This is the IMDb contributor's newsletter, published every 6-8 weeks. To unsubscribe, send a message to data-news-unsubscribe@mlists.imdb.com. To subscribe, send a message to data-news-subscribe@mlists.imdb.com. You can also use the signup page at http://www.imdb.com/register/maillists . Back issues are available at http://www.imdb.com/Newsletter/ . Feedback on these articles or suggestions for new topics are welcome; contact dnews@imdb.com. The most interesting questions will be used in the next issue. Issue #3 In this issue ------------- - New message board - New keyword: LOCATIONCORRECT - Getting a new title accepted - New additions system in development - Cast order revisited - Update on trivia, goofs, and quotes - Short questions New message board ----------------- Since the last newsletter, a new message board system has launched on the site. Along with a number of new features, we have also added a special message board for people who contribute data, called "Contributors Help." This board is actively monitored by IMDb staff, who attempt to respond as necessary (though we're gratified that our community of visitors handles some of the common queries for us). You can visit this new message board at http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/threads/ or just click on the "Message Boards" tab at the top of any page and scroll down. New keyword: LOCATIONCORRECT ---------------------------- In response to a comment on the message board, a new keyword has been created: LOCATIONCORRECT. This keyword is used to correct entries in the location list where the location is misspelled, or does not fit properly into the hierarchy at http://www.imdb.com/LocationTree . It should not be used if the entry for a movie is a valid real-world location, just not where the movie was filmed. To use the keyword, send something like this to the mail server: LOCATIONCORRECT wrong location|right location| Thus: LOCATIONCORRECT Los Angeles, CA, USA|Los Angeles, California, USA| You must supply the complete location for it to be corrected; thus, in the example above, correcting just "CA, USA" would not work. Getting a new title accepted ---------------------------- One of the more common questions we get from frustrated contributors is: Why has my new title not been accepted? As many of you know, there's currently a processing delay of a few weeks, so sometimes the answer is just, "be patient," but often the title has been rejected. The most common reason for a title to be rejected is because it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. They are spelled out in our new title guide at http://www.imdb.com/Guides/new-titles, but the short version is that a new title must be of "general public interest" and must be/have been available to the public. This means that an independent film still in production made by people with no track record is, generally, ineligible. But many titles that are eligible for listing do not get included because the data fails to demonstrate that they meet the criteria. If a film has been shown to the public, it's critical to include a release date. This can be approximate (e.g., month and year only), but it should include any appropriate modifiers, like the name of the film festival, the city for a single-city release, or "(limited)" for a limited multi-city release. If the film has a distributor, that should be included; if it debuted on television, then the name of the television network should be used as the distributor. If it's available on video through established channels, then again, the name of the distributor and release date are important. A Google search is often helpful if it's been shown in festivals (try the title plus the director name). While including an official URL is helpful, be aware that it's not a substitute for including the distributor name (even if the URL is a page within a distributor's web site). If a film is still in production, it's eligible for listing if there's a high probability it will be available to the public. In general, that means an established production company and/or distributor, or well-known filmmakers/actors. In this case, we ask for a certain amount of information so we can properly track the film. Films in production often change title and the people working on them can change, so we need more than just a title and a single name to allow us to track them. In any case, if there's only one name connected with the title, it's not far enough along in the process to have a high probability of being made (ask anyone who's seen the mountain of unproduced screenplays at most studios). With the exception of a few high-profile projects that have an excellent chance of being made (e.g., Star Wars Episode III), we don't track films until they are solidly into the preproduction phase. The volume of data we process means we generally ask the contributor to do the research to show that a title qualifies; we add over 1000 new titles to the database in some weeks, and hundreds more are discarded. Many of those rejected titles eventually do find their way into the database, either because someone eventually sends them with enough relevant data, or because they get accepted by a festival and thus become eligible. Please note that the only data that counts is formatted data contributed through our web interface; vague comments like "I hear he's making a movie with so-and-so" are worthless to us. However, if there's some unusual reason why a movie should be included despite not meeting the normal criteria, please do include a comment explaining why along with the other data (which should still include as much formatted data as possible). That comment should be included as a COMMENT-TITLE. One example that comes to mind: George Lucas in Love, which was widely available to Hollywood insiders and was written about in several major publications before it was accepted by a festival. New additions system in development ----------------------------------- As has been mentioned on the message board, a replacement for the current additions system is in development. While it is still some weeks away, some of the main features can be discussed now. In the existing additions system, the web interface serves only to format data for the mail interface; all data goes through the mail interface. In the new system, the web interface will become the primary means of contributing data. This means that many of the more mysterious rejection messages will no longer appear, as there will no longer be a disconnect between what the web interface accepts and what the mail server accepts. An interface will be available for bulk contributors, but it will feed into the web interface. Rather than the current mail interface, you will upload a file and get immediate feedback. As there are a number of things that can be correctly sent through the mail interface today that cannot be created with the web interface, this will mean a complete reworking of the web interface to allow all valid data to be sent. This will also mean errors are detected closer to their source, which should allow us to give more helpful error messages. The web interface will probably be deployed on a section-by-section basis; the first section is currently projected to be release dates. Existing data will be much easier to correct with the new system as well, with easy-to-use forms instead of the current complicated process. One of the best features of the new system will be the ability to see what data you've sent that is still pending and its current status. You will also be able to modify or add to data you've sent that is still pending. Also, in our long range plans, you'll be able to see and comment on data from other contributors that is pending. We expect that the web interface will feed more directly into our back-end processing tools, which should improve the turnaround time for processing data. Among other things, it means data will no longer be held in weekly batches, but will become available to list managers on a daily, or even continuous, basis. (This doesn't necessarily mean it will be processed on a daily basis; some list management may still be handled on a weekly cycle for a while.) As the new additions system progresses, we may ask for volunteer beta testers, most likely on the message boards. Cast order revisited -------------------- It's been pointed out that the article in the last issue on cast ordering was a bit over simplified. To reiterate that article: The cast list order is determined by the most comprehensive cast list. In modern films, that list is usually in the closing credits. However, some productions (notably TV movies) split the cast list, with the major stars listed in the opening credits and only the supporting players listed in the closing credits. In such cases, the cast list should be treated as a single cast list, interrupted by the movie itself. Update on trivia, goofs, and quotes ----------------------------------- We're pleased to announce that the backlog of trivia, goofs, and quotes for the 1000 most popular titles in the database (as determined by page view) has been cleared. We expect to keep up with new contributions for the top 1000 titles, and to make progress on the backlog, where we will continue to focus on the most popular remaining titles. We have also begun processing comments and corrections for the top 1000 titles. Questions --------- Q: Why don't you list movie-links for TV series (e.g., references made by the series)? A: Particularly for a long-running series, the list would become unwieldy. When we support episode titles, we will reconsider this. Q: Now that episode lists have been split into separate entries, does the earlier limit of 5 episodes per person still hold? A: No. Q: What's the dividing line for a Short versus a feature? A: 40 minutes, though we allow a few minutes slack as some sources don't consider credits in their timings. Q: What's the difference between a miniseries and a TV movie? A: Anything over 240 minutes running time (excluding commercials) is a miniseries; anything shorter is a TV movie, even if it's broadcast in multiple installments. Q: Now that you accept animal credits, you should also indicate the type of animal. A: Good idea. We'll think about adding a special place for this; in the meantime, please submit an appropriate biography trivia entry. Q: Where should the titles of individual episodes of theatrical serials be placed? A: For now, send them as trivia entries for the serial title. Q: Are quotes accepted in any language other than English? A: No. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMDb - Data Contributor's Newsletter - Issue 3 - THE END