I am seriously thinking about ceasing my contributions to IMDb

@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,

@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.

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!

@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.

@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.

@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.

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:

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.

@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.

@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. 

@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.

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?)

@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.

@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. 

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