IMDb staff: Please Undo these Keyword Auto-Conversions

@Peter_pbn​

Thank you for asking. I believe that "car-keys" is one of the very rare exceptions to the general rule that singular keywords are preferred over plural keywords.

Some other examples, discussed here, are "shoes," "gloves," "hands," "eyes," "breasts," "lovers," "siblings," "twins," "children," "parents," "grandparents," "dishes," "founding-fathers," "keys," "boots," "feet," "teeth," "stars," "waves," "wings," "tears," "fangs," "earrings," "ears," "flowers," "pills," "sleeping-pills," "drugs," etc.

In each of these examples, the plural has a different meaning than the singular, and thus I believe should be kept distinct. The keyword "shoes" probably means "pair-of-shoes" rather than just a single shoe.  It's the same with "car-keys." What is meant by that keyword is a set of car keys, probably on a key-ring holder, much like a "set-of-keys," which is a different plot point than a single car key. 

Not to mention that prior to staff falling for my ill-advised April Fools' joke, "car-keys" was more than four times more popular as a keyword than "car-key." That was probably for a reason.

All of this admittedly requires some judgment calls. Occasionally I have recommended changing plural keywords to singular keywords even when I wasn't 100% sure about it, like when I proposed the mass mergers of "ants" into "ant" and "trees" into "tree" and "grapes" into "grape." Most instances of "grapes" probably meant "bunch-of-grapes" or "cluster-of-grapes" (which is not a keyword even though it should be). But with other keywords I feel they should be kept plural, and "car-keys" is one of those keywords.

@keyword_expert​ 

In each of these examples, the plural has a different meaning than the singular

Most plurals have a different meaning than the singular.

@Peter_pbn​ When talking about words that are just as likely (or even more likely) to come in pairs, sets, or multiples as compared to the singular form, the plural forms have more than just a different meaning -- they can be a different concept altogether.

The "stars" in the sky are much different from a single "star" (like the Sun). 

A set of "keys" is a different concept from a single "key."

A pair of "rubber-gloves" can be very different from a single "rubber-glove."

And so on.

In some of these examples, like "rubber-gloves" and "gloves" (and "car-keys" before the unintentional mass merge), the plurals actually outnumber the singular form on IMDb. There is good reason for that.

The difference between the plural and singular forms of the keywords I have discussed is much different than, say, "buildings" vs. "building," "paintings" vs. "painting," "trucks" vs. "truck," etc.  There is nothing special about this latter set of words in the plural form.

In the case of car-keys, I believe English speakers often say "car keys" even though there is only one key. Thus it is not a different concept.

@Peter_pbn​ Even if that's true, what matters for IMDb purposes is not what phrases are commonly used, but rather what actually appears in the plot. If it's a single car key (or a single key), that is different from a set of keys on a ring. 

Another example that comes to mind: it's an entirely different meaning for a character to have a missing-tooth versus missing-teeth. 

In the case of the keyword "car-keys" (which is much more prevalent on IMDb than "car-key" because car keys usually do come in sets and are typically placed on rings), I am to blame for the mistaken mass merger.  I would never have purposely recommended this merger and am just trying to fix the mistake.

@Skavau​ The keyword "car-keys" is actually not that strange of a keyword. This keyword might have been overused, but as long as it is used in keeping with the guidelines, it is perfectly appropriate.

Keywords are supposed to be about important plot points. If a character in a movie steals someone's car keys in order to keep them from driving away, then "car-keys" is a good keyword. Same with a title where someone loses their car keys and spends several minutes looking for them. Or a horror title where someone is trying to escape a homicidal maniac and they drop their car keys, only to pick them up and then their car won't start. (The keyword "car-keys" often works well in conjunction with keywords like "car-won't-start" and "car-trouble.") 

I do understand (and agree with) your point that it is never a good idea to add a keyword for every little thing show on the screen, whether a building, car keys, or whatever.

This is actually one of my pet peeves: when people add keywords that are not important to the plot -- describing random objects that only have minimal important to the plot, describing what characters are wearing, or even worse, using keywords like "reference-to-a-breath-mint" because a character briefly says something about a breath mint.

If a physical object is important enough to move the plot forward, then it's fine to add that as a keyword (whether or not it is shown on the screen). But if a physical object just happens to appear on the screen (or is briefly spoken about) without being important to the plot, then it definitely does not warrant the addition of a keyword.

@keyword_expert​ Trouble is "car keys" itself gives no context to whether or not it plays any role in the plot. 

I think this is more of a problem for TV series, than movies as it's highly likely that "car keys" in basically every scenario is referring to something only present in an episode, rather than an overarching series theme. I doubt there's a show where there's a serious recurring instance of car keys playing an important role in the plot narrative.

@Skavau​ 

Trouble is "car keys" itself gives no context to whether or not it plays any role in the plot. 

This could be said of most keywords. The problem is with overuse, not with the keywords themselves.