Dr_Fine_Rolo said: Can you have a post be in multiple pools alright? It's such a large tag there might be interference.
Yes, an image can be in multiple pools.
Posted under General
葉月 said:
What I've never really understood is why pools are deemed more useful for subjective qualifiers than tags. It's not like they're less visible, quite the opposite.Other than that, just leave the thing alone, outside of keeping the signal-to-noise ratio reasonably high.
Dr_Fine_Rolo said:
I don't understand why some users feel so strongly about taking what off of posts because they don't think it deserves it. It is more descriptive to have a tag than to not, and you can see it so long as you don't blacklist it.
I don't think much else needs to be said.
Yeah I just want to say that really there shouldn't be much tag policing on the fact that as long as it has some sort of context and would be searched for, it should stay, no matter how dumb it is. Anything that gives more context and more information is better.
You can't always objectify the subjective, and the what tag came out of finding pictures which made people go "haha, what" in irc
shut said:
http://danbooru.donmai.us/forum/show/14485one of my favorite threads
Any particular reason you had to post about that thread in here? As far as I can tell, this one is about the "what" tag.
Sure, resurrect this shit.
He did it because that is traditionally how people say this doesn't deserve the what tag.
For example:
"This is not appropriate use of the what tag, it is takoluka fucking herself in the throat with a vibrator"
or
"This is not appropriate use of the what tag, it is a woman's disembodied head with tentacles for hair fucking herself in the throat with a vibrator"
Since it's a subjective tag I don't know WHY people have such a stick up their butt about what is 'not' what.
Tags are descriptive and should be added wherever someone thinks them appropriate, it does no great harm to this particular post to also be 'what', and a lot of people looking at 'what' as their main subject will say 'yes, what?' as is quite obvious by the WAR going on in this post's tag history.
The only argument I see to remove a tag from a post that does not exactly apply to it is because it will pollute the meaning of the tag or make it difficult to find things within in the tag. I usually use what to modify my searches, not as a main browsing pool. "What was that crazy post that made me go 'what' of takoluka fucking herself in the throat." "what takoluka" Oh yeah, right there. #3.
If the regular 'what' browsers are so offended by something so mundane as a disembodied head having throat sex, they should elect someone to monitor a what pool, and the should be abolished.
I never had a pissing contest when someone added something terrible to vip_quality. It was just a joke tag I had with another member where we'd elect the best post albert made that day. We probably would have used a pool if they existed.
Whoever cares most (or is elected) should just be made 'what' czar, translate them all into a pool, make what illegal, and everyone stop bitching about it so I can stop reading bullshit like 'this is not appropriate use of the what tag, it is just cthulhu fasdjkln a human afdsjlk'
From what I've seen going on here: "This is controversial. Let's just leave it as-is for now, and apply common sense" is pretty much all that's left to say.
Though, I would have to say I'm slightly in favor of "keeping" this tag. Generally, the 'what' tag harbors really messed-up images... so adding it to my (massive) tag blacklist can help-out filter some disturbing things I'd rather not see.
But bah, guess this is just going in circles. Locky-locky?
Also nuking is generally irrevocable. I'd much rather have people irritated by each other's usage of the tag rather than destroy useful information they presumably both use.
It'd be like two kids painting a toy who can't agree on the color, and then decide to smash the toy to resolve the argument.
post #493981 resurrected itself because people are still conducting their tag war and complaining about it in comments.
I too am on the side of keeping the what tag as inclusive as possible and as a tag instead of a pool.
If information were the only issue. I can't stand the bitter fights between people that want to add it to a post and the people that say 'no, this isn't what'.
What I really want is authority behind what, whether it comes form a pool, or whether it comes from a mod. I want someone the warring parties can go to for a final decision instead of two pages of people adding and removing 'what' and three pages of comments.
http://danbooru.donmai.us/post_tag_history/index?post_id=493981&page=1
http://danbooru.donmai.us/post_tag_history/index?post_id=493981&page=2
Dr_Fine_Rolo said:
I too am on the side of keeping the what tag as inclusive as possible and as a tag instead of a pool.
The problem with what in particular is that it's supposed to be for *exceptionally* weird images. If you make it as inclusive as possible, you're going against the very definition of it. As someone who cares quite a lot about the tag, I'm for keeping it as strict as possible and erring on the side of "not what". But really, as with any difficult tag, you can only do it by regular screening and moderation. Not all that different from the post mod queue. Sometimes I wish there was a way to lock in/out specific tags for an image, but it'd be way too weird to use in practice.
As for the proponents of nuking the tag, I will nuke you from orbit if you don't stop.
Personally, all I want is for the shitstorming over the subject to end. Or at least for it to stay off the Comments page.
I feel like it should have always been a pool, rather than a tag, but it is a tag already, and a well-established one at that.
I think that if there's a significant enough presence of users that don't bat an eyelash at the image, at least enough to remove the what tag, then maybe that's enough to let the removal stand.
It is an entirely subjective tag, and this issue is exactly why subjective tagging should be avoided, I think.
Yay, time for another wall of text! It's been a while, eh?
sgcdonmai said:
Personally, all I want is for the shitstorming over the subject to end. Or at least for it to stay off the Comments page.
Pretty close to impossible, I'm afraid. At least, as it stands now. It's largely related to how the semantic model of Danbooru is somewhat inflexible.
I feel like it should have always been a pool, rather than a tag, but it is a tag already, and a well-established one at that.
And this is what I mean.
What is a tag? A tag is an objective observation of what is represented in an image. Except in cases that it's meta to the image (intrinsic image attributes, text, author's commentary). Or the cases when it's completely subjective (what et al.).
What is a pool? A pool is a collection of related items that cannot be reasonably found with an intuitive tag search. Also, order-dependent items (comics). Also completely subjective things. Again.
The important take-away here is that too many things are being conflated together, and it eventually causes dissonance in the user base that leads to conversations like what we have here.
I think that if there's a significant enough presence of users that don't bat an eyelash at the image, at least enough to remove the what tag, then maybe that's enough to let the removal stand.
Seems fair enough. But there's no effective method by which to judge whether the population is significant (currently).
It is an entirely subjective tag, and this issue is exactly why subjective tagging should be avoided, I think.
It's an unfortunately double-edged sword, to look at it like that. Regardless of whether you consider Danbooru to be a community or a database, there's a certain level of important utility in subjective measures of specific qualities. For example, if you're searching for a specific image with only your memory and tags, you_gonna_get_raped could easily spell the difference between twenty-three and six-thousand results.
Incidentally, while I was typing (totally an accident, seriously), I thought of a potential solution. The root issue is that we simply don't have enough spots for everything to coexist peacefully-- things are overlapping. So the real remedy seems it could only be another tag type; a tier specifically for subjective notions.
In my head, they are apart from (beneath?) the tags we have now, are a different colour, and referred to by a different name ("Labels," perhaps). For each of them that someone applies to an image, it is ranked according to a vote of the general user populace. This becomes a "weight" for the label that determines how strongly the trait is represented. Fundamentally, it functions similarly to rating on images now, and it can thus be seen as something like the "pulse" of the community at a finer-grain level. Additionally, because the community isn't constant, it's self-correcting over time, even in the event of semantic drift and relaxing standards of what classifies for a particular Label. (Concerned parties may now wince visibly at me suggesting adding another table and a few columns to the database. orz )
TL;DR: Semantic tag class with per-image weight based on community vote.
Pros:
Clarifies the role of tags and pools
Familiar mechanics
Future-proof
Provides good ROI over time
I don't believe it a massively breaking change
Cons:
Adds yet more stuff to what I gather to be an already-huge database
Code doesn't write itself
Unfamiliar segregation
userInterfaceClutter++;
Less-than-stellar short-term ROI
DschingisKhan said: TL;DR: Semantic tag class with per-image weight based on community vote.
Don't like where this would go at all, honestly. It's a hugely complicated addition for a problem that... isn't all that big a deal. People who rage at each other over what just need to get over it, and we don't have problems on that sort of scale for other tags.