bradley_kent's profile

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

Sunday, January 30th, 2022 5:16 PM

Closed

Solved

Nomination for the worst keyword of all times:

"human-interest"

EVERY title is (or has been) of "human-interest" to someone. Perhaps only those HUMANS involved in "creating" the title, but SOME HUMAN is (was) interested in every title at one time or another.

And, wasn't EVERY title viewed by a least one human?

Delete "human-interest" as a keyword, please.

30 Messages

 • 

398 Points

3 years ago

This thread is of no human-interest to me.

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

3 years ago

This may disappoint you, BUT you are NOT the ONLY "human" in the world. 

30 Messages

 • 

398 Points

@bradley_kent​ Plot twist. I'm not a human.

30 Messages

 • 

398 Points

To be honest "human-interest" is a really dumb keyword.

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

Vive la différence!

"unhuman-interest" may become a new keyword.  Or, "robot-interest"?

(edited)

Champion

 • 

7.5K Messages

 • 

276.1K Points

3 years ago

Bradley: Looking at the top-voted "human-interest" titles (https://www.imdb.com/search/keyword/?keywords=human-interest&sort=num_votes,desc&mode=detail&page=1), I agree with you that this is not a good keyword.

I can't see any particular commonality that these titles have in common which would put them under the description "human-interest".

There is a concept in journalism of a "human interest story" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-interest_story which defines it as "a feature story that discusses people or pets in an emotional way"), but these titles don't seem to be connected to that.

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

3 years ago

Here's another nominee: "psychological"

(Isn't EVERY title psychological"?)

Oh, and another nominee: "emotional"

(Ditto.  Even the most intellectual titles still have emotions!)

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@bradley_kent

I suspect that a majority of the instances of the keyword "psychological" are intended to refer to various subgenres of psychological fiction, like psychological-horror, psychological-thriller, psychological-drama, etc. These keywords are perfectly valid and allowed under IMDb guidelines, as per @Michelle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_fiction

Psychological thriller

Psychological horror

Psychological drama

Also, contrary to your repeated suggestions on this forum, not every title is "psychological."

Although I oppose a mass deletion and blocking of the "psychological" keyword, I would be fine with a modification of most of the instances of "psychological" to "psychological-fiction," plus the applicable subgrenre keywords like "psychological-thriller," etc.

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

3 years ago

How about a response?  Can these unnecessary keywords be deleted?

Employee

 • 

17.5K Messages

 • 

313.4K Points

3 years ago

Hi bradley_kent -

Just looking at these keywords, it seems that the usage of the keyword "human-interest" has been used erroneously.  However, there some valid use-cases for this keyword, for example if a non-human  character exhibits interest in humans (such as Mr. Weasley's characteristic interest in humans in the "Harry Potter" series).

Regarding "psychological", this may be relevant for films/shows with a narrative arc where the focus is on the mind of the character, such as their mental and emotional state. I'm thinking of films like "Donnie Darko", "The Voices" & "Dancer in the Dark".  Concerning "emotional", while it's certainly true that almost all drama films have emotional elements, this keyword may be useful in instances where there are continuous heightened emotional scenes throughout.

Champion

 • 

7.5K Messages

 • 

276.1K Points

@Michelle​ But Mr. Weasley is a human character. The wizards in "Harry Potter" are humans. Arthur Weasley was known for taking an interest in regular, non-magical people (muggles).

In any event, saying that "human-interest" refers to a non-human character being interested in human beings is likely to be confusing, since that's not how the term is used in the news business.

By contrast, a TV news producer looking for a "human interest" story might air something more like "Chicago high school mom's club holds dress re-sale event. A Chicago high school is holding a re-sale event to help young women afford prom and graduation dresses." or "Watch: Bodycam footage shows deputy saving dog from burning vehicle". 

(edited)

Champion

 • 

7.5K Messages

 • 

276.1K Points

@Michelle​ There may be some "human-interest" titles in the database which are about aliens, robots, animals, or other non-human entities who take an interest in humans, but it's not clear to me that most of the uses of this keyword are intended to convey that idea.

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@gromit82​ I still think the best definition for "human interest" focuses not on whether humans take an interest in each other within the plot itself, but rather whether the title features something about humans that is designed to trigger an interest in the viewer. I base that on the dictionary definition of "human interest story" that I quoted above:

human interest story: a story or report, as in a newspaper or on a newscast, designed to engage attention and sympathy by enabling one to identify readily with the people, problems, and situations described."

All the news programs that used the keyword "human-interest" most likely had the above definition in mind.

I still think the best solution is to merge the keywords as follows. I will include this in a future list of proposed keyword mergers:

human-interest (4709 titles) --> human-interest-story (9 titles)

(edited)

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

3 years ago

While "human-interest" is not the best keyword -- in fact, it's a pretty dumb keyword, if I may offer my own personal opinion -- it is not a completely inappropriate keyword warranting deletion.

I suspect that many people who use the "human-interest" keyword actually mean "human-interest-story."

human-interest (4709 titles)
human-interest-story (9 titles)

Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines "human interest story" as "a story or report, as in a newspaper or on a newscast, designed to engage attention and sympathy by enabling one to identify readily with the people, problems, and situations described."

That description arguably applies to most titles, but certainly not all of them.

Many experimental films, for example, have no characters and therefore would not be classified as "human interest stories." The same can also be said of certain documentaries, for example scientific documentaries. 

My suggestion to @Michelle and the rest of the IMDb staff would be to merge the keywords as follows:

human-interest (4709 titles) --> human-interest-story (9 titles)

That might get IMDb users more on track to using these keywords correctly.

Regarding "psychological" and "emotional", these are not great keywords either, but I also agree with @Michelle that neither of these keywords deserve deletion, either.

Regarding the title of this post ("Nomination for the worst keyword of all times"), I could think of many other keywords that are far worse, many of which have already been deleted/banned from IMDb.

I will refrain from listing keyword nominees for future bans here, since I don't want to hijack Mr. Kent's thread. But for a while now, I have been keeping a list of keywords that deserve future bans, and at some point I will likely post that list in a new thread. 

I also have a mental list of really bad, yet frequently used keywords that don't necessarily deserve bans. I may post that list for entertainment value at some point.

(edited)

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

BTW, a full 4,593 of the 4,709 titles with the "human-interest" keyword are in the "news" genre. These keywords were added by certain news programs through 2016, at which point they stopped. The keyword "special-interest" (another dumb keyword) was simultaneously added to most of these titles.

I would argue that "special-interest" is an even worse keyword than "human-interest," and may actually warrant deletion/banning. Although maybe not, if the term "special interest" were properly used in accordance with its dictionary meaning: "a body of persons, corporation, or industry that seeks or receives benefits or privileged treatment, esp. through legislation." I suspect that the vast majority of applications of "special-interest" on IMDb did not have that meaning in mind, however.

Champion

 • 

7.5K Messages

 • 

276.1K Points

@keyword_expert​ Just as "human interest" has a specific meaning in television news, "special interest" has a specific meaning in the direct-to-video business. 

Basically, to home video distributors and retailers, "special interest" is or was used to refer to productions that were released direct to video which were not theatrical movies or anything similar to that. Examples would include exercise videos, cooking videos, travelogues, sports documentaries, and other miscellaneous videos. See here, here, and here for example.

Whether this has anything to do with the way IMDb contributors have used the term is questionable. Anyway, I wouldn't want to label all the exercise videos, cooking videos, etc. in IMDb with the "special-interest" keyword as that is more like industry jargon than anything useful to IMDb users. (Actually, many "special-interest" titles would be listed under the Lifestyle genre, if IMDb ever gets around to establishing that genre.)

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@gromit82​ Interesting. Thanks for those links. It appears that "special interest" has at least three different meanings: (1) corporate/plutocrat interest (effectively the opposite of "public interest"), (2) direct to video special categories, and (3) news segments on special topics. 

Given all these various meanings, I would argue that the keyword is hopelessly vague, to the point of being practically useless. However, I don't know that it warrants deletion/banning. It's a bad keyword, but not a completely useless one.

(edited)

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

The ambiguity of these "worst," "bad," useless" keywords as expressed in the above discussions is the best argument one can make for why they should be deleted.

They serve no purpose whatsoever as a factual representation of a title's content, and are certainly not an assist for accurate research.

(edited)

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

Again... how about deleting "psychological," "emotional" and "human interest" keywords.  Their meanings are so subjective and so personal, and so randomly applied, that they are practically useless.

(edited)

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@bradley_kent​ Michelle has already answered your questions as to all three of these keywords.

Also, the "human-interest" keyword has been subsequently merged into the "human-interest-story" keyword, in keeping with this dictionary definition of "human interest":

human interest story: a story or report, as in a newspaper or on a newscast, designed to engage attention and sympathy by enabling one to identify readily with the people, problems, and situations described."

As discussed previously, 4,593 of the 4,719 instances of the keyword "human-interest-story" are in the news category.

(edited)

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

What is the accepted definition of "psychological"?  For the life of me, I cannot think of even one title that is not 
"psychological" and "emotional"!

An example?

(edited)

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@bradley_kent​ Scroll up. I have already linked to the Wikipedia definition of "psychological fiction" and the various subgenres thereunder.

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

Wikipedia: a narrative genre that emphasizes interior characterization and motivation to explore the spiritual, emotional, and mental lives of the characters. The mode of narration examines the reasons for the behaviors of the character, which propel the plot and explain the story.[1] Psychological realism is achieved with deep explorations and explanations of the mental states of the character's inner person, usually through narrative modes such as stream of consciousness and flashbacks.[2]

As director, actor, writer and acting teacher, this applies to EVERY character in EVERY title EVER undertaken.  

And, this applied to EVERYONE involved in the creation of a title.  This even extends to, not only the style, but the color of a prop or costume.  Everything has some psychological and/or emotional purpose.

A basic part of our work (art?) is the "deep explorations and explanations of the mental states of the character's inner person," even beyond stream-of-consciousness and flashbacks.

(edited)

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

1.4K Messages

 • 

23.4K Points

Very cute.  But.. it's not opinion.  It's fact.

Some people are just "deeper" than others.

(edited)