Keyword merge

I don't know of any way to edit keywords. This is the only solution I've seen.

Keywords can be edited from each title's keyword page. If a keyword is only listed for a few titles, it is simple to submit corrections for each title.

That's quite a hassle. Why isn't there a way to edit keywords directly like names? That would merging so much easier.

Sure, that would be nice.

I guess it ups my 2018 edit total.

Thank you for the clarification.  Some people seem merger-happy.  While I feel that there is a need for some mergers, I urge fellow submitters to do the work, themselves, rather than submitting to the staff for some kind of mass merger that could result in many mistakes.  "Torched Earth" policy should be avoided.

Exactly how can submitters do this work themselves? I've tried correctly keywords and that does work; however, the old keywords do no seem to get deleted when I do this. It would be nice if we could edit keywords and request mergers like we can do with names.

As Balboa states, it is rather hard to fix these duplicates when there are more than a few titles attached to the keyword. I just fixed up "juke-box" into "jukebox" where there were 23 titles. That's a lot of editing of single titles. Also, there is no guarantee that "juke-box" isn't re-added at a later time. There needs to be some way to easily request merge of keywords and then linking of the keywords so that if someone types "juke-box" in the keyword box, they get "jukebox" instead. Also, the search when entering keywords on the edit page seems less robust than using the keyword search from the main search bar.

Also, the keyword submission guide says that duplicate keywords can be reported here.

Hi Adrian,

Unfortunately this isn't on any current roadmap and is unlikely to be prioritized at any point soon, apologies. You can add this as a New Idea on Get Satisfaction though and then other users can vote on your suggestion.

Hi Peter,

You are correct, the guide states that duplicate keywords should be reported and if the situation is bad we will be happy to assist on behalf of users. However unfortunately we only have limited resources for Get Satisfaction staff coverage and we want to ensure that this time is being spent in the best way possible to solve issues on behalf of users.

I hope this helps to explain our position.

Regards,
Will

 

unfortunately we only have limited resources for Get Satisfaction staff coverage and we want to ensure that this time is being spent in the best way possible to solve issues on behalf of users.

You've said the same thing when a large number of wrongly written attributes in several sections were pointed out. I would like to remind you that all these issues/errors are pointed out by people who don't get any money for it. They don't have to do it. Also, if staffers DO take care of these issues, not one or two or five, but *hundreds* of errors get fixed. How can that not be a good thing? How is that not "the best way possible to solve issues on behalf of users"? Also, if these issues don't get fixed, the number of items with these errors only grows and grows, which doesn't help taking the database seriously and can only lead to confusion and, possibly even, frustration.
And mind you, perhaps the most important thing, nobody's asking you to fix it all in a jiffy. For all we care you put them on a list you work on once a month. We contributors just want to help out, point out errors and see them getting fixed (eventually). That will keep us motivated to keep pointing out errors and improving the quality of the database.

Hi Balboa Baggins,

I've put it an auto-convert which means that the next time a user tries to manually add multi-player it will be changed to multiplayer to stop this from happening again.

Regards,
Will