What is wrong with the Genre list manager?

I’ve provided “evidence” on the eight contributions cited above.  Do you want more?

(User and external reviews are also often “evidence.”  Besides, I’ve also seen all of these titles, but I guess that doesn’t matter.  I take my contributions quite seriously, and always stress objective, personally detached observation.  I view myself as a reporter, not an opinionated editorial writer.)

@bradley_kent​ Hi!

There is no links of evidence on any of the submissions, we appreciate that you take your contributions seriously but our editors sometimes need links to verify the submissions.

Thanks!

There IS evidence. Just use the google search, then enter title and year and (genres). There are NO urls for these searches.  Do you only consider “official sites”?  If so, that is hard to believe since most titles do not have “official sites.”  As I suggested earlier, using the google search is a great way to verify genres, and IMDb should incorporate it for genre verification.

How about a response and a consideration of my suggestion?

I truly appreciate and respect IMDb.  But my goal, as I have said many times, is to help make IMDb more accurate than it already is.

When it comes to genres, I find myself wondering if I should even contribute additions, corrections or deletions.

May I suggest that IMDb also use Google search for (title) (year) genres as a verification source.

I often cite “reputable” critic reviews, often from Variety and TIme Out and other ‘reliable” reviews, including IMDb’s own external reviews.  (Are they not reliable?) What I was suggesting is that IMDb also use google search for verification.  It is VERY reliable and as easy (if not easier) to access than any of the methods cited above.  It would make your job less time consuming as a corroborating methodology.  (Try it, and you will see.)

Winning awards under a genre designation is very rare. (The Golden Globes?  They are often not reliable.) Most titles DO NOT win awards, anyway.

Can you give me an example of "industry media article” and “marketing materials."  They are usually intended to PROMOTE a title, and may not reflect the reality.  Also, such sources are not available for less known and older titles.

There is tremendous inconsistency between what the Genre list manager accepts, or does not.  I have noticed that genres are much more readily accepted for less well known titles.  My suggestion is that google searches would be easier, less time consuming and a much more accurate representation of the objective reality.

According to Google, Jaws is comedy and science fiction among others, 12 Angry Men is a police procedural, and Schindler's List is an action movie.

I am NOT suggesting that IMDb use ALL the genres listed on Google search.  In fact, some of Google’s listings are what IMDb considers a subgenre.

What I am suggesting is that IMDb could use the Google search as an additional verifying source, and then make a decision whether to accept an addition, deletion or correction.

Could IMDb possibly reveal the specific verifying sources for just one title from before 1990? This would be a help and could be a good guideline. Now, it just seems to be "at the whim" of the genre list manager, often defying the observable facts and often very inconsistent.

How can a title have a subgenre that incudes a genre, and not have that genres, also.  How, for example, can a title have satire-comedy as a subgenre, and not have Comedy as a genre,  Makes no sense.

Titles very rarely have just one genre, anyway.  All fictional (and, perhaps non-fictional) titles should probably have Drama, or Comedy, or both, as genres.  There are only two ways to create art: one, to adhere to and obey classical dictums, or, two, to try to create something different.  Combining genres is the way an artist attempts to create something unique and new and personal.  Purists may think otherwise.

How about a response?

Sure would like to get a response to this.  Such a iist would be beneficial to both the contributor and the Genre List Manager.

Apparently, IMDb does not consider the writers at Variety and Time Out and The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times and The Guardian and film catalogues and other sources as accurate identifiers of genres.

Maybe IMDb needs to revise its genre definitions so they represent reality.

I doubt they can provide a list; they have already given you examples. If edits have been declined where you did include links to media like the ones you mention here, and if you do think the edits follow IMDb's genre definitions, then it would make sense to post about those submissions in this forum.

There are quite a few specific examples listed above.

Culled from Michelle’s unspecific comments above, corroborative sources are:

Official sites [Most titles DO NOT HAVE official sites.]

"a link to a prominent event announcement where the title won an award under that genre category” [Most titles DO NOT win awards.]

"reputable industry media articles that discuss the title genre” [This apparently DOES NOT INCLUDE the sources I cited above as they are apparently considered not “REPUTABLE."]

"any marketing material from the distributor or network that helps confirm the genre” [Availability is very limited.]

"critical reviews from reputable sources that discuss the genre” [Again, this apparently DOES NOT INCLUDE the sources I cited above as they are apparently not considered “REPUTABLE."]

Just since September, I have had over 40 genre submissions that were not accepted.  (By the way, others were accepted.) I DID NOT “make up” these genres, but they were from other reputable (?) sources.

The main source should be the title, itself.  I have viewed many of these titles on the net or elsewhere for verification.  (I, on an average, view at lest one title a day, and TCM is often continuously playing in the background!)

P.S.  A year or so ago, Westerns were finally allowed to have Comedy or Drama or both as genres.  This policy needs to be applicable to other genres, like Horror, Sci-Fi, etc.

Again, how about a response?

It has often been observed that there are only two was to create “art”: (1) By perfecting and adhering to a form (genre) the already exists, or (2) By attempting to create something new (which means combining genres or creating a new one).

In Allison Wilkinson’s Ten Best of 2024 list in The New York Times, for example, she notes the “Anora": “pays homage to several Hollywood genres — but it’s something all its own. The film mixes romp and romance and tragedy ... the make-believe reality of the American dream ...  [a] variation ... [that] has to do with fairy tales, fantasies and finally seeing the world straight on.”  "Emilia Perez" is also a genre buster: Drama, Comedy, Crime, Romance, Thriller, and, yes, a Musical.

I would wager that the vast majority of fictional titles on IMDb are already justifiably listed as Drama and/or Comedy .  Exceptions might be Sports, Talk Shows, News shows, some Documentaries. etc., but even those exceptions are occasionally debatable.

Why is IMDb clinging to purist, simplistic guidelines that do not reflect reality.  Drama and/or Comedy are valid genres for most titles.  Otherwise, IMDb is just denying the truth.

I must reply to a comment on another thread that said “crime IMPLIES drama,”  While, granted, there are probably more titles on IMDb with both Crime and Drama as genres than there are titles with Crime and Comedy (or both) as genres, the specific, distinctive description of each title should be acknowledged.  Double Indemnity (1944) and Arsenic and Old Lace (944) are vrey different titles, generically.

I am not intending to promote “Drama” as a genre.  I just want IMDb to report the objective reality.  More than anything else, I see IMDb as an archive of facts, and not a representation of my or anyone else’s subjective views.