Major keyword problem that needs attention

  • 2
  • Idea
  • Updated 3 months ago
I am a male feminist, and there are many keywords that should NOT be allowed.  Now, I am not in favor of banning, but these keywords are so sexist and subjective that they DO NOT meet IMDb requirements,

Although almost all keyword that includes the words "feminine" and "masculine" are suspect, I am referring to keywords like:  pretty-woman, attractive-woman, thin-and-attractive-woman, slim-and-attractive woman,. sexy-woman, sexy-legs, pretty-legs, thin-legs, shapely-legs, woman-with-masculine-hair,  woman-with-short-masculine-hair, thin-and-attractive, slim-and-attractive, etc., etc., etc.  And there are often "masculine" versions of such keywords.

With IMFDb's commitment to the f-rated keyword, and with the sociological evolution of our times, such keywords should not be allowed -- if for no other reason than they are so subjective.  Not only is beauty in the eyes of the beholder, but so are attractive, thin, etc., etc. etc.

I hope this receives some serious attention, and that those who contribute such keywords are notified that they do not meet IMDb standards and should not be submitted.


Photo of Bradley Kent

Bradley Kent

  • 148 Posts
  • 174 Reply Likes

Posted 4 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12195 Posts
  • 13840 Reply Likes
J.
You have made my point here all by yourself.
Kudos my friend.
The keyword system needs a major overhaul.

Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 844 Posts
  • 905 Reply Likes
I really hope a staffer will respond to this thread. Questions I'd like to see answered: Does IMDb feel a keyword like 'pretty-woman' or 'sexy-woman' is subjective? If so, is that a problem? Can a keyword be subjective?
Does IMDb feel a keyword like 'pretty-woman' or 'sexy-woman' serves a purpose when it can be added to about 90 per cent of all titles in the database?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12195 Posts
  • 13840 Reply Likes
They are going to act like Switzerland here!
Or like Sergeant Shultz!
Image result for schultz i know nothing gif

Photo of J.

J.

  • 279 Posts
  • 369 Reply Likes
I'm not sure many contributors, or even staffers, understand the function of keywords.

In the old days, the contributor guide even asked us to submit the keywords in order of importance, as if the order wouldn't be destroyed the minute a second contributor added his own list. On the contributor board, staffers would often make statements showing they didn't understand how keywords worked, and the contributors would have to correct them. Jon Reeves seemed to think that the most important word in a phrase (such as knife in eats-with-knife) had to appear at the beginning (e.g. knife-eaten-with) so that users could find all the related terms in alphabetical order.

Before we debate whether this or that keyword is necessary, we may want to make sure that everyone—contributors and staffers alike—understand how keywords work.


Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12195 Posts
  • 13840 Reply Likes
Back to my original statement. Keywords as they are now are useless and need a major overhaul. Clear definitions. Clear application. Clear and accurate data parameters for approval and inclusion. Approved unique keyword lists. No generic Keywords. No keyword may be used that is in a Plot Description or Summary.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6804 Posts
  • 8520 Reply Likes
To go further, keywords should be object oriented, as in one keyword being able to belong to another keyword and inheriting the parent keyword's properties, in such a way as to account for holonymy, meronymy, hypernymy and hyponymy, and whereby synonyms represent the same object, and whereby polysemes are represented by more than one object. However, this would extremely hard to implement, especially considering how no existing electronic dictionary/thesaurus/encyclopedia necessarily has it all adequately sorted out.
Photo of Horst

Horst

  • 240 Posts
  • 316 Reply Likes
this topic still going? lul

strangely enough exactly those people wasting imdb's time with this white knight nonsense who complain/wonder in other topics that/why their submissions did not get accepted (fast enough)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12195 Posts
  • 13840 Reply Likes
Huh? The only time wasted is you me and everybody making comments. Protocol on any posting on here is that if there is ongoing dialog the software pushes the topic down the list. If and if there is silence on this topic, they may finally look at it. Keyword***.......May. As this topic is huge, "They" will look at a small portion of this and mark it answered. "They will never read the whole thing. No time will have been "Wasted"


*** I just could not resist myself!!! LOL

P.S.
     That being said Col Needham may read the whole thing sifting for ideas that make some sense. Again no time by a data editor is wasted on this. It will have slowed down no processing of contributions.

Cheers Horst.
Photo of Horst

Horst

  • 240 Posts
  • 316 Reply Likes
love how imdb categorized down a self proclaimed "major keyword problem that needs a attention" to a simple "idea" :-D
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12195 Posts
  • 13840 Reply Likes
Elementary. They are adept at deduction my dear Horst!
Photo of Horst

Horst

  • 240 Posts
  • 316 Reply Likes
no1curr
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 5965 Posts
  • 6967 Reply Likes
For what it's worth, a similar question was answered by staff last year. Basically: it depends on the context and we can submit deletions of keywords we think are wrong:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...

This at least means that I as a contributor can try to do something about the problems I see.