Not sure if this is the correct thread to ask this, but why is IMDB held as such an inaccurate mess?  I was under the impression that it was a user-generated database just like DVDProfiler, but on a much larger scale.  Don't both sites use credits as their main source?  If anything I'd think that IMDB would be more accurate as each actor's name is linked to ALL of their works instead of having separate listings for whichever version of their name they used for a particular movie.

Quoting JamesFerguson:

Quote:
Not sure if this is the correct thread to ask this, but why is IMDB held as such an inaccurate mess?  I was under the impression that it was a user-generated database just like DVDProfiler, but on a much larger scale.  Don't both sites use credits as their main source?  If anything I'd think that IMDB would be more accurate as each actor's name is linked to ALL of their works instead of having separate listings for whichever version of their name they used for a particular movie.

IMDB makes changes to the info to be able to detect when data has been taken from their site.

Some examples of how they do it:
  * Cast order changed
  * Last name listed in the role, when actual credits only list firstname
  * Different spelling of the roles

There will probably be some other changes/faults used.

Other than that, I use it a lot for quick lookups. But we can't use it to assemble the cast and crew of our profile

Quoting JamesFerguson:

Quote:
Not sure if this is the correct thread to ask this, but why is IMDB held as such an inaccurate mess?  I was under the impression that it was a user-generated database just like DVDProfiler, but on a much larger scale.  Don't both sites use credits as their main source?  If anything I'd think that IMDB would be more accurate as each actor's name is linked to ALL of their works instead of having separate listings for whichever version of their name they used for a particular movie.

As Pete said it depends on how you define accurate. But since IMDb has no Contribution Rules that are enforced for data entry users are free to enter data inwhatever form they choose. We at Profikler have an actual datasource, the film's credits, the filmmakers made the movie NOT profiler and not IMDb and we do not allow user's to imagine the data,be it the actor or crew names or the Roles in the film. For example in Star Trek Chris Pine is NOT James T. Kirk, the Credits list him as Kirk period, James T. Kirk is not accurate. Why did this...who knows...but they did it and we folliowthe data, we don't make it up. Bruce Greenwood is NOT Captain Christopher Pike, he is Christopher Pike, again why, this one may have something to do with being a Captain at the beginning and an Admiral at the end.

This includes copying the credits order, again not what someone imagines them to be. The filmmaker oredre the credits for a reason, sometimes for reasons only they understand. But again for a real life example, the film Mame with headliners Lucille Ball and Forrest Tucker, they are listed dead last in the film credits, why? Because the filmmakers decided to give a nod to the Broadway origins of the film and introduce the cast in typical Broadway fashion where the headliners are the last to recognized and lead the cast in their curtain calls.

One of the best place to hide the kind of data that cver referred to is in the (uncredited) listing, ity would be very easy to list a completely fictional (uncredited) who has ONE single objective to serve as a pointer back to IMDb.

The first thing that you must understand is that the name linkage you refer to does not come FIRST. Each film stands on its own merits. IMDb does NOT make movies, so listing the data as theydo is inherently inaccurate,they don't know more than the filmmakers.Once the data has been established for a given it then becomes possible  to create linkages with appropriate documentation. Our linking system is badly broken because it was poorly executed, it was built around the premise of a Mosdt Commonly Credited Name, which means that it is wholly dependant on user inputting data properly in order to give the proper results...unfortunately when you are dealing with many thousands of users, it is a given that some will not follow the Rules and this result in skewing data results. There are methods that could have resulted in a much better sysetm than what we have and perhaps in the future we will break from, the user input system which gives such horrific results. How do we know that we are getting skewed results, pick an actor, oh let's make it easy and pick Francois Truffaut you will find some listings for Close Encounters, BUT if you type in François Truffaut you will also find listings for Close Encounters, now we know that a cast list is not necessarily universal believe it or not so it is possible that two separate copies of the film could list an actor in two different ways, at this point we do not know. I can tell you that the three releases that have come out in the US list Francois Truffaut, the others need to reviewed and checked for accuracy and corrected as necessary, if the credit reads Francois Truffaut then François Truffaut is NOTcorrect and they need to bechanged but in the meantime those erroneous (assuming they are all proven so) are skewing the results of the Credit Lookup Tool in determining the Most Commonly Credited Name and note as Ken himself has said numerous times, we are NOT looking for necessarily the "correct" name, we are looking for the MOST COMMONLY CREDITED NAME.

IMDb is held to be such an inaccurate mess because it IS. They have no standards for data entry by their users, thus when you start comparing IMDb to REAL data (the film credits) it doesn't take very long to determine that they are mess based on user imaginations. They also provide nokindof documentary support for how any of their "linked" names are determined,they apparently use a large dartboard or Magic 8 Ball. Our Contributors are supposed to provide documentary support for they determine such things. For example Lon Chaney may not be what most users would presume to be Lon Chaney, Jr., don't forget that his father was acting long before he was and Lon Chaney, Sr sometimes used the credit of Lon Chaney, when his father passed away Lon Chaney, Jr. also sometimes used Lon Chaney...so who are you talking about when you use Lon Chaney, Bill Smith may not be the same person as William Smith, they could be two totally different people , they could be father and son...and they could be the same, how does IMDb determine this (They don't provide any documentary support), how can we determine this if users do not provide documentation but instead simply use a Name Variant Tool which points at the two names but proves nothing more than the two names are similar.

Skip

Quoting JamesFerguson:

Quote:
Not sure if this is the correct thread to ask this, but why is IMDB held as such an inaccurate mess?

As any database, IMDb may contain some errors, but it is a fantastic database for movies, with data which are generally of high quality. In particular, all names have a single form, and so lists of movies for an actor or a crew member are complete and exact. When you take names from end credits, you will find different spellings for the same person, which is the case with dvdprofiler "per the rules" data. We get, for example, some Francois Truffaut who is different from François Truffaut, though anybody with a minimum of movie culture knows what is the correct spelling for this well known actor.

Some people think that spitting on IMDb is good for dvdprofiler, but the truth is that the dvdprofiler online database with its spelling errors is good to reproduce the lack of seriousness of credit makers or DVD editors, but certainly not the reality of who acted in which movie.

Once again surfeur, you display a singular lack of understanding of data.

You state

"though anybody with a minimum of movie culture knows what is the correct spelling for this well known actor."

That is a true statement but in the case of CE3K that is NOT what the data ACTUALLY says and further what his "REAL" name is irrelevant to profiler, that is not waht we are looking for. So in some form we must be able to link the two names. Now assuming that all the data has ebe isn entered consistently with the Rules (which it may not have been), then we could determine precisely which is the MOST COMMONLY CREDITED name. That may or may not impact the listing of CE3K, who knows the most COMMONLY CREDITED name ny be Francois Truffaut,and Ken has repeatedly stated that we are not looking for the "correct" name,

Even the linking system as I would design it, surfeur would not make the "Correct" name relevant, the variants would simply be linked with no priority to any given variant, thus whatever name a user chose to search for would yield the same list of movies. Why is the "real" name of no relevance, because in reality the ONLY person who knows the REAL name is the person involved. As I have noted in the past my own name could be listed in at least 25 Variants. If I listed all of them what chance would you have in picking the CORRECT one that would be the REAL name....the chance would be not very high, surfeur. And in the film industry there are far more people like myself than teir are the "well-known" actors or crew who are to some degree or other slightly easier. The key is never going to be any kind of "REAL" name, as we in general will not have enough information to determine just what that might be. And has been noted as well (and not by me), surfeur both Francois and François are both totally legitimate French names with different pronunciations.

Skip

Skip

Quoting Woola:

Quote:

Really and where is that written, antares.

You can try the AFI, TCM or the SAG for starters.

Mention the name Alan Hale, and you'll be talking about the actor who starred with Errol Flynn, not Gilligan's buddy.

Your point only emphasizes the absurdity of the criteria used for this database.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
I don't see how anyone who does even a little bit of analysis on cast lists can say that IMDB data is "generally of high quality."  At least insofar as the role names are concerned.

Yes, IMDB attempts to standardize the spelling of actors' names to make linking of their roles possible.  However, when it comes to the name of the role those actors portray, IMDB is often (probably more than half of the time) incorrect.  They often list the wrong character name, or list credited people as uncredited (and vice versa).  And as Addicted said above, IMDB often gives more of the role name than is ever included in the actual credits.  Sometimes these data are spoilers.  This is particularly true for television episode casts which are rife with errors in IMDB.

Not everyone who recognizes the limitations of IMDB is "spitting on" it, despite what Surfeur alleges.  IMDB is what it is -- a convenient way to find out information about movies.  I refer to it at least once every day.  But I don't for a minute accept anything posted there as gospel.

IMDB seems to have a different philosophy about the data they maintain than what the people in Invelos have in mind for Profiler.  I think IMDB wants as much information about a role as possible (full name, titles, etc.) -- where for Profiler we want only what is in the actual film credits.  Each philosophy has its use, and I don't say either is "correct."  Nor do I mean to insult proponents of either.

Good post

Indee, well said, little Ken.

I have repeatedly tried to explain that IMDbhas it's "yardstick" and we have ours. I like our yardstick as it is based on real data not user-created data. Every time i run into an IMDb error and that is almost daily, I am left wondering against the ACTUAL credits, what movie or TV Series has IMDb ever produced. The answer to that rhetorical question, of course, is NONE, not one, not ever. What movie has Profiler ever produced...not one, not ever. So which data will I put my faith in, something that was created out of whole cloth by some users imagination and not even documented or the data generated by those who actually produced the film. I think that answer is obvious and my answer has been reinforced numerous times including most recently by a third party review of profiler in which our program was lauded "It consists solely of data submitted by DVD Profiler (Unlimited) users, and is more complete than the publicly available sources used by the other programs reviewed. Everything from cast and crew lists to special features and even thorough descriptions of any easter eggs on each disc are included." Those other programs nearly all of which cost more than profiler, all license data from third party sources.

So complain as you will and refer to the "absurdity of the criteria" as much as you wish. The SOLE weakness in the system for cast and Crew lays in the flawed execution of the linking system, but i have said this for some years now, almost from the implementation of said system, we all too sadly know that there are those who refuse to follow the rules and some bad data was merged from Intervocative, all that skews the results from the klinking and yields poor results. While I think there are better ways, I am at this point not certain if the cure might not be worse than the disease, I don't have access to Ken's code so that i can war-game some of these things and determine the answer. I would if I could, but even that would only llow me to report the results of the research, it would be for Ken to execute it, and perhaps he already knows the answer is working towards a solution. All I can say is that any sort of system which is totally dependant on user-inputted data being properly input 100% to yield correct results, is doomed.   All too sadly,

Skip