Tag Implication: absurdly long hair -> long hair or very long hair

@Shinjidude: The one argument I'd make in favor of keeping...

2013-01-03T20:46:56-05:00

The one argument I'd make in favor of keeping the very_long_hair -> long_hair implication (and the reason it exists in the first place, if I remember correctly) is that hair longer than the waist exists in real life, and would commonly be referred to simply as "long hair". By that reasoning, someone searching for "long hair" would prefer to additionally see those very long hair images as well.

If someone was interested only in abnormally long hair, a very_long_hair query works fine on it's own. In the unlikely case that someone really is interested only in hair between the shoulders and waist, then a long_hair -very_long_hair query works fine, but I'd guess that this is a less likely scenario than what we currently have.

I'd definitely argue against adding an additional implication however for absurdly_long_hair as proposed here, and for the same reason. "Absurdly long hair" is by definition "absurd" and not something anyone would expect to see in reality. It wouldn't be included in the common usage of the phrase "long hair", wouldn't be expected by someone searching with that phrase; thus, it should remain unimplicated from the others.

@Schrobby: Oh, I see a difference. The new definition is...

2013-01-03T12:38:32-05:00

Oh, I see a difference. The new definition is actually a clear definition while the old one is quite vague. Still they both describe the same hair length, between short_hair and very_long_hair. The latter basically remains the same meaning the border between long and very long hair stays the same as well.

The wiki also states "If you are unsure if the character has long hair or middle length hair, don't tag it as either." meaning borderline cases should not be tagged at all. Currently shoulder length hair is generally tagged short_hair so here's no real change on that end as well.

I see absolutely no benefit in using long_hair for very long hair since that has it's own well used tag. We should either use very_long_hair or get rid of the tag, but why get rid of a perfectly fine tag?

@MyrMindservant: Uh, if you don't see the difference between...

2013-01-03T10:59:54-05:00

Uh, if you don't see the difference between current long_hair tag (used for all hair lengths that can be considered long or very long) and proposed new definition (hair length between shoulders and waist), then I don't know what to say.

@Schrobby: > MyrMindservant said: > Otherwise, if we...

2013-01-03T05:48:29-05:00

MyrMindservant said:
Otherwise, if we decide to follow latest suggestions from forum #79684, we would need to redefine pretty much all hair length tags and do a cleanup of a truly epic proportions. Long_hair has 436096 posts, that's 21805 pages.

The definitions are basically the same as now, just better described and more strict. I see no need for a cleanup at all.
The only real difference would be the new tag that steals away from short_hair, but that one's going to be filled over time.

@MyrMindservant: Simply implicating absurdly_long_hair to...

2013-01-03T00:22:43-05:00

Simply implicating absurdly_long_hair to long_hair would allow to keep it separate without completely overhauling already present tags.

Basically, keep long_hair as an umbrella tag of sorts and add clarification to very_long_hair and absurdly_long_hair wikis that they should be used as an alternatives to each other. Similar to breasts, large_breasts and huge_breasts tags.
Either that or go the easiest rote and implicate to very_long_hair.

Otherwise, if we decide to follow latest suggestions from forum #79684, we would need to redefine pretty much all hair length tags and do a cleanup of a truly epic proportions. Long_hair has 436096 posts, that's 21805 pages.

@Hellbus: > Pyrolight said: > Disagree on an implication....

2013-01-01T11:07:27-05:00

Pyrolight said:
Disagree on an implication.

The idea was to keep each "hair length" unique and within certain "length" perimeters.

Very long hair currently implicates long hair. Having absurdly long hair implicate that instead of very long hair would help keep them separate.

@user_358670: Disagree on an implication. The idea was to...

2012-12-31T08:31:50-05:00

Disagree on an implication.

The idea was to keep each "hair length" unique and within certain "length" perimeters.

@Kikimaru: Suggest alias with very long hair.

2012-12-31T08:21:55-05:00

Suggest alias with very long hair.

@Hellbus: Updated topic title. I have no preference.

2012-12-30T23:11:39-05:00

Updated topic title. I have no preference.

@MyrMindservant: I'm not sure if discussion in forum #79684 is...

2012-12-30T22:50:57-05:00

I'm not sure if discussion in forum #79684 is finished or not.

The other issue is if implication should lead to long_hair or to very_long_hair. In other words, do we want very_long_hair tag added to every post that have absurdly_long_hair?

@Hellbus: Implicating absurdly long hair -> long hair or...

2012-12-30T21:03:10-05:00

Implicating absurdly long hair -> long hair or very long hair.

Reason: Straightforward.