With all the comments/complaints about the "Known For" feature, one wonders why IMDB hasn't addressed the problem.

Like most/many contributors/subscribers, I've read IMDB's instructions regarding the "Known For" section and I know it has received significant criticism from members/subscribers. I also know your policy is: "The titles featured in the 'Known For' section change periodically." However, in my case, for example, they have not changed - FOR YEARS! In fact, I have OVER 100 Film & TV credits. Of the four items listed in "Known For": 1 is an obscure video game; 1 is a short film; one is for a single 22 year old episodic of a tv series; and the other is for a 13 year old film, which is not even among the highest grossing films in my filmography. Again, this hasn't changed for years! Surely after so long, IMDB can do better. And my complaint, reading so many other complaints is not unique! Nor is it a minority concern. This is and has been, an ongoing problem for IMDB and I am at a loss to understand why it is taking IMDB so long to address it. I know they'll say their system is "random" and cannot be manually updated. But perhaps it shouldn't be random \- and perhaps the only way to fix it is to enable manual updating. Certainly subscribers/members/professionals know best what they're most known for. Any evaluation of "Known For" which admits to being "random" - is inherently and literally, not factually accurate. And one which doesn't regularly, or even periodically update, literally does a significant disservice to your subscribers/members/professionals, and unfortunately, provides absolutely no legitimate benefit whatsoever. So the fix is easy, IMDB. And logical. If credits can be manually updated, it makes zero sense that the "Known For" feature - which is based upon those credits - can't be manually updated as well. So hey, AMAZON/IMDB: you need to show that you're responsive to your paid subscribers, and the industry professionals and contributing members - for who your service exists, and without whom, it would not - and fix this! Thanks!