Posted under Tags
Mexiguy said:
Then start the appropriate tag
And what would be "the appropriate tag" for somethin like post #3688155? Which is both the most common style of bangs in real life and in art on the site. Whatever it is probably wants about a million tag uses.
skylightcrystal said:
And what would be "the appropriate tag" for somethin like post #3688155? Which is both the most common style of bangs in real life and in art on the site. Whatever it is probably wants about a million tag uses.
what about a medium bangs tag? Short ones stop above the eyebrows, long ones go past the eyes, so it would make sense to have the medium variant for those in-between cases that are so numerous, while not carrying the problems of the old general bangs tag
skylightcrystal said:
And what would be "the appropriate tag" for somethin like post #3688155? Which is both the most common style of bangs in real life and in art on the site. Whatever it is probably wants about a million tag uses.
I still fail to see why anyone would tag something as pointless as regular bangs and how do would you even define it.
punished_K said:
Never, because there are enough cases where you can't tag the size.
To me it seems like in the near future, every point made in here suggests that.
Tagging by the size would be a decent argument there but it'll just be ignored with something along the lines of 'We don't have a catch all hair tag for indeterminate lengths'.
I barely search for breasts, but such tag always appear on front page everytime I open this site as if it's a social media trending topic.
Veraducks said:
A breast nuke should probably fail for the same reason a virtual YouTuber nuke can't be brought up:
People actually use it to search for any and all tits.
It's as bad as the idea of nuking gun in general despite the existence of tags that describe more specific types of guns and individual gun names.
Mexiguy said:
I still fail to see why anyone would tag something as pointless as regular bangs and how do would you even define it.
Me neither, but then I wasn't the one who suggested that people wanting bangs in general should make a tag for any type that doesn't already have its own tags.
Reminds me of another thing that I didn't mention at the time, but there is utility in being able to search for any and all bangs. It's admittedly not very helpful for the curation type of search (show me good posts with this attribute), but it is extremely helpful if you already know what you're looking for.
Imagine if you're trying to find a specific post you've seen in the past. You may remember it has bangs, but it's often close to impossible to determine the specific subtag that was used, or what any individual tagger determined the style to be at that time.
Or let's say I was trying to identify who Momiji is in post #5945646. (The astute among you will notice this is not actually a hypothetical.) My search would start off with something like blue_archive, green_hair, hood, fur_trim, and bangs. As-is this search would've gone fine and I would've found my character. But with the absence of bangs I now need to pick a bangs style for this search. I don't know, I guess they look like blunt bangs? Lo and behold she is now no longer in any of the search results.
This is just one case out of many that will be adversely impacted by this change going forward.
Cattywampus said:
Reminds me of another thing that I didn't mention at the time, but there is utility in being able to search for any and all bangs. It's admittedly not very helpful for the curation type of search (show me good posts with this attribute), but it is extremely helpful if you already know what you're looking for.
Imagine if you're trying to find a specific post you've seen in the past. You may remember it has bangs, but it's often close to impossible to determine the specific subtag that was used, or what any individual tagger determined the style to be at that time.
Or let's say I was trying to identify who Momiji is in post #5945646. (The astute among you will notice this is not actually a hypothetical.) My search would start off with something like blue_archive, green_hair, hood, fur_trim, and bangs. As-is this search would've gone fine and I would've found my character. But with the absence of bangs I now need to pick a bangs style for this search. I don't know, I guess they look like blunt bangs? Lo and behold she is now no longer in any of the search results.
This is just one case out of many that will be adversely impacted by this change going forward.
You just described how I search for characters, searching for a mix of catchall and generalized tags returns better results than searching for specific tags for obvious reasons. But keep in mind bangs wouldn't help in a member level user search.
How to tag this kind of evenly (intentionally) gaping bangs?
Cattywampus said:
Reminds me of another thing that I didn't mention at the time, but there is utility in being able to search for any and all bangs. It's admittedly not very helpful for the curation type of search (show me good posts with this attribute), but it is extremely helpful if you already know what you're looking for.
Imagine if you're trying to find a specific post you've seen in the past. You may remember it has bangs, but it's often close to impossible to determine the specific subtag that was used, or what any individual tagger determined the style to be at that time.
Or let's say I was trying to identify who Momiji is in post #5945646. (The astute among you will notice this is not actually a hypothetical.) My search would start off with something like blue_archive, green_hair, hood, fur_trim, and bangs. As-is this search would've gone fine and I would've found my character. But with the absence of bangs I now need to pick a bangs style for this search. I don't know, I guess they look like blunt bangs? Lo and behold she is now no longer in any of the search results.
This is just one case out of many that will be adversely impacted by this change going forward.
Assuming that's meant to be blue_archive green_hair hood fur_trim, the inclusion of bangs is completely redundant. You don't need to filter by bang style, and even in the hypothetical scenario where that search doesn't already narrow results to that character, bangs accomplishes nothing because every character in the original picture has bangs, every post in that search would be tagged bangs. Every character in Blue Archive has bangs, every character in most copyrights has bangs. Your point would work, if we were talking about a physical trait not shared by 99% of characters. Assuming perfect tagging, which we obviously don't have, the only thing bangs does the vast majority of the time is filter out images where bangs aren't visible, such as from behind, and other tags, e.g. looking at viewer, fixes that if it's a concern.
Cattywampus said:
Reminds me of another thing that I didn't mention at the time, but there is utility in being able to search for any and all bangs. It's admittedly not very helpful for the curation type of search (show me good posts with this attribute), but it is extremely helpful if you already know what you're looking for.
Imagine if you're trying to find a specific post you've seen in the past. You may remember it has bangs, but it's often close to impossible to determine the specific subtag that was used, or what any individual tagger determined the style to be at that time.
Or let's say I was trying to identify who Momiji is in post #5945646. (The astute among you will notice this is not actually a hypothetical.) My search would start off with something like blue_archive, green_hair, hood, fur_trim, and bangs. As-is this search would've gone fine and I would've found my character. But with the absence of bangs I now need to pick a bangs style for this search. I don't know, I guess they look like blunt bangs? Lo and behold she is now no longer in any of the search results.
This is just one case out of many that will be adversely impacted by this change going forward.
doesnt a "*bangs" search replace the general bangs tag? since all the tags that are specifcally about a type of bangs do contain "bangs" in the tag name (while others like hair between eyes can cover cases of bangs but it's not limited to that).
But i still think a medium bangs tag would be useful without carrying the flaws from the now deprecated general bangs tag; again, there's an unfilled gap between long bangs and short bangs, any length of bangs that actually goes past the eyebrows but not past the eyes can't be tagged currently, so those cases don't get any tagging of bangs despite their presence, unless they fall under other tags that aren't about bangs length.
magcolo said:
How to tag this kind of evenly (intentionally) gaping bangs?
Maybe a new fringed bangs tag as well?
Mayhem-Chan said:
doesnt a "*bangs" search replace the general bangs tag?
No, because several styles of bangs lack their own tags.
And also because many posts only had the base bangs tag, and have now become unfindable.
blindVigil said:
Assuming that's meant to be blue_archive green_hair hood fur_trim, the inclusion of bangs is completely redundant. You don't need to filter by bang style, and even in the hypothetical scenario where that search doesn't already narrow results to that character, bangs accomplishes nothing because every character in the original picture has bangs, every post in that search would be tagged bangs.
You're speaking with the benefit of hindsight here. How am I supposed to determine that before I know who I'm looking for?
While in theory there may be some way to deduce the minimum specific set of tags required beforehand, the reality is that this is a present search pain point for me that did not previously exist. I struggled finding Pinoko for similar reasons. What benefit are we getting from this additional friction?
This is ignoring your assertions regarding the frequency of bangs. Whatever broad definition of bangs you are using in your statements is not one that I share, or anyone else I know for that matter.
pronebone said:
Any names for M (or reverse W) shaped bangs other than m_bangs?
Cattywampus said:
No, because several styles of bangs lack their own tags.
And also because many posts only had the base bangs tag, and have now become unfindable.
hence the additional bangs tag replacements i'm suggesting
Cattywampus said:
Or let's say I was trying to identify who Momiji is in post #5945646. (The astute among you will notice this is not actually a hypothetical.) My search would start off with something like blue_archive, green_hair, hood, fur_trim, and bangs. As-is this search would've gone fine and I would've found my character. But with the absence of bangs I now need to pick a bangs style for this search. I don't know, I guess they look like blunt bangs? Lo and behold she is now no longer in any of the search results.
This is just one case out of many that will be adversely impacted by this change going forward.
You don't even need to pick a specific bangs style if you aren't lazy with your search :
blue_archive green_hair sidelocks: First page result, if you add coat it becomes the only result
blue_archive green_hair hair_flaps: Only result
blue_archive green_hair short_hair_with_long_locks: Only result
(And that's without taking into account a certain user who shall not be named mintagging)
Cattywampus said:
You're missing the point, and this is not a matter of being "lazy". As Individual pointed out earlier:
You're too hung up on this specific example.
The point is that bangs isn't the end-all be-all of tagging and that there are plenty of other ways of finding a specific character, even with shit undertagging, and you certainly aren't gonna say that sidelocks is an overly-specific tag (which is why put it as the first example).
And you are still completely missing the point that if all characters with any form of bangs where tagged with if, searching for blue_archive green_hair bangs would be pretty much the same as searching for blue_archive green_hair because 99% of characters have some sort of hair on the front of the face. Bangs on its own adds little to no value for searchability under most circumstances, it was ceremonial tag padding at the best and an excuse for lazy tagging at worst (aka "what's the specific hairstyle again?, fuck it, let's just tag it bangs and call it a day")
I have used the bangs tag in the past, but that was more because I didn't know which specific tag would fit a certain style- but I still feel like bangs by itself as a tag isn't very useful because more anime characters have bangs then those who don't.
magcolo said:
How to tag this kind of evenly (intentionally) gaping bangs?
I looked it up and apparently those are called "airy bangs". Maybe we could start a tag for that?
World_Funeral said:
I barely search for breasts, but such tag always appear on front page everytime I open this site as if it's a social media trending topic.
I think that's because the other breast tags (small, large, etc.) are frequently used so the implication shows up at the top.
pronebone said:
Any names for M (or reverse W) shaped bangs other than m_bangs?
I thought that was what the hair_between_eyes tag was for (even though I see the tag misued a lot)? I'm not against having tags for those either, although we'd have to do a lot of gardening.
