The Perils of IMDb

Open, general discussion of silent films, personalities and history.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

MattBarry

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:08 pm
  • Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 3:02 pm

Thanks for submitting the corrections.

I've come across a number of such blatantly false IDs on the IMDb over the years, which I used to attempt to correct when I was sure they were, in fact, wrong (I don't spend much time on the IMDb anymore, either for reference or as a contributor). Even when the erroneous credits have been removed in the past, it seems that some users persist in re-submitting them (Boris Karloff is still listed as a "Union General" in Keaton's THE GENERAL, for example).

A case like this strikes me as a deliberate (and bizarre) hoax. Who knows why these names of prominent theatrical stars are being submitted as bit players in early Edison films? Strange.
__
Matt Barry
Kino Lorber, Inc.
Offline
User avatar

Harlowgold

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:06 pm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 3:11 pm

I haven't "corrected" them because I fairly regularly contribute correct information to IMDb pages and don't want to get in a dispute with this person which results in us both being banned.

The simplest way to correct bogus information on IMDb (and any signed-in member can do it) is click on the film's page at the bottom where it says "Edit the page" - the next page brought up will be the various categories of credits with a sidebar on the right saying "no change". Click that for the category you wish to change to "Correct/Delete" and then click at the bottom of this page and the names will come up - click delete by each name that is bogus and if asked for a reason for the change write something like "this credit is incorrect", "no evidence to support this credit", etc. and then click at the bottom of this page. You'll get an email informing you that your information has been received and the changes should post on IMDb in three days.
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 3:14 pm

MattBarry wrote:Thanks for submitting the corrections.

I've come across a number of such blatantly false IDs on the IMDb over the years, which I used to attempt to correct when I was sure they were, in fact, wrong (I don't spend much time on the IMDb anymore, either for reference or as a contributor). Even when the erroneous credits have been removed in the past, it seems that some users persist in re-submitting them (Boris Karloff is still listed as a "Union General" in Keaton's THE GENERAL, for example).

A case like this strikes me as a deliberate (and bizarre) hoax. Who knows why these names of prominent theatrical stars are being submitted as bit players in early Edison films? Strange.
And for a few, it's their one and only credit, although so far they do appear to have all existed and been theatrical actors. So far.

Example: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm9158412/?ref_=tt_cl_t3" target="_blank
Aha, it's another Barrymore relation. Whoever this is, he's got some sort of obsession for the Barrymore clan.

Nervy Nat Kisses the Bride (1904) also had already gotten a wikipedia page stating how the actors were clearly identifiable...??? (Now corrected.)
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 3:15 pm

Harlowgold wrote:I haven't "corrected" them because I fairly regularly contribute correct information to IMDb pages and don't want to get in a dispute with this person which results in us both being banned.

The simplest way to correct bogus information on IMDb (and any signed-in member can do it) is click on the film's page at the bottom where it says "Edit the page" - the next page brought up will be the various categories of credits with a sidebar on the right saying "no change". Click that for the category you wish to change to "Correct/Delete" and then click at the bottom of this page and the names will come up - click delete by each name that is bogus and if asked for a reason for the change write something like "this credit is incorrect", "no evidence to support this credit", etc. and then click at the bottom of this page. You'll get an email informing you that your information has been received and the changes should post on IMDb in three days.
Because there seems to be some sort of fake credit campaign going on, I've gone straight to their contributor zone AKA their new forum.
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

MattBarry

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:08 pm
  • Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 3:16 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:And another one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445359/" target="_blank" target="_blank


Also false. I can find no other reference to Ralph Lewis appearing in this film (except Wikipedia, where the same person must be copying these credits over).
__
Matt Barry
Kino Lorber, Inc.
Offline
User avatar

Harlowgold

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:06 pm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 3:17 pm

MattBarry wrote:Thanks for submitting the corrections.

I've come across a number of such blatantly false IDs on the IMDb over the years, which I used to attempt to correct when I was sure they were, in fact, wrong (I don't spend much time on the IMDb anymore, either for reference or as a contributor). Even when the erroneous credits have been removed in the past, it seems that some users persist in re-submitting them (Boris Karloff is still listed as a "Union General" in Keaton's THE GENERAL, for example).

A case like this strikes me as a deliberate (and bizarre) hoax. Who knows why these names of prominent theatrical stars are being submitted as bit players in early Edison films? Strange.


I think it's fairly safe to presume someone who credits John Barrymore as a "black Pulman porter" is pulling a deliberate hoax.

You're right this sort of thing happens not infrequently on IMDb (though not as often as on Wikipedia. Several years ago someone had Barbara Stanwyck playing a corpse in Nightmare on Elm Street and there have been others like that.
Offline
User avatar

Harlowgold

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:06 pm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 3:22 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
Harlowgold wrote:I haven't "corrected" them because I fairly regularly contribute correct information to IMDb pages and don't want to get in a dispute with this person which results in us both being banned.

The simplest way to correct bogus information on IMDb (and any signed-in member can do it) is click on the film's page at the bottom where it says "Edit the page" - the next page brought up will be the various categories of credits with a sidebar on the right saying "no change". Click that for the category you wish to change to "Correct/Delete" and then click at the bottom of this page and the names will come up - click delete by each name that is bogus and if asked for a reason for the change write something like "this credit is incorrect", "no evidence to support this credit", etc. and then click at the bottom of this page. You'll get an email informing you that your information has been received and the changes should post on IMDb in three days.
Because there seems to be some sort of fake credit campaign going on, I've gone straight to their contributor zone AKA their new forum.


Yes that's probably the best way to block a repetitively dubious contributor's actions.
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 4:17 pm

MattBarry wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:And another one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445359/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank


Also false. I can find no other reference to Ralph Lewis appearing in this film (except Wikipedia, where the same person must be copying these credits over).
I've now removed it. It's plain lucky that no-one on wikipedia has started an edit war about it yet because on the surface I seem to be removing a lot of credits there using only vague accusations.

But can I just mention, if people are concerned enough to discuss about it here, why then am I the only one making any edits to correct these mistakes?
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5077
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 4:29 pm

Speaking for myself, I haven't looked at the IMDb listings for these titles for several years. It may be you're the first mensch to notice them.

Bob
To remain ignorant of what occurred before before you were born is to remain forever a child.
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 4:31 pm

boblipton wrote:Speaking for myself, I haven't looked at the IMDb listings for these titles for several years. It may be you're the first mensch to notice them.

Bob
Well I didn't start this thread!
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 4:32 pm

Now someone has gone on that IMDb board to complain about his cast getting deleted...! It's a user by the name of "Pete Jones". Here's how NV is described:
Reinstalling the cast listing for several uncredited appearances in Edison 1904-05 films

The uncredited cast listings for the Edison films
European Rest Cure,
How a French Nobleman Got a Bride through the New York Personal Ads,
Nervy Kisses a Bride and others
were removed based on slander and mudslinging
from an outside website called Nitrateville where credentialism has run amuck.
I want my IMDb credits reinstalled for the said actors
for every single one of the Edison films that had the cast listings removed.

by Pete Jones
I didn't know "credentialism" was a word. Every day we learn.
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5077
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 5:25 pm

It interests me that "Pete Jones" seems to have become swiftly aware of the removal of these credits. Most of my contributions to the IMDb are in the form of reviews. When one of my reviews was removed because it referred lightly to some of the entries in Mary Astor's diary, I didn't notice for weeks, even though I check my listings of reviews several times a day to see the reactions to them, and the number that have been removed are right at the top.

And, yes, Ed, you can stop down-voting my review of The Restless Sex (1920). I understand we disagree on its merits.

EDITED: After looking at the thread at

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics ... ies-part-2" target="_blank

I see that "Pete Jones" joined the IMDb on Sept. 14, 2017, the day of his post. This may or may not be significant. I know that I have issues with signing into IMDb since they redesigned their system to make it "easier".

Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
To remain ignorant of what occurred before before you were born is to remain forever a child.
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Offline
User avatar

Harlowgold

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:06 pm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 6:46 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
MattBarry wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:And another one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445359/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank


Also false. I can find no other reference to Ralph Lewis appearing in this film (except Wikipedia, where the same person must be copying these credits over).
I've now removed it. It's plain lucky that no-one on wikipedia has started an edit war about it yet because on the surface I seem to be removing a lot of credits there using only vague accusations.

But can I just mention, if people are concerned enough to discuss about it here, why then am I the only one making any edits to correct these mistakes?


I didn't make any effort to remove them as I felt likely that whoever submitted it would probably dispute any corrections, as has now been the case. I was simply showing how easy it was to submit data on IMDb apparently with no more proof than personal belief. I appreciate your efforts though.
Offline

Paul Penna

  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:02 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostThu Sep 14, 2017 7:38 pm

How about the logic involved: the lack of contemporary newspaper references "doesn't mean one iota that these ladies didn't spend a few days/weeks in the summer, off theatre season, appearing before the cameras for Edwin Porter."

Or hundreds of thousands of other ladies, as well. My friends, can you prove it isn't them?

Apologies to Criswell.
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostFri Sep 15, 2017 3:34 am

Paul Penna wrote:How about the logic involved: the lack of contemporary newspaper references "doesn't mean one iota that these ladies didn't spend a few days/weeks in the summer, off theatre season, appearing before the cameras for Edwin Porter."

Or hundreds of thousands of other ladies, as well. My friends, can you prove it isn't them?

Apologies to Criswell.
Rather amusing,isn't it? Further up is an argument that you can see them clearly if you have the DVD and your TV screen is large enough.
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostFri Sep 15, 2017 9:38 am

Harlowgold wrote:I didn't make any effort to remove them as I felt likely that whoever submitted it would probably dispute any corrections, as has now been the case. I was simply showing how easy it was to submit data on IMDb apparently with no more proof than personal belief. I appreciate your efforts though.
Well, so far, common sense seems to have prevailed.
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostFri Sep 15, 2017 9:59 am

Honestly, IMDB seems to be responding to this better than Wikipedia did when I tried to correct F. Gwynplaine Macintyre's biography and the self-appointed moderator of that page basically stuck to "lack of evidence is no sign that it might not be true." In the end she was replaced and logic came out narrowly ahead...
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostFri Sep 15, 2017 11:57 am

Mike Gebert wrote:Honestly, IMDB seems to be responding to this better than Wikipedia did when I tried to correct F. Gwynplaine Macintyre's biography and the self-appointed moderator of that page basically stuck to "lack of evidence is no sign that it might not be true." In the end she was replaced and logic came out narrowly ahead...
Lord yes wikipedia can be a total lottery if the users passing by have common sense, or can't seem to read and try to support their nonsense by quoting all manner of internal guidelines that in reality do not apply to the situation.
As you can see I've had experience. Luckily so far the wikipedia corrections have stayed.
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostFri Sep 15, 2017 12:06 pm

The one I gave up on at Wikipedia was, weirdly, the sub-subject of remakes on the Oscars for Best Picture page. The claim was made that The Departed was the only remake ever to win Best Picture: I changed that to point out that depending on the definition of remake, there were lots of winners based on material that had been filmed before, especially including musical versions (My Fair Lady, Chicago etc.) Which then mutated into arguments over what was a remake-- if there's a book of Ben-Hur, then 1959's MGM film is not really a remake of the 1925 MGM film but a wholly original work from the same material! Ummm... okay.
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Offline
User avatar

Frederica

  • Posts: 4822
  • Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:00 pm
  • Location: Kowea Town, Los Angeles

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostFri Sep 15, 2017 12:41 pm

Mike Gebert wrote:The one I gave up on at Wikipedia was, weirdly, the sub-subject of remakes on the Oscars for Best Picture page. The claim was made that The Departed was the only remake ever to win Best Picture: I changed that to point out that depending on the definition of remake, there were lots of winners based on material that had been filmed before, especially including musical versions (My Fair Lady, Chicago etc.) Which then mutated into arguments over what was a remake-- if there's a book of Ben-Hur, then 1959's MGM film is not really a remake of the 1925 MGM film but a wholly original work from the same material! Ummm... okay.


Hunh. The remake of Psycho was a remake of the film, not of Robert Bloch's novel. Then again, the Todd Haynes Mildred Pierce was based on the book, whereas the Joan Crawford film only drove by it. Depends on the film. And book.

I've tried once or twice to make changes to wikipedia, but life is short and I have places to go, things to see, people to meet.
Fred
"Screw the men. I've got the horse."
Helen B. (Penny) Chenery
http://www.nitanaldi.com"
http://www.facebook.com/NitaNaldiSilentVamp"
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5077
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostFri Sep 15, 2017 1:03 pm

While I have been afflicted by credentialism -- in the sense that some people seem to believe that academic credentials trump real-life experience -- it is good to see that the individuals at the IMDb who handled the matter understood the logic of the situation and had the good manners not to comment on it: something I doubt I could have managed.

Bob
To remain ignorant of what occurred before before you were born is to remain forever a child.
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Offline
User avatar

Spiny Norman

  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:21 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostSat Sep 16, 2017 6:34 am

Oh dear, Bob, we've done it now!
Pete Jones wrote:The credit postings on several Edison short films from 1904 and 1905 that I had made were swiftly removed and 'not put back'. On Nitrateville the argument and ramblings over credibility, led primarily by two Nitrateville rats Spineless Norman and Lipton Bob, is based on theirs and others misunderstanding of newfound knowledge that has come up about the Edisons. Lipton, a self appointed know-it-all, even states (inaccurately) that Pete Jones only joined IMDb on Sept. 14 2017. I've been with IMDb for 13 years schmuck! The normal IMDb sign in won't work so you have get another account for Community, Conversation whatever. The Nitrateville thread on this issue "The Perils of IMDb" compares me to that late IMDb fraudster F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre, who posted numerous reviews of long lost silent films written by others and called them his own with many still posted on IMDb some 7 years after his death. Fine! My issue is IMDb is showing a lack of consistentcy about cast listings and uncredited appearances. I've made several contributions and updates to credited and uncredited cast members in the past, based only after viewing movie source material, without so much as a wimper of objection. And as I said MacIntyre's bogus reviews, which he even admitted on one occasion, still remain. I am appalled that IMDb would even consider removing well intentioned and well appointed (uncredited) credits based on the envious yet childish snot throwing and hair pulling from the Nitrateville website. Lastly, and especially to you two sons 'o b******, Norman and Lipton, I never commited any MacIntyre style hoaxes in all the time I've been on IMDb.
If you ever become a rapper and/or a criminal - not that the two have to be connected - please promise me you'll adopt the stage name "Lipton Bob"!
This is nøt å signåture.™
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5077
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostSat Sep 16, 2017 6:48 am

Well, at least some one pays attention to my maunderings.

I anticipate all of my IMDb reviews to receive one down-vote apiece soon. That's a lot of work.

Bob
To remain ignorant of what occurred before before you were born is to remain forever a child.
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Offline

R Michael Pyle

  • Posts: 1484
  • Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostSat Sep 16, 2017 7:13 am

Spiny Norman wrote: If you ever become a rapper and/or a criminal - not that the two have to be connected - please promise me you'll adopt the stage name "Lipton Bob"!

At least be Lipton T, Bob!
Offline

Paul Penna

  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:02 am

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostSat Sep 16, 2017 8:36 am

Well, he's right about imdb inconsistency in the matter of uncredited appearances, anyway. It's obvious many are based on "I think it looks like," often from fleeting glimpses. Often they're convincing IDs, others are obviously mistaken for other recognizable personages with a slight resemblance, others are no way because of distance, motion blur, on-screen persistence for only a few frames, you name it. No doubt many of these trace back to the database's Usenet days.

How this can be dealt with when the only primary source documentation is often only the film itself is a good question, but that goes to the very concept of imdb and other wiki-type endeavors. "Don't take this seriously" is a good approach for users. In fact, a friend and I who over the course of many years and many hundreds of films have found nerdish delight in spotting character and bit-part actors have gotten many a giggle comparing imdb "rest of cast" lists to what we see on the screen. And yes, we have on occasion submitted a previously uncredited ID, but only when we're thoroughly convinced, mind you. Because, you know, we're experts and know what we're talking about. Now those are credentials.
Offline
User avatar

Brooksie

  • Posts: 2627
  • Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:41 pm
  • Location: Portland, Oregon via Sydney, Australia

Re: The Perils of IMDb

PostSat Sep 16, 2017 12:15 pm

Frederica wrote:Hunh. The remake of Psycho was a remake of the film, not of Robert Bloch's novel. Then again, the Todd Haynes Mildred Pierce was based on the book, whereas the Joan Crawford film only drove by it. Depends on the film. And book.


I agree, it's not always clear cut. Is it correct to say, for example, that Chicago (2002) is a remake of Chicago (1927)? They both have a common ancestor, but each at a different remove - the 1927 film came from a stage play, the 2002 version from a different stage musical based loosely on the same material. Likewise Cabaret (1972) and I Am A Camera (1955), both derived from Christopher Isherwood's book Goodbye to Berlin but at two separate removes (the stage play by John van Druten and the Kander-Ebb musical), each of which differ significantly, both from each other and from the book.

No doubt much depends on the perceived fidelity to the source material, or how familiar we are with different incarnations of that source material. How many people today are even aware that Psycho began as a novel? Unlike any subsequent adaptation, marketing material makes clear that audiences for The Great Gatsby (1926) were expected to be more familiar on the stage adaptation rather than the not-yet-classic novel. I'm sure there are other examples.

Perhaps we need a new term. A 'Midmake'?
Previous

Return to Talking About Silents

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests