blush tags

@Claverhouse: > ☆♪ said: > > I know this was brought up...

2016-10-04T09:01:08-04:00

☆♪ said:

I know this was brought up somewhere before, but I don't remember where and I don't think it was resolved.

I want to tag post #2502058, for example, with some sort of blush, because it's an important part of her facial expression and should be searchable.

That's a flush, not a blush. A light flush.

@CodeKyuubi: I've always used full face blush only when the...

2016-10-01T23:27:52-04:00

I've always used full face blush only when the entire face becomes a solid or mostly red.

@user_460797: Ah, finally this brought someone up. So I'd go...

2016-10-01T22:46:01-04:00

Ah, finally this brought someone up.
So I'd go with this:
Light blush
blush
full-face_blush (which would be something like strong blush)
nose_blush

And remove this weird implication from spoken_blush to blush.

@☆♪: > Sacriven said: > > post #2502058 = blush >...

2016-10-01T22:23:45-04:00

Sacriven said:

post #2502058 = blush
post #2500902 = nose blush
post #2296902 = blush

There are still many people who mixed up nose blush with full-face blush, even though the difference is so apparent.

Nose and full-face blush do seem to be under-used, but I think that even on top of that there are some distinct types of blushes that aren't currently distinguished enough. It's a little hard to find good examples precisely because of this problem. But here's maybe a better one: post #1286875 and post #1286877. Not nose or full-face blushes, but certainly a different sort of blush than post #2502058. Here's another one: post #958240. (EDIT: After writing the rest of this post, I don't feel as strongly about splitting the blush tag like this. I do think those different kinds of posts should be separated, but separate expression/emotion tags might be the way to do it. I'm not sure if there's actually an inherent different in the blushes themselves.)

I'd argue that post #2296902 shouldn't have the blush tag at all. Another that IMO shouldn't have the tag: post #2431956. I think it's pretty clear there that the blush is just the way the artist draws faces, and not a "significant" blush. It's not the "amount" of blush so much that matters, I think (different artists draw blushes more or less prominently, and even IRL some people's faces are much redder than others regardless of mood). Instead, it's whether or not the blush is "meaningful" (I'm not sure how better to explain it). (To some extent that is a matter of opinion, so if it isn't widely shared I'll drop it.)

I guess part of what I'm saying is that I think the "1." definition on blush's current wiki page should be removed. There are some other tags where the element in question has to be a significant focus of the image to warrant the tag, not just technically present.

Ai-to-Yukai said:

I think blush alone may not be enough but may be used in conjunction with expression tags like flustered (which needs some wiki love), determined (needs population), embarrassed, and expressionless to help clarify the search.

Emotions and expressions are definitely under-tagged in general around here. I think that's partly because it's often difficult to put a name to it when you see it. I have this problem all the time. I'm not actually sure what I'd call the expressions in post #2502058, for example. Maybe it would be more useful to address that than just "fix" the blush tag. I'm realizing as I'm looking around for examples that to some extent blushes are just legitimately very common around here. So you're probably right that other tags are needed.

We could make a tag group wiki page for expressions and/or emotions, and have some textbook examples of each along with their descriptions. Blush and its variations could be included there too.

@Apollyon: I feel like I use the blush tag too much so I'd...

2016-10-01T21:34:16-04:00

I feel like I use the blush tag too much so I'd be interested in seeing where this conversation leads to, in terms of making things more specific.

@Sacriven: > ☆♪ said: > > I know this was brought up...

2016-10-01T20:35:11-04:00

☆♪ said:

I know this was brought up somewhere before, but I don't remember where and I don't think it was resolved.

I want to tag post #2502058, for example, with some sort of blush, because it's an important part of her facial expression and should be searchable.

However, I hesitate to use the blush tag because that dilutes its usage for such as post #2500902 where the blush is very pronounced and a primary visual element of the image. The one in my first example is far more subtle and not really the same artistic element, IMO.

In a third category are posts like post #2296902, which technically include a blush, but the blush isn't a meaningful part of the character's expression, it's just there's some color in the face. (It would look somewhat unnatural if there weren't.)

The blush tag is so diluted it's basically useless. When's the last time anyone actually used it in a search? It should be split into at least two, and IMO outright removed from some posts. There would obviously be a lot of work needed to fix old posts, but let's at least decide how it should be and start using that for new posts.

post #2502058 = blush
post #2500902 = nose blush
post #2296902 = blush

There are still many people who mixed up nose blush with full-face blush, even though the difference is so apparent.

@Gollgagh: It might be useful to make some sort of new...

2016-10-01T20:20:57-04:00

It might be useful to make some sort of new light_blush tag for expressive blushes that aren't just color in the face.

@Ai-to-Yukai: post #2500902 could benefit from the...

2016-10-01T18:37:25-04:00

post #2500902 could benefit from the full-face_blush or nose_blush tags, which themselves have been rather muddled and intermixed in purpose as most Full-Face pictures actually belong under the Nose Blush tag.

But, the other two have no associated tags and I'm not sure what I'd tag them with, either.

Edit: I think blush alone may not be enough but may be used in conjunction with expression tags like flustered (which needs some wiki love), determined (needs population), embarrassed, and expressionless to help clarify the search.

@☆♪: I know this was brought up somewhere before,...

2016-10-01T18:26:06-04:00

I know this was brought up somewhere before, but I don't remember where and I don't think it was resolved.

I want to tag post #2502058, for example, with some sort of blush, because it's an important part of her facial expression and should be searchable.

However, I hesitate to use the blush tag because that dilutes its usage for such as post #2500902 where the blush is very pronounced and a primary visual element of the image. The one in my first example is far more subtle and not really the same artistic element, IMO.

In a third category are posts like post #2296902, which technically include a blush, but the blush isn't a meaningful part of the character's expression, it's just there's some color in the face. (It would look somewhat unnatural if there weren't.)

The blush tag is so diluted it's basically useless. When's the last time anyone actually used it in a search? It should be split into at least two, and IMO outright removed from some posts. There would obviously be a lot of work needed to fix old posts, but let's at least decide how it should be and start using that for new posts.