Shinjidude said: So Albert had noted that "tying tags to notes" was something he might be interested in doing down the road. I think that was based on the "spatial tagging" suggestion I had earlier in the thread (though there I was thinking more along the lines of simple x,y coordinates).
forum #37442 got me thinking, this could actually be more useful than simply showing people where things are and who is who. If we did use something closer to our current note system for spatial tagging, with a full bounding box rather than simply x,y we could infer a tag's prominence on a post using the heuristic that more prominent tags take up a larger proportion of the image's area.
Er... didn't mean to steal your idea, I honestly thought it was original at the time. I must have skimmed your post too quickly or forgotten or something. I don't mind if you take proper credit for it.
I still like the idea, but I think now that it's probably too much to ask for every tag to be spatially located like that. I do think it would be especially useful with characters though, and that's probably not too much to ask for, especially if that facial recognition script I linked to before can do most of the work.
That said, I'm pretty sure Hazuki is going to track me down sometime soon and pummel me for campaigning for all these sorts of features with rich semantics and crazy interfaces. Also Albert is probably going to do the same for me campaigning for features with vague implementations, that greatly complicate the database, and will likely be resource intensive.
That's why I shifted gears towards supporting something lighter and that depended less on each and every user doing a lot of work. Hazuki apparently still doesn't like it though.
Cyberia-Mix said: I don't like the subjectivity opportunities it conveys ("Mokou looks better than Kaguya here so she has to be major.") but it's still too valuable despite that.
To my mind, the only reason a character would get tagged with "minor" relevance is that they are in the distant background, or perhaps make a cameo as a chibi/yukkuri among text or something like that.
葉月 said: I linked to the second system effect for a reason.
I could see why you linked to that in response to Shinjidude's proposal, but Suiseiseki's really isn't very complex. The second system effect shouldn't be used as an argument against making improvements in general.
Soljashy said: To my mind, the only reason a character would get tagged with "minor" relevance is that they are in the distant background, or perhaps make a cameo as a chibi/yukkuri among text or something like that.
Yeah I guess the "minor" setting is relatively clear to define. The "major" one is more difficult though, as I think it would need to take the detail level of the characters into account, so that prominent characters in little 4koma panels, chibi or sketches (if lacking detail), don't end up being "major". And I'm pretty sure we could disagree on a lot of cases then (well, same thing already occurs with ratings anyway and it's not that bad).
Shinjidude said: As for sorting by tagtype, Evazion already wrote a greasemonkey script that lets you do that
Doesn't work for me (got the expand/collapse buttons but no sort bar). Either it's outdated or I'm being screwed by the ads.
Cyberia-Mix said: Doesn't work for me (got the expand/collapse buttons but no sort bar). Either it's outdated or I'm being screwed by the ads.
Hmm, it's actually not for me anymore either. I had swapped it out for an incompatible script some time ago. My guess is it broke when Albert changed the sidebar (adding and then removing the wiki, etc), and it probably needs fixed to work with the new format.
---
Oh, I also just noticed that a similar 3-way prominence system is also being used by the Anime Database to indicate the prominence of categories and tags to anime series.
Any system implemented would also have to have some method of tracking vandalism. Since we're talking something as fundamental as tagging, locking member level users out seems extremely harsh.
I hate to repush my own ideas, but using a multiple box input system leaves tag vandalism pretty much where it is now (and may slow down some vandals). Shinjidude's system would have each tag handled separately and would likely be an easy vandalism target.
As to a thumbs up/down, or a ▼/▲ system, I'm against it. Without proper instruction, it will easily be confused with a "I like/dislike this tag" or any number of other things.
Vandalism either with your system or mine could be dealt with much the way it is now, with the tag history. In addition to the specific tags and rating, we could just note tag prominence changes with say "tag (◑)" in the history where relevances are changed.
The ▼/▲ wasn't meant to mean thumbs up or down, maybe it was a poor choice of symbols. Yes, we want to be sure any symbol we use doesn't imply better/worse or like/dislike, and to provide documentation. If there was a Unicode symbol for 3 signal bars, I'd say we should use that.
Multiple taglist boxes is actually not a bad idea for entering relevance. It would allow the relevances to be added at the same time the tags are initially entered, rather than requiring people to enter the tags first then handle them from the post's page.
It would force people to make a choice though, and the lazy might be more likely to misuse relevance in that case than they otherwise would by picking one box and typing everything to it. In some ways that'd be more dangerous than simply defaulting to neutral. If we use multiple boxes, we ought to put neutral as the first, and the one with the most prominent focus.
Either way we need an indicator in the taglist, and I think as an indicator, the symbol idea makes the most sense. It works better in our case than, say, the font size style indicator AniDB uses, and is more compact than using a hierarchical list.
Also, so long as everything is recorded the same as tag manipulation, I don't see why using the symbols as a selector (either on its own or in addition to multiple boxes) would be any more prone to vandalism than anything else.
Maybe this discussion would have been better split off into a new thread...
Why have three levels of relevance, when it seems the 'neutral' one is just for backwards compatibility? I don't see any real reason or method to differentiate between 'major' and 'neutral' tags, so why not just have tags default to 'major'? That would closely resemble the _(cameo) system that almost passed.
Shinjidude said: Er... didn't mean to steal your idea, I honestly thought it was original at the time. I must have skimmed your post too quickly or forgotten or something.
Half of my original posts was stuff that you'd already mentioned that I also skimmed to quickly so no problem :)
zatchii said: Maybe this discussion would have been better split off into a new thread...
I actually had that thought myself a page or so back. We've sort of hijacked this one for now.
zatchii said: Why have three levels of relevance, when it seems the 'neutral' one is just for backwards compatibility? I don't see any real reason or method to differentiate between 'major' and 'neutral' tags, so why not just have tags default to 'major'? That would closely resemble the _(cameo) system that almost passed.
Well, the intent of this system is for people to be able to search major:tag and only come up with posts with that tag featured prominently. If we defaulted to major, then even that 16x16 cameo in the background uploaded by someone lazy would show up until someone got to fixing it. Basically it would change very little from what we have now, defeating the purpose.
Likewise, we can't really default to minor because then otherwise people would upload images with simply a single character and nothing else, and not bother setting the relevance and then it would pollute minor:tag seraches, and not show up in major:tag searches.
Basically the neutral setting is not so much just for backwards compatibility (which it is), but also very much for forward ambivalence compatibility (which is something we are never going to avoid).
zatchii said: Why have three levels of relevance, when it seems the 'neutral' one is just for backwards compatibility? I don't see any real reason or method to differentiate between 'major' and 'neutral' tags, so why not just have tags default to 'major'?
The way I understand the settings, "neutral" would remain the most used by far, most convenient setting to set as default then.
One thing I would love to be added is the ability to limit searches to certain ratings. You know how you can remove tags from search results by adding "-*tag*?" It would be great if you could add "-Questionable," "-Explicit" or "-Safe" in the same way. It would pretty much negate the need for Safebooru, too.
Sorry if this has been suggested or already implemented and I'm just not aware of it, but if it is possible then adding a URL to an artist's page should do a reverse "find artist" search to find anything by the artist that has been uploaded already but not tagged.
While trying to tag some artists on old posts I notice plugging the URL from the source into the source field of the upload page and clicking "find artist" finds the artist quite often. This suggestion would hopefully help find those posts and properly tag them.
When you know an artist's site, search -artist_tag site:http://www.user.com/* to find untagged images. Be careful to make sure that URL is used only by the artist in question though. You may also have to do this with multiple URLS if the artist uploads to multiple places.
Note: it seems the braces search query syntax and the URL syntax both fire above. The URL is a meaningless example.
Yeah, I actually tried something like that but to be honest it probably won't turn up results that often. By having the server automatically do it, you can make sure that the small fraction that do turn up something aren't glossed over.
