Precise definition for long_image tag

Posted under General

The long image tag (and its sub-tags, tall image and wide image) were suggested to be added to posts automatically on upload (see here ), similar to the resolution tags, which are already added automatically.

Before it's implemented, a more precise definition for them is needed. Type-kun suggested:

These are a bit more subjective than lowres/highres/absurders, but I think that current critera:
tall_Image (more than 768 pixels tall)
wide_image (more than 1280 pixels wide)
plus side ratio exceeding 3:1 (debatable) should be just auto-tagged like res tags are.

2:1 and 5:1 were also suggested as alternative ratios. I think 3:1 sounds reasonable, as many posts with the tags are around that.

As far as the pixel size, I think that tall_image and wide_image should have the same criteria for consistency. So maybe a minimum of 1024px for whichever dimension is larger.

Any other opinions on this?

Updated by MyrMindservant

Just to be clear, I haven't suggested 1:5 ratio to be a criterion yet. That's just how I personally use those tags in searches, to give you an idea how different users' usage are because the wiki aren't very clear.

I want to hear how other users use it and get a consensus.


I implemented this for the next version using my definition; minimum 3:1 ratio and 1024px. I believe this is how most users are using them, as looking at the posts currently tagged with them, the majority fit this definition. But feel free to suggest an alternative if need be.

Toks said:

It depends on what we want them to be used for

Good point, the definitions are currently very broad/vague.

"long_image: Images that lengthen or expand the web browser, either vertically or horizontally."
"tall_image: A long image that is significantly longer than it is wide; stretching vertically."
"wide_image: long image stretching horizontally."

What is the purpose of the tags? If one searches for/blacklist the tag, what do they expect to find/hide? Do we really need those tags?
I have no idea as i never used them before.

<lots of boring math below, strangely, i found it rather fun to gather>
Going by what is currently tagged.

13% of tall_images are <2048px tall.
29% of wide_images are <2048px wide.
06% of wide_images are <1500px wide.
01% of wide_images are <1024px wide.

2048px seems good for tall images, but not so much for wide images.

As for the ratio..
35% of tall_images have a ratio of < 3
50% of tall_images have a ratio of < 5

... So, what is currently tagged doesn't seem to follow any real definitions - needs some cleaning up. (or a nuke)
Here's some data dumps:

Well, if we want those tags we should go at least with a ratio of 4 since up to 3 is too common.

Dunno if an additional size limit is needed. The small side should be at least 300px anyway, with a ratio of 4 that gives a long side with 1200px, ratio 5 makes it 1500.

Using a "doesn't fit the browser" description is a bad idea. Some people have a resolution of 1024x786, some 1920x1080, others 3840x2160...

zatchii said:
An average 4koma should not qualify as long_image, IMO.

Exactly. Now I understand why I subconsciously only ever use them for 1:5+ ratio images.

Here's my proposal:

- Don't add size restriction. A search like tall_image height:1000.. is enough to let users get specific about size if they need. Otherwise we lose the ability to search for thin images that are below the restriction.
- Use long/tall/wide tags for ratio 1:5 and up. At such a difference between height/width, these tags became useful. I regularly use them to search for long comics and comparison charts.
- Create landscape_layout and portrait_layout tag. Automatically add these for ratio 1:2 and up. These two tags keep long/tall/wide tags unpolluted, and I can see them have their use.
- Implicate
tall_image -> portrait_layout
wide_image -> landscape_layout