Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fake IMDB credits

peabee.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 260 posts

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#111

Post by johannes1234321 »

nostromo wrote: post #99
rapind wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's about keeping the masses consuming rather than creating. No, it’s about moderation cost and preventing discussions that can hurt their brand or partners or customers. Also SEO spam whackamole.

For prominent news sites, controlling the narrative was a big motivation in removing comments. Many journalists were open about how they didn’t like how comments would question the data or conclusions in their articles. There were too many heckling comments from the peanut gallery so they closed it entirely.

For controlling the narratives comments would be great: rank agreeing comments up to show that many people share the view.

However the reality is that moderating comments is a pain. Too many people writing the most crazy stuff. It doesn't take many "passionate" commentors to ruin a section. One has to simply browse through Facebook comments on any popular topic.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#112

Post by johannes1234321 »

chx wrote: post #110
jwilk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is not considered reliable either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipe... > Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. But, unlike IMDB, it's (supposed to be) verifiable.

Except you can use obscure dead tree books as sources and no one will take the effort to check whether the book indeed says so. Use a book obscure enough -- especially in a non-English language -- and it becomes almost impossible to execute said check.

It depend so. The amount of trust I want to give. By citing an obscure book I can judge the fact "hm, that book sounds obscure, why isn't there some other source?" and then decide how much weight I give to it.

And if I don't have the book at hand I can identify the person who added the citation and can see what other edits they did to judge their domain knowledge.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#113

Post by rurban »

dav_Oz wrote: post #14

I remember the imdb-ratings on movies from India were also absurdly high, I brushed it off as a cultural thing back then; but unfortunately [0] the rigging seems to be norm on imdb across the board (not limited to India). [0] https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/the-kashmir...

Indian fake ratings are a big thing, but from my own experience collecting good ratings, I can attest that keeping fakes out if the system is a big effort, and it cannot be done manually. I implemented a complicated but fair statistical system to keep fake ratings out from my site. But I'm only doing the top 3 film festivals, not all the crap. The manual blacklist is still huge.

In the west the biggest offender is A24 btw.

And to be fair to the Indian movies: The top Indian movies are usually better than the best western movies. But we didn't have top Indian movies for almost over a decade now.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#114

Post by sizzle »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #80
squarefoot wrote: post #66

IMDB lost all my respect many years ago when they made clear with their actions that they support fake reviews. When the problem started to grow beyond the occasional vandalism, they still had a very effective discussion section in which users soon began to expose fake reviews. Their response? Of course remove the discussion section! IMDB today has some use for their database only; but they lost any credibility on ev…

Comment sections on many websites across the net got scrapped around the same time. Ostensibly because some people use them to say nasty things, but really I think it's about keeping the masses consuming rather than creating. The corporations prefer that creation of content and narratives be restricted to an elite few, while the masses dutifully consume. At the end of the day it's about protecting their bottom line.

Someone should build a dead simple extension that adds comments back to every website.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#115

Post by [deleted] »

squarefoot wrote: post #66

IMDB lost all my respect many years ago when they made clear with their actions that they support fake reviews. When the problem started to grow beyond the occasional vandalism, they still had a very effective discussion section in which users soon began to expose fake reviews. Their response? Of course remove the discussion section! IMDB today has some use for their database only; but they lost any credibility on ev…

[deleted]

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#116

Post by [deleted] »

dav_Oz wrote: post #14

I remember the imdb-ratings on movies from India were also absurdly high, I brushed it off as a cultural thing back then; but unfortunately [0] the rigging seems to be norm on imdb across the board (not limited to India). [0] https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/the-kashmir...

[deleted]

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#117

Post by [deleted] »

UIUC_06 wrote: post #18

Poor boys from India game a system that was set up by Rich Tech Bros in Silicon Valley to fund their "family foundations" and 20-room houses in Atherton? I don't call it Outrage; I call it "Slumdog Millionaire: Part II"

[deleted]

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#118

Post by svat »

UIUC_06 wrote: post #82
hackernewds wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using "Slumdog Millionaire" in the same context that Indians here despise the movie for. Using it as a pretext for focusing on the poverty in India as almost a fetishized poking from the West (ironically by the British)

I haven't actually been to India, but I'm reliably informed that there IS some poverty there. Is that incorrect?

As someone wrote:[1]

> Let’s say I made a movie about the US where an African-American boy born in the hood, has his mother sell him to a pedophile pop icon, after which he gets molested by a priest from his church, following which he gets tied up to the back of a truck and dragged on the road by KKK clansmen. Then he is arrested and sodomized by a policeman with a rod, after which he is attacked by a gang of illegal immigrants, and then uses these life experiences to win “Beauty and The Geek”.

> Even though each of these incidents have actually happened in the United States of America, I would be accused of spinning a fantastic yarn that has no grounding in reality, that has no connection to the “American experience” and my motivations would be questioned, no matter how cinematically spectacular I made my movie.

[1]: https://greatbong.net/2008/12/29/slumdog-millionaire-the-rev...

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#119

Post by andrewfromx »

croes wrote: post #4

Reminds of this "Man fools security to backstage at a Peking Duk gig by changing the band's Wikipedia page to describe himself as a family member" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3345074/Man-fools-s...

Changing a wikipedia article to get past Security is literally an episode of Mr. Robot Season 1. https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/62560-mr-robot

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#120

Post by throwawayaug8 »

jwilk wrote: post #48
leephillips wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s hilarious. Wikipedia classifies IMDB as unreliable because...anyone can edit its pages.

Wikipedia is not considered reliable either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipe... > Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. But, unlike IMDB, it's (supposed to be) verifiable.

According to Wikipedia Elon Musk is the founder of Tesla. That's how reliable Wikipedia is
Post reply on HN