imply bad_<site>_link -> bad_link

Posted under Tags

For Bad FC2 link and similar sites, do we restore what used to be mentioned in bad link's wiki in their wikis: "unless the source can only be accessed as a direct image link, via a blog/gallery link, as an example"?

Because if not, we might have folks tagging bad link on posts that otherwise don't have a clear proper source. We're far enough away from the days of individual blogs and galleries like this that we can't just presume common sense on the end of users.

hdk5 said in forum #429346:

What bad_e621_link is supposed to be? Images from there are intentionally sourced with direct links (source:https://static1.e621.net) which and rewritten to https://e621.net/posts?md5= on the post page, the same way it is done for gelbooru. A few posts had this tag applied incorrectly and I took the liberty of removing it.

Those were mistags that shouldn't have been tagged bad link to begin with. Part of the reason for doing this is so that mistags like these can be noticed and fixed. Ideally all of these smaller bad link tags would be cleared out by fixing the sources or removing the tag if it's incorrect.

Damian0358 said in forum #429444:

For Bad FC2 link and similar sites, do we restore what used to be mentioned in bad link's wiki in their wikis: "unless the source can only be accessed as a direct image link, via a blog/gallery link, as an example"?

Because if not, we might have folks tagging bad link on posts that otherwise don't have a clear proper source. We're far enough away from the days of individual blogs and galleries like this that we can't just presume common sense on the end of users.

A bad link is any direct image link that can't be resolved to the page where the image is from. So no, these FC2 direct image links are bad links because there's no way to get back to the original blog post from the image link alone.

evazion said in forum #429508:

A bad link is any direct image link that can't be resolved to the page where the image is from. So no, these FC2 direct image links are bad links because there's no way to get back to the original blog post from the image link alone.

Then bad source has to be updated to account for the nonstandard URLs these blogs can have then, so that they don't get auto-tagged with bad source. You can look up bad_source source:*fc2.com* and find countless cases of posts that are improperly autotagged with it.

hdk5 said in forum #429544:

I assume danbooru does not do it because we want a full link with the artist name as a final result?

That wouldn't align with how some deviantArt links are normalized into deviation #XXXX sources (like post #1905646), which don't have any artist information whatsoever. I imagine this is just an oversight.

Ylimegirl said in forum #429553:

One thing I've noticed while gardening is that the auto-removal of bad link from posts with good sources seems to be nullified by the presence of one of its implied tags (replicable by attempting to add a tag like bad twitter link to any random post). This feels like undesired behavior or a bug.

That's normal, there's no first-class autotag support for any of these new tags. The same would happen for example if you added Japanese audio to a post with a static image which obviously cannot have sound. I don't think downstream removal of tags is safe to do but bad link and its implications could probably be special cased.

BUR #57928 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication bad_ruliweb_link -> bad_link
create implication bad_livejournal_link -> bad_link
create implication bad_ibispaint_link -> bad_link
create implication bad_huaban_link -> bad_link
create implication bad_know_your_meme_link -> bad_link
create implication bad_steam_link -> bad_link
create implication bad_wattpad_link -> bad_link
create implication bad_fandom_link -> bad_link

I did some smaller ones manually. I'm combing through what's left of the tag at the moment (because I'm bored).

Fun fact, I actually found a second link schema for XHS while doing so.

1 2 3