For a movie that got an - Sin City (2005) Discussion

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

IMDB tends to do some house cleaning.

Let's be bad guys.

reply

[–] Warpspeed9 9 years ago

IMDB tends to do some house cleaning

Wonder how they decide what gets house cleaning?

I just picked out the first movie that came to mind (Batman 1989)

It got a lower rating and less votes than Sin City but it has about 115 posts.

Just don't get it.

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

It doesn't really have anything to do with rating or posts. I believe it's all about activity.

Let's be bad guys.

reply

[–] Warpspeed9 9 years ago

I believe it's all about activity.

You are probably right. Still Batman made way back in 1989 and 150 posts. Where Sin City made in 2005 and about 10 posts.

reply

[–] Tabbycat (878) 2 months ago

Sin City was not a hit.

reply

[–] Gretchen_X 9 years ago

Wonder how they decide what gets house cleaning?

I think when it starts to look like 4chan.

In football you have an adversary; in cinema that adversary is yourself.

reply

[–] mountaindewslave 8 years ago

IMDB arbitrarily goes around will delete the majority of certain films message boards sometimes. No idea why it occurs but it does

happens to a lot of fairly popular movies and when the discussions are killed like that it can discourage people to come and start new ones

she fell through a hole, and was never seen again

reply

[–] Warpspeed9 8 years ago

Now it is down to only 8 posts.

and when the discussions are killed like that it can discourage people to come and start new ones

I agree. Plus I bet some people go to posts not to start a new one but to see what others are saying then respond to them. But with only 8 posts not much to respond to.

reply

[–] akingofcomedy 8 years ago

and when the discussions are killed like that it can discourage people to come and start new ones

I agree, too. Seems like sometimes controversial films or ones where people are really passionate receive the brunt of the deletions. That would lead me to believe it's also a functional of improving civility at the boards, but that's laughable looking at most boards.

I've always thought a smarter approach might be just automatically deleting threads where no one responds within say six months. Seems like that would free up more than enough space. Of course Amazon owns imdb, so I'm surprised they don't see maintaining these conversations as something potentially positive for their video sales.

reply

[–] SolariS6 8 years ago

A better option than outright deleting threads is locking them, thus making them read-only. At least that preserves the content. Deleting them only pushes members to make shorter, less meaningless posts or dissuades intellectual members from posting at all, as those threads take a certain time investment. So what's the point if IMDb can't respect that, much less realize it? This whole site's forum has been in shambles for years, specifically the UI, no real improvement.

reply

[–] joelreitzloff 8 years ago

i personally see certain types of movies and most tv series ONLY get ppl who come on to vote good or say likewise. this is a perfect example. i basically hate this movie. i rated well over 1k of them and im usually generous and i loved almost every single similar suggestion imdb gave me. whatever

reply