Incomplete, wrong, missing or having used different keywords to describe the same thing is a common issue when an image collection is migrated to a proper DAM. I've learnt a lot about data bases on my day job, and now I understand the importance of thinking everything well from the beginning and having a unique source of data, but, damn, it's too late for many things. Now I realize how much time and effort I could have saved if I had chosen LR from the very start (even counting the opening/quitting every quarter hour, he, he.), but, well, that mess is how life uses to work, isn't it? I've deleted/flattened many keywords chains, but only when I need it for editing new files. I've expending some time cleaning them up, but I'm not really planning to fix all of them. When I imported my entire photo collection into LR (I had used iMatch just to keep track of the files but I didn't explore the great potential iMatch has, and, at the same time, I used Bridge for keywords and raw edition) I realized that something was really wrong with keywords hierarchies. Not sure how much time it will take but it and the slowing down when keywording is irritating so it would be nice to resolve it. īecomes a flat keyword ie boots-jungle-green if that makes sense ? Thinking about making complete catalog and keyword list copies - then flattening all the keyword hierarchies with something like NATO speak ie green jungle boots in plain speak which in LR is currently green < jungle < boots boots being the top level. That's interesting - have never used Bridge on my computers but a new hiccup whereby exported files are ending up with mangled keywords suggests that I really need to sit down and work out what is going wrong - maybe by regenerating my keyword list ? And BTW, many of those keywords were introduced using Bridge, I don't know whether it matters. That makes a lot of sense, it seems a keyword related issue, since my catalog is pretty big and also it contains thousand (if not hundred thousands) hyerarchical keywords.