Talk:IMDb/Archive 3

message: New users are required to sign up on sister sites (ex. amazon) which is just a money grab before that use can post topics on IMDb.com Very disappointed with IMDb for that.
So, can someone send me their old IMDb account? I’d very much appreciare it.
-G
:There are many other ways of getting an account. For example sending a simple sms and other things. Look around IMDb, there are lots of help pages there where you they will tell you how it works. YOU DO NOT NEED AN AMAZON ACCOUNT. --Steinninn 03:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They never phoned me up to confirm my phone number :) -- SteveCrook 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I don't have any acounts to give out. And how can I contact you? You don't have a user name, no email, no way of contacting you. Just a G, how can we give you an acount if the only thing we know about you is G and your IP address. Nada --Steinninn 12:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely not a forum. Unless this conversation is intended to improve the article somehow. Aaron Bowen 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can I have someone’s IMDb account?

message: Under the History section, 
"Google Groups coverage of rec.arts.movies is incomplete during the relevant time period, with a 6-month gap in late 1988 and early 1989 and a number of missing articles after that. [2]"
Is the timeframe for that correct? Or is it referring to Yahoo! instead? Diulama 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeframe is correct AFAIK. Google Groups are a way to access and search old Usenet newsgroup entries when they aren't available on most other archives - unless you know of somewhere that still has them. But Google Groups don't hold a complete archive. The earliest references to The List by Col Needham or others is only available from 1990/91. But they reference earlier newsgroup messages which are no longer available. -- SteveCrook 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google groups mention? 

message: I've been unable to find a way to search the IMDb message boards, and imdb.com/robots.txt does not invite spiders to visit the boards. Surely, this limits some aspects of their usefulness. Is there any way to search the message boards? Should this lack be noted factually in the article?   
   
: There used to be a special search facility that searched the message boards. But it was never all that good. It is sometimes a nuisance that you can't search the boards. We've asked for the boards search to be reinstated quite a few times, but there's no sign of it being done. Especially given their blocking of the boards in the robots.txt file I think it could be considered to be a limit to the usefulness of the IMDb. SteveCrook 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searching IMDb message boards? 

message: ; 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
; 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
; 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Please take particular note of 3 in response to your question "Why don't you do something productive, like searching for the kind of citations you want yourself?".
:Now, there's a "policy" that just invites either passing on common mistakes or else getting involved in deletion wars.  Which seems to be your greatest interest in this matter (the other being, throwing your weight around as a big, hotshot Wikipedia Editor.  Ooooh!) 12.73.201.87 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please leave out the personal attacks? You've made one off the mark accusation after another, and it's getting us nowhere. I've been very critical of IMDb's ratings in my edits, so you can leave aside conspiracy theories, seriously. Your comment here is just confusing. The point of a policy on verifiability of material is so that people don't insert whatever nonsense they feel like without there being any possibility of verifying it. So I have no idea what you mean by passing on 'common mistakes' - the point of the policy is precisely the opposite, it is to prevent people inserting material that has no basis. BTW, it is one of the most fundamental policies for Wikipedia -- I'm only bringing it to your attention, I didn't have anything to do wtih introducing it for goodness sake. I have no interest in following a policy just for the sake of it, but let me ask you a simple question. If the criticisms are genuine (which I don't doubt they are), shouldn't it be possible to verify them? If not, how on earth can I or anyone else be confident they are legitimate? This is an encyclopedia -- the material needs to be bona fide. All I'm asking is that people cite at least some of the criticisms for the sake of credibility. If no-one else cares, so be it. I'll take of the tags and we'll leave the article. I edit in my spare time and don't come here to get accused and absued. Holon 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well there's at least two of us who want things done properly according to the Wikipedia policy. SteveCrook 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The policy 

message: I have placed the  tag on the comments I think are most in need verification. As per Wikipedia policy, the criterion is not that the truth of criticisms is necessarily verified, but it must be possible to at least verifiy that the criticisms have been made in a reliable source. I think that if at least a few of these points are verified, the credibility of the section will be enhanced and it may become reasonable to remove remaining tags on the basis that the section is on balance generally well researched and founded. I did some research and found an article which mentioned specific errors being incorporated on IMDb then removed, so this should be verifiable (I'll do so if I can find it again). Criticisms should be voiced for balance in achieving a NPOV, however the additions to the section frequently read like complaints and are unverifiable (I know some of them to be either valid or plausible from experience with use of IMDb, but this is not enough). Specific points need to be verified to be retained. It does no good to the credibility of the article as a whole to have a number of points that cannot reasonably be verified in reliable sources. Holon 03:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific crticisms require verification

message: Hi. I'm new here, so delete this if you don't like it, I woun't mind. I just wanted to pass a idea for an article about where imdb get's its data. Most of it is from volintary contributors, and the site lists the top 100 anually. So I thought it would be nice to have that on wikipedia as well as some aditional info. What do you think? (contribution by 213.213.134.251, 3 May 2006)
It's already there, in the main Overview it says Information is largely provided by a cadre of volunteers with expertise in various areas of film history. Please sign all comments using four tildes (~~~~)  SteveCrook 23:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDb's contributors

message: Is the discussion of the statistical properties of the rating system really appropriate? Besides the fact that it just reads as being out of place, the lack of citations makes it perilously close to violating WP:NOR Liamdaly620 13:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first question is a good one -- I added detail where the original synopsis was confusing and misleading and it may have made the section too long. Perhaps it should be shortened back to some essentials so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. Thoughts? As for OR, I'm not sure which points you're referring to. Points made regarding reliability and validity, sampling, use of averages for ordinal data, weighted means, trimmed means , etc. are very well known and widely accepted (as can be checked through the links to other articles on the topics). None of it is vaguely original as far as I can tell; it's just making clear the relevance of the considerations to the situation. Are there specific points you are concerned about? Cheers. Holon 02:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the current length is diruptive to the article and kind of out of scope to the point of the article as a whole.  Maybe you could reduce the currect section just to a quick summary of the current ratings system and an enumeration of the lists available, then move the discussion of the flaws of such a system to another article?  It seems to me that this kind of rating system exists all over the web and it might be nice to have a good article about the issues with it.  After that's written, then this section of this article could be only a short paragaph and link to the other article for those interested in more details. Skrewtape 00:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skrewtape, that is an excellent idea. When I first read your comment, I was not sure that there was an appropriate encyclopedia article to cover this. Then I realised it would be good to have an article on rating scales (there is one on scales (social science) but not rating scales). You are dead right -- the same method is used widely all over the web. What I can do is create an article that explains what a rating scale is when used well, then devote sections of the articles to widespread usage as on IMDb, Amazon, Epinions, Yahoo! Movies, etc. and the problems. Links can be included wheverver reference is made to the rating methods used online which helps increase accessibility to the material for those interested when reading about other websites. I may not have time in the next few days. Edit if you feel inclined, and I'll take what I need from history. Otherwise, I'll get to it asap. Cheers, Holon 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant by original research was not that the methods with original -- they are, of course, established statistical methods. My question was where the application of the methds came from -- it seemed as if someone sat down to write here what they thought was wrong with the IMDB system, rather than reporting widely disseminated positions others had taken about IMDB (which would need cites) Liamdaly620 01:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the majority of the information to Rating scale because it is more generally applicable. Also, see discussion lower down on same topic -- I've commented on positions taken specifically about IMDb versus positions taken on widespread misuse of rating scale data. I think the suggestion to move the material is best. I'd welcome feedback. Cheers Holon 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychometrics 

message: I agree. About moving the flaws of rating system to criticisms. While it is appropriate to make a brief comment there, the plan still remains to move a substantial amount of the rest of the discussion to another article. Holon 12:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the flaws of rating system to critiscism.

message: I deleted this text: 
*In addition, there are also frequent queries regarding whether users can directly have other users' posts 
because I couldn't figure out what it was trying to say.  What does "directly have" mean? -- JHunterJ 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing this means that admins/staff sometimes just delete a post that someone has complained about without checking to see if anything was actually done wrong.  This is already covered in the article, so there's no need to include that sentence.  Just of note - one extreme case was on the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie board, where a topic with over 100 well-written (no trolling/spam) posts about Douglas Adams' atheism and the effect it had on his work was completely deleted by someone (presumably an admin) with no explanation or warnings given.  These things do happen - you sometimes get the feeling that from time to time someone in a position of power just has their own agenda to get out and deletes certain things that they don't like.  Esn 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... directly have other users' posts" deleted 

message: I could not find any parts in the article that mentioned that the IMDB is infamous for being innacurate, hence its nickname.  If there isn't anything in there, there probably should be. (posted by KX-34 on 8 June 2006)
:I haven't heard the nickname before, but if it is so, just find a reputable source to cite and add it.  (And use ~~~~ to sign your additions to talk pages.) -- JHunterJ 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard it called that either. It might be called that by people who can't get their project listed on it. The eligibility requirements are more strict now than they used to be.  SteveCrook 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I've come across it (the nickname) at least twice on different websites.  Mostly referring to innacuracies in the cast lists and stuff.  http://www.digg.com/movies/Spiderman_3_Plot_Revealed There is one of the sites, and if you search "inaccurate movie database" in Google, a number of results come up. 65.30.36.139 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That number was 38 for me.  By comparison, "inaccurate wikipedia" got 85 hits. A search in a news database for "inaccurate movie database" turned up 0 hits.  Doesn't seem infamous enough. -- JHunterJ 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for "inaccurate movie database" imdb just in case they were referring to a different inaccurate movie database. That got just 19 hits. Not really enough to warrant inclusion. Probably just a few disgruntled individuals.  SteveCrook 23:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inaccurate Movie Database" 

message: The user comments for a film are not in chronological order. How is the order decided then? I have only skimmed the article and searched for 'user comments'. To my surprise no hits. I suppose this is one of the most used parts of imdb, so is it named differently? Surely there should be some mention of it. DirkvdM 07:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The default is to sort according to the 'rating' of the comment, which is, how many people clicked "Yes" in response to whether they found the review helpful.  However, the user comment that appears on the front page of a movie's entry doesn't fit this pattern (it is almost invariably not the #1 rated comment).  I'm not sure how they determine that one. SubSeven 08:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're just selected at random. The #1 comment can appear there, but so can one slating the film. SteveCrook 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Comment order 

message: The accuracy would probably be greatly improved, as it is currently rubbish, and the more obscure shows would get more coverage. {````} - Unsigned comment by 
195.82.104.122 22:04 8 July 2006</Small>
: I don't think that the accuracy of the IMDb would be improved at all by making it a Wiki. It is often discuissed on the Contibutors Help message board - and it is always dismissed out of hand as a bad idea, by the contributors, not by IMDb staff. They have no need to comment. If it was made a Wiki then there would be absolutely no validation. At least now we have some even though it may not be perfect. But why do you say that "it is currently rubbish"? - SteveCrook 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would IMDb not be better as a wiki also? 

message: A citation is called for the following passage: Over the last five years the George W. Bush, Michael Jackson and Soapbox message boards (and, to a lesser extent, the Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ message boards and other message boards for political and religious personas) have been major targets for heated debate, ranting and trolling. Would a link to those message boards, where one could see this is the case, suffice? --Mr Beale 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that someone unfamiliar with the boards would be able to "see" that they have been "major targets" of heated debate, ranting and trolling by looking at them.  Ideally the citation would be of some site or news items making the observation. -- JHunterJ 23:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, I don't believe that those boards offer a permanent record. I think that messages are removed after some time -- SteveCrook 23:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You now also have to be a user of IMDB to view the forums, so just linking them can't possibly suffice as a citation.  Unless its been mentioned in the press or on another website, this claim can't really be made, despite how true it is. NadaPlissken 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation question

message: Re:  your following "correction":  "TV episodes - Not true. There is now no distinction between regulars and guests)"
Sorry, but the information about IMDb confusing guests and regulars is VERY true.  While the IMDb does shy away from actually using the words "guest" and "regular," all you have to do to verify the inaccuracies is look up a few TV shows on the IMDb.  Neve Campbell (to list just one example out of dozens, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about) was a regular on the show "Party of Five" for years.  The IMDb lists her as having appeared in only eight episodes.  Meanwhile, actors who really have appeared on the show only once or twice or a handful of times (and would thus qualify as "guest stars")  are often listed in the show's cast list rather than the page for specific episodes, which would be much more accurate.  My reference/source is the IMDb itself, and it bears repeating that, before you argue with me or casually remove this information again, please look up a few shows on the IMDb to see for yourself. -- Minaker
: I'm a long time IMDb contributor and I do know what's going on at the IMDb. All the example you give means is that Neve hasn't been properly credited for the episodes she appeared in. Most IMDb contributors aren't happy about the latest change that they have made which means that if people haven't been properly credited on each episode, or the episode details haven't been submitted yet, then those people just aren't shown. The latest change in the IMDb means that someone that has been properly credited for the episodes they appear in is now listed ahead of someone that appeared more often, but hasn't been credited for all their appearances. The upshot is that the IMDb should realise that episode migration is nowhere near as complete as they thought it was and they should revert the last change, and that everyone that can should submit more information to get all the cast properly credited for every episode. But what I said was true in that the IMDb now has no distinction between regulars and guests. The sentence before the one you added said "At present, the database entries for TV series are in a state of flux, as listings are migrated from series titles to individual episodes." This is still true, and was made worse by the IMDb's latest change. But it doesn't alter the fact that there is now no distinction between regulars and guests. Everyone that has ever appeared in a TV series should be credited for the episodes they appeared in and the main page for the series is generated automatically from the appearances in each episode. -- SteveCrook 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of other people making the same point on the IMDb Contributors board. It is possible for you to cure the situation for Neve Campbell or anyone else, just add any missing episodes and then credit all those people that appear in it. Then, when Neve or anyone else, has more credits in episodes, she will be placed nearer the top of the credits list on the main page for the series. The IMDb didn't "state" that she only appeared in 8 episodes as some unalterable decree. It's just that nobody's bothered to submit the correct information yet. Any database is only as good as its information and most of the information for the IMDb comes from volunteer contributors, each submitting data in areas that they know about or care about. If you care enough to write these comments, you should care enough to do something about it and submit the correct data for the series that you know about. As for "regular" and "guest", it's not just the naming convention. They used to be treated quite differently in the database. They aren't any longer. They are all just people credited as appearing in episodes in the series. Those that are credited in the most episodes will be nearer the top in the cast list on the main page for the series. -- SteveCrook 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So it looks like we'll have to wait for someone else to correct the entries you mention. It does take time, but it's really very straightforward. And I don't regard the length of time it takes to get data into the database. Given the wild claims that appear in some articles in the Wikipedia, I regard the time (& the checking) a positive asset that makes the IMDb a lot more reliable -- SteveCrook 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Like Steve, I would encourage you to update the data for that particular series if you feel so strongly about it. I also don't think that the article should give any specific example of missing data, since that can change quite abruptly from one day to another, if anyone decides to contribute the data. Nonetheless, the fact is that TV series entries in IMDb are far from perfect for the time being, and the article should mention it. Most readers won't care of how easy or difficult it is to contribute the data. I've tried to reword that paragraph; hopefully we can get a consensus rather than a revert war. Pruneautalk 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SteveCrook

message: How does one apply for board administrator?
: AFAIK only people that work for the IMDb can be a board administrator -- SteveCrook 13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator 

message: Not a priority, but as IMDB's homepage has been slightly redesigned {searchbox), can someone update the image in the article to reflect the change? Bswee 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update IMDB homepage image 

message: Are there any pictures of the IMDB homepages in older verious??? Like ones from when it first started and on wards, it would be interesting to see them. RaptorRobot 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added a few images. --Steinninn 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old versions? 

message: RAJESH KHANNA THE ROMANTIC HERO OF ALL TIMES IS THE ONLY SUPER STAR OF INDIAN CINEMA.  HE IS A GREATEST OF ALL ACTORS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.163.88.180 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAJESH KHANNA SUPERSTAR OF INDIAN CINEMA 

message: Whatever happened to this site? It used to be a fantastic site where people could make their own top-20 alltime lists of movies, but suddenly it's just gone, and it seems like it never existed. When you try typing www.ymdb.com it just goes straight to the www.imdb.com, did IMDb buy the rights to the popular YMDb-name, or did they sue their way to getting the name, or what? KnatLouie 30 December 2006
:I don't know, but I just noticed this as well, and find it rather annoying. Owen 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Good news. I was looking around, and it still exists; it's just been moved to http://www.shompy.com/. I'm guessing they sold the domain to IMDb and just moved there. Owen 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YMDb.com 

message: Should something be mentioned about the IMDb user who was arrested for the posts he made? In case you don't know, some User was arrested for threatening to kill teenage actresses, and posting pics of him with guns. I'll need to do a bit more research, but I think it at least deserves mention. --MasterA113 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only references to this I could find were in the Worcester Telegram   and the Shrewsbury Chronicle , both local newspapers from Massachusetts. I don't think that makes it notable enough, especially since IMDb has little to do with the case. All message boards are prone to being used by weirdos, unfortunately. Pruneautalk 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. From what I was reading on the site, they made it sound more important. --MasterA113 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all "message board weirdos" that make threats on forums end up being arrested and found with a supply of weapons like this one did. The arrest happened as a direct result of his posts on IMDb, so it appears that IMDb were involved if they gave the police his IP address. This appears to be significant enough to be mentioned in this article, and there are many more than two references, although they are all local news services, they are still reliable. Saikokira 00:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question... 

message: The IMDb#Trivia section doesn't seem right to me.
*The first actor listed in the database is Fred Astaire. (and the next three, similar items) This is really saying that Fred Astaire's IMDb number is 0000001; it doesn't mean that he was the first to be added to the database (at the beginning, the URLs had a different format, without numbers; when they changed format, they used an alphabetical order). When I read "the first  movie listed", I understand that it either means the first movie to be added, or the oldest movie in the database. If the information is really noteworthy, the entries need to be rephrased.
*The trivia items about the ratings are wrong. For example, "The Tony Blair Witch Project" has a weighted average of 1.0/10, for 502 votes; "Planet Earth" is a TV series with an average of 9.9/10 (518 votes), and there are a few titles with an average of 10.0, though they have a very small number of votes. The statistics given are true if you only look at titles with more than 1000 votes. Given that only 112 series (including mini-series) have more than 1000 votes, that seems a tad restrictive.
I won't make the changes now, because I think we need to agree on what to include: do we need to say which actor is 00000001? What should the threshold for votes be? Do we want to list the actual oldest movies in the database (two titles from 1888)? Pruneautalk 11:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe wikipedia policy is to NOt have sections of article devoted to 'trivia'. The information shuld be encorporated into the main article or deleted. There is a tag saying  this somewhere, but I am notreally very good at wiki-ing. 203.206.100.60 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trivia section is out of this world. I'm removing it. --Steinninn 13:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: When i look at http://www.imdb.com/chart/top then I see:
1.	9.1	The Godfather (1972) 202,883
2.	9.1	The Shawshank Redemption (1994)	243,043
When I look at the pages of these movies ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111161/ )
then I see that the shawshank redemption has User Rating: 9.2/10 (243,043 votes)
and the godfather has User Rating: 9.1/10 (202,883 votes)
So the godfather has a lower user rating and less votes, doesn't this mean that number 1 and 2 should be switched in the top 250 ?
Or am I missing something here ?
--Garo 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can query that with the IMDb on the Contributors Help board (Imdb staffers visit there quite often) or at their Help Desk. But the way they work out all these ratings is very complicated and it could well be that they are using different methods for the figures given in the Top 250 and the figure given on the movie's page. Or maybe Shawshank is just about to overtake Godfather and the ranking has been increased to 9.2 for Shawshank but the Top 250 (and the positions in it on the movie's pages) hasn't been updated yet. -- SteveCrook 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently the score on the movie's own page isn't used for the Top 250. See http://www.imdb.com/help/search?domain=helpdesk_faq&index=1&file=notintop250 -- SteveCrook 09:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 250 wrong ? 

message: Just like CNN this article should be under the name it's most commonly referred to as, which is IMDb rather than Internet Movie Database. Yonatan talk 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It redirects from "imdb", so I don't see any reason to change the name. That is its official name, imdb is just an acronym. 204.115.253.51 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to IMDb 

message: Could we change the screenshot to someone less cliche? Like Sean Connery or Leonard Nimoy or something. Except not either of those, but you get my point. How about Samuel L Jackson --Krakko 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's cliched about Marilyn? No, I don't get your point -- SteveCrook 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marilyn Monroe Screenshot 

message: Something needs to be mentioned about the new authentication system (new accounts must be verified with an amazon.com account, credit-card or (some) cell phone sms networks before new users are able to post on the board system). This is quite a burden on new users. McDanger 17:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does cut down (somewhat) on the rubbish that was being posted to the boards. It also means that spammers & trolls are easier to identify when reported -- SteveCrook 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I agree, but if a user just wants to ask a simple question (like "what's the name of that movie...") he or she has to buy something at amazon.com., and many phone-networks aren't covered by their SMS service.  I think they should implement a non-public email verification system (eg, ISP, university, work etc.) like man other sites do, that way trolls can still be identified without the burden of buying at amazon. McDanger 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't have to actually buy anything at Amazon. Just provide details of a credit card that can be checked. They are an Amazon company. Amazon already have the facilities for verying credit cards. So it made sense to use them. -- SteveCrook 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but for those of us (me) without a credit card it leaves very little options! Luckily I had a pre-existing account at imdb I rarely use. Cheers. McDanger 07:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  You can still use their Help Desk for your "what's the name of that movie..." query if you are registered but not authenticated -- SteveCrook 11:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Authentication

message: At the end of the Overview section, it says:
"Many of these (message boards) are quite heated and sometimes slump into endless pages of insults very easily."
Although I agree with the sentiment (indeed, they can get quite insulting), is this a valid thing to include in Wikipedia or does it stray into original research? Ccm043 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
*Oppose This is not like CNN, you never hear someone say "Cable News Network" (and if they do, they are usually talking about cable news channels in general). Internet Movie Database is just as common as it's abbreviated form. TJ Spyke 23:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey