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.

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).

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 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.

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 -- 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.

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.

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

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).

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. 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 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.

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

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