Posted under Tags
It was brought to my attention that audible speech is currently being used also for sound posts only containing moaning, like with post #5218564.
We also have the moaning tag, which can apply to both videos and static images, so I don't think audible speech should be used in posts where there's no actual speech. Moaning is not speech.
Thoughts?
Updated
There is a reason why I advocated for broadening audible internal cumshot in forum #19106 to something like audible_sex or audible_sex_noises. But my original intention on including things such as moaning was due to the fact that, in my tagging, I had found numerous rating:e posts which do not have any vocal sounds at all (ex. posts by yuzutei, umezawa itte, akehi yuki, and pink pet bottle, to name a couple recent examples), and if I recall correctly, even the inverse case where there is only vocal sounds, but no sex noises.
I don't disagree with the fact that moaning has basically flooded audible speech, but given its use in non-auditory cases, the moaning tag also applies to visual cases of moaning, which could apply to any of the above mentioned artists. So anyone searching for audible moaning would be shit out of luck for finding specifically that.
moaning video finds what you want. Right now audible speech is useless because basically 99% of sound -rating:s have moaning.
nonamethanks said:
moaning video finds what you want. Right now audible speech is useless because basically 99% of sound -rating:s have moaning.
Then what about posts such as post #2123368 and post #4622771, where moaning is tagged but there's no vocal part to the audio?
That's not moaning nor is it audible speech, so it would not be affected by a change to that tag.
I don't see the point of audible sex noises because that's just sound -rating:s, unless you want a tag specifically for sex noises but not moaning, which would be impossible to have because people are not going to care about such distinctions and nobody's going to garden it given that you have to listen to the full length of each video under the tag.
nonamethanks said:
That's not moaning nor is it audible speech, so it would not be affected by a change to that tag.
I mentioned both posts due to you bringing up the search of moaning video. Both those posts, each tagged sound, were in that search. If that's not moaning, then what constitutes moaning when it comes to tagging? The search of moaning video brings up non-sound video posts too, not to mention the 3.3k non-video posts under the moaning tag too. Unless you argue the tag should be an audio-only tag, but then we'd have to beg the question whether or not it should become a meta tag then for the same reasons the audible* tags were made meta tags (unless a clause is added that the tag should be added to video posts only if it is audible).
I don't see the point of audible sex noises because that's just sound -rating:s, unless you want a tag specifically for sex noises but not moaning, which would be impossible to have because people are not going to care about such distinctions and nobody's going to garden it given that you have to listen to the full length of each video under the tag.
I don't necessarily disagree, though if we're going to have things such as tagged audible moaning and tagged audible internal creampies, it makes sense to me to have a tag like that. If no such tag is made though, I wouldn't oppose the decision. I will note that I did listen to the full lengths of each video when originally tagging the audible* tags, because that was what was needed to kickstart those tags in the first place.
Updated
Lemme simplify it:
The reason why audible internal cumshot works is because it's a novelty tag, it's used on something specific, and it's not ambiguous, so people can't mistake it on anything else. That post #2123368 and post #4622771 were tagged with moaning for almost a year shows that people are not going to care to enforce a difference if we create "audible sex noises".
Updated
No need to simplify, I absolutely understand that, hence why I wouldn't oppose a decision where we don't make a audible sex noises tag. Though I don't know if considering whether people care or not should influence our decision, given the fact that there's a frequent enough issue of audible music posts with vocal parts not being tagged with audible speech despite the former's wiki saying it should be. Not dealing with redundancy is a valid reason already, so no need to bring that point up (because then we could use that same point against audible internal cumshot, 56 posts in nearly a year when there are likely a couple thousand valid posts for it).
At this point, I'm more concerned on how moaning will be handled, for the reasons I mentioned already.
nonamethanks said:
It was brought to my attention that audible speech is currently being used also for sound posts only containing moaning, like with post #5218564.
We also have the moaning tag, which can apply to both videos and static images, so I don't think audible speech should be used in posts where there's no actual speech. Moaning is not speech.
Thoughts?
I'm in favor of removing audible_speech from posts that don't contain any speech and just moaning.
It is not convenient to search for posts that contain speech with the current usage of the audible_speech tag.
