Hello.

The reader can skip my ramblings and go on to paragraph 2!

I wasn't part of this group in the early days, but I understand that there were significantly fewer "unknown or minor role" type of pictures on the site than there are today. I agree it's better to contribute these kinds of pictures when vintage films are involved. Especially with stock footage or on-location shots, you get an idea of the economy by being aware of what kinds and what are the ages of the cars with respect to the filming date. Logically, a well-to-do neighborhood in the US in the late 1940s would have a good variety of Cadillac, Lincoln, Packard, Chrysler, Buick, Kaiser, Nash, and maybe Hudson. A film made in the US in 1959 and shot in '58 would tell a tale of the recession by seeing fewer 1958 and 1959 models and more 1951-56 cars in a neighborhood with an average income level.

I've noticed that films are being added, and existing listings to the site are being revised with added vehicles. How much is this trend taxing IMCDb's resources and bandwidth? I'm just curious; I certainly am not calling anyone out on it!

Since I don't know really which vehicles are common vs. rare for a particlular film, I leave it to the champions among the participants of this site and forum to make any judgements about any de-listing of film vehicles.

Indeed in the last 1 or 2 years the amount of background vehicles in movies has been increased, which caused some problems as not all of us agree on the amount which is acceptable.

Having too much vehicles listed of course affect the performance of the site (database size) and fills the available space more quickly. The site should still be able to grow in the next year but after that I'll probably have to find another solution.

There were discussions in the admin section about what to include or not, this was more or less summarized in the "guidelines" shown on the help page of the site.