Some major keyword issues

When it comes to IMDb, I, primarily, think of myself as a librarian and/or researcher. (One of my “first” jobs as a young adult was, literally, the latter.)  As such, I view IMDb an an archive — a collection of data about films, television, etc. — that should be readily understandable to the user.   (As a young boy, I was drawn to the old Reader’s Guide at the library to satisfy my curiosities about movies.  But it was somewhat frustrating that Reader’s Guide used the seemingly archaic and old fashioned “moving pictures” rather than “movies” or “film” as a subject heading.)

I have been a contributor to and user of IMDb for many years, under a different name in the early, formative years,  My contributions have been for many different departments, although I estimate that 90% are now to keywords.  If I have learned one thing from all of this, it is that there are always exceptions to guidelines and decisions.

This leads me to five observations about keywords on which I would like user, contributor and staff feedback:

1. Duplications seem to abound.  Sometimes, it seems as if the contributor is trying to find how many different ways the same thing can be stated.  Bring out the thesaurus and find as many synonyms as possible!  In the early days of IMDb, the rule seemed to be that the keyword listing the most titles was the preferred one.  So, do we need “traumatic-experience” when we have “trauma?”  “violent-behavior” when we have “violence?” "guilty-feeling" when we have "guilt?" Etc.

2) I have also noticed that there is a preference for “actions” rather than the person “doing” or “receiving” the action.  If you have “murder,” why do you need “murderer” or “murder-victim,” although “child-murderer,” “teenage-murderer” and “murderess” seem valid since they are minority exceptions.  If you list “rape,” why list “rapist” and “rape-victim,” although “male-rape” is a necessary exception?  If you have “hitchhiking,” do you need “hitchhiker”? If you have “gambling,”do you need “gambler”?  If “dancing,” do you need “dancer”? “singing”/“singer”? “kidnapping”/“kidnapper”-“kidnap-victim?” Etc

3) A “person” seems to take preference over an “object,” although sometimes the “object” can exist without the person.  If you have “violin-player” or “violinist” (duplication?), do you need “violin”?  Yes, sometimes an object (“violin”) can exist without being played or used, in which case (no pun intended) “violin” would be an acceptable keyword. “drums”/“drummer”? “trumpet”/“trumpet-player”-“trumpeter”? “card-playing”/“card-player”-“playing-cards”?

4) Standalone adjectives are very troublesome and can easily be misinterpreted as to be “applying” to a title, itself, or even to the user of the title.  “mentally-challenged-man” can represent a key plot element, but the standalone “mentally-challenged” could mean that the title, itself, is “mentally-challenged,” or that you and I are “mentally-challenged” — either of which may be true, but such determinations are probably beyond any of us unless we are a psychiatrist or psychologist.  Should standalone adjectives ever be keywords?

5) certain existing keywords seem absolutely unnecessary. Ars Poetica told us that drama (and comedy) must always have “conflict,” i.e.  Man (or woman) against man (or woman), man (or woman) against God, man (or woman) against Nature, with the modern addition of man (or woman) against himself (or herself).  “conflict” is a concerning keyword that should probably be limited to politics, war or land disputes. i.e.”arab-israeli-conflict.”  Relatedly, keywords like “stress” and “tension” seem unnecessary.  How can there be “conflict” without “stress” and/or “tension”?

Replies and insights would be appreciated.  There are other keywords issues that can and should be raised, but, “after all, tomorrow IS another day”!