"Rebelde" (2004) Keywords

Given the fact that the guidelines were apparently unclear to Mr. Kent (and possibly others as well), perhaps IMDb staff should reconsider rewording the language of the guidelines to make them even more clear.

My suggestion would be to add a third sentence (underlined and bolded below) that would make the guidelines crystal clear and prevent the misinterpretation described by Mr. Kent in his post:

Episode-specific keywords submitted to the TV series page - Keywords submitted to the TV series page should be relevant to and describe the entire series. Keywords that are specific to a particular episode should be added to that episode only. Keywords relevant to an entire series and to specific episodes may be added in both places.

IMDb staff seemed to agree in the past that keywords that belong on the series level should not also be added to episodes (at least not all episodes).

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/why-keywords-for-tv-series-problem-continues/5f4a79ff8815453dba94d493

@Peter_pbn

I just read that thread that you linked to. It does appear that IMDb staff member @Will agreed in that thread with the concept that keywords might belong "only at the series level." He responded by vaguely saying "I've contacted the user responsible now and explained the policy." But he didn't explain publicly what he believed the policy was. 

He also said "I agree that the message in the submissions interface should include that point. [What point?] I've added it now which is already live." But I checked the interface, and whatever he might have added, I see no evidence of it today.

Again, the plain language of the policy, as well as common sense, allow for a keyword to be added both at the series level, and on specific episodes (or even all episodes), so long as the keywords are relevant in both instances. If a keyword is relevant to an entire series, the keyword can and should be added there. And if it is relevant to specific episodes (either certain episodes or even all the episodes), the keyword can and should be added there as well.

Setting aside the fact that the guidelines allow for that result, it also defies common sense to prevent a keyword from being added to an episode just because the same keyword is also relevant to the entire series. As I have explained, that would interfere with the ability to find relevant episodes based on combinations of multiple keywords.

Using the example covered in that thread you linked to, if I want to search for all films and shows that include the two keywords "anthropomorphic-animal" and "deduction" together, I should be able to do that search and return the results for the Detectives! episode of "Kid-E-Cats."  Yet because Phil Boroff insisted that the episode should not contain the keyword "anthropomorphic-animal" just because it was added at the series level (and even though it is also relevant at the episode level), this episode will not show up in the intended search. There is absolutely no good policy reason to support that result. 

Again, the language of the guidelines is indeed very clear, and the focus is on relevance. The focus is not to avoid duplication between the series level and the episode level. I welcome anyone to explain how that result could possibly be construed from the guidelines.

Moreover, nobody has ever expressed a single policy rationale for why a keyword should be barred from being added at the episode level and the series level if it is relevant in both places. That's because there is no policy rationale for doing so. And that is why the guidelines are not written this way. 

If the mass additions of keywords is resulting in keywords being added to episodes for which the keywords are not relevant, then that is another problem entirely, and it can be dealt with. But the guidelines do not prohibit keywords from being added to specific episodes where the keywords are relevant, just because the keywords are also relevant to the series as a whole. Nor should the guidelines be rewritten to include such a prohibition.

@Peter_pbn 

I found another response from an IMDb employee on this topic. This one is from @Michelle. In reviewing that post, Michelle's response, and the keywords on the series and episodes in question, the problem seems to be when someone adds numerous keywords en masse to both a series title and every single episode under the title, with no additional keywords on any of the episodes. Michelle refers to this as adding keywords "in bulk on all episodes of a series." 

With that said, it appears that IMDb itself has frequently added the exact same keywords "f-rated" and "triple-f-rated" in bulk to all episodes of a series, as well as at the series level. This can be seen on the episode Triple Axel of the show "Young & Reckless," which is one of the titles expressly mentioned in that other post.

I also reviewed most of the series, and some of the individual episodes, listed by Mr. Boroff in that other thread. His extreme misinterpretation of IMDb's keyword policies resulted in keywords being deleted from episodes even when they were clearly relevant to those episodes.

An example is the episode De Geest, for the show "Tabula Rasa." The keyword "mental-hospital" is obviously relevant there, both at the series level and to this episode, yet Mr. Boroff's overly aggressive misinterpretation of the guidelines resulted in all keywords being deleted from that episode, including the keyword "mental-hospital," even though it was clearly relevant to that episode, as well as being relevant to the series as a whole.

In this context (adding keywords to TV shows), the one thing that nobody (other than me) seems to ever mention is the importance of relevance. 

The easiest way of explaining the guiding principles here is with numbers. Obviously these numbers are not a true science, but they help illustrate the point:

- If a specific keyword is relevant to 51% to 100% of the episodes in a series, then it may be added at the series level. But if it is relevant to 50% of the episodes or less, it should not be added at the series level.

- If a specific keyword is relevant to 25%, 50%, or 95% of the episodes in a series, it should be added only to those specific 25%, 50%, or 95% of the episodes, respectively.

- If a specific keyword is relevant to 100% of the episodes in a series, then it may be added at both the series level and to all of the episodes. A case in point is the keywords "f-rated" and "triple-f-rated," as discussed above.

- If 100% of the keywords listed at the series level are also relevant to 100% of the episodes, it is okay to list these specific keywords in both places. That may actually very well be the case with the aforementioned show "Tabula Rasa," which only has four keywords, all of which are quite likely applicable to all nine episodes. 

Again, the guiding principle here is relevance. Just as contributors should not mass-add keywords in bulk to episodes unless they are actually relevant to those episodes, other contributors (and IMDb employees) should likewise not mass-delete keywords from episodes unless it is clear the keywords are not relevant to those episodes.

In that other thread, Mr. Boroff referred to keywords being listed at both the series level and the episode level as "incorrect." This extreme, erroneous interpretation of the guidelines is illogical, inconsistent with the guidelines, unworkable, and counterproductive when it comes to keyword searches on IMDb. 

The best example I can think of to illustrate the point is the keyword "zombie" for the show "The Walking Dead." Yesterday I checked that show and all of its episodes, and learned that the keyword "zombie" was not on any of the episodes, apparently just because that keyword was listed at the episode level. That result is absurd, because every single episode of The Walking Dead has included a zombie.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the keyword "zombie" being listed at both the series level and on every single episode of The Walking Dead, and I have accordingly now added this keyword to every episode.

Without the keyword "zombie" on every episode of The Walking Dead, it would be impossible to pick up specific episodes when searching IMDb with combinations of multiple keywords (e.g., "zombie" plus "decapitation").  But now that I have added the keyword "zombie" to every episode, these searches can be properly done.

In conclusion, people should use common sense when adding (and deleting) keywords. If a keyword is relevant, it may be added, regardless of whether we are talking about an episode and/or a series. It really is as simple as that. 

Regarding "f-rated" there was also this thread where Will said they were happy to have it at series and episode level, but also seemed to acknowledge that it was an exception.

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/fratedand-triplefrated-keywords/5f4a79fa8815453dba93f5f7

@Peter_pbn 

Thanks for that link. I read that thread as well. Both @Will and @Michelle said it is okay to add the "f-rated" and "triple-f-rated" keywords both at the series level and to individual episodes within that series (or even to all episodes within the series). Neither Michelle nor Will ever expressed that as as "exception" to the guidelines or policies. Rather, the practice is fully consistent with the guidelines as currently worded.

Again, the guidelines clearly allow for a specific keyword to be added both at the series level and at the individual episode level (or even all episodes), as long as the keyword is relevant in all instances where it is added. Will said as much here in response to that other post:

We see no issue with keeping the keyword at the series and episode level, as long as it applies to both. 

I was referring to this exchange:

Phil: Do you realize that this makes the f-rated keyword the ONLY keyword to which this applies?

Will: Yes we do.

But I'm not trying to convince you, and you don't have to repeat yourself.

@Peter_pbn 

Ah, I missed that, in part because Will was apparently answering Phil Boroff's question without directly responding to or quoting the question. Thanks for clarifying.

Well, to the extent this means that Will was agreeing with Phil Boroff's interpretation of the guidelines, both of them were wrong.