new meta tag: archivist-party_source

BUR #52402 is pending approval.

mass update favgroup:50168 -> meta:archivist-party_source

i've been uploading some artwork from old websites that were archived in archive.org and i noticed there is no tag for this

it doesn't feel right to tag it as third-party source, even though it is a third party, because their whole business is preserving the entire artist's website the way it was

you can't tag it archived source either because that tag is for when the "source" url links to archive.org, the wiki says the source needs to be original url (of the dead site) so you can't use the source to say the image came from archive.org either

so far i've been leaving a comment on the posts that came from archive but imo there could be a tag for "a third-party source that doesn't count as a third-party source because they're archive.org (or some other site that works exactly the same way idk any tho)" for completeness

Not a good tag name. "x-party" tags should always be in the form "first, second, third".

BUR #52403 is pending approval.

mass update favgroup:50168 -> meta:from_archive

WRS said:

Not a good tag name. "x-party" tags should always be in the form "first, second, third".

archived source and archived file are already existing tags so i don't know what else to call it. maybe from archive?

What would be the searching utility of this metatag, though? I feel like bad ids serve a fine enough purpose when uploading things you found on archive.org.

gunupmyskirt said:

What would be the searching utility of this metatag, though? I feel like bad ids serve a fine enough purpose when uploading things you found on archive.org.

it's the same utility third-party source. it's more like a disclaimer than something people would actually search for. the only reason such tag feels needed to me at all is that we don't consider archive.org to be a third-party source, even though it kind of is, because third-party sources often have some risk involved (potential edits, paid rewards) and the archive has a good reputation

bad id just means that the source URL is dead. it doesn't tell you if the post was uploaded before the source became dead or after it became dead (by getting the image from the archive)

Yeah, there's no point to this. What reason do we actually have in tagging that the file in question came from an archive or not? If the archive's point is that the file is preserved as it was, then what difference does it make? Using something like image sample (because sometimes the image preserved is not the actually original) is leagues more useful.

I see the use, but I think a complex (saved) search with archive sites of choice would be better.

LQ said:

I see the use, but I think a complex (saved) search with archive sites of choice would be better.

that won't work because archived source is a "mistake"

if a post has an archive.org source like https://web.archive.org/web/20041025120218fw_/http://soybean3.s60.xrea.com/img/origi_17.html it gets marked as archived source.

damian searches for archived source posts to remove the archive.org part, changing the source to http://soybean3.s60.xrea.com/img/origi_17.html, because otherwise danbooru will have a billion links to archive.org and that is bad because of bots or something like that

now the source is no longer archive.org so you can't search for archive.org to find the post

I figured your new tag would be for posts that were indeed pulled an from an archive website with no known dead source, so the source wouldn't change, but it seems you want it to also include things that have an archive as the real source (but not the source field) and everything archived source...

I wish there were an easy way of searching the post's underlying asset source. Though that's not great either, as some will be downloaded and uploaded directly.

At least you can search comment:"archive" and hope people follow a consistent format.

A better tag name would be archived source available. There is no discernable difference in the names archived source and archivist-party source and would be useless on that point alone. The name archivist-party source also sounds like the current source URL is an archived link, which makes it sound redundant with archived source and is the opposite of what you're proposing we use it for. Archived source available, on the other hand, clearly indicates that the website can be found on an archive website even if the source doesn't point to it.

The reason these sites aren't usually tagged third-party source is because they point to the actual website. The exception would, of course, be if the original website itself is a third-party source. It has nothing to do with the archive's reputation.

This is not an argument for or against having the tag, just for a clearer name.

It might also be worth considering cases in which the website is still up (meaning bad id wouldn't apply) but the image was only available on an older version.

LQ said:

I figured your new tag would be for posts that were indeed pulled an from an archive website with no known dead source, so the source wouldn't change, but it seems you want it to also include things that have an archive as the real source (but not the source field) and everything archived source...

I wish there were an easy way of searching the post's underlying asset source. Though that's not great either, as some will be downloaded and uploaded directly.

At least you can search comment:"archive" and hope people follow a consistent format.

i think one of us is misunderstanding something. the way i understand it archived source means the source is wrong. when you post something...

1 if the url is .jpg you change it to the page where the .jpg was instead of linking directly to the .jpg
2 if the url is archive.org you change it to the original url that may be dead

so what i do is

1 i find a .jpg in https://web.archive.org/web/20041025120218fw_/http://soybean3.s60.xrea.com/img/origi_17.html
2 i up the .jpg, https://web.archive.org/web/20060404140917im_/http://soybean3.s60.xrea.com/img/kisei.jpg
3 i change the source manually to http://soybean3.s60.xrea.com/img/origi_17.html

basically afaik if everybody did it "correctly" the way i'm doing it, there would be no archive.org urls and no archived source posts, because the source is always going to be the dead link... assuming the way i'm doing it is the right way anyway

Blank_User said:

A better tag name would be archived source available. There is no discernable difference in the names archived source and archivist-party source and would be useless on that point alone. The name archivist-party source also sounds like the current source URL is an archived link, which makes it sound redundant with archived source and is the opposite of what you're proposing we use it for. Archived source available, on the other hand, clearly indicates that the website can be found on an archive website even if the source doesn't point to it.

The reason these sites aren't usually tagged third-party source is because they point to the actual website. The exception would, of course, be if the original website itself is a third-party source. It has nothing to do with the archive's reputation.

This is not an argument for or against having the tag, just for a clearer name.

It might also be worth considering cases in which the website is still up (meaning bad id wouldn't apply) but the image was only available on an older version.

like i said whether my tag gets created or not the current policy based on the wiki is that "archived source" means you wrote the source wrong or at least in a way that is frowned upon. i don't know if it means we're supposed to be "fixing" the sources and removing the tag or not, but the way it's written is that ideally you don't do that in first place

For sourcing purposes, it is generally recommended to leave the now-defunct link as the source, rather than the archived link itself, as to avoid hotlinking complications and putting unnecessary traffic strain on the archival websites.

so basically even if you upload from archive.org, you shouldn't have an archived source tag in your post because you should change the source URL, but if you do that then there is no tag that says the image came from archive.org instead of coming from the artist's website

You're still not making it clear why we even need a tag that tells you the image was gotten from archive.org or similar archival websites. Like, genuinely, what's the point of that?

trapster77 said:

basically afaik if everybody did it "correctly" the way i'm doing it, there would be no archive.org urls and no archived source posts, because the source is always going to be the dead link... assuming the way i'm doing it is the right way anyway

Keep in mind that archive.org also archives things like scans and videos, not just websites, so there can still be archive.org sources. They would just be tagged third-party source instead of archived source.

like i said whether my tag gets created or not the current policy based on the wiki is that "archived source" means you wrote the source wrong or at least in a way that is frowned upon. i don't know if it means we're supposed to be "fixing" the sources and removing the tag or not, but the way it's written is that ideally you don't do that in first place

so basically even if you upload from archive.org, you shouldn't have an archived source tag in your post because you should change the source URL, but if you do that then there is no tag that says the image came from archive.org instead of coming from the artist's website

Correct. But your proposed tag name just sounds like a longer version of archived source and can easily be mistaken for a duplicate tag. The tag name should indicate what it actually does and not written in a way that can cause it to be easily confused with other tags with the opposite function.

Damian0358 said:

You're still not making it clear why we even need a tag that tells you the image was gotten from archive.org or similar archival websites. Like, genuinely, what's the point of that?

to tell apart posts that came from the archive from posts that didn't come from the archive, since you can't tag them as third party source and the source URL shouldn't link to archive.org

i just feels weird that there is no way to disclaim this except the non-standardized method of posting a comment

I think the concern is that there wouldn't be much point in searching it. Could be useful if some archive sites are more likely to stick around than others, but there's no distinction.

Also, if there's no comment, how would you know it's archived somewhere? What could you do with the tag alone? The comment is nice to have as the post's "actual" source (even if not original), but Danbooru becomes the new archive and the archive source doesn't matter at that point.

LQ said:

I think the concern is that there wouldn't be much point in searching it. Could be useful if some archive sites are more likely to stick around than others, but there's no distinction.

Also, if there's no comment, how would you know it's archived somewhere? What could you do with the tag alone? The comment is nice to have as the post's "actual" source (even if not original), but Danbooru becomes the new archive and the archive source doesn't matter at that point.

We're not an archive in the same way archive.org is. We only archive images. They archive entire websites.

The point of this proposed tag is to indicate that it was taken from an archived source, which can then be verified by searching for that URL on an archivist website.

trapster77 said:

to tell apart posts that came from the archive from posts that didn't come from the archive, since you can't tag them as third party source and the source URL shouldn't link to archive.org

i just feels weird that there is no way to disclaim this except the non-standardized method of posting a comment

You're explaining why you want it, you've not explained why we need it.

Archived source, just like bad link and bad source and imageboard desourced, has an organizational purpose, since we have no reason to list in the source field the archived version of a given source. We have no reason to indicate in tag form that the image itself came from an archived source, because it's not relevant information to the image itself like image sample, scan, missing thumbnail, or AI-generated, to name one of the handful of meta tags.

Again, why do we need to tell them apart?

Blank_User said:

It might also be worth considering cases in which the website is still up (meaning bad id wouldn't apply) but the image was only available on an older version.

That's source mismatch.

Damian0358 said:

You're explaining why you want it, you've not explained why we need it.

Archived source, just like bad link and bad source and imageboard desourced, has an organizational purpose, since we have no reason to list in the source field the archived version of a given source. We have no reason to indicate in tag form that the image itself came from an archived source, because it's not relevant information to the image itself like image sample, scan, missing thumbnail, or AI-generated, to name one of the handful of meta tags.

Again, why do we need to tell them apart?

That's source mismatch.

what about third-party source and second-party source? why are they needed?

trapster77 said:

what about third-party source and second-party source? why are they needed?

It can be unclear to a casual look what is a first/second/third-party source, especially when differentiating between second and third.

Archive links are generally obvious.

trapster77 said:

what about third-party source and second-party source? why are they needed?

As evazion himself said in forum #371039;

The source is supposed to be "where the image was originally found" not "where an inexact repost was found 20 years later".

And sometimes the source listed is not the one by the artist themselves, so having tags which indicate such cases allows you to search for the actual source in order to upload that. An example can be found with post #9476748 and post #10084520, the former being a third-party source and the latter being the first-party; the former is effectively a reposted sample, and Reddit might've touched up the metadata upon receiving the file, so it's now uniquely the version from that specific source.

This is part of why Bad ID has the clause that you can only change the source listed if the MD5 matches.