Why should you be able to opt out? Because I can list many reasons why you shouldn't:
There's never been any expectation of privacy regarding tagging activity, or any site activity. The signup page makes it very clear that everything you do is public.
It creates a false sense of privacy. You can easily skim the tag history to see who the top tagger is.
95% of the time the tagger and the uploader are the same person. This would effectively make whether the uploader is hidden the choice of the uploader themselves.
It can be useful to know the tagger for moderation purposes, the same way it's useful to know the uploader.
If the Tagger field is completely absent it will confuse people. Why do some posts have a Tagger field and some don't? Many people wouldn't understand why.
If the Tagger field says "Tagger: hidden" or something, it'll just make people more curious and they'll check the tag history to see why the tagger is hidden. I know I would definitely check on posts with a hidden tagger.
Finally, I don't see that big of a deal in having your name on a post you don't personally approve of. Tagging a post isn't an endorsement of the post.
- There's a big difference between "being able to find out who tagged a post" and "having the user's name prominently displayed beside the post", particularly when you consider that, when we did the tagging, it didn't result in our names getting put besides the image. - With regards to "This would effectively make whether the uploader is hidden the choice of the uploader themselves." - this change already does that. If the uploader wants to be hidden now all they have to do is undertag their post and wait for someone else to tag it up for them, which in the past would always happen if they tagged their post badly enough. Maybe not now, though, as the people who tended to tag up these chronically undertagged posts are the same ones as stated that they do not want their names on some images they have tagged. - If an image is badly tagged and it has a "tagger" named besides the image, one would assume that it was that user who badly tagged the image, far more than they would with an "uploader" field. But there's a reasonable chance that the "tagger" didn't do the bad tagging, which was instead done by someone else who simply added fewer tags. This, in turn, is actually BAD for moderation purposes as it could encourage people to jump to conclusions rather than actually looking in detail. And if you want to claim that people would look in detail anyway then that can happen even if the "tagger" name is not visible on the image. - This actually creates an incentive for people who don't want their names beside an image to go around finding images with their name on it and removing all the tags they have added. I'm not saying I intend to do this*. But is that really the incentive we want to be creating? - You may be okay with having your name prominantly associated with images you find revolting but others of us are not. - You might check the tag history but I bet your average viewer wouldn't. Just as they don't now. - A lot of people in the thread that led to these changes gave support for being able to opt out. Albert merely ignored this line of argument.
*If there's no option to opt out created then I intend to delete this account and start again (after moving over favourites and stuff) as it will be the only way to get my name off said images, obviously doing significantly less tagging in the future so as to avoid accidentally getting my name on stuff that I don't want it on. (edit: I'm not trying to be melodramatic with this last bit - I'm just merely stating what steps I will take to overcome the problem if there is no alternative)
Sorry if some of these suggestions also came up in the thread that led to this, it's a bit long to read back through. The solutions that quickly come to mind are: a. Let each account opt out of Tagger credit entirely. b. Give each account a Tagger-blacklist, similar to the normal tag Blacklist. They won't get Tagger credit for any post matching a line of their Tagger-blacklist. c. Have a by-post option when tagging to opt out for that post, perhaps with an account option for whether the default is to have opt out checked or not.
A complete opt out is simplest, but for taggers who don't want to opt out entirely, still discourages tagging posts they don't want their names on. A tagger-blacklist gives better control, but lacks really fine control. By-post opt out gives the best control, but requires the tagger to pay attention to that for each post.
If the main Tagger of a post has opted out in some manner, we could: a. Not show the Tagger field at all. b. Give Tagger credit to the person with the most tags that hasn't opted out.
Starting today, uploader information for posts will be slightly obscured. You can still view the uploader by going into tag history and it's implied that the first person to tag the post is also the uploader.
In its place is a tagger field which credits whoever added the most tags to a post. Moderators are still able to easily see the uploader for purposes of tracking vandalism and other administrative duties.
Historical posts (ones uploaded before today) will not be updated so this new field will only apply to posts uploaded (and old ones updated) going forward.
I know this is a potentially contentious change so I'd like to split it off into its own topic. If you have any questions or note any problems, please report them here. Thanks.
Sweet. I was wondering why it looked different
Does this mean that if person A adds 10 tags, then person b adds 25,that the tagger fields get overwritten versus showing both of the majority taggers?
Does this mean that if person A adds 10 tags, then person b adds 25,that the tagger fields get overwritten versus showing both of the majority taggers?
Yes, there will only be 1 name in the tagger field.
If this update encourages people to choose less sensitive names then that's a positive change. Thank goodness that some users are finally accepting the responsibility to protect their own privacy.
Oops, I'm a bit late to this, but it's a nice feature. I hope you're open to refining it in the future should any issues open up later.
kuuderes_shadow said:
- If an image is badly tagged and it has a "tagger" named besides the image, one would assume that it was that user who badly tagged the image, far more than they would with an "uploader" field. [...] This, in turn, is actually BAD for moderation purposes as it could encourage people to jump to conclusions rather than actually looking in detail. [...] - You might check the tag history but I bet your average viewer wouldn't. Just as they don't now.
I feel that this isn't a valid point at all. I really don't think anyone would jump to conclusions like that. If someone, for example, tagged the wrong character, I'd just look at the tag history and I think many others would too, purely out of curiosity. I don't feel that Danbooru's community and culture is one of naming and shaming bad taggers either; overwhelmingly, if something is poorly tagged, another user typically just politely and quietly fixes it without comment.
Additionally, if a moderator is jumping to conclusions, then they're simply not fit for that level of responsibility anyway - that would be an issue with the moderator and the moderation system, certainly not an issue with the user interface (blaming the UI would just be a bad joke at that point).
I don't take any issue with options for privacy assuming it doesn't make it any easier to abuse the site. Accountability should remain an important aspect for a quality-focused community.
Speaking strictly for myself, I'm starting to like seeing my name in some posts as the "tagger" and I don't intend to use that kind of opt-out option anytime soon. But I support allowing others to have that freedom.
Still, there's something that bothers me: Personally, I dislike the wording "Tagger: ..." because it's kind of a misnomer. If two or more people tagged an image, then the "Tagger: ..." automatically becomes inaccurate, because it sounds very much like only one person did the tagging job.
Maybe the moderators won't have any problem to understand the true meaning of "Tagger: ...", but maybe some other people who didn't read this thread (or some help page about this) would be unlikely to guess that "Tagger: ..." means "most prolific tagger". I know I didn't guess that meaning at first.
I'm thinking something like "Most prolific tagger: ..." or "Most prolific taggers: ..., ... and ..." (plural, maybe the best 3 is fine?) would be much better. Or any other wording that looks good and is accurate, if it's not asking too much.
If the most profilic taggers of a post are named Donald, José and Panchito, but Panchito opts out from having his name listed, the resulting text could be: "Most prolific taggers: Donald, José and [hidden]".
Oops, I'm a bit late to this, but it's a nice feature. I hope you're open to refining it in the future should any issues open up later.
I feel that this isn't a valid point at all. I really don't think anyone would jump to conclusions like that. If someone, for example, tagged the wrong character, I'd just look at the tag history and I think many others would too, purely out of curiosity. I don't feel that Danbooru's community and culture is one of naming and shaming bad taggers either; overwhelmingly, if something is poorly tagged, another user typically just politely and quietly fixes it without comment.
Additionally, if a moderator is jumping to conclusions, then they're simply not fit for that level of responsibility anyway - that would be an issue with the moderator and the moderation system, certainly not an issue with the user interface (blaming the UI would just be a bad joke at that point).
I don't take any issue with options for privacy assuming it doesn't make it any easier to abuse the site. Accountability should remain an important aspect for a quality-focused community.
The points you quoted were responses to evazion's ones (indeed, they all were to a certain extent). The first was in response to the claim that having tagger names on an image would help the moderation process. I was merely showing what the logical conclusion of anyone using it in that way would be - in other words, bad moderation. It's good to see we agree on this. If the image just gets fixed then it obviously doesn't matter whether the tagger is named or not, and thus this is not a valid reason to prevent people from being able to hide their names if they wish. The second one you quoted wasn't related to the modding process or naming and shaming or anything like that - it was about privacy and how evazion claimed that he (and by implication others) would just click on the tag history every time they saw a hidden tagger and thus there was little point in being able to hide them.
I'm thinking something like "Most prolific tagger: ..." or "Most prolific taggers: ..., ... and ..." (plural, maybe the best 3 is fine?) would be much better. Or any other wording that looks good and is accurate, if it's not asking too much.
If the most profilic taggers of a post are named Donald, José and Panchito, but Panchito opts out from having his name listed, the resulting text could be: "Most prolific taggers: Donald, José and [hidden]".
I thought the main reason for this update was for uploader's name not to be on the post if they tagged it badly on upload and someone else had to tag it up for them, something which having several names would ruin.
I thought the main reason for this update was for uploader's name not to be on the post if they tagged it badly on upload and someone else had to tag it up for them, something which having several names would ruin.
Good point.
What if the number of tags added by each person was automatically displayed? Like this:
"Most prolific taggers: Donald (43 tags), José (14 tags) and Panchito (2 tags)"
This way, it would be clear that Panchito is one of the most prolific taggers simply due to a lack of taggers, not because of a great number of tags added by him.
Panchito may or may not be the original uploader. He may simply have come along and added 2 tags to an already existing post.
If Panchito opts in for hiding his name, the final result could be:
"Most prolific taggers: Donald (43 tags), José (14 tags) and [hidden] (2 tags)" (where Panchito's name can still be found in the tag history, I assume)
What if the number of tags added by each person was automatically displayed? Like this: "Most prolific taggers: Donald (43 tags), José (14 tags) and Panchito (2 tags)"
That takes up a lot of space that’s not available in the sidebar. Even renaming Tagger to Most prolific tagger will add one or two lines. Adding more information that most users with small screens don’t care about(*) seems like a bad idea, considering that even some smaller and more useful features have been removed to save screen estate.
(*) Boldly assuming that most tagging is done on desktops and mostly builders+ – also mostly contributing on desktops – would care about the Tagger field. On the other hand, most viewing is probably done on mobile devices by the non-contributing majority.
If just Tagger isn’t very well-liked, it could be renamed to MPT (Most Prolific Tagger) or MVT (Most Valuable Tagger; my preference because MVP is already well-known), with a tooltip that explains what it is.
That takes up a lot of space that’s not available in the sidebar. Even renaming Tagger to Most prolific tagger will add one or two lines. Adding more information that most users with small screens don’t care about(*) seems like a bad idea, considering that even some smaller and more useful features have been removed to save screen estate.
(*) Boldly assuming that most tagging is done on desktops and mostly builders+ – also mostly contributing on desktops – would care about the Tagger field. On the other hand, most viewing is probably done on mobile devices by the non-contributing majority.
If just Tagger isn’t very well-liked, it could be renamed to MPT (Most Prolific Tagger) or MVT (Most Valuable Tagger; my preference because MVP is already well-known), with a tooltip that explains what it is.
I see. I prefer listing the top 3 taggers instead of just 1.
Maybe "Top taggers:" would be the best option if we accept listing the top 3, as opposed to the top 1. Or naturally just "Top tagger:", if the uploader is the only person who tagged the post.
Character count:
"Top taggers:" is 4 characters longer than "Taggers:"
"Top taggers:" is 5 characters longer than "Tagger:"
"Top taggers:" is 8 characters longer than "MVT:"
I could live an abbreviation like "MVT" or "MPT" if people want, but I don't like the fact that they they seem obscure -- I assume most people won't understand any of these abbreviations at first, without checking the proposed tooltip or some help page
As we know, if we click on the "Show »" at any post, we see a list of people who favorited it, which may get pretty long. post #280703 is a good example, where the list seems to have 800+ people. In my opinion, I'd say we have a bit of space to spare for a short label and three usernames.
"MVT" (most valuable tagger) looks a bit too grandiose for my taste, comparable to something like "bestest tagger(s) ever". "MPT" seems better to some extent, in my opinion.
having one name on there is the whole point. it's suppose to motivate people who were motivated by the uploader field. if you want the details, go to the tag history.
and the name isn't a problem, either. there was a lengthy discussion about this before and i dont think even a single person cared what the field was called. its pretty obvious what "tagger" refers to.
As a non-tagging user, it would be nice if there's an icon / indicator (e.g. exclamation mark, etc) for when the top tagger and the uploader is the same person.
When I saw something interesting and would like to check other stuff uploaded by the same person, I instinctively check the tag history just to be sure.
having one name on there is the whole point. it's suppose to motivate people who were motivated by the uploader field. if you want the details, go to the tag history.
I think what I suggested above (having 3 names + displaying actual tag count for each name) is better at doing that, because it shows actual numerical information and compares the best taggers. If you only put a single name there without context ("Tagger: Joe"), everyone will see their name there at first, even if they use only a minimal amount of tags.
If numerical info is available, people will see "Best taggers: Joe (5)" with that small number of tags from the start. Joe should be easily displaced by other people who add more tags.
This would probably also serve as an incentive for people to add more tags, by providing the actual numbers needed to reach a certain ranking. If the text says "Top taggers: Donald (15 tags), José (14 tags) and Panchito (2 tags)", someone might want to add 16 tags to become the 1st place, even if other people are free to do the same to him in the future.
If no numerical information is shown, then someone interested in becoming the top for a given post would have to manually check and count the tags added by the current top, by visiting the tag history. This is an avoidable hassle.
and the name isn't a problem, either. there was a lengthy discussion about this before and i dont think even a single person cared what the field was called. its pretty obvious what "tagger" refers to.
I'm pretty sure you are talking about the topic #14857. I guess nobody complained because apparently it was not clear the field name would be "Tagger:", right? Some other ideas were discussed there. I care about what the field is called, don't you? I assume you care too, because you are discussing this right now. For someone who doesn't care at all, then it might as well be "Tagger(s)" or "Top tagger(s)" or whatever name.
I really think the "Tagger:" field name is still bad, sorry. This introduces a separation of meanings for that word... "tagger" = someone who tags, and the top tagger. So the sentence "I love taggers, they are my favorite people on Danbooru." would get ambiguous. The discussion mentioned (topic #14857) already has multiple uses of the word "tagger" with these two separate meanings. But that's not the only name considered for the field there.
The phrase "the most prolific tagger" is actually said in that discussion word for word in the first message by Albert. (He said at forum #141368: "Highlighting other information over the uploader, such as the most prolific tagger or noter or wiki writer. This has some technical constraints but it is doable.")
Kittey was the first to suggest to use "Top tagger(s)" (forum #141401) as the field name in that same discussion. Later, the same person suggested "MVT" (forum #141750). Provence also mentioned "Most Valuable Tagger" later (forum #141775). The point is, I guess I'm not suggesting anything new.
Up until this was introduced, I don't think anybody would say "I'm the tagger." even if that person was the top tagger. It's like the winner of a chess tournament saying "I'm the player." (meaning "I'm the winner.")
If an indicator is implemented, I think it should be the >> link that used to be by the username, linking to a "user:" search of them
Speaking of that >> link, moderators no longer have it even though they can still see the Uploader. It's not too big of a deal, but would prefer it brought back if possible since it's an extra unnecessary click each time without it.
I prefer to leave it at one user. But what I could do is if the secondary tagger is within 1-2 updates then display their name. I'm not sure I like the gamification consequences of a change like that however. I will revisit this idea later.
Making the difference between the top tagger and the uploader ambiguous is by design.
I will update the comment listing to replace the uploader info.
I will update preview images to replace the uploader info.
