@keyword_expert Is Nymphomaniac: Vol. II (2013) really an Adult title? Given the director (Lars von Trier) and cast (Stellan Skarsgård, Willem Dafoe, Jamie Bell, Uma Thurman, Shia LaBeouf, Christian Slater), I'd be surprised. (I was struck by the fact that it has 15 times as many votes as any other title.) I've already submitted genre deletions for Hero and the Terror and Private Lessons.
@scgary66 I don't know, since I haven't seen it. Someone included the keyword "hardcore" on the title so that is probably how it got classified as an Adult title.
@keyword_expert That might be it; I've done some cleanup on the other two titles as well (black-panties, blue-panties, red-panties, white-panties; hand-on-someone's-leg, leg-touching, touching-thigh... yeesh). Also a problem in that the titles wouldn't turn up in most searches with the Adult genre attached.
@scgary66 Thank you for your cleanup work on these keywords. At least one troll is obsessed with adding these irrelevant "panties" keywords that have nothing to do with the plot, and then upvoting the keywords to make sure they appear at the tops of keyword pages. I know for a fact the "leggy-chick"/"almond-eyes" keyword spammer does this, and possibly other trolls as well.
I once saw on social media somebody ask just how much of a loser does someone have to be to do this -- do they wake up in the middle of the night and remember they forgot to list every single color of panties shown on a particular title? It's pathetic and ridiculous.
Fortunately with our collective work, especially from @bradley_kent, we have gotten rid of a lot of this spammer's idiosyncratic keywords like "legs-to-die-for" and "doable" and "creamy-legs." But a lot of more generic yet unwanted keywords like "pantyhose-legs," "visible-midriff," "cleavage," and of course all the "panties" keywords remain.
I am fine with those keywords being on titles when they are important to the plot, but I am a strong believer that keywords are not meant to be transcripts or snapshots of every single thing shown, spoken about, or worn by a character in a film.
@scgary66 Oh, and I forgot to even mention the "overalls" troll. Somebody is particularly obsessed with adding that keyword. I have seen it on a bunch of titles that only have a couple keywords.
@keyword_expert I've long believed that 'underwear' is a perfectly acceptable keyword for films in which a character is seen in their underwear (Back to the Future) or the underwear represents a key plot point (Anatomy of a Murder). I'm not sure we need to differentiate much between tighty-whities, white-briefs, boxer-shorts (and its quite numerous offshoots), panties, bra-and-panties, etc. One of the problems with titles having hundreds of keywords is that no one is really going to slog through all of them to evaluate their relevance. If IMDb is going to feature that tool, it's important to make its use relatively convenient.
And then there's those contributors who are apparently determined to add a keyword for every single model of car that appears onscreen. One of my cleanups from last January included the deletion or revision of:
Which reminds me -- that is another obsession of a particular troll, to add male-underwear to as many titles as possible.
I always find it bizarre and disappointing when I click on a title's keywords and see that the only keywords on the title describe various types of clothing, nudity, and sexual positions, and nothing about the actual plot of the film. Each time that happens I lose a little bit of my faith in the IMDb community.
@VonPunk Looks to me like @scgary66's genre edits to those two titles are still pending. These days if a genre edit is not approved automatically, it typically takes about 48 hours to be decided (approved or rejected).
I just saw that you edited this comment to raise the troll who adds many keywords describing every vehicle shown in a title, whether that vehicle is integral to the plot or not. Believe it or not, the person doing that is one and the same as the "leggy chick" troll. Having observed the patterns in his keyword spam now for more than two years, I am confident he is the one doing that. And in your long list, you didn't even include motor-vehicle (1193 titles), which is another favorite of his.
@scgary66 p.s. I took a look at the remaining keywords on Taking Care of Business and I am confident those keywords were added by him.
Some other signs it was him: his keyword "short-haired-female" is on there. (He used to also add keywords like "female-with-masculine-hair" and "woman-with-masculine-hair.")
And a personal pet peeve of mine -- his keyword "premarital-sex" is on there, instead of the much more accurate "casual-sex" -- in titles with sex between unmarried characters, rarely are they engaged to be married, so I just don't think "premarital" is the best descriptor for the sex.
Anyway, I am confident those keywords were added by the "leggy-chick" keyword spammer.
@keyword_expert Yeah, my bad, should've known not enough time had passed.
If they need a staff member to look at those contributions should they be declined, I'll throw mine in pot now in case I'm offline awhile if that happens.
#230102-081753-801000
It did have a keyword of 'erect-penis' that I deleted on it as there was no nudity of that kind, I had to watch the sex scenes unfortunately to verify for the submission and it seemed the male actors used pouches and nothing worse than an R-Rated movie was seen.
@keyword_expert Actually, I generally use the keyword 'premarital-sex' myself, as 'casual-sex' typically implies the absence of an ongoing relationship. Some sources define premarital sex as any sexual relations an individual person has prior to their being married, regardless of the relationship to one or more partners. I'm not sure both can't co-exist.
Well, I guess we will have to disagree about that. I am going on the dictionary definitions, and my dictionary defines "premarital" as "preceding marriage" and "casual" as "happening by chance; fortuitous" or "without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing" -- those are the intended definitions of "casual" here rather than "irregular; occasional."
We shouldn't confuse "casual sex" with "casual relationship." These are two different concepts that may or may not coincide.
In order for "premarital" to apply, there has to be some knowledge within the plot of the movie or show that there will be a later marriage (or a later marriage is at least planned), usually between the two characters who have sex.
The problem is that certain people use "premarital-sex" on IMDb as any sex between two characters who are not married to each other, regardless of whether they will later be married.
Even worse, I have seen the "premarital-sex" keyword used for "adultery" or "extramarital-sex" -- when one or more character is married, just to a different person.
The "leggy-chick" troll is definitely not taking any of these distinctions into consideration and is using the "premarital-sex" keyword for basically any type of sex between two people who are not married. And for that broad scenario, the "casual-sex" keyword is much, much more appropriate as a fallback keyword.
That's not to say that "premarital-sex" and "casual-sex" won't ever apply to the same title -- it's just that the circumstances where both keywords will apply will be relatively rare.
p.s. For the vast majority of titles where the "premarital-sex" keyword has been applied, there is no marriage (or marriage engagement) within the plot. That is the #1 reason why "premarital-sex" is an overused keyword.
"Premarital" means a later marriage, so "premarital-sex" should be reserved for plots where there is a later marriage, or at least a marriage engagement.
And just because the people having sex are single does not mean the people will later be married (or are planning to be married). In those circumstances, "premarital-sex" most likely does not apply.
Wikipedia's definition of "premarital sex" is also helpful to consider:
Until the 1950s,[2] "premarital sex" referred to sexual relations between two people prior to marrying each other.[3] During that period, it was the norm in Western societies for men and women to marry above the age of 21, and there were no considerations that one who had sex would not marry. The term was used instead of fornication, which had negative connotations,[2] and was closely related to the concept and approval of virginity, which is sexual abstinence until marriage.
The meaning has since shifted to refer to any sexual relations a person has prior to marriage and removing the emphasis on the relationship of the people involved.[3] The definition has a degree of ambiguity. It is not clear whether sex between individuals legally forbidden from marrying or the sexual relations of one uninterested in marrying would be considered premarital.[2]
Alternative terms for premarital sex have been suggested, including non-marital sex (which overlaps with adultery), youthful sex, adolescent sex, and young-adult sex. These terms also suffer from a degree of ambiguity, as the definition of having sex differs from person to person.[2]
For a long time, I've thought it might be great to have several new whole data types to address things like appearances of specific landmarks, specific memorials, general product placement and specific models of various mass-produced goods, in movies, rather than keywords being used for that purpose, but alas, keywords would be the place to start with building a body of mass information. A complication may exist in the sense of how there are already separate websites (owned by separate organizations) dealing with some of these categories, e.g. IMCDb (for terrestrial motor vehicles), IMPDb (for aerial motor vehicles), IMFDb (for weapons particularly firearms and mounted guns), since it might be tempting to acquire information from them (am etically-questionably act) instead of directly from movies or contributors who happen to participate both on IMDb and another catalog. The key thing about the aforementioned other websites is that they have a unique URL, potentially an entire profile page (with remarks and stuff), for every model of the type of physical object being tracked. Of course, this naturally brings us back to the question of character pages, which were retired some years ago, for the underlying data too hard to migrate to the new software platform. If IMDb cannot bring those back, then how would IMDb conjure up similar in regards to landmarks et al.?
Now, in a way, I brought all that up, on account of how plot keywords are often created for elements of story, picture or sound that are neither necessarily essential/instrumental/incidental to any particular scene in the basic actual plot nor necessarily somehow iconic, as they seem like minor details, whether ubiquitous or not. Sometimes that's exactly the situation with things like characters wearing underwear, or shots in which underwear (by itself) happens to be momentarily seen in a dresser drawer or the background. I recently saw The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, so this is almost the only movie that immediately comes to mind when I think of panties being instrumental to the actual plot.
on account of how plot keywords are often created for elements of story, picture or sound that are neither necessarily essential/instrumental/incidental to any particular scene in the basic actual plot nor necessarily somehow iconic, as they seem like minor details, whether ubiquitous or not.
Yes, this is exactly my point. If we allowed keyword sections to describe every single thing said, worn by a character, or shown on screen during a film, the keywords would look like the current keywords for Inland Empire (2006) (1,702 keywords at last count, most of which are worthless). That would make keywords unmanageable and nearly useless.
@keyword_expert Note that Wikipedia suggests that while premarital sex originally referred to sex in advance of an expected marriage, "the meaning has since shifted to refer to any sexual relations a person has prior to marriage and removing the emphasis on the relationship of the people involved." Most of the subsequent text relates to any sexual activity outside of marriage, regardless of the future intentions of those involved. If a couple is in a long-term sexual relationship but has no intentions of marriage, I don't think "casual sex" applies.
@keyword_expert Yikes. 1,700 keywords for a 3-hour movie comes to roughly one keyword every six seconds, making it more of a screenplay transcript or shot compendium. Surprisingly, there are none of the glut of 'reference-to-' keywords. Unsurprisingly, users have rated the relevance of only 75 of them, and none have been rated by more than three users.
Yeah, might be best if "premarital sex" and "casual sex" are not treated as synonymous. I do wonder how well it is understood that casual sex is a form of sex between two people who are not married to each other and also have no expectation of excluding others people from sex with either of them. So, casual sex is to fornication, as open marriage is to adultery, or something like that? A separated married couple (whether they regularly engage in infidelity or not) may have sex with each other but it cannot be casual? I sort of worry that "casual sex" is still too colloquial of a term to extract precise meaning from it. Is there are a superior way to describe the behavior and its abounding sentiments? What about pregnancy or the expectation thereof?
Note that Wikipedia suggests that while premarital sex originally referred to sex in advance of an expected marriage, "the meaning has since shifted to refer to any sexual relations a person has prior to marriage and removing the emphasis on the relationship of the people involved."
Yes, and the most important words there are "prior to marriage." That's my overarching point. The appropriate way to interpret the word "premarital" is that there should be a marriage involved.
If a couple is in a long-term sexual relationship but has no intentions of marriage, I don't think "casual sex" applies.
I agree. I wouldn't use the keyword "casual-sex" in that instance, either.
Just for example, when a film depicts a one-night stand -- whether between strangers or people who know each other -- the far better keyword is "casual-sex." The problem I'm trying to illustrate is that in the example of a one-night stand, far too many people instead use the keyword "premarital-sex," which in my opinion is the wrong keyword.
I've noticed that inaccurate pieces of information that has been live on the site for a long time are somewhat challenging to get corrected, unless the inaccuracy or fallacy is too obvious to ignore.
Good question. This is a defect in the Advanced Title Search function. They really should include Adult as an option to select with a check-mark. Instead, as you have noted, the only way to limit search results to just Adult titles is to choose another genre and then manually edit the URL to replace the selected genre with Adult.
Surprisingly, there are none of the glut of 'reference-to-' keywords.
This is another pet peeve of mine. One Top Contributor in particular likes to turn titles' keyword sections into transcripts by adding dozens of "reference-to-" keywords for every person, place, and thing discussed in the dialogue -- even references that are fleeting and insignificant to the plot.
@keyword_expert @Bethanny@Fran Declined again; hoping to get some staff attention on this, since they've been absent from this discussion. The submissions are:
@Bethanny Thanks! Any suggestions on what to do in these situations in the future? I'd like to think that including a reasonable explanation in the deletion request would suffice, but it clearly didn't. Is it solely related to this genre, or are all genre deletions routinely viewed with a high level of skepticism? I'm still hoping someone who's familiar with it can weigh in on Nymphomaniac: Vol. II; if contributors have been sending requests to delete Adult on that title, I'd suggest approving the move.
@Bethanny On mine I considered sending a link to the video on Amazon Video under the assumption that Amazon doesn't stream Adult/porn films but I don't actually know for sure.
So is that correct? And would a link like that suffice as evidence?
@Bethanny Well, I've submitted a deletion on Nymphomaniac, noting that's it's a sequel to a non-Adult title, and adding that the 34 Metacritic reviews (from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and other major outlets which don't do Adult reviews) tend to argue against its inclusion.
@Bethanny OK, the anime deletion got declined again (230125-161447-984000). I've resubmitted, noting the movie's Golden Reel nomination, and questioning whether the MPSE is in the habit of voting for a category of nominees that included The Iron Giant, The King and I, Pokémon: Mewtwo Strikes Back, Princess Mononoke, South Park, Tarzan, Toy Story 2 and an Adult film. If you can keep any eye on this one, I'd appreciate it:
@Bethanny Thanks! The list of Adult titles with the most votes is now a LOT more reasonable, with nothing having 7,000 votes (and only 58 titles with 500), led by several widely known titles:
keyword_expert
2.7K Messages
•
47K Points
3 years ago
By popularity: https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?genres=adult&adult=include
By rating: https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?genres=adult&adult=include&sort=user_rating,desc
44