bradley_kent's profile

975 Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

Thu, Aug 18, 2022 3:45 PM

No Status

I am seriously thinking about ceasing my contributions to IMDb

As a long-time top  contributor to IMDb, extending back to the early, founding days before IMDb was owned by Amazon, I am seriously thinking about ceasing my contributions to IMDb.  My frustrations are reaching a breaking point, especially with what I view as the illogical nonsense of the new subgenre keywords.

At the request of another contributor, @Peter_pbn​, I am reposting this here, and request that it NOT be merged into another discussion:

Iam trying to Iive with the new subgenres, although most still seem very subjective and superfluous.  The "understanding" of their definitions and distinctions do not seem universal, but only specific and exacting to one or a few particular contributors.

They open up the floodgates to a deluge of additional keywords, particularly to older titles that often seem to be neglected in keyword discussions.  

I still adamately believe that:

One, subgenres should not just combine two or more genres;

and,

Two, regarding tv series, subgenres should be listed ONLY at the series level, unless, of course, if it is an anthology series, when the keyword should be subgenre-episode.

Besides these two points, I, personally, plan to avoid auditing/editing these subjective subgenre keywords for most (any? all?) titles.  I'll leave that to others.

Similarly, I have not added, corrected nor deleted any "timeframe" keywords because I have found so many mistakes, particularly those that confuse the "setting" content of a title with its release date year.  I'll leave those to the rest of you, too.

The "horde" of subjective subgenre-keywords wait on the mountaintop, ready to invade and inundate the keyword database.  There are millions and millions that will need to be added.  Go for it!

6.1K Messages

 • 

153.1K Points

Il y a 1 m

bradley_kent
Thu, Jul 15, 2021
A personal request that I hope IMDb will honor
I have been a contributor to IMDb for many years,...
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/a-personal-request-that-i-hope-imdb-will-honor/60f081386f53997374bd3146

bradleykent1
IMDb member since August 2007
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur16286111/

Badges

Lifetime Total    :  1,000,000+
Lifetime Name  :       25,000+
Lifetime Filmo   :     250,000+

Top Contributor :   2020

.

(edited)

Champion

 • 

11.1K Messages

 • 

294.5K Points

Il y a 1 m

At the request of another contributor, @Peter_pbn

Not quite what I suggested. You have already started at least three threads on this subject.

Skavau

141 Messages

 • 

1.7K Points

Il y a 1 m

The "horde" of subjective subgenre-keywords wait on the mountaintop, ready to invade and inundate the keyword database.  There are millions and millions that will need to be added.  Go for it!

To be fair, these subgenres were scattered all over IMDB before IMDB officially sanctioned specific types of subgenres. There's been no real change there.

But as I said, because subgenres are mostly subjective IMDB needs to move them out of keywords and handle them differently. This is the problem. They were never meant to be treated as keywords.

(edited)

975 Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

Il y a 1 m

"They were never meant to be treated as keywords."

Absolutely.  This is another reason why subgenre-keywords should be deleted from the episode level of series, except, of course, for anthology series, when they should have the subgenre-episode keyword, just like the genre-episode keywords.

Skavau

141 Messages

 • 

1.7K Points

@bradley_kent​ Oh is your main objection their prominence in episode keywords? I don't really look with that much granularity myself. I also agree there entirely really.

I will add that even at a series or film level, subgenres should be treated completely differently on here,

Employee

 • 

14.4K Messages

 • 

281K Points

Il y a 1 m

Hi @bradley_kent -

I understand the frustration you expressed with the somewhat recent addition of special sub-genre & plot-timeframe keywords and the issues that have arisen, especially given that you have taken the time and effort to contribute so much valuable keyword updates to IMDb over the years, which we truly appreciate (sounds like you have been contributing even before my time at IMDb if you started in those early days!). 

I am also aware of some of the keywords issues that have been pointed out in this thread, as well as other threads related to these special keywords.  While I cannot make any promises to any significant or immediate changes to how these keywords are being handled, I have highlighted these call-out issues (and others from previous threads) to the relevant teams to review and consider improvements.  I will also be transparent and post any expected updates/changes regarding the handling of these keywords here in the community as they are improved upon.

Again, we truly appreciate your contribution efforts, and appreciate these keyword call outs.

(edited)

Skavau

141 Messages

 • 

1.7K Points

@Michelle​ I think IMDB should have a subgenre system but ultimately, they're not the same thing as keywords and should be handled differently.

975 Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

Il y a 1 m

@Michelle​ IMDb could begin by removing the block on the deletion or correction of subgenre-keywords at the episode level of series. Currently, they are just duplications of subgenre-keywords at the series level, or just plain incorrect.

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

27.6K Points

@bradley_kent​ 

@Michelle​ IMDb could begin by removing the block on the deletion or correction of subgenre-keywords at the episode level of series.

I am pretty sure the block is against deleting or revising these keywords in general, wherever they occur on IMDb (not just at the episode level).

I would support removing all of these blocks, including both for genre keywords and "timeframe-" keywords.

(edited)

Employee

 • 

14.4K Messages

 • 

281K Points

Hi @keyword_expert​ & @bradley_kent -

There should be no "blockers" regarding deleting or correcting these keywords.  Can you post some recent submission examples where you tried removing or correcting these keywords?  I can then investigate further to determine if this is a processing issue or systematic bug.

Thanks in advance!

1.6K Messages

 • 

27.6K Points

@Michelle

Are you asking for examples involving subgenre keywords or "timeframe-" keywords, or both?

If you want examples with subgenre keywords, Mr. Kent can probably provide you with better examples than me.

If you want examples with "timeframe-" keywords, here are a couple recent examples for me:

The following "timeframe-" deletions were all denied within the past 24 hours:

#220820-020601-726000

#220820-013557-699000

#220820-013451-589000

And this one was denied within the past month, even though it was my second attempt and I included an explanation:

#220727-213358-651000

I rarely delete "timeframe-" keywords, but for the past few months 100% of my deletions of "timeframe-" keywords have been delayed a couple days to process, and then ultimately denied. Meanwhile, all or virtually all of my other keyword deletions are all approved (most of them automatically). There is still an obvious "block" on the deletions of "timeframe-" keywords.

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

27.6K Points

@Michelle​ 

Here are two examples from the past month of IMDb denying my attempts to delete the keyword "other-sport" from the title Seabiscuit (before I realized "other-sport" is now an "accepted" keyword) (what a bad keyword, by the way! if "other-sport" is a good subgenre keyword, then does that open the door to "other-history," "other-war," "other-horror," "other-romance," etc.?). 

#220731-003254-527000

#220807-231103-380000

Perhaps my attempts to delete the "other-sport" keyword were legitimately denied, especially since "other-sport" is now an "accepted" keyword. But it's possible this may be an example of a system block still in place against deleting "accepted" subgenre keywords. 

Those were the only two recent examples I could think of where I have even attempted to delete "accepted" subgenre keywords. Again, @bradley_kent will likely have better examples for that.

Champion

 • 

11.1K Messages

 • 

294.5K Points

@Michelle​ 

Bradley posted examples for you here after you asked.

Whether subgenre keywords can and should be listed on a series as well as its episodes is a policy issue that IMDb could address.

(edited)

975 Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

I agree. The blocks on subgenre/keywords should be removed at the title, series AND episode levels.  Otherwise, they do mot reflect the "accurate" reality.

Here are some more random examples:

220822-215747-396000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:57:47 King Richard (2021)
Keywords -  1 item deleted
220822-215258-404000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:52:58 "Trainwreck: Woodstock '99" (2022)
Keywords -  2 items deleted
220822-215147-056000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:51:47 Romeo + Juliet (1996)
Keywords -  1 item deleted
220822-214955-243000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:49:55 "The Handmaid's Tale" (2017)
Keywords -  2 items deleted
Genres -  1 item added
220822-214727-041000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:47:27 "The Orville" (2017)
Keywords -  3 items deleted
220822-214601-068000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:46:01 "Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown" (2013)
Keywords -  2 items deleted
220822-214259-622000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:42:59 Flight with Firebird (????)
Keywords -  2 items deleted
220822-213832-651000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:38:32 "All or Nothing: Arsenal" (2022)
Keywords -  1 item deleted
220822-213417-008000
Track Contribution
2022-08-22 21:34:17 "The Joy of Painting" (1983) {The Old Mill (#3.9)}
Keywords -  1 item deleted
220817-223104-084000
Track Contribution
2022-08-17 22:3

P.S. HOW can The Handmaid's Tale be a dystopian-sci-fi when it DOES NOT have Sci-Fi as a genre?  Totally illogical.  Makes NO sense.

(edited)

mbmb

928 Messages

 • 

12.9K Points

@keyword_expert​ I want to share a few experiences here that *may* suggest there's really no block on keywords themselves but it's all about "who" added them, which in this case that's being staff.


There was a thread here someone trying to change title types of some titles incorrectly to TV Special, and when he posted the thread he already did that on a few titles, I explained it was incorrect and I also removed these keywords at that time and these keyword deletions were automatically approved in one second without any issues. Now, a few days later, at the same time Michelle visited that thread and posted an answer, the first listed title by the OP of the thread got the tv-special keyword added back. Now, my guess is that Michelle added that keyword to the title when she visited the thread before reading the rest of the thread and answers but after reading my reply, she didn't continue and instead posted an answer that confirms my reply is correct.


Now all the absurdity and chaos starts here. After seeing it, I didn't want to resurrect a "solved" thread and waste staff time for a small and minor correction and instead I submitted a deletion for that re-added keyword myself. When it should be approved in a few seconds, that didn't happen and it was declined as unable to verify after pending for days. This happened a few times, and moreover, even help desk's resubmissions were declined. It was finally deleted after like a week or something when one of the most excellent employees of the IMDb, Sam, handled it and deleted it himself instead of re-submitting it on my behalf. Now I'm almost sure all the reason for this chaos and rejections for a simple keyword deletion was because it was probably added by Michelle, so it was almost impossible to be deleted.


Similarly, I noticed as a result of a thread here, Michelle made a tiny mistake while adding something and added it to the wrong section. Again, I didn't want to bump a "solved" thread for such a minor and kinda unimportant mistake (and I also think she and they hate you when you point out mistakes like this so I didn't want to be hated more than I already was) so I made a submission to move it to the correct section myself. What could go wrong for such a small, obvious and tiny unimportant correction, right? I will explain clearly I'm moving it to the correct section by removing and re-adding it in the same submission and it will be approved easily and I won't be wasting staff time unnecessarily for such a small correction and I won't gather more hate, everyone will be happy. Wishful thinking! While addition in the same submission was approved instantly, deletion was declined as unable to verify after pending for days, since it was intended to move it, approving one and rejecting other resulted in duplicated data entries. I asked the help desk to handle it, they re-submitted it for me but their re-submission was also declined, like how it happened in the previous case. Then one of the worst employees of the IMDb, "Lucky", started to spam "our aim is to be.. we believe data listed is correct so we can't remove it" canned response, without ever thinking on it for one second, without ever thinking it's a removal on a submission intended to move something and addition is already approved so he will delete the duplicate item so there is no lose here. No, he just spams "we believe it's correct, we can't remove it''. Finally, Sam, who is one of the most excellent employees of the IMDb, apologized and said he handled it. I'm almost sure all of the absurdity and chaos and "we can't remove it" canned spam without thinking anything was because it was added by Michelle. So it was almost impossible for me to make a tiny move correction for it.


Another case, someone opened a thread here for some release date submissions not being approved or appearing on pages even after approved. Michelle said they were pending and another employee eventually approved them, I just checked out of curiosity and as soon as I looked, something about them looked very wrong. So I researched it for a few hours and found that these additions were just complete nonsense and they were nothing more than the imagination of the user (and they were wrong in formatting in many ways). Obviously all were added without any evidence and approved by Michelle blindly without asking for "online sources to help verify". So I didn't want to create an argument on forum and gather even more hate, I just submitted a deletion for them with my clear, solid and undeniable proofs, and these deletions were easily approved in 5-10 minutes or something. Now chaos starts after that, user posted a reply by mentioning Michelle on that thread and saying they are not appearing on title pages. My guess is, after seeing his mention, Michelle silently added all of these deleted dates again, this time from her own account, the dates that I had deleted proving they are impossible with undeniable evidence and then she silently marked the thread from No Status to Solved (without asking for "online sources to help verify", again, despite the fact that they were deleted just recently and none of them were supported with an evidence). After I noticed all the dates I deleted were re-appeared, I submitted deletion requests for these nonsense and impossible dates with the same proofs again, but this time, it was not approved in 5 minutes. It stayed pending for a week and then all declined as unable to verify. But previous deletions for the same things were approved in 5 minutes, I provided the exact same explanation and proofs, why would they all be rejected after pending for 1 week this time? What's the difference? I guess the difference is "who" added them. They were then deleted by Michelle after I opened a thread here with my declined submission numbers (I also noticed she finally started to ask for "online sources to help verify" to that user next time he came with an approval issue)


Another case, as a result of an inquiry of me to the help desk, Atticus from support added an AKA to a title by my request (my attempt had failed). But I noticed he made a tiny, small mistake with attribute and I didn't want to bother the support team by replying for such a small mistake (and they mostly ignore follow-up replies anyway), so instead I made a correction submission myself. But it was declined as unable to verify a few times. So I opened a thread about it here on this forum and explained the correction. Michelle instantly said "we have reason to believe it's correct etc.." without thinking on it for one second. I know exactly why she said that instantly, it's because she saw it was added by Atticus, an IMDb employee, so she just instantly posted that reply. But Atticus added it by my request and I was just trying to correct a minor mistake with country attribute on it, but no, it was added by IMDb staff, it should be protected no matter the reason. It took like ~3 months and a few paragraphs of explanation from me to make her finally fix it.


So bottom line, I think it may not be the keywords that are protected, it may be the submitters of them who are protected.

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

27.6K Points

@mbmb​ 

So bottom line, I think it may not be the keywords that are protected, it may be the submitters of them who are protected.

That could be. Either way, the "timeframe-" keywords are definitely protected. 

Maya

Employee

 • 

470 Messages

 • 

5K Points

Il y a 1 m

Hi bradley_kent and all-

Thank you for posting and reporting all of this information! We have been collecting all of the requests for removals and we will be addressing them with the appropriate team. In the meantime, if there are more explanations for removal requests, I encourage you to post them below.

A ticket has also been filed to the appropriate team to investigate further as we have identified a systematic issue regarding these keywords. 

As soon as there is any information, we will update.

Cheers!

975 Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

Il y a 1 m

on deletions and/or corrections are for ALL contributors... even the staff!  PLEASE... remove the blocks on subgenre/keywords.

220825-152053-624000
Track Contribution
2022-08-25 15:20:53 Submitted by IMDb on your behalf

"The Joy of Painting" (1983) {Winter Moon (#1.6)}
Keywords -  1 item deleted
Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled PROOF that the subgenre/keyword blocks...

975 Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

Il y a 1 m

"Wow, this is awesome. I feel like I won the lottery today."  Oh, no, that's a quote from @keyword_expert  

I'd like to feel that way, too.

Why can't this issue be resolved?  The blocks should be removed on the deletion and correction of subhenre-keywords.  Does IMDb want correct information, or not?

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

27.6K Points

@bradley_kent​ 

Well, in that particular case, I only had to patiently wait five and a half months. So l'm not sure that is a great case study to rely on, unless you're okay with waiting that long.

975 Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

No, I am not okay with waiting that long.  The problems with these (mostly) abhorrant keyword-subgenres have been going on for many months.  (I'm not sure how many months, but it's been a long time.)

I am not against subgenres.  I just wish that they had been given more intelligent diligence before they were instituted.  It just seems like someone "went crazy" with creating new subgenres without a reliable understanding of IMDb's own guidelines. (A new staffer's pet project?)

(edited)

Skavau

141 Messages

 • 

1.7K Points

@bradley_kent​ It's not even that - the nature of subgenres means they should be handled completely different by the system. Where one begins and ends is user opinion - it's not like keywords.

1.6K Messages

 • 

27.6K Points

@Skavau​ User opinion often applies to other types of keywords as well, for example whether a keyword is "notable," whether it is subjective versus objective, whether it describes the plot (or should be allowed even though it does not), whether it is "relevant" to the title, etc. 

Skavau

141 Messages

 • 

1.7K Points

This is true, but it's much more of an issue in terms of subgenres.