[REJECTED] eliminating eyebrows_visible_through_hair and useless tags

@DanbooruBot: The bulk update request #1827 (forum #151508)...

2018-12-20T19:02:19-05:00

The bulk update request #1827 (forum #151508) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

@DanbooruBot: This bulk update request has been rejected...

2018-12-20T19:02:19-05:00

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

@DanbooruBot: This bulk update request is pending automatic...

2018-12-15T19:02:24-05:00

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

@Vezral: > Unbreakable said: > > Why not? Tagging the...

2018-10-23T00:01:53-04:00

Unbreakable said:

Why not? Tagging the exception is what we usually do when the opposite is too common, it's nothing new.

Wanting to see pics without visible eyebrows is a niche among niches.

@Unbreakable: > Vezral said: > > I still can't see why would...

2018-10-22T23:37:28-04:00

Vezral said:

I still can't see why would anyone need either tags though.

Why not? Tagging the exception is what we usually do when the opposite is too common, it's nothing new.

@Vezral: > indexador2 said: > > So, as an experiment, I...

2018-10-22T23:35:35-04:00

indexador2 said:

So, as an experiment, I created a simple wiki page for eyebrows behind hair and started tagging posts with it. I went through the images uploaded on the past day with -eyebrow_visible_through_hair and, although I surely missed some, I found only about 30 of them, hidden within a multitude of untagged eyebrows visible through hair. This confirmed my suspicions that

1) The subversion of the transparent hair trope is much rarer than the trope itself; and

2) Tagging its absence would be much easier, it would only need to become well-known.

I wish to highlight that eyebrow_visible_through_hair and eyebrows behind hair are not mutually exclusive.

I still can't see why would anyone need either tags though.

@indexador2: So, as an experiment, I created a simple wiki...

2018-10-22T22:52:47-04:00

So, as an experiment, I created a simple wiki page for eyebrows behind hair and started tagging posts with it. I went through the images uploaded on the past day with -eyebrow_visible_through_hair and, although I surely missed some, I found only about 30 of them, hidden within a multitude of untagged eyebrows visible through hair. This confirmed my suspicions that

1) The subversion of the transparent hair trope is much rarer than the trope itself; and

2) Tagging its absence would be much easier, it would only need to become well-known.

@evazion: It's 70% and in fact, at one point Albert did...

2018-10-22T19:54:55-04:00

It's 70% and in fact, at one point Albert did propose nuking 1girl for exactly that reason. See topic #12379. It didn't pass because people could actually explain what the tag was good for.

And as a matter of fact, when the solo tag was first started people wanted to nuke it too, exactly because it was seen as too infeasible to retroactively tag. See topic #1552. It won out because the tag was useful enough for people to do the actual work of tagging it.

But like I said, if you think the tag has value then populate it. As it stands the tag doesn't serve its purpose. If you actually search for eyebrows visible through hair you're missing out on the majority of posts.

@Kikimaru: > evazion said: > > If you think eyebrows...

2018-10-22T19:20:06-04:00

evazion said:

If you think eyebrows behind hair is worth tagging, then fine, go ahead and populate it. If you believe eyebrows visible through hair is worth keeping, then help populate it too.

The fact is that eyebrows visible through hair is practically nonexistent on posts before 2016. It's on 15k posts out of 2.2 million. I'd wager it should be on at least a million. Nuking the tag makes no difference when it may as well not exist on anything more than two years old anyway.

The reason it's not tagged on older posts is because nobody actually cares. I find it difficult to believe that anyone geniunely has a use for this tag when nobody seems to have even noticed that it's almost completely absent on everything more than a couple years old.

If you think these tags are worth having, then show it by populating them. Otherwise it's meaningless to talk about how these tags should exist unless you intend to populate them, and frankly, and I don't believe anyone seriously does. If you actually do try to populate either of these tags, I think you'll quickly see what an enormous waste of time they really are.

Next you're gonna tell us the 1girl tag is useless because it comprises 10% of the database.

@evazion: If you think eyebrows behind hair is worth...

2018-10-22T18:49:45-04:00

If you think eyebrows behind hair is worth tagging, then fine, go ahead and populate it. If you believe eyebrows visible through hair is worth keeping, then help populate it too.

The fact is that eyebrows visible through hair is practically nonexistent on posts before 2016. It's on 15k posts out of 2.2 million. I'd wager it should be on at least a million. Nuking the tag makes no difference when it may as well not exist on anything more than two years old anyway.

The reason it's not tagged on older posts is because nobody actually cares. I find it difficult to believe that anyone geniunely has a use for this tag when nobody seems to have even noticed that it's almost completely absent on everything more than a couple years old.

If you think these tags are worth having, then show it by populating them. Otherwise it's meaningless to talk about how these tags should exist unless you intend to populate them, and frankly, and I don't believe anyone seriously does. If you actually do try to populate either of these tags, I think you'll quickly see what an enormous waste of time they really are.

@Blossop: How would we tag post #3274104 in which the...

2018-10-22T08:31:09-04:00

How would we tag post #3274104 in which the eyebrows are clearly visible but partially occluded by hair?

How would we tag post #3283718 or post #2945046 ?

@tapnek: eyebrows behind hair sounds like a good...

2018-10-22T00:50:33-04:00

eyebrows behind hair sounds like a good inversion to this tag.

@CodeKyuubi: > Shinjidude said:Sounds good to me.

2018-10-22T00:26:45-04:00

Shinjidude said:

Sounds good to me.

@Shinjidude: > indexador2 said: > > The issue with the tags...

2018-10-21T22:15:27-04:00

indexador2 said:

The issue with the tags as they are right now is that they provide no information. If you want to see eyebrows visible through eyes, you don't need a tag because almost literally every picture contains it. If you want to see pictures that don't have it, then -eyebrows_visible_through_hair is useless because almost every post there has untagged eyebrows visible through hair. Replacing the tag with "eyebrows_occluded" or similar would be the only way to make a useful search, and would be adding information, not destroying it.

It does provide some information though for this case. It would be useful in cultivating and kick-starting the inverted tag. If the current tag is applied, then you shouldn't need to consider that post for trying to tag the inversion. It'd be almost necessary for creating the new tag, since simply tagging everything not currently covered would obviously be wrong. Doing so would involve adding additional information, but that's true for all tag gardening, as nothing is 100% included where applicable or 100% accurate where applied. My idea would be to nuke the common, less meaningful tag in the end, and only leave the less common inverted tag which would become more meaningful on the minority of posts it applies to.

@CodeKyuubi: I've personally seen usage of the tag where the...

2018-10-21T19:20:26-04:00

I've personally seen usage of the tag where the tiniest fraction of the eyebrow is visible through the hair, in my opinion it's an altogether needless tag that's often just used to bloat tag counts.

@Vezral: Out of curiosity, are there no data on the...

2018-10-21T17:34:26-04:00

Out of curiosity, are there no data on the number of times the tag has been searched in the past years?

That would be the best indicator whether the tag's actually needed or not.

@kittey: While I don’t particularly care about having or...

2018-10-21T12:10:40-04:00

While I don’t particularly care about having or not having this tag, I’d like to throw in that the inverse of eyebrows_visible_through_hair is not something like eyebrows_not_visible_through_hair but rather something like eyebrows_behind_hair and the case of hair not crossing the eyebrows at all, possibly because bald or forehead applies.

@indexador2: > skylightcrystal said: > > The only downside...

2018-10-21T11:33:26-04:00

skylightcrystal said:

The only downside is that I think it would be tagged a lot less reliably than the current tag on account of the fact that eyebrows being not visible through the hair is the norm and default, however abundant the opposite may be in anime-style art.

I disagree. Nothing could be possibly tagged less reliably than the current eyebrows_visible_through_hair. Seriously, if you search for -eyebrows_visible_through_hair, almost all of the posts do, in fact, contain eyebrows visible through hair, despite not being tagged as such.

Shinjidude said:

I generally don't like destroying information from the system, since it's hard to return if we do.

The issue with the tags as they are right now is that they provide no information. If you want to see eyebrows visible through eyes, you don't need a tag because almost literally every picture contains it. If you want to see pictures that don't have it, then -eyebrows_visible_through_hair is useless because almost every post there has untagged eyebrows visible through hair. Replacing the tag with "eyebrows_occluded" or similar would be the only way to make a useful search, and would be adding information, not destroying it.

@Shinjidude: I generally don't like destroying information...

2018-10-21T10:56:50-04:00

I generally don't like destroying information from the system, since it's hard to return if we do. If the marked case is the absence, then I agree with the inversion idea, and replacing it with eyebrows_not_visible_through_hair or the like. That'd solve tag bloat (though again, more information is usually better than less). The issue would be in carrying out the inversion, since it's prevalant but untagged on the bulk of the -eyebrows_visible_through_hair query, so you couldn't just invert straight away without some serious tag gardening. That gardening would need to be done before the other tag was nuked if it were to be successful.

@nonamethanks: > skylightcrystal said: > > I'm entirely...

2018-10-21T06:12:27-04:00

skylightcrystal said:

I'm entirely opposed to having it removed entirely with no replacement as it is a distinct way of drawing with no other way of looking for it.

Same. Removing it would mean removing any way to find posts without it. The answer to mistags is tagging them correctly, not nuking the whole thing.