like in this post for example

post #634879

there's a clock in background, but you can barely see it.
Should we tag these things?

I think it'd be better if we left off tags if they're not important in the picture, that way searching a tag will give you more relevant results

i've always tagged everything tho, just in case. So, should we?

In general what should be tagged should stand out in the image. In practice though, some people tag every single thing in the image, no matter how obscure and minuscule it is.

I don't think it'd really matter if the image wasn't tagged clock, given how small and unimportant it is to the image. Most people searching for images of clocks would likely not want something so far in the background.

The more prominent something is, the more important it is to tag it. I tend to tag a lot myself, and I think generally that's good. Though if something isn't prominent and isn't interesting, it's probably better to leave out.

Roarchu said:
I think it'd be better if we left off tags if they're not important in the picture, that way searching a tag will give you more relevant results

It's obviously a good idea to only tag what's relevant to the picture, but that just raises the question: how do we all agree on what's relevant and what's not? In this case, the clock is pretty clearly insignificant; however, there are plenty of cases where something that's completely irrelevant to you may be important to someone else.

Some people fall into the trap of Where's Waldo tagging, where they think tagging is a game whose purpose to tag every last detail they can possibly find. Even without that, trying to limit things to only the 'important' tags is a losing battle; even if you only tag the things you think are important, over time, other people come along and tag things they think are important, and eventually the tag list gets out of control. I don't know if there's any good solution to this problem.

Tag every single little thing.

Granola said:
Tag every single little thing.

No, don't. If you try to do that, it quickly becomes ridiculous and useless. Tags should be comprehensive, but with in reason.

I totally see your point, but if we tell people to tag every single little thing, then we will get more variety of tags, rather than the same old "touhou kirisame_marisa blonde_hair long_hair" tag that thousands of posts have.

Maybe its better too much than too little?

I generally tag what I can see and with the tags I know of. I am sure I miss some but really until I see them used somewhere or it is very obvious I just worry about the main stuff (hair and such) and the tag related to them.

Posts with many tags are much more enjoyable for Danbooru's blind users.

just don't tag it with only tagme.

I can see what you guys mean. In obvious cases like the clock one I think we should just leave it. And tag when in doubt, especially if it seems like it could be a reference, for example "pikachu" in this post

post #559865

Tagging every little thing will make just a useless mess, but I do think we should encourage people to come up with new tags to make searching easier

for example this post (which sucks but illustrates the idea) post #634925 made me think of having a "feed_from_mouth" or "eat_from_mouth" or something like that,

I've also thought of adding a "looking_at_you" tag post #628648 because it is something that identifies the picture. I think we could do better with some more tags

and no, I won't tag with just tagme, I only add it when I really don't know what else to tag or I think i missed something

From forum #30437 (which was about tagging cameos):

0xCCBA696 said:
The more images I find when searching for something, the better, so long as what I'm looking for isn't drowned out. That way I'll find what I'm looking for, as well as stuff that at least one other person thinks may be related to what I'm looking for -- related enough to justify tagging it as such. How can that ever be a bad thing?

Doesn't the same thing sort of apply here? More is better?

I like tagging,
I understand when it comes to seeing something that has not been seen in other images though, and there is just that one image with that specific tag.

But what if I do want to look for a picture with brown_hair, clock, and curtains? I am just use to being detailed... or staring too hard at something.
^_^

What Soljashy said that I said.

In general I think the most important thing to consider when tagging is: "Would someone searching with the tag I'm adding want to find this post?" If something is completely inconsequential and hard to find, that's probably not the case.

For example I probably wouldn't have tagged pikachu in post #559865 despite his presence, because he's almost impossible to find without the help of the comments.

This thread got me thinking though, "tag everything" might be a more feasible solution if the system had a way of knowing which tags are prominent and which aren't. Building on the spatial tagging idea, I added a suggestion to forum #34926. I'm not quite sure the best way to integrate it with browsing or searching, but it might make things more useful down the road, and would allow posts to be tagged as thoroughly as possible.

Until the point that such a mechanism is available though, I'd suggest to not tag very inconspicuous items.

On the flip side of what I'm saying here though, it's also important to consider "Have I added tags for everything someone who might want to find this post might have reasonably searched for (given our set of tags)?". In general more tags are better, but only if those tags are useful to the people who would be using them.

Shinjidude said:
In general I think the most important thing when tagging is to consider: "Would someone searching with the tag I'm adding want to find this post?"

"Damn where was that BRS picture with a Pikachu lock?"

Although it's a different purpose, the ability to find images back later on once you've seen them is also very important imho.

Yes, and that's a reason why I like very exhaustive tagging too. I tag everything that's more or less unique about the picture, even if it's small or inconspicuous.

For that reason, I think the crab tag in post #560059 is as important as any other tag. Why?

short_hair bikini: 4212 posts.
short_hair bikini crab: 14 posts.

I'm with Cyberia-Mix and aldeayeah on the argument that usually it's these little details that help us identify a post later on.

But it goes the other way around too. If you look for clocks, do you seriously want that picture to match?

hm?
If I am looking for a bedroom setting or maybe something involving clocks.