Not all flash files are animated, some of them are equivalent to slide shows or text files, and some are just vector images.

Examples:

#73074
#128500
#450401

I remember this implication and the reasoning behind it. It was ultimately determined that the vast majority are animated, and the small few that are not weren't worth the trouble of not having it implicate

Rainbow_Dash said:
I remember this implication and the reasoning behind it. It was ultimately determined that the vast majority are animated, and the small few that are not weren't worth the trouble of not having it implicate

But that's like saying shirt should imply clothed. A vast majority of images with shirts have clothed characters, but not all, and it would make it hard to search for those which isn't the case.

(On which note, there's a lot of shirt-tagged images which needs clothed to be tagged on)

Lyokira said:
But that's like saying shirt should imply clothed. A vast majority of images with shirts have clothed characters, but not all, and it would make it hard to search for those which isn't the case.

(On which note, there's a lot of shirt-tagged images which needs clothed to be tagged on)

I can understand that, perhaps we should change things up then huh

I would agree, implications should always be 100% of the time.
Needs a change, and some cleaning.

Halite said:
I would agree, implications should always be 100% of the time.
Needs a change, and some cleaning.

Agreed.

Yeah I think our tagging has gotten good enough now that "animated" will end up on a post if it needs to be.

Implication removed

Is there a possibility of somehow implying a tag from its filetype? Like a flash tag for posts with a .swf filetype? Or is that not going to happen?
Also, as I asked before, is there another filetype supported for videos other than .swf? I know .mp4 doesn't work...

Moon_Moon said:
Is there a possibility of somehow implying a tag from its filetype? Like a flash tag for posts with a .swf filetype? Or is that not going to happen?

As far as I know, aliases and implications don't work with metatags. Some kind of autotagger feature could do the trick, but...
Why does the flash tag exist in the first place? I do believe that searching for type:swf would suffice. Well, considering the bug with search queries ending with certain file extensions throwing 404s makes that harder, but still...

Moon_Moon said:
Also, as I asked before, is there another filetype supported for videos other than .swf? I know .mp4 doesn't work...

The only supported file formats are JPG, GIF, PNG and SWF.

There's a fairly east way to tag .swf with flash.
Particularly for those with priv+

Just search type:swf -flash
Then use tag scripts to quickly tag everything that's missing the tag.
I'll do it now, will be easy to keep up with if someone keeps an eye on things.

Edit: Done, only 3 were missing the flash tag.