Is this really tag pollution of "halterneck"?

@ANON_TOKYO gave me a negative feedback for apparently polluting some posts with halterneck, such as post #10932548 (Ganyu in front with her bodysuit/bodystocking; notice it's all sleeveless), post #10942432 (Arlecchino kissing Ganyu; Ganyu's clearly detached sleeves) and post #10873710 (which clearly shows Perlica in back to show her clearly backless dress under her jacket).

Last time(s) I got reported for polluting the tag and some others, I was indeed tagging without too much thought, and at the end I swore to tag more carefully, using the post's visuals as guideline and reference. I'm not as frustrated as the last time, but more like this time, I'm confused, as this time I'm not intentionally polluting the tag and never meant to. Sorry in advance.

I'm confused why various posts with relatively obvious halterneck designs visible in their respective image (like at least the Perlica example post above) ended up being considered as not showing the aforementioned halter(neck) at all. Is there any problem, and are we supposed to have to find any worn semblance of a halter - the strapping(s) of an already bare shoulders/off shoulder top part of an outfit - in order to tag the posts in question? Because as we all remember and I recall, tag just a guideline and not hard rules. I'd like to hear your thoughts, especially the approvers'.

Thanks in advance. For future references, check forum #12251.

AbsoluteRainbow said in forum #429307:

are we supposed to have to find any worn semblance of a halter

How many times must it be explained to you that you should only tag what you SEE in the picture? What part of that simple sentence do you not understand?

... are we supposed to have to find any worn semblance of a halter - the strapping(s) of an already bare shoulders/off shoulder top part of an outfit - in order to tag the posts in question

Yes, obviously. The entire point is to tag the image so you can find it, not to add tags purely what you think the image might be. In the Perlica example, she could be topless for all we know, there is literally nothing visually indicating a halterneck. You can fill in some gaps using common sense and existing knowledge when not everything is shown (like not tagging bikini top only on an upper body post), but here you can't just assume that the absence of everything means it's a halterneck.

"Tag what you see" means tag based on appearances only. Tag it the same way a person with zero knowledge of the character would tag it. A person with no knowledge of Perlica wouldn't tag post #10873710 as halterneck because you can't see a halterneck. There's no reason to assume one is there.

evazion said in forum #429350:

"Tag what you see" means tag based on appearances only. Tag it the same way a person with zero knowledge of the character would tag it. A person with no knowledge of Perlica wouldn't tag post #10873710 as halterneck because you can't see a halterneck. There's no reason to assume one is there.

What if her hair is covering the halter? Mustn't that (not) count?

It's as if we have to feign ignorance while tagging. I'm confused AF.

AbsoluteRainbow said in forum #430627:

What if her hair is covering the halter? Mustn't that (not) count?

It's as if we have to feign ignorance while tagging. I'm confused AF.

It's called "tag what you see", not "tag what you know". "Feigning ignorance," as you call it, is in fact what you're supposed to do. You cannot assume something's there just because it's usually there. It has to actually be visible to be tagged.

I'd like to jump in here to ask, for my own sake, how the first two images (post #10932548 & post #10942432) are considered incorrect.

The third image is so obviously wrong that it's getting all of the attention and no one is making any statements regarding the first two.

StarfishAtLarge said in forum #431349:

I'd like to jump in here to ask, for my own sake, how the first two images (post #10932548 & post #10942432) are considered incorrect.

The third image is so obviously wrong that it's getting all of the attention and no one is making any statements regarding the first two.

Same reason as the third image; we can't conclude from the visual evidence that the outfit is definitely a halterneck. Those two are even more obvious because the character is being seen from the front instead of the back.

Blank_User said in forum #431360:

Same reason as the third image; we can't conclude from the visual evidence that the outfit is definitely a halterneck. Those two are even more obvious because the character is being seen from the front instead of the back.

How is post #10932548 not visibly a halterneck, though? The outfit comes down from the character's neck, without spreading toward either of her shoulders.

Is it because her upper arms are hidden by her boobs, so we can't tell whether there are attached sleeves? That's all I can come up with, and I thought that was irrelevant.

It just looks like a sleeveless leotard, which doesn't have to be a halterneck at all.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #431449:

It just looks like a sleeveless leotard, which doesn't have to be a halterneck at all.

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't explain anything. Dresses also don't have to be halternecks at all, but they are definitely considered halternecks when they have neck support and zero shoulder support.

StarfishAtLarge said in forum #431478:

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't explain anything. Dresses also don't have to be halternecks at all, but they are definitely considered halternecks when they have neck support and zero shoulder support.

And how can you tell from the image alone that the outfit is supported by the neck? How do you know that the upper back is bare? There's no way to tell for sure. It could be a halterneck, or it could be something like post #10434185.

Blank_User said in forum #431537:

And how can you tell from the image alone that the outfit is supported by the neck? How do you know that the upper back is bare? There's no way to tell for sure. It could be a halterneck, or it could be something like post #10434185.

By that logic, no front-view of a collared halterneck could be tagged as such, which seems nonsensical.

post #8020980 and post #41216 are listed on the halterneck wiki page as examples of halternecks, and both are exclusively views from the front of non-strapped halternecks.

StarfishAtLarge said in forum #431569:

By that logic, no front-view of a collared halterneck could be tagged as such, which seems nonsensical.

post #8020980 and post #41216 are listed on the halterneck wiki page as examples of halternecks, and both are exclusively views from the front of non-strapped halternecks.

Then I would argue that those images should be replaced with ones from the side or back if we're going to adhere to TYWS for this tag. It's also not clear whether those images are true halternecks or not.

StarfishAtLarge said in forum #431569:

By that logic, no front-view of a collared halterneck could be tagged as such, which seems nonsensical.

post #8020980 and post #41216 are listed on the halterneck wiki page as examples of halternecks, and both are exclusively views from the front of non-strapped halternecks.

Blank_User said in forum #431582:

Then I would argue that those images should be replaced with ones from the side or back if we're going to adhere to TYWS for this tag. It's also not clear whether those images are true halternecks or not.

Then I have no choice but to argue that post #41216 isn't truly halterneck anymore. As for the others... please continue.

post #11142192 isn't halterneck either. It has no real strap where any real halter should be. It's clear at the front, so it cannot count.

Yes, someone else is genuinely polluting the tag. I don't know why though.

AbsoluteRainbow said in forum #433606:

post #11142192 isn't halterneck either. It has no real strap where any real halter should be. It's clear at the front, so it cannot count.

Yes, someone else is genuinely polluting the tag. I don't know why though.

Sorry, that one was an accidental mistag on my part. I saw it from the back in the fourth panel and must've forgotten in that moment that it was a detached collar and that the leotard was strapless.

That said, the "pollution" in this case would be more like dropping a few crumbs of food on the ground while eating. If you're going to accuse others of "genuinely polluting" tags, you need to provide more evidence than just a single case. You should at least be looking into the user's post history to see if it's a pattern rather than an anomaly.

For what it's worth, I did find two other posts in my history that probably don't apply, so I removed them. I also saw a few others that were added due to being implied by criss-cross halter, and am now thinking criss-cross straps might be more appropriate for some of them.

I also think a bit more leeway could be given for standard bikinis as long as the strap is visibly curving around the neck given that it is very unlikely not to be one in those cases. But we'd have to be stricter with more fantasy-based outfits like Ganyu's.

halterneck tag would need some gardening

cnydo said in forum #433622:

halterneck tag would need some gardening

Also see topic #35420

An accidental mistag isn't tag pollution unlike what you were doing to the scale of massive amounts of posts even after people had to explain basic things to you like not tagging something that is not even there. Get your backless outfit and halterneck fetish under control please.