References to films as keywords

I have thought about this exact issue a lot. Here are my two cents, with some background before I respond to the specifics. Bear with me -- I promise I will eventually respond to your specific suggestions.

First, I believe that there has been significant overuse and even abuse of the "reference-to" prefix in keywords by a few contributors. Literally the only two mentions of the "reference-to-" prefix in the guidelines are for referring to titles ("reference-to-shawshank-redemption") and to names ("reference-to-marilyn-monroe"). The context of these two examples is that they are items that are otherwise listed elsewhere in the database (The Shawshank Redemption and Marilyn Monroe). My interpretation is that the guidelines are telling contributors to avoid potential confusion about whether a keyword is linking to those actual items in the database by instead using the prefix "reference-to-," to make it clear that this is a keyword instead (and not a link to the actual title or person).

I interpret all of this to mean that "reference-to-" need only be used for people, names, characters, titles, film-related companies, etc. that would otherwise be listed at IMDb. There is certainly no other mention of "reference-to-" anywhere else in the guidelines, so I think this is a reasonable interpretation.

Unfortunately, some contributors have took the "reference-to-" prefix and run with it, using it as a substitute for the "character-says-" prefix, and also for any minor place, thing, or concept that is spoken about, shown on the screen, or even alluded to. For example, if a character briefly mentions he once went on a vacation to China, the contributor(s) will add a keyword "reference-to-vacation-to-china." If a scene briefly shows a billboard that happens to advertise Marlboro cigarettes, the contributor(s) will add a keyword "reference-to-marlboro-cigarettes." If a character says they forgot to pay their utility bill this month, the contributor(s) will add a keyword "reference-to-forgetting-to-pay-a-utility-bill." And on and on.

I am not in the slightest bit exaggerating with those examples. Just to point out the absurdity of how "reference-to-" is being severely abused, here are a few actual examples:

reference-to-defecating-on-a-pillow 

reference-to-knitting-a-sweater 

reference to gay sex under the bleachers

reference-to-separating-one's-food 

reference to a bag of candy as a gift

reference-to-acid-being-thrown-on-a-boy's-face

I could give you thousands of absurd examples just like that, all of which are "orphaned" keywords (keywords that only apply to a single title).

Again, in my view, "reference-to" should not be used except in the very narrow circumstances where a thing (person, character, title, company, etc.) is otherwise listed in the database and there is a need to avoid confusion about where the keyword is linking to. If something else in the plot is important enough to be covered in a keyword, then the "reference-to-" prefix should not be used. The reason is that when the "reference-to-" prefix is used for an important plot element, it will bifurcate the keywords in keyword searches. For example, if one contributor uses "cow" as a keyword and another contributor uses "reference-to-a-cow," the keywords have been bifurcated and there is no way (that I'm aware of) to combine them in a keyword combination search. This bifurcation problem is one of the biggest issues with using the "reference-to-" prefix.

And finally, if something is not an important plot point, then there is no need to add a keyword for it at all, let alone a keyword with the "reference-to" prefix. Otherwise it is spam to add a keyword for every single little thing that each character says, does, or wears in the film or show.

A related issue is that some people believe they must use the "reference-to-" prefix any time a keyword is a proper name (like a geographic place, a non-movie-related company, a consumer product, a news medium or social media website, etc.)  Instead of "idaho" as a keyword they believe they must use "reference-to-idaho," even for a film that takes place in Idaho. Instead of "kleenex," they believe they have to use the keyword "reference-to-kleenex." Instead of "wall-street-journal," they believe they must use the keyword "reference-to-the-wall-street-journal." Yet nothing in the guidelines say anything about the "reference-to-" prefix in these contexts, let alone requires contributors to use it.

Now, let's discuss the Shawshank Redemption example. On the one hand, this mention of "reference-to-shawshank-redemption" in the guidelines is good, because it provides the context I have discussed above about the proper use of the "reference-to-" prefix (as a means of avoiding confusion for items otherwise listed in the database).

On the other hand, it is a bad thing, because it is an express endorsement of the "reference-to-" prefix, which some contributors have misinterpreted as giving them free reign to use the "reference-to-" prefix as they see fit.

There is also the problem you have mentioned that it really should be "reference-to-the-shawshank-redemption," not "reference-to-shawshank-redemption."

As you point out, the preferable way to indicate a reference from one title to another is by adding it as a movie connection.  You have argued that only the movie connection approach should be used, and not the "reference-to-" keyword approach.  I think I would be okay with that change in policy. The "reference-to-" prefix has not been used enough for titles to have any meaningful impact on keyword combination searches if these keywords went away. And if contributors were instructed to use the movie connection approach instead, then it would definitely bolster that feature (because otherwise people can get lazy and only type connections as a keyword while ignoring the movie connections feature).

Regardless of what is done on the movie connections issue, I strongly believe the bigger issues of the "reference-to-" prefix really need to be clarified in the guidelines. Specifically, the guidelines should specify the limits for when this prefix should and should not be used.

If I had control over the policy here, I would probably eliminate the "reference-to" prefix entirely. It is at best confusing, it is has certainly been inconsistently applied, and its use only has the result of bifurcating keywords. If anything, I would only allow the "reference-to-" prefix for referring to people and characters, because in those situations, the keyword "marilyn-monroe" on its face doesn't make it clear whether Marilyn Monroe is in the film or is just referenced in the film. But that is the only narrow circumstance where I believe the "reference-to-" prefix is truly justified. Any other use of the prefix could be done away with immediately and IMDb would be better for it.

Thanks for allowing me to contribute my two cents (and then some).

Here's another reason why I support @gromit82's suggestions in this post: with "reference-to-" keywords, it is impossible to add context of how one title references the other. But with the movie connections option, the database allows (and even encourages) contributors to be specific about the nature of the connections. For this reason, the movie connections method is superior.

Since we have not received a response from the staff about this after two months, I'm bumping this thread.

I just wanted to point out that another guideline specifically regarding movie connections is potentially relevant here:

Generic references that do not link specific titles are not considered movie links. i.e. just because a character mentions Bond/Harry Potter/Frodo/etc. does not mean a reference to a specific Bond/Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings title or even all of them. Unless of course it is clear that a specific title is meant (i.e. poster/T-Shirt/specific cast reference). Otherwise, please consider submitting a plot keyword instead.

Setting aside the vague language and poor grammar in this guideline, this guideline does mention keywords. In my opinion the guideline doesn't really answer the question at hand, though.

My interpretation of this guideline is that if a specific title is not referenced, then you should use a keyword (e.g., "reference-to-marvel-cinematic-universe," "reference-to-harry-potter," and "reference-to-harry-potter-movie-franchise"). 

But if a reference is to a specific title, there are currently two options: (1) a plot keyword and (2) a movie connection. The guidelines do not specify whether one of these options is preferred over the other, nor whether both of them are preferred.

I think this thread could use another bump.

Hi @gromit82 & All -

My apologies for the delayed staff reply, we are currently working through a backlog of older, missed threads, aiming to address any outstanding issues.

Thanks also for all the thoughtful comments on this topic, I have filed a ticket for a policy review of these specified "reference-to" keywords.  As soon as I have an update I will post the policy confirmation here.

Cheers!

I'm going to bump this thread again because the problem discussed in my original post has not been resolved yet.

As it's now been a year and a half since I started this thread, I think it's time for another bump.

This thread has been open for two years now, so I think it needs another bump.

Please keep in mind that what I'm asking for doesn't require any programming skill. It's barely even a change in policy. I'm just asking to change the following text at https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/keywords/GXQ22G5Y72TH8MJ5#:

• Repeating the title: For example adding shawshank-redemption as a keyword to the title Shawshank Redemption. If the movie Shawshank Redemption is mentioned or referred to during a title, you can use the keyword reference-to-shawshank-redemption

to say instead something like this:

• Repeating the title: For example, the-shawshank-redemption should not be added as a keyword to the title The Shawshank Redemption. If the movie The Shawshank Redemption is mentioned or referred to during a title, please indicate that with a Movie Connection instead of a keyword.

After two and a half years, this problem has not yet been solved, even though it has been incorrectly tagged as "solved".