This pool is objective and visual, shouldn't it be a tag (e.g. pointing_out_details)?
Updated by anon153
Posted under General
This pool is objective and visual, shouldn't it be a tag (e.g. pointing_out_details)?
Updated by anon153
As the creator of the pool, I don't think that the intent is captured by searching in either of the tags mentioned. The kind of image I was trying to get was something like post #1145173 or post #425481 or even post #612357, where you get an explanation of sorts of the "whys" of the images - not just seeing every detail that the artist put in, but seeing which ones they found important. It was the first (and only) pool I've ever created, so I didn't know to what extent I was allowed to make the pool qualification subjective.
Searching on diagram brings up posts like post #1293947, which happens to have a diagram in it, and a caption tag would probably include images like post #654991 on the basis that each panel does indeed have a caption.
If there's a way to revise the pool description so that it fulfills the intent of a pool more closely, I'd appreciate that guidance.
Edited to complete the post, which accidentally got submitted before it was finished
Updated
LittleFuzzy said:
As the creator of the pool, I don't think that the intent is captured by searching in either of the tags mentioned. The kind of image I was trying to get was something like post #1145173 or post #674002 or even post #1242386
I thought that captions would work for that. But maybe something more specific such as character captions would be better.
I'd say annotated, but that tag is already in use for annotations with notes.
Would the original intention of the pool exclude 'informative' labels like in post #250570 and post #639427? What about post #196500?
LittleFuzzy said:
If there's a way to revise the pool description so that it fulfills the intent of a pool more closely, I'd appreciate that guidance.
Click the "Edit" link when viewing the pool.
zatchii said:
I personally think it would make sense for those to be included.
Updated
zatchii said:
I'd say annotated, but that tag is already in use for annotations with notes.
Would the original intention of the pool exclude 'informative' labels like in post #250570 and post #639427?
Very definitely it would include those. The artist is saying "Here, pay particular attention to these aspects; they're important/cool/more complex than you might assume."
What about post #196500?
That one ... is a bit of a tougher call. TBH, I think it makes it in because the topmost caption is "Magical Hat"; if it had been "Conical Hat" or just "Hat," then the labels would be telling us absolutely nothing we didn't already know.
One post that I think I put in the pool myself, but have always been dubious about, would be post #998911. Yes, it's pointing out major cities, but... not because the artist had something particular to express about those cities, just because they're the major cities of the UK.
I think the pool's intention is quite clear and doesn't need redefinition, just that the concept "details being pointed out" feels taggable.
I don't think diagram, captions or annotation would fit, because some posts aren't a diagram (post #554814) and some posts don't have captions (post #14213). The whole concept is worth tagging, which was why I suggested pointing_out_details. Another example of a tag that describe a concept rather than image element is too_literal.
To make sure I understand the concept right, would these posts (currently not in the pool) fit: post #498641, post #1361340, post #1350707?
Sal.N said:
I think the pool's intention is quite clear and doesn't need redefinition, just that the concept "details being pointed out" feels taggable.
I don't think diagram, captions or annotation would fit, because some posts aren't a diagram (post #554814) and some posts don't have captions (post #14213). The whole concept is worth tagging, which was why I suggested pointing_out_details. Another example of a tag that describe a concept rather than image element is too_literal.
Well, it's very possible that my idea of where the line is between "should be a tag" and "should be a pool" was off-base, with regards to Danbooru's standards. I'll have to check out too_literal; if that sort of thing can be a tag after all, I'd have no objection to converting the pool to a tag. As long as we can find a clear tag name, of course (pointing_out_details seems clear to me, but for obvious reasons, I'm the worst person to judge whether it would be clear to others.)
To make sure I understand the concept right, would these posts (currently not in the pool) fit: post #498641, post #1361340, post #1350707?
Those are excellent examples of posts which fit the pool concept. In fact, if it won't complicate the discussion, I'd like to add them to the pool.
I don't know if this helps the issue or just complicates it, but it occurs to me that a strong component of many of the images that first motivated me to make the pool in the first place is that they have, essentially, artist commentary inside the image itself. The commentary isn't always serious (e.g., post #250570) and isn't always verbose (e.g., post #1242386 or most of ina (gokihoihoi)'s work in the pool) but still gives extra insight into the artist's work.)
Toks said:
What makes it an untaggable concept?
If we tag it as admiration, the tag will imply admiration between characters in the picture. If we tag artist's expressions of admiration, then the tag will make people assume that the author is part of the picture and is expressing his admiration in-universe, as a self-insert.
anon153 said:
If we tag it as admiration, the tag will imply admiration between characters in the picture. If we tag artist's expressions of admiration, then the tag will make people assume that the author is part of the picture and is expressing his admiration in-universe, as a self-insert.
The pool isn't actually about the artist expressing admiration, though. It's true that some could be classified as that, but what about some of these:
There's no admiration being expressed there. The artist is just objectively pointing out some things that are in those images.
I see your point now. I would still prefer to separate this type of diagram from the others by giving it the character diagram tag. An author admiration pool can remain as a separate grouping.