New keyword "categories": Another Disaster for IMDb

Yes, keywords are more than just about plot, but this NEW program to categorize EVERY keyword into a category is ill-thought-out and places an additional burden on the contributor that SHOULD be handled by the staff.  How many millions of keywords are already in the database? Now, EVERY SINGLE KEYWORD will need to be audited and corrected to place EVERY SINGLE KEYWORD into a category!

As a test, I audited the keywords on Gone With the Wind, and I am embarrassed to tell you how long it took.

One must change to "Correct" on EVERY SINGLE KEYWORD before one can even begin correcting them.  (There should be some way to automatically do this rather than the time-consuming manual, keyword-by-keyword way!)

The drop-down Categories are also a problem.  There should be more options.  

And IMDb's "pet" Timeframe and Subgenre options are particularly annoying and poorly thought out.  Apparently, the Timeframe option is intended to mainly be used for keywords that already begin with the "timeframe-" antecedent.  (Someone sure likes them "timeframes"!)

The Subgenre option is apparently limited ONLY to the questionable Subgenres that were recently and prematurely announced, which prevents OTHER subgenres from being identified. On Gone with the Wind, for example, I had to enter the "Other" option for the following subgenres that are not included in IMDb's pet "new"(?) subgenres, namely:  epic, melodrama, political-drama, romantic-drama, tearjerker-romance, tragic-romance and wartime-romance.  I am assuming that there are many other subgenres like farce, opera, neo-noir, etc. that would NOT be allowed the Subgenre category, and subsequently are relegated to the generalized "Other" category.  (Why are these new, often questionable and very subjective Subgenres so protected and supported?)

Was this new "Categories" program thoroughly tested before it was instituted?  Beginning with the new Subgenres and the Timeframe keywords, I can only ask WHO is in charge at IMDb?  It seems like some favored ones are making decisions that advance personal agendas, perhaps in an assertive "power play." The result is a disservice to contributors and users.  I request that Col Needham please investigate and respond.