A profile, an article and an interpretation are different
MovieResort connects a catalogue of works, people and organizations with content explaining their context. A profile organizes data; an article develops a question; a review or analysis offers a reading. Documented facts must not be confused with editorial judgments.
Imported data and generated texts are not considered infallible. This methodology describes our standards and checks, not a guarantee of error-free content or human review of every catalogue record.
How we choose topics and cover categories
Planning considers available works and entities, topics already covered and areas with less recent coverage. Proposals must define a useful question, an angle and necessary checks rather than repeat a synopsis or merely fill a category.
The strategy includes works and viewing guides; people and crafts; genres, countries and decades; franchises and movements; industry; festivals, awards and releases; discovery and availability. Coverage targets guide assignments but do not guarantee a daily publication in every section.
The homepage, search and listings aggregate or retrieve existing content. Institutional pages are maintained as service information: they need not become generated articles to create an appearance of activity.
The journey of an editorial piece
Proposing, drafting, approving and publishing are separate actions. A process completing a draft does not itself mean that the article is approved or visible on the website.
- Assignment: define the topic, category, related entities and research questions.
- Research: gather sources, record claims and retain uncertainties or contradictions in a dossier.
- Writing: develop context, structure and conclusions consistent with the evidence.
- Localization and media: prepare language versions and select visual resources with documented rights and relevance.
- Validation: check publication requirements and resolve identified blockers.
- Publication and maintenance: publish or schedule the piece, retain traceability and review relevant changes.
Relevant sources, not just a list of links
Research articles require at least three traceable sources. We prioritize original documentation: archives and cinematheques, credits, film institutions, festival and award bodies, documented interviews and relevant academic publications.
We seek independent sources appropriate to each claim. Three pages repeating the same press release are not three independent confirmations. A corporate source can document its own announcement but does not replace external scrutiny when evaluating the company.
Article references appear at the end with a link, title, publisher and consultation date. Dossiers and working notes are retained internally; a public bibliography does not make all those records accessible to visitors.
Claims, uncertainty and the limits of evidence
Key research claims are linked to registered sources and an explanation of their support. Documented data, interpretation and what remains unconfirmed must be distinguished. A valid link or an AI response alone does not prove a claim true.
Quotations, credits, dates, awards and personal experiences must not be invented. When sources disagree, the disagreement is retained and the version, territory or date that may explain it is identified. Missing evidence must not become a categorical conclusion.
AI use and automatic approval
AI may contribute to proposals, assisted research, writing and translation. These pieces retain their AI-assisted origin; automatic approval does not turn them into human writing or certify that a person has read every source.
The automatic path checks registered sources and evidence, required versions, alignment with the original, category-specific length, editorial blockers, classification, spoilers and media eligibility. It also checks exact duplicate versions and matching topic identifiers: this is not a universal originality guarantee or an exhaustive plagiarism detector.
Publication requires passing the checks and the configured quality threshold. That score reflects internal rules, not a percentage of truthfulness. Approval, its version and corresponding changes are recorded; failing the requirements prevents approval through this path.
The MovieResort Editorial Team and MovieResort Automated Verification profiles identify system responsibilities, not two people who reviewed the text. The manual path requires distinct authors and reviewers and versions declared human-written and human-reviewed.
Source-based criticism and first-hand viewing
A documentary review produced through the automatic process analyzes sources about a specific work. It requires a linked film and at least one primary source; a visible notice explains that it does not substantiate first-hand viewing, and it assigns no numerical rating.
A review based on viewing must document completion of the whole work and its version where relevant. Any rating must include its scale and editorial explanation. Documentary research must not be presented as a personal cinema-going experience.
Translations, titles and consistency across languages
Article publication requires complete Spanish, English, French, Italian, German and Portuguese versions. Localization must preserve facts, qualifications and interpretive boundaries; it must not add examples or claims absent from the original.
Versions are tied to a revision of the source text. When that text changes through the revision service, other versions are marked for updating and must be aligned before passing publication validation again.
A distribution title is a factual name, not a free translation. Original titles and documented territorial titles are distinguished; variants in countries sharing a language must not be invented or automatically treated as errors.
Justified categories and spoiler warnings
Tags and facets must be supported by visible content, not inferred solely from a title or added to occupy more listings. Links to works, people, companies and events must match the piece’s subject.
Articles declare a spoiler level: none, premise, moderate or complete. Fragments must not exceed the declared level; the interface hides content marked moderate or complete until visitors choose to reveal it. Labels guide reading but cannot guarantee that every reader considers the same revelation harmless.
Images and videos are also part of verification
Visual resources are checked for rights, relevance and integrity. A licence does not prove that a photograph depicts the person in a profile, and an image found beside a film title is not necessarily its poster.
Contextual illustrations must not be presented as authentic stills or portraits. Credits and usage conditions are documented per file. The media policy and image licensing guide explain these checks in more detail.
Time-sensitive information, revisions and corrections
Releases, festivals, awards and where-to-watch offers can change. Announcement, confirmation, nomination and result must be distinguished, with territory and verification date specified where relevant. Platform availability is not presumed identical across countries.
Pieces have internal review deadlines according to category; an overdue review blocks publication validation, not a promise that the entire website is checked in real time. Source revisions retain a snapshot and identify outdated translations.
A correction fixes an error; an update reflects a real change. The corrections page explains how to submit evidence and where registered corrections appear. Reporting a problem starts a review, not an automatic amendment.
Editorial independence and transparency
Cooperation with companies, festivals, archives or distributors must not be confused with editorial endorsement of their products. Relationships registered for an article appear with their disclosures; a source, an image provider and a sponsor have different roles.
Relevant conflicts and commercial relationships must be explained clearly. They must not be hidden to present a partnership as an independent opinion. The reviews and conflicts policy and commercial transparency page explain the applicable standards.
