Topic: wiki - Feedback on invalid_tag

Posted under General

bleakdragoon said:
I thought the whole system around invalid_tag was very opaque for new people and that we could do better.

The wiki page was pretty barren so I reworked the whole page and I need feedback

https://e621.net/wiki_pages/550

The whole page should be short and simple. It is now too lengthy and contains a lot of redundant information that most users would not care about.

My advice:

  • Tell users straight away to remove this tag if they see it on their posts, at the very top of the wiki instead of putting it in the bottom.
  • Section up the whole "Tag invalidation criteria" and "Help" sections into collapsible boxes.
  • Include a small note that commissioner tags are also not allowed.
  • Explain also the difference between invalid_tag and tags in the Invalid category.

Thanks TheGreatWolfgang, it's true that's very lengthy, but it also codify information for people that are more active. Like a sort of baseline when discussing aliases, implications, bus, etc.

I tried to be as succinct as possible while keep coverage of everything I knew about tag invlidation, so I'm a but surprised by the "lot of redundant information" part. Can you be a bit more precise?

"commissioner tags are also not allowed", what does it means exactly? Is this means to not tag the person that paid for the commission? or something else?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Explain also the difference between invalid_tag and tags in the Invalid category.

I thought about it, but I doubt it's the place to write it, people wondering what's the difference won't think to look at the invalid_tag's page to get an answer. Maybe what we need is a "meta page" about the whole invalid process

bleakdragoon said:
I tried to be as succinct as possible while keep coverage of everything I knew about tag invlidation, so I'm a but surprised by the "lot of redundant information" part. Can you be a bit more precise?

The entirety of the "Tag invalidation criteria" is unneeded IMO. It just bloats the wiki page and makes it hard for users trying to find out what to do with the tag.

Sure, it is useful in teaching the invalidation process, but it should not take priority over what to do with the tag if I find it on my post.

"commissioner tags are also not allowed", what does it means exactly? Is this means to not tag the person that paid for the commission? or something else?

Yes, we do not tag who paid for the post. More specifically, we only allow tagging credits for artists, contributors, names of characters, and proper copyright holders.

On the other hand, we would always invalidate "commissioner" and "character owner" tags as they do not add onto anything in the post (as evident by the numerous *_(commissioner) tags already aliased to invalid_tag).
We would encourage users to credit commissioners and character owners in the description of posts instead.

I thought about it, but I doubt it's the place to write it, people wondering what's the difference won't think to look at the invalid_tag's page to get an answer. Maybe what we need is a "meta page" about the whole invalid process

That could also work, but I don't know if there is an existing page for it or how to create a new one.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The entirety of the "Tag invalidation criteria" is unneeded IMO. It just bloats the wiki page and makes it hard for users trying to find out what to do with the tag.

Sure, it is useful in teaching the invalidation process, but it should not take priority over what to do with the tag if I find it on my post.

Yeah I agree that info must be at the top; which is it now.

I don't think it's unneeded: I've personally received questions about how to create a tag. All that information I learned it by making mistake, headbutting with you guys, and making conclusions out of patterns. It was hard and took time, which is part of the learning curve of going from lurker to helper.

Having information in the wiki will ease in the process for new people to jump in and help.

Original page: https://e621.net/forum_topics/60788?page=1