Quality Control Concern / Feature Request: Preserving the Work of Active and Retired Plot Writers on IMDb

In a recent response regarding unsolicited alterations and arbitrary deletions of plot summaries, kind IMDb Support member Enzo encouraged me to share my experience with the IMDb User Community to raise awareness and drive future improvements.

I am bringing up a systemic issue: the vulnerability of existing plot summaries, or reviews—a long-standing problem that impacts the quality, reliability, and safety of data on the platform.

This is the link to the IMDb help page:

https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/plots/G56STCKTK7ESG7CP#

The issue is not a lack of guidelines or rules; the problem is that they can be easily bent or broken.

Concrete Examples of the Flaw.

Example 1 (Rosemary’s Baby, tt0063522, #260314-133139-936000)

My original summary was rewritten to include broken grammar and outright nonsensical, vandalized text, completely sabotaging the integrity of the text.

The edited plot: “Rosemary Woodhouse, a young Catholic homemaker dreaming of starting a family, and Guy, her struggling actor husband, move into The Bramford, an imposing New York City building with a truckload past. Surrounded by unsettling stories about mysterious residents and eerie occurrences, the new tenants befriend Roman and Minnie Castevet, their amiable next-door neighbors. Shortly after, you gets pregnancy. At last, things are looking up. However, as alarming hints of a sinister conspiracy emerge, suspicion and mental agony get the best of her. Undoubtedly, the inexperienced mother-to-be is overreacting; no one wants to play Rosemary off from her circle of friends. Then again, why is everyone so conveniently eager to rat the whole thing and I get a er in the Betty And above all else, why is Guy allowing it?”

Example 2 (Obsession, tt37287335)

My carefully paced plot summary, which ended on a strong thematic note, had an awkward, clunky extension tacked onto it ("Baron tries to reverse or cancel the wish... They do suggest a way to end it"), ruining its narrative punch. Enzo restored it for me.

Now, I ask you to consider something.

What would you do if you were in my place? Would you continue contributing plots, knowing beforehand that their future is uncertain? And what about the work of retired plot authors like Les Adams and jhailey—respected contributors who supported IMDb long before I even knew what an IMDb contributor was? Their work, too, is suffering the same fate.

Proposed Solutions for IMDb.

To protect the integrity of content and keep quality contributors motivated, I strongly urge IMDb to consider implementing low-friction, high-impact improvements:

1. Author Notification & Permanent Protection System: Introduce automated alerts for active writers, alongside baseline platform-level protection for all historical contributions—ensuring that the work of retired or legacy writers cannot be silently degraded over time.

2. Text Protection Protocols: Enforce stricter checks against reckless overwriting or silent deletions, ensuring that competing plots are submitted as alternative versions under separate bylines rather than destroying prior work or hijacking existing bylines (Edited by, Corrected by, etc.).

3. Contributor Dashboards: Provide a basic tracking tool or portfolio view against zero visibility so writers can easily audit their live submissions.

If you are a writer, film enthusiast, or someone who values the long-term preservation of quality data on IMDb, please chime in or vote on this so we can make IMDb a safe, worry-free place that rewards loyalty and commitment rather than promoting quantity over quality.

P.S. Please forgive me if I'm slow to reply; between other commitments and everyday life, finding time for IMDb discussions is a bit limited for me right now.