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

151–160 of 260 posts

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#151

Post by mitchdoogle »

leephillips wrote: post #143
_trampeltier wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit of topic. Does anyone know, why the english Wikipedia site about the JFK movie does not talk about what was fiction, what was true in the movie and what is unknow? On the german page about the movie, they have a lot about it. I understand there are differences in languages. But in this case, in english, the most important information is missing. So it's just a movie, all fiction?!? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi…

> So it's just a movie, all fiction?!? Well, yes.

I've seen several movies based on real events that have a section about the level of similarity to actual events

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#152

Post by toss1 »

theamk wrote: post #56
cubancigar11 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ummm, this is SEO? Because it is a hack from google's algo? This is exactly my problem with the "hackers" here and the article's author - conflating the action with content. He finds an unscroupolous usage of that hack and generalizes without any effort that all of it is fraud. It is not okay to glide over the 'young people' part and generally not being empathetic to those trying to beat the market. If it is fraud, w…

I would love to have a way to punish people for submitting knownlingly bad information to publicly editable databases like IMDB (note I don't care about Google, it is IMDB that should be protected) Jail is too much, but it woukd be nice to have a fine of some sort, because "poisining the well" for everyone is really not cool. (in practice any such system would be abused a lot, so we are probably better off with statu…

Public service, if you think jail is too much. An hour for each word of the falsehood, 1000 hours for each picture included.

Poisoning the well is a deeply antisocial act, and just because it isn't the literal town water well, but is instead the common information well, doesn't make it less of an 'eff-you-all' act.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#153

Post by BeetleB »

UIUC_06 wrote: post #145
BeetleB wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's entertaining, I'd watch that movie. It'll be a lot better than most Hollywood movies, and frankly, most Hollywood movies are pretty far off from reality (almost every movie involving the police or detectives is crazy unrealistic). I'm not a fan of Slumdog Millionaire, but that's mostly because it's a poor story, and one that could have been a great one. Arguing it's portrayal deviates like crazy from reality…

+1 on the Hollywood trashing. Whether something is a "good story" is hard to be objective about. It depends heavily on whether the actors sell it or not. Why do you say Slumdog is a poor story? "Poor boy makes good" is the plot of a zillion movies and books. The audience knows going in that he's going to get rich and/or get the girl. It's how that either works or doesn't.

They story had many interesting arcs that could have been richer, but halfway through it was clear there wasn't any interest in developing them, and that it was just about finding/connecting with the girl. Also, the fact that the trivia questions always seemed to align with his accidental experiences was just not that interesting.

A story about a poor boy making it big by things other than "always being lucky" would have been better.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#154

Post by mitchdoogle »

theamk wrote: post #56
cubancigar11 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ummm, this is SEO? Because it is a hack from google's algo? This is exactly my problem with the "hackers" here and the article's author - conflating the action with content. He finds an unscroupolous usage of that hack and generalizes without any effort that all of it is fraud. It is not okay to glide over the 'young people' part and generally not being empathetic to those trying to beat the market. If it is fraud, w…

I would love to have a way to punish people for submitting knownlingly bad information to publicly editable databases like IMDB (note I don't care about Google, it is IMDB that should be protected) Jail is too much, but it woukd be nice to have a fine of some sort, because "poisining the well" for everyone is really not cool. (in practice any such system would be abused a lot, so we are probably better off with statu…

The only appropriate punishment is banning them from IMDB. Anything else is overkill and almost draconian

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#155

Post by PebblesRox »

chrisseaton wrote: post #39
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...

Is ‘to backstage’ a verb?

Maybe it was supposed to read “to get backstage” but someone left out the “get”.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#156

Post by PebblesRox »

radiojasper wrote: post #62

"Besides being an Actor, he tried his luck in acting and singing." I thought I was cross-eyed for a second, but it really says exactly that. [0] [0] reupload as substack URLS are daunting to say the least: https://jasper.monster/sharex/Ygg0w8VuhP.jpg

I’m guessing it’s a failure of the author to proofread. The guy’s issuewire bio has a similar sentence without the repetition: “Besides being a successful YouTuber, he tried his luck in singing and music.” Seems like whoever wrote these blurbs is working from a template.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#157

Post by throwoutway »

bragr wrote: post #11

There's a reason wikipedia classifies IMDB as an unreliable source. Apparently Michael Madsen has a real problem with people adding him to films in production in an effort to get financing. https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Michael-Madsen-Hates-IMD...

Ironically, Wikipedia is an unreliable source. I’ve given up making fixes

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#158

Post by onlyusername »

treeman79 wrote: post #139
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...

Wikipedia just had a huge controversy where definition of recession was changed to matched political narrative. https://youtu.be/gegkEkFIsWs

Worth reading the talk page[1] and and Wikipedia's own news article[2] for more nuance over this issue.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recession#ATTENTION_NEW_V...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#159

Post by UIUC_06 »

BeetleB wrote: post #153
UIUC_06 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 on the Hollywood trashing. Whether something is a "good story" is hard to be objective about. It depends heavily on whether the actors sell it or not. Why do you say Slumdog is a poor story? "Poor boy makes good" is the plot of a zillion movies and books. The audience knows going in that he's going to get rich and/or get the girl. It's how that either works or doesn't.

They story had many interesting arcs that could have been richer, but halfway through it was clear there wasn't any interest in developing them, and that it was just about finding/connecting with the girl. Also, the fact that the trivia questions always seemed to align with his accidental experiences was just not that interesting. A story about a poor boy making it big by things other than "always being lucky" would…

OK. I've forgotten most of it, except for the, umm, "memorable" scenes.

Re: Fake IMDB credits

#160

Post by meltedcapacitor »

sizzle wrote: post #114
MichaelCollins wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

twitter.com is essentially that. They're doing okay.
Post reply on HN