@alltimemarr said:

Don't forget about keuwords guys

I won't. Don't you forget about trolls, especially ones shilling for IMDb. Have fun. --30--

I personally find indicated keywords, rather than indicated genres, to be of much more value and interest to me on TMDb, for getting ideas of other similar subject matter or theme movie, documentary, etc. that might be something I'd like to check out. Keywords get in to a lot more of the specifics of a movie, etc., while genre selection is, I feel, intended for simply bunching films, etc. into certain basic core categories (for example makes evident if something is drama, comedy, documentary, etc., which genres such as those place releases within "type" range). Keywords are wherein content nature of a movie/documentary/series can be made quite clear, as selections are able to be honed in effectively.

I'm someone who doesn't view Politics as a genre, but absolutely do think it makes for an excellent, ideal keyword. Select, for example, Drama, Comedy, Documentary, or News as the genre, then select Politics as a keyword, and right there things are very usefully indicated as to what category of a politics movie, documentary, or series we're talking about. Using the example of the James Stewart classic movie mentioned further above in this thread, selecting Drama and Comedy as its genres, then selecting Politics and Washington, DC as a couple of its relevant keywords, and everyone gets useful basic information they need, and the important bases get covered.

@genplant29 said:

I personally find indicated keywords, rather than indicated genres, to be of much more value and interest to me on TMDb, for getting ideas of other similar subject matter or theme movie, documentary, etc. that might be something I'd like to check out.

I agree, that makes sense. Since Rich Wannen didn't bother to thank you for that suggestion, I will. (I think that Rich Wannen seems to have a lot of unresolved anger issues toward IMDb, Col Needham and anyone who likes anything about IMDb--even though TMDb has been usefully adopting several similar features. And calling people trolls when they spend time trying to furnish useful information or expressing a different opinion is, I think, just one symptom of that unresolved anger. I hope he can chill out a bit.)

Whenever I watch a movie, documentary, etc., I always afterwards come on TMDb and look at the title's corresponding Overview page, to check for what (if any) keywords might already have been added by anyone, then add any obvious applicable further ones I'm able to think of. A great many titles so far actually don't have any keywords added (particularly regarding very old movies, like what I often gravitate to, and many documentaries). The more of us who add useful keywords, the better for the site and for the reference of all of us.

@genplant29 said:

Whenever I watch a movie, documentary, etc., I always afterwards come on TMDb and look at the title's corresponding Overview page, to check for what (if any) keywords might already have been added by anyone, then add any obvious applicable further ones I'm able to think of.

Thanks for the suggestion; I'll start doing that myself. (I'm still learning my way around, and will eventually figure out how to do everything.)

@genplant29 said:

I personally find indicated keywords, rather than indicated genres, to be of much more value and interest to me on TMDb, for getting ideas of other similar subject matter or theme movie, documentary, etc. that might be something I'd like to check out. Keywords get in to a lot more of the specifics of a movie, etc., while genre selection is, I feel, intended for simply bunching films, etc. into certain basic core categories (for example makes evident if something is drama, comedy, documentary, etc., which genres such as those place releases within "type" range). Keywords are wherein content nature of a movie/documentary/series can be made quite clear, as selections are able to be honed in effectively.

Well, I have the same problem with keywords that others seem that have with genres. Without wishing to distress anyone's bowels, I nonetheless must make reference again to IMDb, which is wherefrom this problem first came to my attention.

I have no idea what the situation there is now, but a few years back, they had something like 10,000 keywords, and despite the injunctions to only address content matters, submitters were sending in all kinds of stuff. Even when sticking to content, every synonym in the world for any given keyword could be found on IMDb (and they weren't linked together to identify the "preferred" word).

There was no consensus among even the best of us whether keywords should only address common (among many films/shows/etc.) things, or unique ones. Nor were keywords defined (my favorite example: "alien". Goes for both outer space and foreign visitors). And then there was no way to control for wiki-wackies coming in and deleting all the keywords they didn't like or used in a way they didn't like. It was ultimately just a big food-fight, nouns and verbs, adjectives and adverbs flying every which-way, here one day, gone the next.

And there was no requirement to add keywords with submissions, so plenty of entries, possibly most, had none at all. How can one use them, therefore, to compile a roster of items of interest, given that this melee is going on over some 3.3 million title entries.

I don't get the sense it's any different here. Except that, as far as I can tell, unlike IMDb there's no way to search either genres or keywords to find titles (that I've been able to discover) to which any of them apply. Maybe there aren't 10,000 keywords yet. But if more and more people come here to contribute, the same load of verbiage will likely develop, and woe betide the poor schlepper who's assigned to manage them all. At the very least, if TMDb actually doesn't want to add any more genres, then it'll have to put a limit on the number of keywords, or their submissions will do nothing but artificially raise clever submitters' positions on the Leaderboard (and I know at least one guy, obsessed with all things keyword, was in that very position in IMDb's annual list of "Top 100 Contributors" - of getting there simply by furiously adding and deleting keywords). FWIW, the AFI did that with their keywords as well as their genres, set manageable numerical limits on each

I'm someone who doesn't view Politics as a genre, but absolutely do think it makes for an excellent, ideal keyword. Select, for example, Drama, Comedy, Documentary, or News as the genre, then select Politics as a keyword, and right there things are very usefully indicated as to what category of a politics movie, documentary, or series we're talking about. Using the example of the James Stewart classic movie mentioned further above in this thread, selecting Drama and Comedy as its genres, then selecting Politics and Washington, DC as a couple of its relevant keywords, and everyone gets useful basic information they need, and the important bases get covered.

It's fine as a keyword. All I've ever said is that AFI and LOC recognize it as a genre, and I think they're better way reference experts than IMDb or Wukkipedia (my goodness, does anyone still take the Wik seriously?); and if TMDb already has it as a genre, why remove it? That'll just complicate the picture further, with titles out there genre'd as Politics, and others not and the word can't be found on the dropdown. I ran into that with some film, the genre was Historic Fiction, but when I entered a different, new title of another piece of Historic Fiction, then I couldn't find it. It's also a problem having some genres available for only movies or only TV shows when there are plenty of subjects in both categories. But I'm not advocating any large addition to the TMDb genre roster, only a few more (altho I don't know if I should bother or not; I can always just leave certain submission genre-less, for want of an appropriate option, and add just one keyword - the genre - and catch much less grief for trying). On the other hand, I'm more likely to advocate for getting some firm limits on keywords, if the question comes up, because in the present state of affairs - too many of them, inconsistently added to relevant titles, and cluttered with synonym alternatives for one concept - I can't see the value otherwise except to account for what I consider missing genres, especially without a list of them all.

@Moon_Doggie said:

Since Rich Wannen didn't bother to thank you for that suggestion, I will.

Just FYI, chum, I left the house about 20 mins. after my last post (to Marr), and didn't get back til a couple of hours ago. So I had no way of knowing what had or had not been posted here after I left. Ass.

@Rich Wannen said:

if TMDb already has it [Politics] as a genre, why remove it? That'll just complicate the picture further, with titles out there genre'd as Politics, and others not and the word can't be found on the dropdown.

I personally would be entirely fine with if there were already a current TMDb Politics (that one single word) genre; I wouldn't advocate eliminating it. The problem, however, is that it's now part of an unnaturally conjoined "War & Politics" double genre, that I don't at all understand why those two classifications have gotten paired together. (I don't believe they were together a couple of weeks ago, as I don't remember ever noticing seeing that as an option until during just this past week.)

As I mentioned in my OP, the nearly three hours movie I felt I had to select that for the other night most definitely doesn't have anything about politics or that's otherwise political about it. It's squarely a war drama. So I first selected "Drama" genre for it, then (resistantly - but feeling it necessary) "War & Politics" genre. I felt I couldn't bypass selecting "War & Politics" as the vast majority of the movie is set squarely within the battlefield and trenches environment, therefore to have only selected "Drama" would have conveyed the movie's "type" inaccurately.

@genplant29 said:

@Rich Wannen said:

if TMDb already has it [Politics] as a genre, why remove it? That'll just complicate the picture further, with titles out there genre'd as Politics, and others not and the word can't be found on the dropdown.

I personally would be entirely fine with if there were already a current TMDb Politics (that one single word) genre; I wouldn't advocate eliminating it. The problem, however, is that it's now part of an unnaturally conjoined "War & Politics" double genre, that I don't at all understand why those two classifications have gotten paired together. (I don't believe they were together a couple of weeks ago, as I don't remember ever noticing seeing that as an option until during just this past week.)

Point well taken.

As I mentioned in my OP, the nearly three hours movie I felt I had to select that for the other night most definitely doesn't have anything about politics or that's otherwise political about it. It's squarely a war drama. So I first selected "Drama" genre for it, then (resistantly - but feeling it necessary) "War & Politics" genre. I felt I couldn't bypass selecting "War & Politics" as the vast majority of the movie is set squarely within the battlefield and trenches environment, therefore to have only selected "Drama" would have conveyed the movie's "type" inaccurately.

I agree about the conjoined genres, all of them (3, I think); they cover too much widely-varied turf. And I more than understand your rejecting "Drama", tho again for me it would have been an issue of informational insufficiency rather than inaccuracy, an even broader and blander genre choice than "War & Politics", bad as that is. As I said somewhere above, "Drama" and "Comedy" seem to me most useful as only residual categories (in the absence of anything more definitive, with or without keywords). Or as qualifiers and clarifiers, as in "Horror" + "Comedy"; but pretty vague as stand-alones.

@Rich Wannen said:

All I've ever said is that AFI and LOC recognize it as a genre, and I think they're better way reference experts than IMDb or Wukkipedia (my goodness, does anyone still take the Wik seriously . . . .

Wow, you must have had a bad experience at IMDb to have so much bitterness toward them. Is it just because they didn't always use your suggestions?

And Wikipedia has been found by encyclopedic experts to be as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. Just chill already or you'll pop a blood vessel. Seriously, I'm not trolling you, just giving some constructive advice.

We are actively working on maintaining keywords, at least on sight.

We currently have these Keyword guidelines (don't pin me down on it thought, everything's subject to change! :-P)

• Keywords should be chosen very carefully. You can think of keywords as an exercise for an English class where you have to choose only the few very best (non-spoilery) keywords to describe the plot of movie.
• Around 5-10 keywords for TV shows and 15-20 keywords maximum for movies is reasonable.
• Indiscriminately copying keywords from IMDb is a bad idea.
• Quotes, taglines, titles, actors, characters, crew, original story writers, networks, companies, award ceremonies and companies are generally not accepted a keywords.
• We have a few exceptions such as popular characters that appear in more than one series (e.g. "James Bond" or "spider-man").
• There is no need to add the movie genres as keywords (e.g. "comedy" for comedy films, "drama" for drama films).
• A notable exception is the "family" keyword. Family as a keyword does not have the same meaning as Family as a genre (i.e. the keyword can be used when family is a strong theme or when the movie is centered on a family). They can be used on the same entry (e.g. The Croods is a family film about a family).
• Some keywords such as '3d", "based on novel", "woman director", "duringcreditsstinger" are allowed.
• Most trivia-based keywords (e.g. face slap, one word title) are better off as lists.
• Translated keywords are not yet supported. That mean no non-English keywords unless they are words commonly used in English.
• Keywords should be objective. No opinion or judgment.
• Keywords have to be added on by one (e.g. "superhero" then "los angeles" not "superhero, los Angeles")
• Please use already existing keywords when possible (e.g. "mini-series" not "miniseries" or "tv mini-series"; "teenager" not "teenagers")
• Years, decades (e.g. "1990s") and centuries (e.g. "19th century") keywords can be used when the story is set in the past or the future. For example, for movies released in 1975, a story set in 1960s is the past and a story set in 1980s is the future. The year/decade/century of the released should not be used a keyword. Thus, keywords such as "future" are based on the year of the release, not 2017.
• Non-relevant keywords will be deleted by mods.
• Spoilers will be deleted by mods.
• Users should not, under any circumstances, delete good keywords.
• Pornographic keywords should only be added for entries set to adult:true.

When I add keywords, I'm also looking at the whole list of suggestions, and merge/rename everything I deem "close enough", delete unneccesary trivia-like keywords (face-slap, number in title, title spoken by character and the like) and such.

For example the "magic"/"magical"-keywords, I trimmed them down to around... eight, if I'm correct. https://www.themoviedb.org/search/keyword?query=magic

Oh well, it was nine! I merged lots into magic and magical ring, magic mirror with all no more then 5 movies etc all into the renamed keyword magical object.

I would LOVE to be able to define genres though... and to make the search also search in that definition.

Excellent list, Marr!

@SixtiesHoldout said:

Wow, you must have had a bad experience at IMDb to have so much bitterness toward them. Is it just because they didn't always use your suggestions? Just chill already or you'll pop a blood vessel. Seriously, I'm not trolling you, just giving some constructive advice.

Thanks for your concern. IMDb does have a "bad experience" component to it, yes, but it's less the site or its general personnel than the site owner, Col Needham, with whom I have the grievance. The other people I met there, and collaborated with, were mostly decent sorts, interested in film history in one way or another and willing to contribute to its preservation on the internet. If it were just a case of just "they didn't always use my suggestions", I would've stalked off in a year; as it was, I stayed with them at least 12 years, contributing everything I could lay hands on they didn't have and generally making the Top 50/Top 100 Contributors annual lists in consequence of my dedication.

And the site certainly does have more valid information about movies (et al.), including ones that I like, in one place, than any other site I've found on the internet, never mind print sources. My thing with Needham is, generally stated, that the quantity of valid stuff that's there, got added and stays there as much, if not more than, in spite of him than because of him. My impression of him is as a vain people-user, and in that sense he is just a symbol - because he is in charge of so much of the hobby where my heart is - for various people I've dealt with over the years who've "done me dirt". And he is a computer expert who is a film-fan, not a film expert who is a computer fan, so he doesn't well understand film but has programmed the site and contributor interfaces as if he did, the result being that it's certain some things will get omitted and others will be subject to corruption, intentional or otherwise, which ultimately leaves it unreliable in the whole; but it fools the newbies, the naive and the casual, and that's all he seems to really care about. There's a lot of personal stuff, too - broken promises, sabotaged relations with other staff, etc. But that's not anything I want to get into now and, as I say, it's only relevant by extension to the current behaviors of others as symptomatic of their underlying attitudes - and the problem I have with those attitudes affecting (?dominating) whatever place I'm in when the conflict arises, such as at TMDb.

Bottom line is, the three people I have on Ignore now - or is it 4 - got me riled because of their dismissive, wet-blanket, cold-water-dumping attitudes towards not just my suggestions, but the whole business of having a discussion and getting suggestions from others. They storm in and denigrate, seizing control of the thread and spooking the less feisty. Me, they just get my dander up, and put me in a psychological corner (or try to) with how to continue without descending to their level. So I choose to descend as far, and perhaps farther, which is my hangup, in order to hopefully back them off; and if that comes off sounding as if I'll "pop a blood vessel", well, don't get too worried. I have some facility at writing and expressing myself beyond what I may actually be feeling (tho I certainly could end up feeling "that way" and even popping a blood vessel - and not much else - if I really let it go on), so it may seem hotter in print than I actually am inside.

But I hope that clarifies things for you some, about me and this thread. It may help, too, to understand that I've been a ravening film buff since 1953 - yes, 1953 - and have been collecting information about films on paper since I was able to write, and templating it (i.e. databasing it, on paper) since a friend of mine got a mimeograph to make the forms I designed, and I got a typewriter to type the info on in the mid-60s. And although my initial interest and principle efforts through the 70s were focussed on sci-fi/horror films, I've always harbored an interest in the overall b-film experience and eccentric little filmed things from abroad. The advent of cable TV to my neighborhood and the acquisition of a Betamax, both in1980, allowed me to expand in those directions. I've consciously limited myself to the sound period to 1960 in my endeavors, and feature films released in the USA only, but if time allowed I would have no trouble into dealving more into the silents and the shorts, and also non-theatrical motion pictures. Post-1960 is generally someone else's turf, also TV, though I try to be he'pful there when I can. Yeah, OK, I may be nuts; but I hope you can see that it's no off-the-cuff thing for me to have a considered opinion about movie data, its acquisition, storage and display for others, and not just occasional knee jerk reactions when I'm in a bad mood about something else in my life. 'Nuff said, for now.

And Wikipedia has been found by encyclopedic experts to be as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

I won't touch this one with a ten-foot cursor, except to say that I wonder if that says more about contemporary inaccuracy of the EB than accuracy of Pikiweedia. Cheers :)

@genplant29 said:

Excellent list, Marr!

Agreed! Is this posted anywhere on-site yet, for contributors' general reference; or is a Guidelines section still in the offing? Anything similar for Genres, e.g. definitions, or rationales for what are and are not allowed?

It's still in the works, but Travis is soon gonna publish it! It's already got like... over 200 "rules" already. We've been working on it since February 15th.

Here's what we have listed on the subject of Genres (movie):

• "TV movie", "Animation" and "Documentary" should be added when relevant.
• "Family" should be added to children's movie and movies for the whole family. (--- although, now that I re-read this, I'm gonna make a comment about "children's movies". I think it should only be for the whole family. No parent will enjoy watching "Woezel & Pip" (it's something Dutch, but I think there's lots of American alternatives, like... Barbie?), but something like The Croods of Family.)
• Genres should be chosen very carefully. We only want the 2 or 3 most relevant film genres, excluding the genres mentioned above, that best describe the movie (e.g. "Drama", "Comedy, War" or "Western, Science Fiction, Action").
• A genre (e.g. romance) can, in rare cases, be better suited as a keyword than as a genre. Before adding a genre as a keyword, please make sure it's relevant and that it conforms to our keywords guidelines. No spoilers!
• The genres listed on major movie websites can help with the genre selection, but copying all genres from one website is generally not a good idea. It is recommended to use multiple sources and to be critical and selective. A genre can be a bad fit despite being listed everywhere.
• As always, moderators do their best when they verify and lock data, but film genres are ultimately subjective. Users can file a content issue report should they find a movie locked with incorrect or missing genres.

Listed under "Genres & Keywords" for TV is:

• Genres missing from the TV genre list can be added as a keywords (e.g. Horror, Romance, History, Music, Thriller). Please note that the list of genres may change in the future.
• Technical keywords shouldn't be added to the TV section unless it can apply to the whole series (e.g. no 'woman director' unless the whole series is directed by a woman).

And of course the same thing as for movies applies.