2.7K Messages
•
47K Points
Should these keywords be banned?
I believe these keywords should be permabanned. Does anyone disagree?
Before you answer, please click the links to get a sense of how these keywords have been applied to titles.
available-on-dvd (222 titles)
available-in-dvd (16 titles)
available-for-viewing (106 titles)
available-for-viewing-worldwide (17 titles)
character (329 titles)
characters (131 titles)
not-on-blu-ray (27 titles)
not-on-dvd (27 titles)
Accepted Solution
s_h_3zmjad9id0o6c
29 Messages
•
670 Points
3 years ago
Agree since as you say, keywords should refer to the plot.
0
Accepted Solution
Michelle
Employee
•
17.2K Messages
•
310.1K Points
3 years ago
Hi All -
These reported keywords have now been removed. The changes should be live on the site shortly.
Thanks for all your comments!
0
adrian
Champion
•
3K Messages
•
72.5K Points
3 years ago
If maintained properly, I think the "not-on" keywords could be useful. I still have a few laserdiscs for stuff that were never issued on DVD.
1
ACT_1
8.4K Messages
•
174.6K Points
3 years ago
@keyword_expert
off topic ??
Did not want to start something new
Looking for recently added Titles for another thread
found this one
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15225000/keywords 😜
.
0
0
gromit82
Champion
•
7.3K Messages
•
274.9K Points
3 years ago
I agree that none of the keywords cited in the original post should be allowed.
0
keyword_expert
2.7K Messages
•
47K Points
3 years ago
What does the community think about this keyword?
no-lgbt-character (97 titles)
I think I could argue both sides of the pros and cons of this keyword.
On the one hand, keywords should not be defined based on things that are not in the title. This reminds me of the really bad (now purged) keyword "no-abnormal-relationship." If keywords like that are allowed, where would we draw the line? Would we allow keywords like "no-product-placement," "no-cigarette-smoking," "no-sex-scene," "no-violence," "no-nudity," "no-female-character," "no-male-character," "no-transgender-character," "no-black-character," "no-white-character," "no-teenage-character," "no-elderly-character," "no-mentally-ill-character," "no-disabled-character," etc.? If those keywords are allowed, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where they would overwhelm the keyword section of a title.
These types of keywords are also confusing at first glance, because when quickly scanning a title's keywords, one might mistake a "no" keyword for the opposite of what the keyword actually signifies. In other words, "no-lgbt-character" might be interpreted as "lgbt-character" at first glance. These keywords add unnecessary confusion.
On the other hand, there may be reasons why people might want to search for and compile lists of movies and shows without any LGBT characters. (Admittedly, that would be most movies and shows.)
Also, a user might prefer to avoid such movies, and the keyword helps them know that a movie or show lacks any LGBT characters.
Finally, the existence of the "no-lgbt-character" keyword by itself is not really hurting anybody, and the slippery slope I've described above has not yet been exploited.
My overall preference would probably be to ban the "no-lgbt-character" keyword, but at this time I don't believe it's urgent to do so.
2
0