Introducing: Subgenre & Plot Timeframe Keywords

This is one of the subgenre keywords that IMDb has added and listed in the keyword guidelines.

Unnecessary duplication, and a further denigration of genres.

There must be hundreds of other titles that have both Biography and Documentary as genres, but do not have this unnecessary keyword.

When I do a search with the keyword "singer" and add the Biography and Documentary genres, there are 363 titles.  Subtracting the only 8 titles that currently have the questionable "biographical-documentary" keyword, that leaves 355 titles without this questionable keyword! 

And that is just one example.  I speculate that there are hundreds of titles with the Biography and Documentary genres that do not have the "biographical-documentary" keyword, making such searches invalid and useless.

Please, delete the "biographical-documentary" keyword in lieu of the Biography and Documentary genres.

Bump.  How about some staff action on this?

Again, bump...

@ IMDB staff:

Since this thread involves "accepted" subgenre keywords, the thread should be merged here: https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/introducing-subgenre-plot-timeframe-keywords/61eae11f08dc6165edbd2086

keyword_expert​ PLEASE DO NT MERGE.  I GET BETTER RESPONSE FROM THE STAFF WHEN IT IS NOT MERGED.

It seems to be difficult to edit even timeframe keywords that are not in the list of accepted values.

I tried to delete timeframe-1700s because the story is set in the 18th century but not 1700-1710, and the listed, standardized value for the 18th century is timeframe-18th-century.

#220329-130858-876000

@Peter_pbn​ Yes, the "timeframe-" prefix is "protected" in existing keywords.

@bradley_kent​ At least 3 of the 4 instances of the "war-horror" keyword were intended to be "horrors-of-war," anyway. I went ahead and made those changes.

@bradley_kent​ Although many of these keywords are poorly formatted (like "sitcom-comedy"), most of the keywords are good and will facilitate rather than hinder research. Some users aren't aware that genres can be combined with a keyword search. Allowing subgenres (and genre-combination keywords) to be included in the keywords makes it easier to incorporate these concepts into keyword searches. For that reason I endorse the basic concept of allowing these types of keywords.

The problem has been in the execution (e.g., poorly formatted keywords, the seemingly random nature of the list, the implication that the list is exclusive when it is not, etc.).

@bradley_kent​ "

Third, many are just plain silly:  psychological-drama, psychological-horror, psychological-thriller (Are none of the other genres "psychological"?). suspense-mystery (Isn't every mystery suspenseful?). "

Psychological drama, horror and thriller are well known subgenre terms to be fair.

@Peter_pbn​ Some of these are weird subgenres that don't really have any community usage "interdimensional-sci-fi" whereas "observational comedy" does

Also "cozy mystery", "locked-room mystery" are well known subgenres

Most of these subgenres are absolutely ridiculous --- subjective, repetitious  and contradictory.  Such "topics" could mostly be duplicated in a search by simply combining a keyword with a genre.

You are risking the integrity of the keyword section of IMDb by corrupting it with unnecessary "stuff."

It seems as if someone(s) on the IMDb staff is/are "riding hard on an ego trip" by proposing gratuitous, redundant and superfluous "garbage."

What a waste of the staff's time and energy.

@bradley_kent​ All subgenres are subjective to an extent, but many of the terms IMDB are using here are used terminology in communities.

I don't agree with genre + genre fusions though, I agree. Like "romantic comedy" is very much a genre, but we don't need it as a keyword because we can combine Romance + Comedy. Same with "dramedy". What makes this especially odd though is that IMDB are cloning these terms by doing this, as we have the original term and then the IMDB approved variant with "-drama" or "-fantasy" or whatever it is put at the end. 

But there is no specific way, other than keywords to represent many different types of subgenres. Cyberpunk is very much a well understood genre, but obviously at its borders what constitutes 'cyberpunk' can get fluffy. But it's also well understood as "cyberpunk". We don't need "cyberpunk" + "cyberpunk sci-fi"

@Peter_pbn​ 

Interesting. 

I have been watching the emergence of the keyword "body-swap-comedy" over the past couple months. Now I know why that keyword emerged: an IMDb staffer must have been populating it with titles in preparation for this big unveil.

One problem with this keyword is that whomever is using it is not distinguishing between "body swaps" and "body switching." The former is when two characters swap bodies with each other, and the latter is when a character switches into a new body. Even @Michelle herself brought up this distinction a while back.

Whomever has been using the keyword "body-swap-comedy" has been applying it to titles that involve body switching without body swaps. An example is Switch (1991).

@keyword_expert​ Also, looking at the TV series for "body-swap comedy" we've got a bunch of shows that appear to have nothing to do with the concept.

I can assume that perhaps the trope occurs in particular episodes, but those shows are not chiefly known and understood as a 'body swap comedy', and we fall into the problem of distinguishing between something that happens in a show or film, and something that can be chiefly described as being about it.

@Skavau​ 

Good point.

https://www.imdb.com/search/keyword/?keywords=body-swap-comedy&ref_=kw_ref_typ&sort=moviemeter,asc&mode=detail&page=1&title_type=tvSeries

Thanks a bunch @Peter_pbn. A pity they didn't add a new update date at the top of the page.

@Peter_pbn​ I just noticed this addition to the genre definitions to refer to the awkwardly worded "dramedy-drama" subgenre keyword (see bolded sentence below). This was likely added around the time of the update to the list of "accepted" subgenre keywords that you posted about three weeks ago.

@Peter_pbn​ 

I have to say, "other-sport" is just about one of the dumbest keywords ever on IMDb. It is such a bad keyword that when I first saw it emerge on IMDb (before it was officially listed as an "accepted" subgenre keyword), I recorded it in my private notes for a future post asking staff to delete and block the keyword. And I actually did include "other-sport" in this recent list, until it hit me 90 minutes later that I should check the official list again to see if "other-sport" is now listed as "accepted." And sure enough, it is in there (as first reported by you a month ago). 

I can't imagine how "other-sport" will have any real-world value for anyone. What a dumb keyword. It is so vague and poorly formatted as to be useless. And imagine if we also had keywords like "other-documentary," "other-history," "other-romance," "other-horror," "other-war," etc. Hopefully those examples illustrate why "other-sport" is a really bad keyword. 

@rootsmusic​

Does the use of the "pov" or "point-of-view" term within this keyword imply that, in order to qualify for this subgenre, all the camera angles in the film are of a character's-point-of-view-camera-shot?

@keyword_expert​, I'd require at least a majority and even prefer more (not necessarily "all") camera angles be from the first-person's point-of-view to qualify as a "pov-documentary".  If a title has some but not a majority of camera angles from the first-person's point-of-view, then it can be described by other keywords.

@Peter_pbn​ Yes, "alternate history" is back under "History".. in contradiction to how IMDB defines "History".

@Peter_pbn​ Thanks for the update.

I still wish that IMDb would clarify this guideline to explain that by using the word "accepted," they are not implying that this list of "accepted" subgenre keywords is exclusive. A lot of perfectly valid subgenres are still not included on the "accepted" list. I will copy and paste my prior statement below on this topic. 

I recommend adding the word "sample" to the help article language regarding subgenres, as shown in bold below:

See here for sample accepted values

Otherwise, there is an implication that the listed values are the only values that will be accepted. That would be wrong, because there are easily dozens, if not hundreds, of acceptable subgenres that are not included on the list. 

Just taking horror subgenres, for example, the list does not currently include acceptable subgenre keywords like gothic-horror, body-horror, eco-horror, war-horror, retro-horror, erotic-horror, redneck-horror, giallo, video-nasty, etc. 

Then there are numerous subgenres that can cross genres, for example creature-feature, teensploitation, nunsploitation, bikersploitation, social-guidance, drug-scare, etc.

From my prior list, only "body-horror" has since been added to the "accepted" list, while I personally modified all the "war-horror" entries to "horrors-of-war." 

All other keywords that I previously listed (and many others that I did not list) remain perfectly valid subgenre keywords that have been in use for many years, yet they are not identified as "accepted" by IMDb. That could and should be rectified by modifying the guideline to clarify that the "accepted" list is not intended to be exclusive.

I just noticed that sitcom-comedy is back in the new series list, so maybe Mr. Kent could join us to repeat his previous posts too. (Ah, there he is!)

To comment on the update in question, I struggle to make sense of it. Why would so many entries, like prison-drama, soccer-sport or political-thriller, not be relevant for series? Why would alternate-history be more relevant for series than movies?

But I guess it won't be the last update, so perhaps it isn't worth dissecting something that is still in process.

@Peter_pbn​ Also some of their TV examples are a bit dodgy

There is no sign this thread is being monitored by staff, which is why I'm using it to post updates that are not directed to staff. You would probably be better off posting in one of your own previous threads.

@Peter_pbn​ I did think about that, but ruled it out for now.

I have posted the suggestion in at least a couple different threads including this one, and have tagged @Michelle at least once, so I believe they saw my suggestion long ago.

As you have pointed out, this policy area is still very much in flux. I am willing to patiently wait a while longer. Eventually I may start a new thread specifically on this topic (whether or not the "accepted" list is exclusive).