Posted under Tags
Remuan said in forum #417403:
I read through your entire post, multiple times. Still disagree. You shouldn't be sending another user multiple DMails because they don't like your BUR
If you read it multiple times, how did you miss the part where I say I'm going to fix the tags either way?
Can you explain how you "disagree" with me offering to add the missing tags to posts?
B17Bomber said in forum #417408:
I definitely see why you made a new BUR as the old one was doing contradictory things in a single BUR but like Zapdos said, the tags you're asking for already exists in multiple tags.
If anything, I think claw pose should be implied in one claw pose and same for the paw one, which isn't the case atm but that's about it imo.
If that's the case, and since it seems like no one here wants to even talk to me, should I just get started on fixing the False-Negatives for one paw pose and one claw pose tags? The former was created a while ago and has ~150 images, the latter I created last night and only has 2 images.
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417402 and forum #417407:
If you're not even willing to explain your thought process, why the F does this forum even exist for?
Who am I harassing, exactly? It's considered harassing to reply to people's messages in my post?
If your BUR is only being downvoted by one or two people and the reason for the downvote isn't clear, it might be fine to message them to ask for a public explanation just for admins' sake, so they keep all opinions in mind when deciding on a BUR. But if you're being consistently downvoted by the majority of voters, one can easily infer that people share the opinions of those who had already posted in the thread.
Don't harass people with DMs for explanations.
Damian0358 said in forum #417412:
If your BUR is only being downvoted by one or two people and the reason for the downvote isn't clear, it might be fine to message them to ask for a public explanation just for admins' sake, so they keep all opinions in mind when deciding on a BUR. But if you're being consistently downvoted by the majority of voters, one can easily infer that people share the opinions of those who had already posted in the thread.
Don't harass people with DMs for explanations.
Please stop suggesting that I'm harassing people in DMs. I asked that one Japanese dude to explain why he downvoted.
I'm new to the site. I thought asking questions was fine. But I guess not.
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417413:
I thought asking questions was fine. But I guess not.
I just mentioned an example of a situation where it is fine to ask about someone's downvote, and in general, asking questions is fine. But the tone and nature of those questions matter.
Lesson learned, thanks everyone. This was my first experience on the forum, and I mistakenly thought it was OK to ask people questions. I spent 5-6 hours working on a post trying to help, and all I got were downvotes, people ignoring me when I asked them for them to explain what was wrong with my post, and now I'm being accussed by a Moderator of harassing people. Cool.
Damian0358 said in forum #417414:
I just mentioned an example of a situation where it is fine to ask about someone's downvote, and in general, asking questions is fine. But the tone and nature of those questions matter.
Sure. You spend 6 hours working on something and then see how it feels when someone downvotes it, egos your DM, and then immediately runs to the forum instead of just talking to me like a man.
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417417:
Sure. You spend 6 hours working on something and then see how it feels when someone downvotes it, egos your DM, and then immediately runs to the forum instead of just talking to me like a man.
I am known for regularly writing walls of text that don't even have any voting behind it and which most people ignore. I've made multiple BURs which I believed were fine only to get multiple downvotes and no explanations. The fact you got an explanation in your previous thread and a follow-up to it in this one is already more than some proposals get.
Damian0358 said in forum #417418:
I am known for regularly writing walls of text that don't even have any voting behind it and which most people ignore. I've made multiple BURs which I believed were fine only to get multiple downvotes and no explanations. The fact you got an explanation in your previous thread and a follow-up to it in this one is already more than some proposals get.
The first post I created had a couple of mistakes. I took a few people's suggestions and then made this new BURR because the old one got 9 downvotes. Now, everyone downvotes it immediately, so now nobody's going to look at anything I wrote. At the end I explain that I'm volunteering to correct the False-Positives or False-Negatives either way. But interestingly, nobody has said anything about that and has only attacked me and accussed me of harassing people when I've literally sent 2 messages to people asking for more information because I'm frustrated. I was seriously considering continuing to contribute to the site long-term as I enjoy the tagging process, but this just killed that motivation completely.
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417400:
Awesome to see 4-5 hours of work trying to help the site [...]
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417415:
[...] I spent 5-6 hours working on a post trying to help [...]
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417417:
Sure. You spend 6 hours working on something [...]
How many hours...?
てはいさ said in forum #417421:
How many hours...?
6 hours, can you read? The fuck is your problem asshole?
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417422:
6 hours, can you read? The fuck is your problem asshole?
six seveennnnnn
sabisabi said in forum #417424:
six seveennnnnn
Nice one!
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417425:
Nice one!
thanks man :)
sabisabi said in forum #417426:
thanks man :)
you're welcome :)
Slept through most of this, here's my two cents.
Some tags are not going to be consistent with other tags in the same group and sometimes that's preferable. Very long hair implies long hair but huge badonkers doesn't imply large badoingers. Different tags serve different purposes.
In this case, there's basically no reason why double v shouldn't come up in searches for v, hence the implication. Likewise, I believe that a proposed single paw pose tag should absolutely come up in searches for paw pose. However, because the "double" variant is so common, it will absolutely outnumber the single variant in searches; populating a single paw pose tag and then implying the already-existing double tag to it will mean people trying to find specifically the single version will likely have to resort to negating the double tag in their search anyways (i.e. v -double_v). This is generally a sign of a bad tag relationship, and splitting it up into an umbrella tag would be fundamentally silly—we don't have v as an umbrella for both single v and double v because that's redundant.
As many others have stated, this is a solution looking for a problem. Cheers if you stick around and keep up your tagging efforts, I've had my own fair share of bad BURs and somehow haven't fallen off the face of the earth (neurodivergent behavior).
Ylimegirl said in forum #417428:
Slept through most of this, here's my two cents.
Some tags are not going to be consistent with other tags in the same group and sometimes that's preferable. Very long hair implies long hair but huge badonkers doesn't imply large badoingers. Different tags serve different purposes.
In this case, there's basically no reason why double v shouldn't come up in searches for v, hence the implication. Likewise, I believe that a proposed single paw pose tag should absolutely come up in searches for paw pose. However, because the "double" variant is so common, it will absolutely outnumber the single variant in searches; populating a single paw pose tag and then implying the already-existing double tag to it will mean people trying to find specifically the single version will likely have to resort to negating the double tag in their search anyways (i.e. v -double_v). This is generally a sign of a bad tag relationship, and splitting it up into an umbrella tag would be fundamentally silly—we don't have v as an umbrella for both single v and double v because that's redundant.
As many others have stated, this is a solution looking for a problem. Cheers if you stick around and keep up your tagging efforts, I've had my own fair share of bad BURs and somehow haven't fallen off the face of the earth (neurodivergent behavior).
The first commands populate all currently tagged images with the double tag, as ~95% of these images use 2 hands
mass update paw_pose -> double_paw_pose
mass update claw_pose -> double_claw_pose
All this does it ensure that any images that had the one_ tags weren't missing (might not've been necessary)
mass update one_paw_pose -> paw_pose
mass update one_claw_pose -> claw_pose
These make it so any images tagged with double_x have the standard tag added as well, which aligns with how all the other tags work
create implication double_paw_pose -> paw_pose
create implication double_claw_pose -> claw_pose
You said you believed a single paw pose tag should return images with the paw pose tag - I agree. None of my recommended commands should prevent this. The only thing they'll do is create some False-Positive double_ tags, which I can remove. Or, if we decide not to add the double_tags despite the inconsistency, I can go through and look for one_x images and correct the False-Negatives. Either way, I'd be doing the same exact amount of work. But one way fixes a site-wide inconsistency, and the other propagates it.
CyclicallyCynical said in forum #417429:
The first commands populate all currently tagged images with the double tag, as ~95% of these images use 2 hands
mass update paw_pose -> double_paw_pose
mass update claw_pose -> double_claw_pose[…]
You said you believed a single paw pose tag should return images with the paw pose tag - I agree. None of my recommended commands should prevent this. The only thing they'll do is create some False-Positive double_ tags, which I can remove. Or, if we decide not to add the double_tags despite the inconsistency, I can go through and look for one_x images and correct the False-Negatives. Either way, I'd be doing the same exact amount of work. But one way fixes a site-wide inconsistency, and the other propagates it.
FYI, implications can't go through if takes up 90%+ of an existing tag. Double FYI, you could've avoided some false positives by making the mass update search more narrow (mass update paw_pose -one_paw_pose -> double_paw_pose), but this is probably something that should've been fully gardened before creating a BUR for.
Ylimegirl said in forum #417431:
FYI, implications can't go through if takes up 90%+ of an existing tag. Double FYI, you could've avoided some false positives by making the mass update search more narrow (
mass update paw_pose -one_paw_pose -> double_paw_pose), but this is probably something that should've been fully gardened before creating a BUR for.
Not sure why you're 'Double FYI'ing me as I don't believe I've been rude to you, but all good.
The suggestion to include '-one_paw_pose' wouldn't have narrowed things by much, as there are only ~150 images with the tag, and 2 images for the other. But it looks like there were far more rules than I thought. Thanks for being the first person to link it, I appreciate the help!
