TBH there's nothing wrong with making new tags if they identify a concept that's not easily findable with a search, I don't see all the fuss about it.
Posted under Tags
nonamethanks said:
TBH there's nothing wrong with making new tags if they identify a concept that's not easily findable with a search, I don't see all the fuss about it.
But it is easily findable with a search. You might have to use a few different combinations to find all of the images that would fit, but they're by no means hard to find. The thing is, it's such a specific, niche use that I honestly can't believe the average user would even think of it, and I'm skeptical that it wouldn't require constant gardening because no one would be able to use it properly.
What I believe @skylightcrystal wants this tag for, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is for posts specifically where the skirt is being lifted by the legs higher than normal, creating a specifically front view pantyshot. So, things like post #3838372 and post #3819797, but not things like post #3840249 and post #3771747. And I just really don't see the point in such a specific barely recognizable tag, I'm not even sure if the examples I picked are appropriate.
skylightcrystal said:
But hey, it seems some of you guys would rather reduce the functionality of the site's search feature than have one new tag created and bashing random straw men that I'd already given the counterargument to in order to do so. I'm clearly not going to win you around. (note: this last paragraph is aimed primarily at the post above mine)
I'm more than willing to listen to a sound argument, I'm not arguing just to argue. I genuinely don't see the point of such a tag, and frankly no one has actually given an actual argument for why we need the tag. This is literally a thread about getting rid of pointless pantyshot tags, and this proposed one looks like exactly that.
Not sure how that's relevant. Noone is talking about removing the pantyshot tag. Nor am I talking about preserving the pantyshot_(sitting) and pantyshot_(squatting) tags. What I'm wanting, though, is to preserve a use that I have put them to, or better yet create a single (yes, just one - so not really "cluttering the list") new tag that is specifically for that thing and thus serves what I want better than these tags do, as they really don't serve it very well already (they're just the best that we've got) and would be served significantly worse by doing combination search instead.
And this paragraph is exactly where my concern lies.
What I'm wanting, though, is to preserve a use that I have put them to, or better yet create a single (yes, just one - so not really "cluttering the list") new tag that is specifically for that thing and thus serves what I want better than these tags do
This reads like it's not a tag for the site, but a tag for one specific user. Is the lack of such a tag seriously going to "reduce the functionality of the site's search feature", or is it just going to make it slightly more difficult for one person to find a specific niche they're interested in? It feels like the latter.
I can't stop you from making the tag, if it's not actually just one person who wants it, but I can voice my opinion on the matter, my opinion being that it's a pointless tag.
It's easy to find a few examples per page with a search, yes. But you could say that about all sorts of things. And no, other than trawling through the whole of pantyshot there's no way to get every image with it, both before and after the proposed change.
It is definitely true, though, that I'm not 100% confident myself in what should/should not be in this tag. Before this thread came along it had only ever been a vague thought of "this should have a tag but doesn't". That's why my posts have been somewhat vague about exactly what the tag should cover - because I'm not completely clear about it myself, and would welcome constructive input. Heck, if I were clear about it, then I'd have probably just made the tag myself long ago. And that's how most general tags on the site were created - just one person wants the tag so they go off and create it. Then others come along, find the tag and help populate it and help it become established. And there's usually someone who thinks said tag is pointless and should be scrapped, no matter how useful the tag is to other people.
I feel reasonably confident that a decent number of people would find use in such a tag, if it existed and they knew about it - I wouldn't be proposing something if I felt I was the only one who would want it. And the talk about what I want is because I'm trying to express (for myself as well as to others) what my view of what the tag should be. I don't see how I could present a new tag without doing that, other than by simply using the passive voice and if that's what you're complaining about then you really ARE arguing just to argue.
As for your examples, I would actually say that all the first 3 would count, but not the fourth.
But I've largely lost the will to do this now, in part because I'm still not 100% clear as to where the tag's boundaries should be and there's been no feedback on this given from other people (perhaps because they don't care about the tag, perhaps because they've been scared away), in part because I can't think of a decent name for the tag, and in part because I'm just sick of this argument and don't want it to continue.
Lacrimosa said:
Having less tags is a good idea.
Why? Are they demanding monthly pay from you or eating your food? How do you PROFIT from "having less tags"? As commented above, many tag1+tag2 combinations don't cover what combined tag covers. Reflection is already explained, but another simple reason for search to produce wrong result could be that there's 2+ characters in the picture and "parts" of tag apply to different characters. The more precise tags are there for situations when people suddenly want to find some fetish - the better.
rowaasr13 said:
Why? Are they demanding monthly pay from you or eating your food? How do you PROFIT from "having less tags"? As commented above, many tag1+tag2 combinations don't cover what combined tag covers. Reflection is already explained, but another simple reason for search to produce wrong result could be that there's 2+ characters in the picture and "parts" of tag apply to different characters. The more precise tags are there for situations when people suddenly want to find some fetish - the better.
It's not like this "problem" is unique to this situation, see colour_legwear and colour_footwear tags for example.
skylightcrystal said:
As for your examples, I would actually say that all the first 3 would count, but not the fourth.
That just confuses me more, if such a tag were to exist, regardless of whether I support its existence, I would think it should be more pronounced than the third example. It doesn't really look like her legs are lifting the skirt, so much as the skirt resting on them naturally, which is the same thing happening in example four, the pose just changes the composition slightly.
But I've largely lost the will to do this now, in part because I'm still not 100% clear as to where the tag's boundaries should be and there's been no feedback on this given from other people (perhaps because they don't care about the tag, perhaps because they've been scared away), in part because I can't think of a decent name for the tag, and in part because I'm just sick of this argument and don't want it to continue.
Now that I've had some time to contemplate it, while I still don't think the tag has much value, I wouldn't oppose it nearly as much if it at least could be clearly defined in a way that wouldn't be too difficult to tag consistently.
And for what it's worth, for names I thought of legs_lifting_skirt or skirt_lifted_by_legs as the most concise options I could think of that might match whatever it is this tag is actually for. If it's not supposed to be focused on the legs, then I definitely don't think it should be a tag because then I think it would get too nebulous.
I intend to move forward with nuking these tags. If you want to find these things you can use one of these searches instead:
Compare the above with how much they overlap with the combo tags:
If you actually look at these searches, you can see they include everything the combo tags do, plus many things they don't, and the amount of noise isn't actually that high. Looking at pantyshot sitting, for example, 85% of it is already tagged pantyshot (sitting). Of the remaining 15%, probably at least half should be tagged pantyshot (sitting). That leaves a 5-10% false positive rate. In other words, if you search pantyshot sitting then maybe 1 post out of 20 or 1 post out of 10 will be wrong. I don't think that's enough noise to justify a combo tag.
Another point: upskirt is similar to pantyshot but we don't have combo tags for it. If you search upskirt sitting -pantyshot, for example, you can find even more posts that would be missed by a pantyshot (sitting) search.
As far as this new tag, I'm still confused what it's supposed to be about. It sounds like it has something to do with the skirt riding up or being hiked up, but it's not clear to me. In any case, I don't see how having to search pantyshot sitting would hinder the creation of this tag. You're going to have to search pantyshot sitting and sift through the noise anyway if you really want to find everything for this tag.
-1 to the nuke of pantyshot (qualifier) for tagging convenience's sake. IMO it's shorter to use that than tagging both seperately.
Travley said:
-1 to the nuke of pantyshot (qualifier) for tagging convenience's sake. IMO it's shorter to use that than tagging both seperately.
Tags don't exist as replacements for other tags, if you were going to tag something as pantyshot (sitting) then you would have to tag it pantyshot and sitting anyway. The only thing that would make it preferable to keep the qualifiers is the implications allowing you to add three tags with just one, but pantyshot (sitting) and pantyshot sitting have almost the same number of characters, it isn't like typing the two separate tags takes more time than only typing the single tag. The two tags might even be faster since they contain two less characters.
The bulk update request #2440 (forum #164859) has been approved by @evazion.
Honestly the reason these tags even exist is because not everyone can search more than 2 tags, so they compensate for that by combining multiple tags. I'm not really on either side about it but it SHOULD be clarified that the tags seeming unnecessary to some people are still there for a reason
mashmash said:
Honestly the reason these tags even exist is because not everyone can search more than 2 tags, so they compensate for that by combining multiple tags. I'm not really on either side about it but it SHOULD be clarified that the tags seeming unnecessary to some people are still there for a reason
We don't use single tags as replacement for multitag searches. Any tags like that should be nuked.
BUR #7540 has been approved by @evazion.
create alias pantyshot_(reflection) -> pantyshot_through_reflection
create implication pantyshot_through_reflection -> pantyshot
create implication pantyshot_through_reflection -> reflection
I completely forgot that we never fixed this tag.
The bulk update request #7540 (forum #198331) has been approved by @evazion.