I think IMDb has the right approach. The only bar seems to be that someone cares enough about the video to add it. They have a ton of obscure videos, including a number of youtube videos. A...
I think IMDb has the right approach. The only bar seems to be that someone cares enough about the video to add it. They have a ton of obscure videos, including a number of youtube videos. A handful of Joel Haver's videos are on there. The vast majority of youtube videos aren't on IMDb because why bother putting them there. The obscure videos don't in any way get in the way of finding information about the popular movies.
The line between amateur home videos and professional films is getting blurry. There are a number of youtube videos that have way more views than many of the independent films shown at festivals will ever get. The production values of some youtube videos is really good, well above what anyone sensible would call amateur.
If they must have a hard cutoff, maybe the appropriate thing to do would be to set either a minimum number of views, or a minimum revenue.
TMDb has a clause in their "contribution bible" that specifically states popularity on YouTube does not grant an exception to their amateur content restriction, so it seems they have considered...
TMDb has a clause in their "contribution bible" that specifically states popularity on YouTube does not grant an exception to their amateur content restriction, so it seems they have considered and rejected that idea.
If the goal is to be a comprehensive and authoritative catalog of everything that falls within a particular definition of a movie, and not just a catalog of whatever a specific community of users cares about (I'm assuming that on TMDb's behalf for argument's sake--I don't actually know if that's their goal), I can see how allowing YouTube videos would become a huge problem. I think that even with view count restrictions, the sheer volume of existing and new daily titles that now fall under the scope of what you want to catalog would become so massive that you've just placed your goal miles outside the realm of achievability.
Whether or not a movie database that excludes independently owned and distributed films has value above a database with looser restrictions but isn't actively trying to be comprehensive is another matter. I think I agree with you that IMDb's approach is better for the same reasons you said.
Should every video on YouTube be considered a "movie"? If not how do you draw a meaningful distinction between movie and non-movie? Is that even a worthwhile question to answer?
Should every video on YouTube be considered a "movie"? If not how do you draw a meaningful distinction between movie and non-movie? Is that even a worthwhile question to answer?
I think IMDb has the right approach. The only bar seems to be that someone cares enough about the video to add it. They have a ton of obscure videos, including a number of youtube videos. A handful of Joel Haver's videos are on there. The vast majority of youtube videos aren't on IMDb because why bother putting them there. The obscure videos don't in any way get in the way of finding information about the popular movies.
The line between amateur home videos and professional films is getting blurry. There are a number of youtube videos that have way more views than many of the independent films shown at festivals will ever get. The production values of some youtube videos is really good, well above what anyone sensible would call amateur.
If they must have a hard cutoff, maybe the appropriate thing to do would be to set either a minimum number of views, or a minimum revenue.
TMDb has a clause in their "contribution bible" that specifically states popularity on YouTube does not grant an exception to their amateur content restriction, so it seems they have considered and rejected that idea.
If the goal is to be a comprehensive and authoritative catalog of everything that falls within a particular definition of a movie, and not just a catalog of whatever a specific community of users cares about (I'm assuming that on TMDb's behalf for argument's sake--I don't actually know if that's their goal), I can see how allowing YouTube videos would become a huge problem. I think that even with view count restrictions, the sheer volume of existing and new daily titles that now fall under the scope of what you want to catalog would become so massive that you've just placed your goal miles outside the realm of achievability.
Whether or not a movie database that excludes independently owned and distributed films has value above a database with looser restrictions but isn't actively trying to be comprehensive is another matter. I think I agree with you that IMDb's approach is better for the same reasons you said.
Should every video on YouTube be considered a "movie"? If not how do you draw a meaningful distinction between movie and non-movie? Is that even a worthwhile question to answer?