grew stronger. More and more info, more ways to search, and at lightning speed. Sure, they were always ad heavy, but totally worth it. We used to jog from the living room to the back room where the computer was to see just who that actor was, when that movie came out, what else that director did. When we got our first laptop and put it in the living room, we realized the full potential of a movie database next to our home entertainment center. When we decided to get internet on our phones, it was because, as GD put it, "it's worth it just to have IMDb in your pocket."

IMDb was THE personification of the power of the internet. But no more.

These days, I find incomplete listings. In all the years I've been checking the site, I never felt that it needed me to assist - except within the past 6 months. On finding facts missing that I ACTUALLY KNEW, I created an account and tried to edit it. Turns out - it's a major pain in the ass. If you're adding a character to a TV show, you need to know exactly which episodes that character was in. Um, ok, I don't know that, guess I can't help.

So I turned - reluctantly - to Wikipedia. The lack of solid structure there has been a turnoff for me regarding movie/TV info, up until now. In having to go there just to verify major characters in major TV shows, I've come to prefer it. The format allows all kinds of referencing. I've learned, oh, so much from it. I've linked and linked and linked, just like the old days of IMDb.

I still go to the old schooler for my first shot....but mostly for sentimental reasons. In the last month or so, it has become inevitable that I'd get annoyed at the gaps and end up at the all-knowing Wikipedia...and even add a link or two myself with two clicks.

Sigh.

You're still around but no longer the standard. I suppose there can be only one. Goodbye, Internet Movie Database. I'll tell my kids about you.

<sniff>

[Moonliner]

Every TV show, every movie, every actor, every roll, every production detail.... That's a pretty tall order. We'll never find perfection so I'll settle for pretty damn good. IMDB is a hell of a lot better than the old Leonard Maltin Movie Guide.

[mousepod]

It's been slowly going downhill since Amazon bought it, ten years ago.

I don't think I ever really used it for television information.
Even though it's a sloppy replacement for TvTome, I still use TV.com and epguides.com for television info, btw.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Every TV show, every movie, every actor, every roll, every production detail.... That's a pretty tall order. We'll never find perfection so I'll settle for pretty damn good. IMDB is a hell of a lot better than the old Leonard Maltin Movie Guide.Of course there are going to be gaps, but the gaps have been getting bigger.

I think much of the community has moved on to Wikipedia where updates are immediate.

[Chernabog]

Yeah I use Wikipedia for most of it, especially episode guides and whatnot. There ARE better Wiki sites for specialized things (i.e. for Battlestar Galactica, the Battlestarwiki.org is AMAZING) but in general, I only go to imdb to browse the news.

[Alex]

Interesting. I don't use it much for individual TV episodes but for movies I still find Wikipedia woefully inadequate. Great sometimes, particularly for trivia, but wildly inconsistent. Especially once off the beaten path.

But then I really do remember when IMDb was woefully incomplete and we loved it still (back when it was the Cardiff Internet Movie Database) and I was emailing my transcription of Jackie Chan movie credits in.

I was really worried when Amazon bought them but I'm surprised at how much it has been left alone instead of being fully integrated into Amazon.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I use IMDB just to see what else someone's done if I'm watching or just watched a film.

[blueerica]

I, too, have found that imdb has gone downhill in the worst way. I rarely use it, unless there's little else on a subject.

[innerSpaceman]

Since i don't use any internet source for TV info (a subject I care zero about), i find IMDb remains adequate for movie info. I've yet to find a blank spot that's not in the plot synopsis area. What I'm looking for is participation credits, and that's pretty much always been complete every time I check.

Granted, I'm not a fervent user. But it's never let me down. There's something about Wikipedia that I just don't trust. The 90% accuracy rate I've found there on any given subject is just not gonna cut it when I'm doing research for a true result.

[cirquelover]

I'll have to go with iSM on this one. I don't trust Wikipedia all that much so when I'm looking for movie info I go to IMDB. Usually I'm looking for the bit part actors or something and it has always given me the answers I needed.

The last thing I remember looking up there was to see if the cute boy from Heroes was actually the same boy from Daman Wayans old show, the name escapes me right now, but it was him.

[Not Afraid]

The only think I have found missing from IMDB is my own name in the credits for Waunderlust. It still is my primary source for film information.

[Kevy Baby]

I will always like IMDb because of my listing (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0253070/).

Apparently (in addition to my later work), I was "Robert - First Schoolboy" in Farenheit 451 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/), despite the fact that I was less than 2 years old when the movie came out.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I care more about the people (actors, directors, writers) and when I look at IMDb I want to know what they did, no matter if it was for the small or large screen.

Yeah, it's still got a fvckton of info, but it's definitely slipping.

[Alex]

Out of interest, do you have any examples handy where someone's information on Wikipedia was much more complete than on IMDb? I've still never really run into that myself (and frequently on Wikipedia a role will be mentioned but there is not information about that movie/TV show other than it existed).

So I'd definitely be interested to know if I am overlooking something.

[lashbear]

Imdb doesn't even list me as "Strapper #1" in the credits http://imdb.com/title/tt0087007/fullcredits#cast Boo hoo

[Tref]

I fault Imdb for their ratings system, which has been totally abused by the studios, inflating the numbers of even the worst dreck. RottenTomatoes.com is my new favorite when I am adding films to my Netflix. Nevertheless, Imdb still rules for checking the careers of even the most obscure actor or director.

[Gemini Cricket]

I haven't had any problems with imdb.com.
I love it.
And it has nothing to do with my new job at Amazon.
In fact, why don't we all log on to imdb.com right now?
:D

[Gemini Cricket]

I haven't had any problems with imdb.com.
I love it.
And it has nothing to do with my new job at Amazon.
In fact, why don't we all log on to imdb.com right now?
:D
And, yes, this is an April Fool's joke... iSm.

:D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Out of interest, do you have any examples handy where someone's information on Wikipedia was much more complete than on IMDb? I've still never really run into that myself (and frequently on Wikipedia a role will be mentioned but there is not information about that movie/TV show other than it existed).

So I'd definitely be interested to know if I am overlooking something.Seemed to happen a bunch in the last few months. Here's the one that I just found.
The Venture Bros. on IMDb (http://imdb.com/title/tt0417373/)
The Venture Bros. on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_bros)

The Monarch is a main character in the show, the arch-villan. He's not in every single episode, but most. He is not a credited character in IMDb. And like I said, I wanted to add it but couldnt' because I'm not THAT much of a dork that I know exactly which episodes he was and wasn't in.

[Alex]

You've got a user interface problem there, not a data one. The Monarch is fully credited on IMDb. Here he is in the credits for Episode 3 of season 1 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0739353/).

The problem animated television shows particularly create for IMDb is that frequently one person voices many characters. IMDb (and particularly the Full Cast and Crew page you are usually viewing) is primarily focused on telling you who the REAL people involved with a production is and only secondarily on the actual content of the productions.

So, Christopher McCulloch has voiced literally a couple dozen different characters on that show (on this IMDb page you can see them all (http://imdb.com/name/nm0567129/filmoseries#tt0417373)), so when you look at the cast list for an entire show it is focused on showing the cast, not the characters. Go to the actor page, or the individual episode pages and you get the detailed information you were looking for.

It isn't at all clear in the UI, but when you see an actor listed and his character is shown as Bob Smith / ... the "/ ..." part indicates that there are other characters not listed on the page. When a character plays just a few roles (such as Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor (http://imdb.com/title/tt0117218/)) they all show but they seem to have a cutoff when it is more than a half-dozen or so.

Thus, Harry Shearer, at first glance is just the voice of Ned Flanders on The Simpsons (http://imdb.com/title/tt0096697/). But go here (http://imdb.com/name/nm0790434/filmoseries#tt0096697) and see every voice he has provided in 413 episodes.

It is definitely a poor piece of UI design (at minimum the ellipsis should link to the detailed section of the actors page. But it isn't a new element of their design so isn't a sign of any recent decline.

[Ghoulish Delight]

In recent weeks I've run into gaps in info on movies on imdb. And not particularly obscure ones either. I don't recall what they are, but I do remember at least 3 occasions where I had to go to Wikipedia for movie info.

[Alex]

Well if you remember any of the examples I'd love to hear them. I use both IMDb and Wikipedia a lot so I'd definitely like to be aware of any deficiencies (I think I know them all for Wikipedia: nonstandard formatting of information being biggest; plus, I'm pretty sure that PeeWee Herman was not, as it said for a while, in the Indiana Jones movies).

The big problem for IMDb is that they rely on studios for a big part of their datafeed. In striving for complete detail of credited and non-credited rolls bit actor names not infrequently get screwed up or minor crediting differences in one film or another lead to multiple pages for the same actor (really common: Jane Smith does extra work under that name, gets married and then does more extra work as Jane Jones and the two are never connected unless Jane Smith-Jones or friend brings it to their attention). Plus, while they take user submitted information it can be really slow to be included. I once reported to them that theirs Oscars page for one of the years in the 1930s had a link to a wrong movie (same title but decades off) and it didn't get fixed for something like 9 months).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

You've got a user interface problem there, not a data one.


It is definitely a poor piece of UI design (at minimum the ellipsis should link to the detailed section of the actors page. But it isn't a new element of their design so isn't a sign of any recent decline.Wow. I had no idea.

I have to say, to me this deserves a big FAIL stamp. If I go to the site and want to know who played the Monarch, I need to click each voice actor's name, and even then I have to look at this (http://imdb.com/name/nm0567129/filmoseries#tt0417373) snarl of supposed information. I guess I'd just search for the character name on each actor's page, but when I can go to wikipedia and find it on one page without clicking through different profiles, why the hell wouldn't I?

I'm willing to bet that most of my recent searches have been crippled by this very problem. Guess I'll come back for movie info, and nothing else.

I suppose I am pleased to learn that IMDb does still have the info, but if you can't find easily it it's pretty pointless.

[Alex]

It does seem to me that you're blaming the page for serving a different purpose than the one you want.

You are visiting a Cast and Crew page and upset that it doesn't have enough episode\character information. You don't have to click each actor (that is just one way to do it). Go to the episodes cast page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417373/epcast) -- link provided in the left column of the page you're using -- and the information you sought is the third line of data. Even if it wasn't, it would be a simple browser word search to find it (which is what you have to do to quickly find it on the Wikipedia page as well).

I'm not saying that Wikipedia doesn't have this one covered better, and TV series have always been a weak point for IMDb. But beyond less than obvious navigation (which is also frequently a problem on Wikipedia unless you are going to read absolutely everything on long pages) I'm not really seeing the failure on this show.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Perhaps the thread should be titled, "The fall of Jen's understanding of IMDb".

I go to IMDb. I type in "Venture Bros". I look for "Monarch" and don't see it. I click "more" under Cast. I still don't see it. I figure if it's not on the full cast list, why should it be under a specific episode?

FAIL.

I haven't learned all of the upgrades to the episodes specifics. (When did they add that, 3 years ago?) I admit it, I'm out of the loop. You're right, IMDb wins for information and detail. However, on this specific front, wikipedia wins for Jen. Jen wants a full character/cast list - or at least, a main character/cast list that mentions all major characters. IMDb does not provide this, period.

Admittedly, now that I know all this, I'll be more likely to visit IMDb. Thanks, Alex.

[RStar]

Shoot, I still whip out my copy of "VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever" for information. Kind of clunky as it is 1,700 pages long!

They have an online source now at movieretriever.com (http://www.movieretriever.com/)

[Kevy Baby]

I was thinking about this thread last night (I was having a hard time sleeping). One thing is that IMDb stands for Internet Movie Database. I have always wondered why television shows were getting included; that they are is a bonus (and in my opinion, not subject to the same scrutiny as movie info).

[Alex]

To me the concept of IMDb is an interesting one (and dovetails well with my librarian training in trying to organize all information into one system).

That is a strength of Wikipedia. It doesn't require a template. Whatever someone wants to write about a movie or a TV series they can, in whatever format is best for that one product. Have someone willing to make a list of all the secondary characters to ever appear in a show? No problem, just make a separate page and link to it.

But that requires an individual who cares to do all of that. When that person doesn't exist the movie/show goes neglected. Take for example the long forgotten failed Jason Bateman sitcom "Some of My Best Friends." At Wikipedia you get just a paragraph of overview information (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259144/epcast). No way to find out who played Connie in that series because only the three major characters are mentioned.

But because IMDb takes a more systematic interest, even a show that only aired for 5 episodes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259144/epcast) gets almost the same treatment as 400 episodes of "The Simpsons". And I learn (if I care) that Connie was played in four episodes (three never aired) by Camille Saviola.

But the byproduct of a systematic approach is a reliance on templates and sometimes fitting square pegs in round holes and complex rules and arbitrary compromises (all of which is familiar to anybody who has worked in library classification systems where the attempt is to create a system that can accommodate all knowledge, even knowledge that doesn't yet exist). Such as the issue of what to do with roles that were filmed for a movie but then left on the cutting room floor? Include them or not? What about in the modern DVD age when that role gets restored as an extra or in the Director's Edition?

Classic knowledge management issues. I've long thought that if I ever ended up back in library schools as an instructor I'd use the history and evolution of IMDb as a case study (and Wikipedia is its own very interesting beast in this regard) to drive a whole semester of study. Of course, since I've now been out of the field for a decade that seems increasingly unlikely to happen.

[innerSpaceman]

You could start an internet course here on the LoT. I find the subject interesting.

[Gemini Cricket]

You never know who you'll find on imdb. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0213609/)
(I don't know why it's there, but it is.)
:D

[innerSpaceman]

Ok, if he doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, I declare IMDb the winner ... and insist that Cadaverous Pallor capitulate.


:D

[Kevy Baby]

...even a show that only aired for 5 episodes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259144/epcast) gets almost the same treatment as ...Reminds me of my favorite short-lived show (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138976/). Maximum Bob was brilliant.

You never know who you'll find on imdb. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0213609/)
(I don't know why it's there, but it is.)
:DBecause one would never actually put up a page about themselves.

Silly Cricket.