Donmai

[Tag Suggestion] md5 mismatch related metatags

Posted under General

.grey

Thinking about making a new set of meta tags for the numerous md5 mismatches we have, to serve as placeholders for those who want to garden the gallery for revisions.

The tags should explain themselves, but here's a list of examples for what I'm thinking:

If there are better names that should be proposed (preferably shorter and more concise than these), then I'd love to hear those suggestions.

Let's ping some users who may be interested: @iphn @Danaii @Shallie

Updated

Reply
.grey

Danaii said:

Censored revision could be useful too.

Sounds like a good idea, I'll include it.

EDIT: I'll start to tag some of these, just to get the ball rolling. Think this'll be more useful in the future than how we currently do things (even with a favgroup and all)

Updated

Reply
BrokenEagle98

Mikaeri said:

Fair enough. By the way, how about artifacted revision? Just to be consistent.

That works... although artifact is not really a verb. Still, artifact_revision does sound a bit unclear in its meaning, so we should go with artifacted_revision instead.

BTW, I was faced with a similar decision when I created the tag bow panties, but I decided to go with that rather than create bowed panties. I guess in the case of non-adjectival nouns, it will vary case-by-case on what form the noun should take.

Reply
worldendDominator

Sacriven said:

I thought the tag should be used on the revised post, not on the md5 mismatched post? This will lead to some confusion.

I think it's supposed to be used on the mismatched post, to say: "there's a revision at the source, but it's bad so don't upload it".

Reply
Super Affection

I don't like the way the tags are worded. They sound like they're describing the post itself. I presume the previous wording was "revision is downscaled" "revision is artifacted / has artifacts" and so on, which doesn't sound good but is more accurate. Removing the "to be" verbs also changed the subject so that it refers to the image being tagged rather than the unuploaded revision. IMO the old way or a different way of phrasing it would be better.

Separate but related: How much trouble would it cause to create a separate tag type for "technical" tags such as these? As in separate from copy, artist, char, general. Right now technical tags are categorized as general but now we have a fair number of them and I think it would help to move them out of the general tag area to keep both cleaner and easier to see. Tags like highres and tall image could also go in there so that the general tags only described the actual content of the image.

Reply
.grey

☆♪ said:

I don't like the way the tags are worded. They sound like they're describing the post itself. I presume the previous wording was "revision is downscaled" "revision is artifacted / has artifacts" and so on, which doesn't sound good but is more accurate. Removing the "to be" verbs also changed the subject so that it refers to the image being tagged rather than the unuploaded revision. IMO the old way or a different way of phrasing it would be better.

Separate but related: How much trouble would it cause to create a separate tag type for "technical" tags such as these? As in separate from copy, artist, char, general. Right now technical tags are categorized as general but now we have a fair number of them and I think it would help to move them out of the general tag area to keep both cleaner and easier to see. Tags like highres and tall image could also go in there so that the general tags only described the actual content of the image.

You do have a point there. I was contemplating that, but then I thought it was a bit wordy otherwise (and yes, the previous tags I had in mind were things like "revision is downscaled/revision is lossy" etc). Since I'm not really sure which way to go (as I'm okay with both wordings) I'll let others discuss that and choose a best route. We can always do a mass update/update with scripts.

Umm, hmm. I'd be for it, but I guess it really depends on what the code maintainers think. @Type-kun @evazion Think there would be some demand now to make a separate tag type outside of general for tags that don't describe the image? A "technical" type, as ☆♪ describes.

Reply
BrokenEagle98

About a different tag type... relevant conversation, issue #2358.

As for the topic of tag semantics, *_available could be added to the end to clear up the meaning, and it already has precedence with the PDF available, PSD available, and video available tags.

  • bad_revision_available
  • artifacted_revision_available
  • downscaled_revision_available
  • lossy_revision_available
  • corrupted_revision_available
  • censored_revision_available
  • watermarked_revision_available
Reply
.grey

BrokenEagle98 said:

About a different tag type... relevant conversation, issue #2358.

As for the topic of tag semantics, *_available could be added to the end to clear up the meaning, and it already has precedence with the PDF available, PSD available, and video available tags.

  • bad_revision_available
  • artifacted_revision_available
  • downscaled_revision_available
  • lossy_revision_available
  • corrupted_revision_available
  • censored_revision_available
  • watermarked_revision_available

Ugh, I hate that wording though...

Reply
evazion

☆♪ said:

Separate but related: How much trouble would it cause to create a separate tag type for "technical" tags such as these? As in separate from copy, artist, char, general.

There's a list of such tags in tag group:metatags. I do think it's a good idea and in fact, Sankaku already has this. As for how much trouble it would be, it wouldn't be that hard, but it's not entirely trivial either. There are a fair number of places scattered throughout the code that are hardcoded for the 4 current tag types that would have to be fixed.

Reply
Super Affection

Bumping this one more time. A real, recent example of confusion caused by these tag names can be seen on post #3290891.

The current tag names are just extremely non-intuitive. They still trip me up every time I see them. It's hard to "learn" because pretty much all other tags on the site are worded with respect to the post they're on, which, you know, actually makes sense. I think we should rename these tags to be clearer, even if it makes them uglier.

Reply
Super Affection

create alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision
mass update artifacted_revision -> has_artifacted_revision
mass update downscaled_revision -> has_downscaled_revision
mass update lossy_revision -> has_lossy_revision
mass update corrupted_revision -> has_corrupted_revision
mass update censored_revision -> has_censored_revision
mass update watermarked_revision -> has_watermarked_revision
mass update cropped_revision -> has_cropped_revision

Link to request

Going to go ahead and request this. Apparently not many people care but I haven't seen anyone who actually likes the current names.

I don't think it's worth aliases for all of them. Most of them don't have many posts. I just put an alias on bad_revision which will hopefully let people used to the old names see the format of the new ones.

(Not sure if meta: works in an alias. We can just change the category afterwards.)

EDIT: The tag alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision has conflicting wiki pages. has_bad_revision should be updated to include information from bad_revision if necessary.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1847 (forum #151991) has been approved by @Type-kun.

EDIT: The tag alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision has conflicting wiki pages. has_bad_revision should be updated to include information from bad_revision if necessary.

Updated by DanbooruBot

Reply
CodeKyuubi BrokenEagle98 Squishy Unbreakable nonamethanks
1 2