IMDB's 'Known For' Doesn't Know Everything

I think it's safe to say many of us film bloggers, critics, and writers trust IMDB for a great deal of information. It provides us with one of the most comprehensive databases on film and television, along with user reviews, and a centralized point for movie news... for the time being we'll ignore some of their more blatant issues with the top 100.

Today I want to talk about one of IMDB's latest features: 'KNOWN FOR.' Basically, this feature siphons out the long, winding list of credits one after the other in order of release year to present you with the FOUR films most associated with the particular individual whose page you're visiting. Well, at least that's the intention.

I find very little objectionable about that idea. When you're approaching a particular actor/actress you're unfamiliar with, but wish to be, it can be nice to receive a handy 'greatest-hits' guide to help entice you. Of course, then arises the question: Just how does one calculate someone's 'Known For' films? Well, allow me to enlighten you.

According to an IMDB help page IMDB uses a 'complex' calculation when deciding what qualifies as an ideal 'Known For' candidate. The calculation is based on a collection of 'weighed' values in an effort to determine what you should associate with them. Some of the criteria for the weighing being:

• The job performed on the title (a credit as director will have more weight than a credit as production assistant).
• The frequency of credits for a particular job in the context of the person's filmography (writing credits may have more weight for someone who is more frequently credited as a writer than as a producer)
• The type of title (a credit for a theatrical feature has a different weight than a credit for a short film or a TV series)
• The popularity of the title (this takes into consideration the number of hits/page views, the average user rating, any awards won by the title and several other indicators)
• The relative importance of the credit among similar ones for the same title (for example an acting credit for someone who received top billing will weigh more than an acting credit for a cameo appearance; a single writing credit on a film will weigh more than a credit shared with several other writers, etc.) 

Alright then, fair enough. They take into account a wide variety of things, and really do an in depth look at what makes a film something demonstrably associative with that particular individual. I accepted the fact that certain minor issues would arrive, until yesterday when I came across this:

 
That's right ladies and gentlemen, Marlene Dietrich with over 54 films to her name is best known for FIGHT CLUB. Why? Well, isn't it obvious? When the song No Love, No Nothin' kicked in didn't all 403,000+ voters for Fight Club on IMDB stand up in unison and go 'HOLY *!*@ that's Marlene Dietrich.' No? Well, certainly there can be no kinks in IMDB's armor, so it must be some sort of error. I mean, the lists for Bette Davis, Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart are rather spot on! This requires further investigation!
















Ah yes, who can forget Judy Garland's amazing star defining roles in Catch Me If You Can, Milk, or Wonder Boys. Personally, I've never forgotten how Gene Kelly wowed us all with the way he carried himself in Leon the Professional! If those movies don't define the very essence of the actors whose pages they are overtaking, I don't know what does...

You see, what these all have in common are 'Soundtracks.' Not always the same song, but the repetitive use of classic songs spawning from their musical days have supplied enough credits to outweigh the number of acting roles they have. Thereby giving them more credence in IMDB's calculations than to the films they actually had a part in, and anyone knows them for. If you want to note Judy Garland was an infamous singer why not just put that instead of films she had nothing to do with, and NOBODY associates with her?

I know, it's a far more complex thing to calculate relative applicability than just apply a simple weighing system based on something's current popularity, but you put yourself into this situation. The main issue with IMDB's Known For system, which helps in making it inherently more flawed than the type you find in Wikipedia's articles, is simply that it removes the HUMAN element.

Sure, giving precedence to a film more people have seen seems like a perfectly reasonable calculation, but it fails to account for many of the issues currently facing the way Hollywood does billing. I would argue Pete Postlethwaite (RIP!) is far more Known For his role in The Town, Last of the Mahicans, or his Oscar nominated turn in In The Name of the Father, than he is for the rough two minutes he was in Inception. Or that just because Fred Astaire did 60 episodes of the Alcoa Premiere doesn't mean he's remembered more for that than the entire collection of Fred Astaire - Ginger Rogers films (that's right, not ONE Astaire - Rogers production made IMDB's 'Known For').

Hitchcock's two TV shows offset many of his films

The fix for this is a rather simple thing: Allow for users to vote on 'Known For.' Much in the same way that they can vote for how much they like a particular film, allow them to vote on how much they associate an actor with a movie. You can do this one of two ways: 1) Allow them to vote up or vote down a movie on that person's resume or 2) Let them vote on each films associative value to that person individually (in fairness I think #1 is easier to code).

Another thing IMDB can do is devalue those films which take place after the actor's death. You already disassociate through noting if something was 'archive footage,' why not do it for songs as well?

The sheer scale of IMDB's users will easily offset any tomfoolery or lack of relevant knowledge, creating a perfectly acceptable aggregate. Sure, there's going to be a few of the lesser known actors that struggle with maintaining their Known For, but in the long run these things will work themselves out.

It's unfortunate, but as of right now your efforts in simplifying things lead to added confusion, and misdirection. I know many of you probably don't care, and only pay marginal attention to the Known For, but think of it in the context of someone visiting the page for the first time. An individual who may just be getting into films and wants to know what they should check out for particularly important historical actors/actresses. It's counterproductive if the system involved in supporting them, ends up hindering them (or wind up being completely useless).

What do you think of IMDB's Known For? Do you agree with some of the things I've brought up in this article? Do you care?