Are there any rules that are actually enforced regarding Keywords?

@Marco​, last year I asked the same question in this thread.

Here are some titles that I am aware of with very high numbers of keywords:

1,381 keywords: The Directive (2019)

965 keywords: 75 (2017)

789 keywords: The Dark Knight (2008)

779 keywords: Avengers: Endgame (2019)

754 keywords: Wonder Woman (2017)

725 keywords: Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood (2019)

700 keywords: Down River (2018)

I wouldn't be surprised if there are other titles with more than 700 keywords, but those are all I can think of at the moment.

The Batman, which was released less than a week ago, already has 583 keywords!

The Batman (2022)

I believe I have just found the title that deserves the world record for the highest number of keywords. This was a movie released just two weeks ago, and it already has nearly 2,000 keywords.

1,969 keywords: Aylan Baby (2022)

It is possible (indeed, likely) that some of these keywords were added as spam, but on the surface I can't prove that. Indeed, many of the keywords are very relevant to the plot. But some of the keywords are highly suspect (search for "alien," for example). 

And here is a title with nearly 1,000 keywords. This one has some obvious spam, but some of the keywords are valid, which would make it quite tedious to sift through these keywords to delete the bad ones.

992 keywords: Islamophobia (2022)

Regarding Aylan Baby (2022), many of its new keywords are indeed spam. Whomever added these keywords (probably someone associated with the movie) has included keywords like "avengers-infinity-war," "oscar-nominated-film," "the-dark-knight-rises," "the-matrix," etc. Ugh.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10449310/keywords

@jeorj_euler​ 

I'm not aware of a rule or guideline, but I try to treat the creation of new keywords as a last resort for tagging, labeling or describing a work, its content or circumstances thereof.

I very much agree with you on this. Like you, I consider the creation of a new keyword (as opposed to choosing a preexisting keyword) as a last resort.

As far as I'm concerned, the primary or most useful function of keywords is to allow for identification of titles through keyword searches, especially multi-keyword combination searches. But when keywords are scattered, bifurcated, duplicated, or orphaned (use whatever word or concept you want), these keywords can't be easily picked up in multi-keyword searches, thus sharply diminishing their usefulness.

Not to mention that when numerous "orphaned" keywords (keywords that will only apply to one title) are added to a title, this can essentially be spamming the keyword section for that title by diluting the keywords with marginally relevant material. Some users like to quickly scan a title's keywords to get a sense of what the title is about. When dozens or even hundreds of marginally relevant keywords pollute a title's keyword section, it makes it a lot more difficult to do so.

Because I agree with you that creating new keywords should be a last resort, I almost feel guilty when doing so. Even when I do reluctantly create a new keyword, I will do my best to figure out at least one other title to which the same new keyword can also be added, so that I won't be creating an "orphaned" keyword. 

My general rule of thumb is that no more than one or two out of each 50 keyword submissions should involve "orphaned" keywords. Any more than that and I am probably doing something wrong.

Apparently not all contributors share our philosophies and approach about keywords. Some folks seem all too willing to create massive quantities of orphaned keywords, many of them including highly specific or even unique plot scenarios, typographical errors, and/or odd grammar. I discuss that here.

When I create a new keyword, it is usually because something in a movie is a thing that can indeed be found in at least one other movie, but not always, like when there is an unusual word for an idea, or a concept in the movie the explains one aspect of a culture or something like that, so in those cases, only one might would indeed be tagged for long periods of time. I should note that I rely upon the suggestions provided in the submission form too, and rarely explore synonyms or spellings beyond those. I can't remember how often I've created new keywords, but it might have been under a dozen times in the past decade.

@jeorj_euler​

I can't remember how often I've created new keywords, but it might have been under a dozen times in the past decade.

I admire your restraint, Mr. Euler! I have created a lot more new keywords than that, but I would estimate that only 1% to 3% of my keyword additions have been new keywords.

Of course, we do have to consider that every existing keyword was new at one point. So in some rare cases it does make sense to add new ones, including when it makes sense to pave the way for fellow contributors to use the new keywords on other titles.