|
|
Post by troliusmaximus on Apr 6, 2017 13:25:08 GMT
My take:It was to do with 1) the user feedback films were getting and how they influence the all-important 'first fortnight' of box office, and 2) with the open discussions people were having regarding some of the more 'contentious' subject matter relating to films ( e.g., political issues associated with films; actors and their non film-specific related endeavours etc.) To example a couple of specific, potential scenarios: • A big budget film got less than desirable reception from its early screening/s, and feedback filtered down ― through websites like IMDb ― and literally turned people away from paying to see a movie; in turn lowering the revenue relative to projected turnover. Seeing as the first couple of weekends largely make or break films nowadays, this could have been viewed as far too powerful a tool for consumers to have access to, and therefore targeted for 'termination'. • Powerful stars with influence bringing their weight to bare: Tom Cruise reads some anti-Scientology related back and forth ― perhaps under a film critical of said scammer cult ― and decides to send in the "squirrel busters" to bust up the IMDb love-in. Preceding the shut-down on Feb 20, I read many topics and opinions suggesting it was all about moderation / trolls / shills, and that IMDb (with its claimed 250,000,000 regular visitors) could not afford the mods required to keep the place respectable. To me, this is the story they fed to normies and which only normies lapped up. Had they left the extant posts intact and archived them, I'd be far more inclined to entertain this argument. However, since they erased all traces of the discussion that took place at the boards, there's no way their intentions came from a wholly wholesome place. What's far more likely, in my opinion, is that sponsors, and the like, sent not-to-ambiguous encouragement to websites, like IMDb, to either start implementing Gestapo-like policing of its communal message boards ― particularly for material that was deemed 'inauspicious' for the industry (even if it was edifying for consumers) ― or risk losing $upport. I'll cite an anecdote of my own to buttress my claim: Posted a "Hollywood Jews are vindictive" thread a couple of months before the shut-down, in light of Mel Gibson's return to directing ( Hacksaw Ridge). It got a few responses (largely in agreement). A few weeks later, without as much as a by your leave, all my posts (for ~3.5 years) were purged...! Around that time, I had not posted many topics ― much less contentious ones ― and had not received any moderations (I knew of) or any warnings (if applicable). Yet, after I made said post, within a couple of weeks, all my posting history was wiped. So, I posit that the IMDb discussion boards were closed (and wiped) because TPTB did not like what they read and they felt it potentially affected their money-making and propaganda disseminating ventures. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 15:11:27 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Apr 6, 2017 15:16:55 GMT
My take:It was to do with 1) the user feedback films were getting and how they influence the all-important 'first fortnight' of box office, and 2) with the open discussions people were having regarding some of the more 'contentious' subject matter relating to films ( e.g., political issues associated with films; actors and their non film-specific related endeavours etc.) To example a couple of specific, potential scenarios: • A big budget film got less than desirable reception from its early screening/s, and feedback filtered down ― through websites like IMDb ― and literally turned people away from paying to see a movie; in turn lowering the revenue relative to projected turnover. Seeing as the first couple of weekends largely make or break films nowadays, this could have been viewed as far too powerful a tool for consumers to have access to, and therefore targeted for 'termination'. • Powerful stars with influence bringing their weight to bare: Tom Cruise reads some anti-Scientology related back and forth ― perhaps under a film critical of said scammer cult ― and decides to send in the "squirrel busters" to bust up the IMDb love-in. Preceding the shut-down on Feb 20, I read many topics and opinions suggesting it was all about moderation / trolls / shills, and that IMDb (with its claimed 250,000,000 regular visitors) could not afford the mods required to keep the place respectable. To me, this is the story they fed to normies and which only normies lapped up. Had they left the extant posts intact and archived them, I'd be far more inclined to entertain this argument. However, since they erased all traces of the discussion that took place at the boards, there's no way their intentions came from a wholly wholesome place. What's far more likely, in my opinion, is that sponsors, and the like, sent not-to-ambiguous encouragement to websites, like IMDb, to either start implementing Gestapo-like policing of its communal message boards ― particularly for material that was deemed 'inauspicious' for the industry (even if it was edifying for consumers) ― or risk losing $upport. I'll cite an anecdote of my own to buttress my claim: Posted a "Hollywood Jews are vindictive" thread a couple of months before the shut-down, in light of Mel Gibson's return to directing ( Hacksaw Ridge). It got a few responses (largely in agreement). A few weeks later, without as much as a by your leave, all my posts (for ~3.5 years) were purged...! Around that time, I had not posted many topics ― much less contentious ones ― and had not received any moderations (I knew of) or any warnings (if applicable). Yet, after I made said post, within a couple of weeks, all my posting history was wiped. So, I posit that the IMDb discussion boards were closed (and wiped) because TPTB did not like what they read and they felt it potentially affected their money-making and propaganda disseminating ventures. This. This is telling. I think it was that they got tired of hearing from users, sponsors, and maybe even actors, directors, and producers (more likely people who represent them) about all the negativity there, so they simply disabled the feature. |
|
|
|
Post by medjay on Apr 6, 2017 17:16:47 GMT
Didn't they introduce the F rating right after the shutdown?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 6, 2017 18:51:42 GMT
This. This is telling. I think it was that they got tired of hearing from users, sponsors, and maybe even actors, directors, and producers (more likely people who represent them) about all the negativity there, so they simply disabled the feature.
That seems most likely. Probably suffered one too many phone rants courtesy of Les Grossman or some diva's agent about her real age. Stupid stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 19:00:39 GMT
That seems most likely. Probably suffered one too many phone rants courtesy of Les Grossman or some diva's agent about her real age. Stupid stuff. Lol. That issue had nothing to do with the boards. |
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Apr 6, 2017 19:42:22 GMT
It's simple, they didnt make any money with it. Thats not hard to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 6, 2017 19:57:54 GMT
Part of Trump's environment wipeout
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 20:30:13 GMT
It's simple, they didnt make any money with it. Thats not hard to understand. This is the correct answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Sandman on Apr 7, 2017 0:56:19 GMT
It's simple, they didnt make any money with it. Thats not hard to understand. This is the correct answer. Yep. If it made money we would still be posting there. |
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Apr 7, 2017 1:57:53 GMT
This is the correct answer. Yep. If it made money we would still be posting there. |
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Apr 7, 2017 8:09:36 GMT
It was all about $$$$$$$
|
|
Prelude
New Member
@prelude
Posts: 48
 
|
Post by Prelude on Apr 7, 2017 8:16:23 GMT
People saying it's because they didn't make money from having the boards -- but think about it: the boards existed for what? Something like twenty years, give or take?
If they were upset that it didn't make them money, why would they still be operating the boards for pretty much two decades, and even updating stuff, changing the emoticons a couple of years ago, etc, if money was the issue?
After 20 years of having boards I highly doubt "Wow, these don't generate us any money, lets dump it" was suddenly the concern.
You don't keep doing something for that long and then suddenly wake up and worry how it never generated money.
That's NOT the reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flynn on Apr 7, 2017 16:53:23 GMT
It's simple, they didnt make any money with it. Thats not hard to understand. This is the correct answer. I've never understood how the boards don't generate revenue. In my observations, the board users were the people who stayed the longest on IMDb. Back when the boards were around, the horror board, for instance, would have contests where members would find, rate, and review movies on IMDb, in doing so spending a lot of time using the site. Isn't that a good thing? That's a lot of exposure to ads. I can see how this kind of interaction might not be measurable, but it did happen. I would think that the amount of time users now spend on the site is far less sizeable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 17:48:50 GMT
I've never understood how the boards don't generate revenue. In my observations, the board users were the people who stayed the longest on IMDb. Back when the boards were around, the horror board, for instance, would have contests where members would find, rate, and review movies on IMDb, in doing so spending a lot of time using the site. Isn't that a good thing? That's a lot of exposure to ads. I can see how this kind of interaction might not be measurable, but it did happen. I would think that the amount of time users now spend on the site is far less sizeable. This may be true within the very small percentage of overall IMDB users that were board users. But in the overall scheme of things, it didn't mean much or else this decision wouldn't have been made.... |
|
|
|
Post by ironjade on Apr 7, 2017 17:58:49 GMT
The owners were to cheap to moderate them properly and relied on some half-assed automatic system instead. Much good it did them.
|
|
|
|
Post by deeznutz on Apr 8, 2017 1:28:27 GMT
I can understand them just closing them so no more comments and moderating.
But I think they should of done just that close them.
As people have said comments on old and obscure films are lost now, there are forums like this but to just wipe them, that I can't understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 1:30:59 GMT
My take:It was to do with 1) the user feedback films were getting and how they influence the all-important 'first fortnight' of box office, and 2) with the open discussions people were having regarding some of the more 'contentious' subject matter relating to films (e.g., political issues associated with films; actors and their non film-specific related endeavours etc.)To example a couple of specific, potential scenarios: • A big budget film got less than desirable reception from its early screening/s, and feedback filtered down ― through websites like IMDb ― and literally turned people away from paying to see a movie; in turn lowering the revenue relative to projected turnover. Seeing as the first couple of weekends largely make or break films nowadays, this could have been viewed as far too powerful a tool for consumers to have access to, and therefore targeted for 'termination'. • Powerful stars with influence bringing their weight to bare: Tom Cruise reads some anti-Scientology related back and forth ― perhaps under a film critical of said scammer cult ― and decides to send in the "squirrel busters" to bust up the IMDb love-in. Preceding the shut-down on Feb 20, I read many topics and opinions suggesting it was all about moderation / trolls / shills, and that IMDb (with its claimed 250,000,000 regular visitors) could not afford the mods required to keep the place respectable. To me, this is the story they fed to normies and which only normies lapped up. Had they left the extant posts intact and archived them, I'd be far more inclined to entertain this argument. However, since they erased all traces of the discussion that took place at the boards, there's no way their intentions came from a wholly wholesome place. What's far more likely, in my opinion, is that sponsors, and the like, sent not-to-ambiguous encouragement to websites, like IMDb, to either start implementing Gestapo-like policing of its communal message boards ― particularly for material that was deemed 'inauspicious' for the industry (even if it was edifying for consumers) ― or risk losing $upport.I'll cite an anecdote of my own to buttress my claim: Posted a "Hollywood Jews are vindictive" thread a couple of months before the shut-down, in light of Mel Gibson's return to directing ( Hacksaw Ridge). It got a few responses (largely in agreement). A few weeks later, without as much as a by your leave, all my posts (for ~3.5 years) were purged...! Around that time, I had not posted many topics ― much less contentious ones ― and had not received any moderations (I knew of) or any warnings (if applicable). Yet, after I made said post, within a couple of weeks, all my posting history was wiped. So, I posit that the IMDb discussion boards were closed (and wiped) because TPTB did not like what they read and they felt it potentially affected their money-making and propaganda disseminating ventures. I bold above. |
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Apr 8, 2017 7:39:02 GMT
I could do with some fresh blood on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Miles Bennell on Apr 9, 2017 17:06:37 GMT
People saying it's because they didn't make money from having the boards -- but think about it: the boards existed for what? Something like twenty years, give or take? If they were upset that it didn't make them money, why would they...be operating the boards for pretty much two decades, and even updating stuff, changing the emoticons a couple of years ago, etc, if money was the issue? After 20 years of having boards I highly doubt "Wow, these don't generate us any money, lets dump it" was suddenly the concern. You don't keep doing something for that long and then suddenly wake up and worry how it never generated money. That's NOT the reason. Agreed. The only way money might be involved is if overall revenues for IMDb were already declining and they could no longer a) afford 24/7 monitoring or/and b) afford additional equipment or upgrades to take on additional data and add other features. And available storage space certainly could be a reason: maybe a year before dumping the boards, they eliminated inactive posts beyond 3 months on all boards which had previously held posts indefinitely. But then, this could also connect to the fact that some posts included information that IMDb wasn't the perfect movie website Needham likes to boast it is, and the longer these hung around, the more it confronted his ego with his imperfections. "Not enough to get rid of those damned older posts showing that; I'll do them all in". IMDb had no boards in the beginning; it was first and foremost a data-content site. It was only around 2000 when the first boards appeared, and those were mostly movie-oriented. The "Sandbox" was the only board for "heated discussion" including off-topic stuff like politics and religion. When that got too heated for some, the "Soapbox" was added, and when *that* got too heated, along came all the other "mundane" topics, around 2005 or so. Trolling and negativity was always an issue with these boards, and they never made a dime. But they did increase the number of "hits" to the site, people coming back time and again to argue, even troll and bait, occasionally vandalize, over some sociopolitical sore spot not the least related to movies, TV, streaming, etc. And Needless was big on using the number of "hits" from "all over the world" to justify IMDb's existence, prominence and power among fans and industry alike. So mostly it seems to me to come down to either egoistic whim - the boards have just become too boring or distracting to His Majesty to want to bother with - or internal need - to devote dwindling resources and energies to maintaining the other facets of the site. The fact that Bezos chose to speak for the decision to drop them makes me think the latter must be involved to some degree, as he has otherwise been just the site's sugar-daddy with a hands-off position toward content and management (or so CN tells it). But then again, keeping Big Business Secrets about why this or that is done has also always been a hallmark trait of IMDb's owner-management; so we likely will never really know. What's more important anyway is how and whether the move will damage the site - and, what will happen next? Might they not next choose to drop titles or groups of entries based on so-called "lack of traffic" - silent film, black-and-white product, unaddressed TV programs entries (nightly news shows, e.g.) - and just push contemporary big-ticket items? That worries me most, as there is no site operating able to just take over the trove of obscure or historical interest data, and the couple out there seem hard-put to find the manpower needed to bring them up to IMDb's (imperfect) snuff. --Col |
|
