You really need AI for keyword submissions

@Kristin​ 

One of these keywords is much more common than the others. The more the others are added to titles, the harder it becomes for someone to remove the duplicate keywords entirely.

@Peter_pbn​ As I understand it, it is not possible for contributors to remove keywords,

even if you went in on all titles and deleted keywords and the contributor self handedly desided which he likes best, the keyword then with 0 enteries would still be in the database and be selected by new users.  

When you add keywords you don't see who has 0 usages, or the one who has the most usage.

And if you write in a keyword that is in the database, you will not be presented with the other versions.

So we therefore need the option to merge keywords back, 

as merging means the system replaces keyword x-y-z  with A,

then deletes keyword xyz from the keyword database

and also it is possible in the system to add so that if someone later adds x-y-or Z, A will automatically be added instead.

None of this is it possible for contributors/users to do, only IMDb.

Example: try to add keyword "shirtless male" to a title, 

the system will automatically change it to: bare-chested-male

So i would strongly suggest that people do not remove duplicate keywords.

They need to be merged, not removed.

PPS: I see on wayback machine the word they used was "combined" not merged.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260505234154/https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/keywords/GXQ22G5Y72TH8MJ5?ref_=helpsrall#duplicate

The Routine, that disappeared 19. May 2026:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Duplicate Keywords

A duplicate keyword is one which offers no additional or differentiating value to a keyword already listed. This could be the result of a spelling error or alternative spelling being used. To report a duplicate keyword please go to our contact form and let us know the details of the keywords you think should be combined.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Kristin​ 

If a keyword is removed from all titles, the keyword will no longer be in the database.

I would not base my contributions on a potential feature that may never happen.

It is IMDb's current position, as they also told you, that "when you observe inconsistencies such as those you reported, you are welcome to submit the applicable keyword corrections/deletions through our contribution form which will be reviewed and handled directly by our editors."

The only way to do that is to do it title by title.

While IMDb have removed the text from the help page after your post, it has been years since they stated here in the community that they would not continue to complete merge requests. You may find this thread of interest:

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/duplicate-keywords-list-50-developmental-disability-keywords-proposals-for-permanent-merger-and-autoconversion/635d898d7aca5e4ceea729a3

@Peter_pbn​ 

"It is IMDb's current position, as they also told you" ? 

No, nobody have told me that, I assume you have taken that sentence out of context from one of my posts where the one answering did not understand what I was taking about.

If you look at the whole conversation to the end you will see that :-)

The official answer I got on mail in March 2026 was:

"Hello Kristin,Thanks for writing back to us.My apologies for the previous agents reply.Yes, There is no option to combine keywords from contributors end."

I have not followed conversations for years, so does not other users.

I rely on the official rutines in the Help pages that was there until 8 days ago. (Not years.)

And here is an example from 6 months ago, see picture: 

Now 8 days ago they removed the routine from the help pages, 

and they want to let duplicate keywords stay until there is a more automated way of handling it.

That's their Choice, and I can understand they don't have unlimited man power.

Which is why I refferd to Vote on the automation suggestion.

But that does not mean we have a system or rutine in place for handling merging keywords now,

that random people should take it upon themselves to decide which keyword is best ,

and then manually edit 3458 (number depending on which keyword) titles is first of al not a good idea,

and nobody have the time to edit that many titles,

and doing it that way will not put a block on keywords as my example with "shirtless male" shows,

and it will not stop people from creating the keyword again,

and if they just delete keywords AND add their personal choice similar keyword on some of the titles, and not the 483 titles, that means the 450 titles they don't change it on suffer when it comes to be found via keyword x. 

(Sorry this is a long text, i'm not mad or anything just passionate ;-)  If something I have written is unnclaire do tell and i'l explain more :-)  I appreciate the discussion :-)  ) 

@Kristin​ 

I received your reply via email although it seems to be private here.

I assume you have taken that sentence out of context from one of my posts where the one answering did not understand what I was taking about.

I was referring to Maya's reply to one of your posts. It uses the same exact wording that Michelle used in the old thread that I linked above, so I don't think it is based on a misunderstanding.

I supported the idea of a merging feature as you can also see in the old idea post you linked. I also liked another user's idea of posting lists here so they could be discussed, as seen in the old thread I posted. Although Col Needham expressed an intention to work on a merging feature in the same thread, it hasn't happened yet. Another reason I'm unsure whether it will happen is that I think it would still require some manpower to make sure the requests are reasonable.

As for bderoes' suggestion of AI, I don't know how that would work, but it also worries me a little 😬

@Peter_pbn​ 

1.

(The out of context part was the first reply, not the last and end/conclusion reply,  in a longer thread where I asked about the Rutines, she gave that answer because she did not understand what I was talking about so the answer was not related to my question.  The fact that you have info that it was copied from somewhere else and not written specifically for my question just align wit that  ;-). )

2.

 Private, hmm. strange, it's not private now at least, if I check this url in a private un-innlogged window I also see my answer there, so it should be visible to everyone now at least.

I assume since you got it on mail you probably only got the first part, so you can see the rest now.

3.

Regarding the automation, that all depends on how the system is designed today, and how they design the new system.

Lets  say you merge 4 similar keywords on 1548 titles, IF the old system takes 100 buttons to push i 3 different systems and 15 minutes, per suggestion, 

and the new system is automated in a way that you only have to press  one  "ok" button if the suggestion is ok.  

Then that would still be a huge amount less time needed, when you add it up. 

So I don't think it needs to be fully untouched by humans for it to be prioritized. 

"The only way to do that is to do it title by title.”  This oftentimes seems to be the story of my life.