Banned keywords reappearing in different guise

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 7 days ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
A few years ago, "male-female-relationship" was rightfully banned as a keyword.  Now, "man-woman-relationship" has appeared.  (I just submitted deletions.) "man-woman-relationship" should also be banned, as should the stand-alone "man" and "woman" keywords.  They are too general, and could be applied to millions of titles!

Similarly, there is also a problem with the keywords implying "objectification."  It's as if someone(s) has (have) been influenced by their gender studies classes in college, and are  applying these keywords in a misguided attempt for political correctness.  "objectification-of-men," "objectilfication-of-women,: "male-objectification," "female-objectificstion," "women-as-object" (but, interestingly, no " men-as-object"), etc. should all be deleted and banned.

One could easily and logically argue that ALL titles utilize objectification.  How can anyone suggest that Rudolph Valentino, Clark, Gable, Jean Harlow, Tyrone Power, Lana Turner, Erroll Flynn, Ava Gardner, Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, etc., etc., etc. were NOT objectified? Any title with "bare-chested-male" and/or "bare-breasts" implies objectification.  Any title with "nudity" implies objectification.  Any title in the Romance genre implies objectification.  And, most certainly, ALL Adult titles utilize objectification.  The "objectification" keywords, I suspect, could be applied to a least 97% of all titles on IMDb.  Get rid of them.
Photo of Bradley Kent

Bradley Kent

  • 69 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes

Posted 4 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Steve Crook

Steve Crook, Champion

  • 1286 Posts
  • 1558 Reply Likes
Hello Bradley
That's one of the joys (or curses) of the English language. There are always many different ways to say everything. 
 
Whatever you think of to describe something like "male-female-relationship", as soon as you've described one alias for it, someone will think of a different one. 
 
    Steve
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 1055 Posts
  • 1451 Reply Likes
Steve,

that is the case for almost any language! I'd rather say that this is the joy (or curse) of any open collaborative website! :)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 3865 Posts
  • 4410 Reply Likes
Not all movies have a man (a grown male human) in them. Not all movies have a woman (a grown female human) in them. So, that's why we have standalone keywords for those.
Photo of Bradley Kent

Bradley Kent

  • 69 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
But the overwhelming majority of titles have a "man" and/or "woman" in them.  Abstract and nature and some other particular titles may not have a "person" in them, but this would account for a very small minority, considering the number of titles in the database.

If the database were complete (which, of course, it never will be), trying to search using a "man" or "woman" keyword would entail close to  the entire title listing.
 
P.S. "all-male-cast" and "all-female-cast" and "all-child-cast" are very valuably keywords, by the way.
(Edited)
Photo of Bradley Kent

Bradley Kent

  • 69 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
And... according to the guidelines, duplicates are to be avoided.  "man-womam-relationship"  is certainly included in the old "male-female-relationshi" keyword, which, of course, was deleted 'en masse' and banned.

Synonyms, which exactly or nearly completely represent a SAME thing, just clutter up the keyword database.
(Edited)
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 10742 Posts
  • 5651 Reply Likes
Hi Bradley -

Thanks for your report and comments, I have filed a ticket for our editorial team who will review the Keyword listing shortly.  As soon as I have an update on the actions taken I will let you know here.  Cheers!
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Any response from the "editorial team"?
Photo of Will

Will, Employee

  • 2358 Posts
  • 1766 Reply Likes
Hi Phil,

Not as of yet, the ticket is still pending. The editors will update once this has been actioned.

Regards,
Will
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 3865 Posts
  • 4410 Reply Likes
Something should be done to make it clearer which keywords are banned.
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
That "list" could be made public by IMDb.  Or, at least enforced so these problems do not continue to reoccur.
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Any response yet?  There must be a lot of discussing going on!
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Why no response?
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
I can't believe it ... or CAN I!  Still no response!  No action!  The "editorial team" should be renamed the "no response team" or the "no action" team.
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Or... the "still pending team"?
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 3863 Posts
  • 4405 Reply Likes
Maybe they just don't give a hyutinini.
[uhoh][laugh][evil2][laugh]
(Edited)
Photo of CliffJ

CliffJ

  • 2237 Posts
  • 2074 Reply Likes
You rethought your reply Jeorj?
Well Frak ME! Battlestar Galactica speak! G rated worldwide accepted cuss word.
LOL
Related image
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Sometimes, if feels like there are less than ten of us in the entire world who care about keywords being objective and germane and not duplicitous and in a consistent format.
Photo of Elizabeth

Elizabeth, Employee

  • 65 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
Hi Phil,

This ticket is still pending review by our team of editors. Once it's been actioned, the editors will provide updated information here.

Thank you. 
Photo of CliffJ

CliffJ

  • 2253 Posts
  • 2081 Reply Likes
Banning words...Hmmmm.
Leads to banning books.
Leads to banning thought.
Leads to banning something someone else likes.
Leads to.......You get the slippery slope theory!!
Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Information = objectification?
You are being politely ignored by IMDb.
My Dollar ninety eight beauty show sense worth!

Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
These are not keywords that I want banned, but keywords that IMDb banned.  "Banning" is perhaps not the right word.  "Rejected keywords" might be better.  It's all meant to adhere to IMDb's own guidelines, like rejecting duplications, keywords that are "too general," most plurals, etc.
Photo of CliffJ

CliffJ

  • 2253 Posts
  • 2081 Reply Likes
It's a slow problems day....I .....I .....I can't resist it!
Major Keywords are needed they are better than General Keywords.
And we should not keep them Private either!
Corporal punishment will ensue if violated repeatedly!
I need a Military brain curfew!
(Edited)
Photo of CliffJ

CliffJ

  • 2253 Posts
  • 2081 Reply Likes
Phil comments were directed at Bradley Kent

And IMDb
(Edited)
Photo of Will

Will, Employee

  • 2358 Posts
  • 1766 Reply Likes
Hi BradleyKent,

I agree that man-woman-relationship is the same as male-female-relationship, however I'm not sure why we ever banned that as a keyword as I'm sure users would find that search term useful. If it plays a part in the plot of the title I'm not sure why this wouldn't be considered as ineligible and we should remove this block and re-enable those keywords. I don't see any point in our guide which would make the keyword male-female-relationship ineligible.

The same goes for objectification keywords, for example if you were writing a dissertation on objectification in film then having a list of titles on IMDb that you can reference would be incredibly helpful. There is a big difference between Romance as a genre and the objectification of a male or female within a film.

There are of course some keywords that should be banned, however, as a general rule if it is a term that somebody can use to find a sub-set of titles on IMDb then it should be considered of worth as a keyword. Please note that the main purpose of keywords is to allow visitors to easily search and discover titles.

Regards,
Will
(Edited)
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 4614 Posts
  • 4220 Reply Likes
Will said they should remove the block, not that the keyword is currently listed.

Is Phil Boroff related to Bradley Kent?
Photo of Will

Will, Employee

  • 2358 Posts
  • 1766 Reply Likes
Hi Phil,

We've now re-enabled those keywords, removed the block and added in an auto-convert for man-woman-relationship to male-female-relationship and vice versa. This may take a couple of days to be reflected on the site.

Regards,
Will
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Wow!  This is not the response I excepted at all!  As such, you will need to NOT "auto-convert" but ADD the male-female-relationship keyword to EVERY title that already has husband-wife-relationship, boyfriend-girlfriend-relationship, boy-girl-relationship, uncle-niece-relationship, grandfather--granddaughter-relationship, stepfather-stepdaughter-relationship, etc., etc., etc.  I estimate that around 95% of ALL titles in the database could qualify for the male-female-relationship keyword.

Because of this, I am once again suggesting that the male-female-relationship keyword is redundant and unnecessary.

I did not previously know that there was an auto-convert process.  I could easily suggest several hundred existing keywords that need to be auto-converted.
(Edited)
Photo of Will

Will, Employee

  • 2358 Posts
  • 1766 Reply Likes
Thanks for your feedback, however this will remain on the site as other users can use that term to search and discover titles. There is a reason we do not auto-convert many keywords, it's because users can still search for that term and discover titles which they can't do if you replace it with another keyword.

Regards,
Will 
Photo of Phil Boroff

Phil Boroff

  • 142 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Please do a search of the male-female-relationship keyword. The response will be zero-none-nada titles!

A Keyword Cross Reference Index would allow a search for any keyword.  Also, what ever happened to the rule to avoid duplicate keywords?

Your policy seems to be one of laissez-faire where anything goes.
(Edited)