The problem with flooding

LaC said: Actually, number 10 is not applicable, as that's for the adjectival usage, and in your post the word was a noun. Perhaps you're confused about the meaning of "best" and "shoot for"? (Hint: you shoot for an objective.)

Semantic nitpicking. 4 defines it, 10 describes it, I was not intending to distinguish between the two as there was no need. There are multiple ideas about what the minimum/baseline should be, and I think series/char/artist is the best one to shoot for, assuming the poster knows or can find out.

Neither; I was just highlighting what a jumbled mess of mixed signals your post was giving.

I just reread my post, and it's not conflicting at all. Your response tried to point out contradictions that simply weren't there if you just read the post for what it says.

You misinterpreted from the very first sentence, because in no way did I say anyone should "only" tag the three main types. I was rather refuting the claim that this doing so was a "problem" and I don't see how you even drew your conclusion. But that seems to have cascaded into a misinterpretation of everything that followed.

I just dumped a BUNCH of Kagami/Utility Pole Spirit, most recently the BLEACH wallpaper series with 2 girls (or 1 for the Unohana one) and like, 3 different versions of each (robes, seifuku, swimsuit) - I hope this isn't considered to be too much "crap," considering Kagami is generally an appreciated artist, from what I can tell. I won't be offended if some of the different versions are denied, if they're considered to be too redundant to keep posted.

I don't see anything wrong with them. I accepted them. I'm sure some are dupes but someone else can sort that out, I should be sleeping.

jxh2154 said:
There is nothing wrong with this at all. In fact, it's what I consider the best baseline to shoot for.

It is far better than just tagging characteristics. I don't generally care about characteristics so much, I care about copyright-character-artist. The rest is just bonus, *not* vice versa.

So char/series > other tags.

I do have a number of "obvious" tags I add. seifuku, monochrome, thighhighs, panties, wafuku, [animal]_ears, bunnysuit, nude/topless/bottomless, breasts, etc.

But I see an image where every last damn thing is tagged and about 80% of the tags are unnecessary overkill, it's damn annoying.

The problem with just shooting for a baseline is that it doesn't use the tags for more than just simple categories if you're just going to use two tags. Users should be tagging the characters and series sure, but they should also be tagging characteristics. That's the whole point of having a tagging system in the first place.

Suppose the other users don't know the character names or series and just know what the image looked like? How would they find it then. If all the users here did their part in taggin an image properly, it would make the image board more useful than just a fancy futaba board.

Here's the thing; artist/character/copyright tags are far more important than characteristic tags, and I would consider a post that has these three source tags only better tagged than a post which has none of these tags but a long list of characteristic tags. Why?

Firstly, the most prominent, defining features of an image are almost always the characters and copyright. Admittedly, this is less true of non-worksafe posts (hence why they tend to have more tags than worksafe posts), but in these cases source tags are still as important in describing the image.

Secondly, remember that tags are not just a way of describing images, but a way of identifying them, which is something that sets Danbooru apart from many other imageboards. Again, the three source tags are the most valuable tags here.

Yes, of course it's better to have something with (accurate) source tags AND (relevant) characteristic tags, but the point is that there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with a post that has only source tags. Often, you'll find images where there aren't really any other prominent features worth tagging besides the characters and source.

Fluke_Artist said:
Here's the thing; artist/character/copyright tags are far more important than characteristic tags, and I would consider a post that has these three source tags only better tagged than a post which has none of these tags but a long list of characteristic tags. Why?

Firstly, the most prominent, defining features of an image are almost always the characters and copyright. Admittedly, this is less true of non-worksafe posts (hence why they tend to have more tags than worksafe posts), but in these cases source tags are still as important in describing the image.

Secondly, remember that tags are not just a way of describing images, but a way of identifying them, which is something that sets Danbooru apart from many other imageboards. Again, the three source tags are the most valuable tags here.

Yes, of course it's better to have something with (accurate) source tags AND (relevant) characteristic tags, but the point is that there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with a post that has only source tags. Often, you'll find images where there aren't really any other prominent features worth tagging besides the characters and source.

I never said source tags were bad. I said that people aren't using the system fully by being satisfied with just that. You can easily tag something more than just the characters, clothes, hair color, theme of the image, etc.

Describing an image is just as valuable to other users as tagging characters and a series. Your statement of identifying and describing an image doesn't work because when you describe characteristics of an image, you are identifying it at the same time. Source tags and description tags are both equally useful for ALL users. We shouldn't be content catering to users who know about the series or characters.

No, describing something and identifying something are two different things. For example, I could look at an image of Yoko from Tengen Toppa Gurren-Lagann and describe it by saying "she's got big breasts, is wearing a bikini top, and has a gun".

Or, I could identify it by saying "that's Yoko from Gurren-Lagann", which would, at the same time, be describing the picture ("it has Yoko in it"). See how this does more?

In fact, the opposite of your statement is true; describing an image does not identify it, but identifying an image also describes it - especially considering how Danbooru can relate source and characteristic tags.

There's a reason why artists, characters, and copyrights have unique tag types, and that's because they're more useful than normal tags. Of course characteristic tags are important and should be used where relevant, but if there's a sourced post with no characteristic tags, it's not necessarily lazily or poorly tagged unless there are obviously appropriate tags missing.

^yeah basically...

Fluke_Artist said:
No, describing something and identifying something are two different things. For example, I could look at an image of Yoko from Tengen Toppa Gurren-Lagann and describe it by saying "she's got big breasts, is wearing a bikini top, and has a gun".

Or, I could identify it by saying "that's Yoko from Gurren-Lagann", which would, at the same time, be describing the picture ("it has Yoko in it"). See how this does more?

In fact, the opposite of your statement is true; describing an image does not identify it, but identifying an image also describes it - especially considering how Danbooru can relate source and characteristic tags.

There's a reason why artists, characters, and copyrights have unique tag types, and that's because they're more useful than normal tags. Of course characteristic tags are important and should be used where relevant, but if there's a sourced post with no characteristic tags, it's not necessarily lazily or poorly tagged unless there are obviously appropriate tags missing.

We could go on and on with this argument. I could argue that characteristics help identify an image because they are listing things that are in the image. Just listing a character and the series the image contains does not identify the actual image. It is also an aspect of describing the image by listing the things that make it up. Actual identification would be the file name. And you could argue vice versa.

Again I never said for people to not identify characters and copyrights. I said people should try to go beyond that to help everyone that uses the system. What is so hard with identifying some attributes of the picture? Even if you batch upload a lot of images, thats what the tag scripting system is for, automation.

I'm getting a bit lazy arguing back and forth about this, so I'll just end my side here and go back to doing something constructive. Everyone is free to do what they want, I was just adding my two cents to the situation.

niefong said:
We could go on and on with this argument. I could argue that characteristics help identify an image because they are listing things that are in the image. Just listing a character and the series the image contains does not identify the actual image. It is also an aspect of describing the image by listing the things that make it up. Actual identification would be the file name. And you could argue vice versa.

Then our concepts of what 'describing' and 'identifying' are differ.

niefong said:
Again I never said for people to not identify characters and copyrights. I said people should try to go beyond that to help everyone that uses the system. What is so hard with identifying some attributes of the picture?

And I completely agree, read my posts.

niefong said:
I'm getting a bit lazy arguing back and forth about this, so I'll just end my side here and go back to doing something constructive.

Fine with me.

Everyone is taking this way beyond the initial points that were made.

Someone said only tagging c-c-a was a "problem" (or something they "had a problem with"). I said that far from being a problem, a post with those has met the best set of minimum requirements (i.e. baseline). Adding more is fine, even desirable if done in moderation, but lacking them is not a problem.

Interpreting this as "You said to never ever add any attribute tags!!" is not only incorrect, it's downright bizarre.

I haven't followed the latest developments in this thread, but it seems that there is still controversy about the ideal way to tag. This is to be expected, since different people have different ways of browsing danbooru; moreover, we have conflicting interests between new uploaders, who just want to dump as much stuff as possible in the vain hope of getting privileged status by virtue of their post count alone, and the rest of the community, who benefits from having full metadata associated with images (this includes rich tagging, but also the source url).

Yesterday, niefong complained about people who "ONLY tag with just a series name and a character name", and suggested that people should try tagging images more thoroughly. But jxh2154 disagreed, insisting that such sparse tagging is in fact completely sufficient. At some point during his message he actually threw in the artist tag too, which is already a very large difference from series+char alone, but let's leave that issue alone. Instead, jxh2154, I want to try and explain why that position is so controversial.

- I understand that you mainly browse danbooru using character and copyright tags (and maybe artists, and some set of feature tags that you like - I have no doubt that your messages so far reflect a perfectly clear and consistent concept of "tagging as jxh2154 likes it" which exists in your mind, but that's not the point). The problem is that other people have completely different ways of browsing danbooru! Ways that depend not on character or copyright tags, but on artists, or on specific features. Some people notice a specific trait in a recent post, and want to look for more pictures with it; others look for things that suit their own tastes (or fetishes); others yet look for stuff to translate; and so on.

- You can argue to exhaustion that character and series are more "fundamental" properties, and I certainly agree that they should always be tagged whenever possible; however, this doesn't change the fact that, for many people's browsing's experience, feature tags are in fact more important. And these people have a problem when pictures are tagged with char and series alone. Not a pet peeve or a beef with the uploader, but a legitimate problem, in that their browsing habits are disrupted.

- So these people have a problem, and the way to solve it is to get users to tag images more thoroughly; ideally, as soon as they are uploaded. This is something that (due to laziness, neglect, or mere ignorance of the possibilities of tagging) many new users won't do, unless they are asked and encouraged to. So people raise the issue, like niefong did.

- When you, jxh2154, disagree with these requests, and insist that tagging with char and series alone is perfectly fine, you throw a monkey wrench into the attempts to solve those people's problem. And your words carry extra weight, because you are a moderator.

Do you see why people are not satisfied with that?

tl;dr: let's try to come up with a tagging policy that takes everyone's needs into account.

i agree with LaC

only taggin char/serie is not fair for those don't
know that char/serie
those tags are great, yes they are, if you like a char you search that char but there is the problem, how you get that char?, i mean if you like ninjas and you have played FF7 you search for yuffie instead of shinobu, both are ninjas but maybe you have never seen shinobu or maybe another user never seen yuffie, maybe another user have never seen anyone, if they tag only char/serie some users never seen yuffie or shinobu by searching ninja, but if the tags are char/serie + content, then those user who don't know about the serie or the
game can get yuffie and shinobu post, if they like it then they search for those alone

thats my point but is only my opinion
sorry if my english is bad

I think you do your own point a disservice by repeatedly resorting to the disingenuous rhetorical trick of saying something and then immediately backtracking. I.e., making a claim intended to get a rise out of someone, and then covering your tracks with "oh but let's forget I said that, that's besides the point." If you're going to say it, then say it straight up. If it's not relevant to your point, skip it, and your point will come out stronger for it.

Your initial approach came off as unfortunately arrogant. It was essentially (mis)quoting each part of my post piece by piece, and then dumbing it down to retard-speak, making some not so subtle implications that I'm an idiot or have no idea what I'm talking about, and *then* not even bothering to sum up your reasons for doing so until after I confronted you about it. This, again, does your point a disservice. And it does not help to clear up the confusion you felt my reply was going to generate.

LaC said: tl;dr: let's try to come up with a tagging policy that takes everyone's needs into account.

You noted that you haven't followed recent posts in the thread, so perhaps this is a good time to go back and read my (short) last post on page three. The reaction has been blown far, far out of proportion to the initial discussion.

Yes, I do feel that if a post only has a few tags, they should be character and copyright if at all possible. Artist should be a given where available, but it won't be for many new posters, if they're upping from their hdd. And I do feel that this makes for an acceptable minimum, and thus nobody should be scolded for it (i.e., it's not a "problem" anyone should feel bad about).

But for the hundredth time, I am not opposed to tagging traits. I said as much in my very first reply and every reply thereafter. I noted that I add these myself, though not necessarily to the extent that some others might. Just because I think a post with character and copyright is acceptable does not mean it is perfection. If it were, I'd never describe it as a mere baseline.

As for new posters tagging lazily, my experience with the images I've come across while approving/denying has been that they undertag on char/copyright/artist (the last being more understandable of course), not on traits. Often it's *only* traits, and unfortunately not always useful ones at that.

And tagging traits is only useful where those traits describe the image well, not when they bloat the attribute/characteristic tag results to the point of uselessness. They should be used with a reasonable degree of caution, and should serve a distinct purpose. Overtagged or improperly tagged images create retrieval problems for exactly the people you're talking about, the ones that search by characteristics.

So do *you* see why I think this has been blown up into an issue far beyond its importance?

I do not understand the point of this thread anymore.

Very simply, let's look at the tag history of this particular image http://miezaru.donmai.us/post/show/142780

It was posted with the following tags: "erica miyasaka_miyu valentine". I would consider this a bare minimum. Before I approved it I increased the descriptive tags a bit: "cat_slippers chocolate erica miyasaka_miyu pleated_skirt school_uniform thighhighs valentine" because she is wearing a school uniform, pleated skirt and cat slippers. In addition we have thighhighs and chocolate. Looking at it now I note that I missed pink hair and apron and will add these.

I think that this manages to describe it fairly well without going overboard. Not every image will be as easy to tag and I do appreciate that the poster managed to get the artist, character and at least one descriptive tag in. If you don't know what to tag something, ask. If there are very obvious things such as thighhighs, qipao, gym uniform, panties, zettai ryouiki, school uniform or any of the other popular descriptors, tag it. Stay away from subjective tags, don't go overboard and tag every little thing you can think of (i.e. if you have reached 32 tags and there is only one character sitting in the middle of a white background you're over-thinking this) and everything should be just fine.

jxh2154: I think you've been focusing too much on the offence you took from my post that you perceived as "arrogant". That would be easier to resolve on IRC, with much less inconvenience to the other forum users.

nil!: That's reasonable.

Sorry about that. I was sort of tiptoeing around tagging said post because I was more concerned about having a basis for establishing an "erica" copyright. But there's a wiki for it now! *thumbs up*