Topic: Invalidation of comment-based tags

The bulk update request #11033 is pending approval.

create alias educational_comments (16) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias comment_chain (393) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias story_in_comments (24) -> invalid_tag (0)
remove alias funny_comments (0) -> lol_comments (6034)
remove alias lolcomments (0) -> lol_comments (6034)

Reason: Per discussion in topic #56648. Tell me if I missed any.

Followup:

alias lolcomments -> invalid_tag
alias lol_comments -> invalid_tag
alias funny_comments -> invalid_tag

I have nothing to say about educational comments, but I like the lol_comments tag. It's definitely a meta tag but its usage count shows that there's interest in it.

nin10dope said:
I have nothing to say about educational comments, but I like the lol_comments tag. It's definitely a meta tag but its usage count shows that there's interest in it.

This is a tag that should definitely be changed to invalid. Not only do they not describe anything that is in the picture, but they also are purely subjective.

nin10dope said:
I have nothing to say about educational comments, but I like the lol_comments tag. It's definitely a meta tag but its usage count shows that there's interest in it.

It's very subjective and often tagged on posts with drama, which the moderation team explicitly do not want

There's also comment chain, which while not as problematic nor subjective is still a tag that has no business on posts since it has nothing to do with the image

donovan_dmc said:
There's also comment chain, which while not as problematic nor subjective is still a tag that has no business on posts since it has nothing to do with the image

Added to the BUR.

bird-tm said:
This is a tag that should definitely be changed to invalid. Not only do they not describe anything that is in the picture, but they also are purely subjective.

not only that, comments are fluid in a way that other post meta stuff, like the sources, description, etc., isn't. while pretty much all of the post's metadata can be changed (even the post's resolution and file type, if it's replaced), there is an expected "final" state for these, the same is not true for comments on a post, which can be added or edited or hidden at any time.

dba_afish said:
not only that, comments are fluid in a way that other post meta stuff, like the sources, description, etc., isn't. while pretty much all of the post's metadata can be changed (even the post's resolution and file type, if it's replaced), there is an expected "final" state for these, the same is not true for comments on a post, which can be added or edited or hidden at any time.

One could argue these explicitly meta-only tags do not fall under TWYS, but that feels like a bit of a stretch.

post #1004722

wwwwwwwww said:
post #1004722

We are not here to have fun!

but for real, lol_comments isn't even a particularly "fun" tag. from how I've seen it used, throughout the site's history, it was used to ridicule as much as (if not more than) it was used to mark posts where people are being funny in the comments.

I mean, if you check lol_comments order:comment_count there's already a post with nuked comments within the first 15 posts. can't imagine whatever was going on in there was particularly "fun".

I have no interest in educational comments, though keeping it couldn't hurt. My main disagreement is with aliasing lol comments. My position hasn't changed since the last time this was tried.

donovan_dmc said:
often tagged on posts with drama, which the moderation team explicitly do not want

You're so absolutely not wrong lol
And while not for everyone, there's a number of users who will browse the tag out of boredom
I can't speak for everyone but it has non-toxic use as a way to learn some of the site's history, particularly infamous posts.
I think lolcomments has a genuine niche that's worth being a complete exception to the rules. Assuming people aren't using it to then add more shitty comments and ridicule.

nin10dope said:
You're so absolutely not wrong lol
And while not for everyone, there's a number of users who will browse the tag out of boredom
I can't speak for everyone but it has non-toxic use as a way to learn some of the site's history, particularly infamous posts.
I think lolcomments has a genuine niche that's worth being a complete exception to the rules. Assuming people aren't using it to then add more shitty comments and ridicule.

Keeping a tag around because of purely arbitrary reasons, despite the tag having been used previously to mark posts with potentially drama-filled comments, is not a good idea.

bird-tm said:
Keeping a tag around because of purely arbitrary reasons, despite the tag having been used previously to mark posts with potentially drama-filled comments, is not a good idea.

It would require scrutiny
But hey we love favoring bad ideas in the furry community :B
No I'm not implying anything lmao

nin10dope said:
it has non-toxic use as a way to learn some of the site's history, particularly infamous posts

For this specifically, consider post sets. For example, I just made set #71543, set:educational_comments, for archival purposes.

I have a nerdy interest in preserving the data, but understand why it's a step too meta for the tagging system.

lurkingfox said:
For this specifically, consider post sets. For example, I just made set #71543, set:educational_comments, for archival purposes.

I have a nerdy interest in preserving the data, but understand why it's a step too meta for the tagging system.

That's a good idea but I have such a passing mood for that stuff

While i do agree that having these tags isn't necessary at all, it will still be sad to see them go

lurkingfox said:
For this specifically, consider post sets. For example, I just made set #71543, set:educational_comments, for archival purposes.

I have a nerdy interest in preserving the data, but understand why it's a step too meta for the tagging system.

Well, for starters, one could argue that it doesn't comply with TWYS, and is entirely "outside information." Secondly, comments on posts can be hidden on the whim of the commenter, or en masse in the case of potentially controversial posts, or just outright disabled.

Comments are what I like to call "ethereal" when relating to tags in systems like this — they do not add anything worthwhile in the long run, are usually just filled with hot air, and can go away at any point.

They attract people to posts that they never would've seen otherwise (most likely) so that's not nothing :P

nin10dope said:
They attract people to posts that they never would've seen otherwise (most likely) so that's not nothing :P

I'd imagine that the point of an art archive would be to attract people for the art in question, and not the comments people might have about the art (or the comments about the people who talk about the art.)

bird-tm said:
I'd imagine that the point of an art archive would be to attract people for the art in question, and not the comments people might have about the art (or the comments about the people who talk about the art.)

No offense but I dislike the "this is an art archive" defense, granted I've only seen it maybe 3 times, but it's so superficial and weak. Having comments, forums, and whatever blips are, override the puritan idea that everything has to explicitly revolve around the art itself. That's definitely the precedent and the focus, without question, but it's not 100%. More like a strong 95-99%
Sorry for that rant lol, it had nothing against you

nin10dope said:
No offense but I dislike the "this is an art archive" defense, granted I've only seen it maybe 3 times, but it's so superficial and weak. Having comments, forums, and whatever blips are, override the puritan idea that everything has to explicitly revolve around the art itself. That's definitely the precedent and the focus, without question, but it's not 100%. More like a strong 95-99%
Sorry for that rant lol, it had nothing against you

No harm taken, no worries. However, at the same time, even if we don't use the (arguably justifiable) argument that E621 is a furry-centric art archival site, if you want to be real technical, the tag doesn't go by TWYS, since it's not anything in the image, and any/all relevant information about the tag is entirely and strictly meta. So, by that logic, it would still get removed.

bird-tm said:
No harm taken, no worries. However, at the same time, even if we don't use the (arguably justifiable) argument that E621 is a furry-centric art archival site, if you want to be real technical, the tag doesn't go by TWYS, since it's not anything in the image, and any/all relevant information about the tag is entirely and strictly meta. So, by that logic, it would still get removed.

I wouldn't even argue that it's justifiable because on paper that is what it is, it just happens to offer even more
That's why its category is meta (I don't know the correct syntax to link the meta category) :P
An admin had to do that since no one else can change a tag's type to meta

nin10dope said:
I wouldn't even argue that it's justifiable because on paper that is what it is, it just happens to offer even more
That's why its category is meta (I don't know the correct syntax to link the meta category) :P
An admin had to do that since no one else can change a tag's type to meta

Even so, the Meta tags still relate to the image itself and the content therein. Creating a tag, and then subsequently adding said tag to something that doesn't exist in the image whatsoever, is bad tagging behavior. This is why I think the comment tags should be removed.

bird-tm said:
Even so, the Meta tags still relate to the image itself and the content therein.

Not necessarily. story_in_description, story_at_source, the former of which even implies story (and from the wiki definition, both should). Not relevant to the image itself, but still very useful tags.

Even more relevant to this, there's story_in_comments. No wiki, and extremely undertagged, but it was made meta.

scth said:
Not necessarily. story_in_description, story_at_source, the former of which even implies story (and from the wiki definition, both should). Not relevant to the image itself, but still very useful tags.

Even more relevant to this, there's story_in_comments. No wiki, and extremely undertagged, but it was made meta.

Hmm.. That's true, but that still gives context to the image, which does in fact, still make it relevant. It's a story that is prevalent in the image depicted, and as such, should be included.

scth said:
Even more relevant to this, there's story_in_comments. No wiki, and extremely undertagged, but it was made meta.

honestly, I don't think we should even have story_in_comments, 'cuz like, I'm not sure encouraging people to put the story into the comments is good practice.

I'd have to agree story_in_comments seems ill-advised.

nin10dope said:
That's a good idea but I have such a passing mood for that stuff

You can add maintainers to sets, so anyone who cares can join and keep adding to it after the creator loses interest. Regardless, I don't see much of a point of these comment tags, specifically the subjective ones; if you wanted to see an arbitrary collection of posts based on one/a few peoples subjective belief about them, that's the textbook definition of a set, and personally, I don't really consider this case worthy of an exception to that principle.

aacafah said:
I'd have to agree story_in_comments seems ill-advised.

Added to the BUR.

Derpibooru has meta tags like debate_in_the_comments, adventure_in_the_comments, and comments_locked_down

alexyorim said:
Derpibooru has meta tags like debate_in_the_comments, adventure_in_the_comments, and comments_locked_down

And the staff here have decided that they don't want tags like that. This is a different site.

alexyorim said:
Derpibooru has meta tags like comments_locked_down

Efforts have been make searching posts with locked and/or disabled comments downright impossible, creating a tag is just a watered down and worse version of a metatag that could be made extremely easy if we really wanted it, which as I said we explicitly don't (see also topic #38089)

beholding said:
The bulk update request #11033 is pending approval.

create alias educational_comments (16) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias comment_chain (393) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias story_in_comments (24) -> invalid_tag (0)
remove alias funny_comments (0) -> lol_comments (6034)
remove alias lolcomments (0) -> lol_comments (6034)

Reason: Per discussion in topic #56648. Tell me if I missed any.

Followup:

alias lolcomments -> invalid_tag
alias lol_comments -> invalid_tag
alias funny_comments -> invalid_tag

The tags' category should also be updated to "invalid"

bleakdragoon said:
The tags' category should also be updated to "invalid"

Their category really doesn't matter if they're aliased

This has 26 up, 14 down, 10 meh
Depending on how you want to count mehs that's either 36 not entirely against it or 24 not entirely for it (The most fair would probably be to count them each as a half on both sides, making for 31:19)

This BUR is in the top 10 of most voted BURs in the site's history and has only gained a single vote in the last 4 months (forum #461227) so I don't see the vote changing much

The general opinion seems to be closer to invalidation than keeping

donovan_dmc said:
This has 26 up, 14 down, 10 meh
Depending on how you want to count mehs that's either 36 not entirely against it or 24 not entirely for it (The most fair would probably be to count them each as a half on both sides, making for 31:19)

This BUR is in the top 10 of most voted BURs in the site's history and has only gained a single vote in the last 4 months (forum #461227) so I don't see the vote changing much

The general opinion seems to be closer to invalidation than keeping

(large) Controversial BURs likely wont get approved in any reasonable amount of time, so that usually favours the status quo.

Also I generally view meh votes as half a downvote, so i would count the BUR as having an overall net vote of 7 out of 50 (in fractional terms, 0.14)

If you don't feel either way about a BUR, you don't vote rather than put a meh vote.

snpthecat said:
Also I generally view meh votes as half a downvote, so i would count the BUR as having an overall net vote of 7 out of 50 (in fractional terms, 0.14)

Or half an upvote. Personally I've voted 'meh' in cases where I generally agree but some detail is holding me back from giving a full thumbs up, and cases where I generally disagree but it's not a lost cause or unreasonable enough to warrant a full thumbs down.

snpthecat said:
(large) Controversial BURs likely wont get approved in any reasonable amount of time, so that usually favours the status quo.

Also I generally view meh votes as half a downvote, so i would count the BUR as having an overall net vote of 7 out of 50 (in fractional terms, 0.14)

If you don't feel either way about a BUR, you don't vote rather than put a meh vote.

Where are you pulling that 7/50 from? There's 26 upvotes, so if you're subtracting the mehs from that you're left with 21 upvotes (which is still 1/3 more than the total downvotes)
If you're adding them on to the downvotes that's 26:19 which makes it close but I don't think counting them just as downvotes is really fair to anyone
I assume you're canceling each side out then comparing to the total which does come to 7 which you could say is 7/50, but since you've canceled out 43 votes that isn't a fair representation of anything
But once again you're assuming how the mehs voted, so in reality without the mehs it's 12/40 left over

Plus as watsit mentions:

watsit said:
Personally I've voted 'meh' in cases where I generally agree but some detail is holding me back from giving a full thumbs up, and cases where I generally disagree but it's not a lost cause or unreasonable enough to warrant a full thumbs down.

Which is also how I vote
if I wanted to downvote I would downvote, I'm not casting half a downvote

And as an aside it's now 27 up, 16 down, 11 meh

watsit said:
Or half an upvote. Personally I've voted 'meh' in cases where I generally agree but some detail is holding me back from giving a full thumbs up, and cases where I generally disagree but it's not a lost cause or unreasonable enough to warrant a full thumbs down.

Hmm, maybe I need to revise how I see things.

How do the rest of you guys use meh votes?

snpthecat said:
Hmm, maybe I need to revise how I see things.

How do the rest of you guys use meh votes?

I tend to treat them like "I've interest in this topic but I don't fully agree with this implementation I could be convinced if it was modified or if I heard a good argument".

...

although that being said, I think I end up changing mehs to -1s more often than to +1s.

snpthecat said:
Hmm, maybe I need to revise how I see things.

How do the rest of you guys use meh votes?

mild approval / disapproval due to some small issue or an indication something is "harmless but unnecessary".

as far as I'm aware all the other meta tags are contextual information about the art. I understand it's for ease of searching but there's gotta be another way. whether or not art has funny comments on e621 is irrelevant trivia compared to 'date of creation', 'type of media', 'resolution'