Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
I've just stumbled upon exposure_variation today, this tag has nearly 11,000 posts with 85% of the additions (~9200) being contributed by one user (I have confirmation that these two are the same person)
Do we need tags like this? alternate version is aliased away, and this seems like a candidate to also be aliased away similarly
Alias away, I say. I also think any other tag that only indicates a difference from another image should be aliased away (the normal tags are there to indicate what an post has, IMO we don't need tags that only say a post has something and another post doesn't).
The bulk update request #12210 is pending approval.
create alias exposure_variation (11095) -> invalid_tag (1)
Reason:
Same tag alternate version is aliased to
We might want to either nuke the tag beforehand (there is no significant overlap between the two, so this is just dumping ~10k new posts into the avas tag), or direct it somewhere else if we have a better target
Unneeded tag
Updated
Holy shit it's half the size
Also exposure variation might be on some posts where alternate version at source might not be applicable (because all the alternate versions are on the site)
snpthecat said:
Holy shit it's half the size
In theory most posts shouldn't have avas because their alts should be uploaded instead
There's also basically no overlap, exposure variation has 10,981 posts and exposure_variation -alternate_version_at_source is 10,868 posts
donovan_dmc said:
In theory most posts shouldn't have avas because their alts should be uploaded instead
There's also basically no overlap, exposure variation has 10,981 posts and exposure_variation -alternate_version_at_source is 10,868 posts
Yeah there's no overlap probably because they're only applying it to posts with the alternate versions already on site.
I don't think aliasing it before nuking would be any good... unless we're okay with changing what avas means
snpthecat said:
Yeah there's no overlap probably because they're only applying it to posts with the alternate versions already on site.I don't think aliasing it before nuking would be any good... unless we're okay with changing what avas means
We'd need an admin here to actually BUR nuke it, or I could wipe it out in ~3 hours with some scripting, but that's extreme and definitely needs more input before doing that
donovan_dmc said:
In theory most posts shouldn't have avas because their alts should be uploaded instead
There's also basically no overlap, exposure variation has 10,981 posts and exposure_variation -alternate_version_at_source is 10,868 posts
Also, exposure_variation -genitalia has about 7.5k results, and a fair number of those results have covered breasts, where exposed wouldn't apply even by its loosest definition. While AVAS isn't a great target since it won't always apply, I don't know what would be better, unless we want to go with invalid_tag (which would then need to be cleaned itself).
donovan_dmc said:
We'd need an admin here to actually BUR nuke it
Or we could just find another mass update nuke type bug
Anyways still downvoting so that the admin won't approve before nuking
watsit said:
unless we want to go with invalid_tag (which would then need to be cleaned itself).
I personally nuke invalid_tag every so often (since it has no valid replacement), and that seems as good a target as any since there really isn't any good replacement
watsit said:
Alias away, I say. I also think any other tag that only indicates a difference from another image should be aliased away (the normal tags are there to indicate what an post has, IMO we don't need tags that only say a post has something and another post doesn't).
Would this mean removing tags like nude_edit, and the other "edit" meta tags listed under third-party edit? It could be said that those similarly only indicate differences from other versions (whether those other versions are hosted here or not).
If they stay, couldn't exposure_variation be changed to a meta tag like them?
chemistrynoisy said:
Would this mean removing tags like nude_edit, and the other "edit" meta tags listed under third-party edit? It could be said that those similarly only indicate differences from other versions (whether those other versions are hosted here or not).If they stay, couldn't exposure_variation be changed to a meta tag like them?
A difference here is that if something is a third party edit then it is objectively an edit, it can't be argued which is the original and which is the edit
With "variants" or "alts" you can argue which is the original and which is the alt, and there will almost never be a correct answer
