Danbooru

Solo and Multiple Views

Posted under General

Provence said:

NNT read that incorrectly.
That tag would have an overlap with multiple_views, not with solo.

I don't get what tag you're proposing, then. The problem we're trying to solve is essentially solo multiple_views being an impossible search, and if you create a new tag to handle this search instead of including multiple_views in solo then surely that tag would have to overlap with both solo and multiple_views? It'd be "solo but with 60k more posts and without being able to implicate solo to it"

Astolfo said:

I don't get what tag you're proposing, then. The problem we're trying to solve is essentially solo multiple_views being an impossible search, and if you create a new tag to handle this search instead of including multiple_views in solo then surely that tag would have to overlap with both solo and multiple_views? It'd be "solo but with 60k more posts and without being able to implicate solo to it"

The new tag would be for only solo multiple_views posts.

Provence said:

I do understand that very well.
Please read again what I've suggested, instead of making ad hominem statements.

No, I don't think you understand the argument here at all. You're the one that said you're having trouble understanding because English isn't your native language.

We want a tag that includes all posts featuring just one character, regardless of whether there's only one instance of that character or multiple instances. A second tag cannot do that without overlapping with solo. You cannot make a tag that does what we want, without it overlapping with solo.

Astolfo said:

I don't get what tag you're proposing, then. The problem we're trying to solve is essentially solo multiple_views being an impossible search, and if you create a new tag to handle this search instead of including multiple_views in solo then surely that tag would have to overlap with both solo and multiple_views? It'd be "solo but with 60k more posts and without being able to implicate solo to it"

It would have only have overlap with multiple_views, because it's a tag that focusses on only one character in a multiple_views scenario.
That's what the tag is I'm suggesting, and hence why it would have actually zero overlap with the solo tag as it is used now.

However, it of course has a probably massive overlap with multiple_views.

Btw. what's the ratio of multiple views with only one character compared to multiple views with multiple characters to the multiple_views tag?

blindVigil said:

No, I don't think you understand the argument here at all. You're the one that said you're having trouble understanding because English isn't your native language.

We want a tag that includes all posts featuring just one character, regardless of whether there's only one instance of that character or multiple instances. A second tag cannot do that without overlapping with solo. You cannot make a tag that does what we want, without it overlapping with solo.

I understand the issue very well. However, it seems that you are misreading what I wrote.
To put it in a tag name: solo_multiple_views. Probably a shitty name, but hoopefully brings the concept closer.

What I want to discuss is the feasability of such a tag. Because to me this sounds like a preferable option since it doesn#t tinker with solo at all, but creates a subset tag for multiple_views.

Right now to see solo multiple_views you probably have to use something like multiple_views ((1girl -1boy -1other) or (1boy -1girl -1other) or (1other -1girl -1boy)) -multiple_girls -multiple_boys -multiple_others -crowd -people. The count for that search times out. That's a 15 tag search btw.

The opposite is multiple_views -(((1girl -1boy -1other) or (1boy -1girl -1other) or (1other -1girl -1boy)) -multiple_girls -multiple_boys -multiple_others -crowd -people), which has 7755 posts, so we can assume that multiple views + solo would be 57k posts. That's 1.8% of all solo posts.
Assuming 20 posts per page you'd see one multiple views post every 3-4 pages while looking at solo, hardly something you could call dilution.

That's of course assuming those searches are correct, which I can't be sure about because it's 15 tags, not exactly something easy to look at.

Updated

nonamethanks said:

Right now to see solo multiple_views you probably have to use something like multiple_views ((1girl -1boy -1other) or (1boy -1girl -1other) or (1other -1girl -1boy)) -multiple_girls -multiple_boys -multiple_others -crowd -people. The count for that search times out. That's a 15 tag search btw.

The opposite is multiple_views -(((1girl -1boy -1other) or (1boy -1girl -1other) or (1other -1girl -1boy)) -multiple_girls -multiple_boys -multiple_others -crowd -people), which has 7755 posts, so we can assume that multiple views + solo would be 59k posts. That's 1.8% of all solo posts. Assuming 20 posts per page you'd see one multiple views post every 3-4 pages while looking at solo.

That's of course assuming those searches are correct, which I can't be sure about because it's 15 tags, not exactly something easy to look at.

Regardless, you can manually browse that.
And I didn't expect there to be so many of posts in that first 15 tag search, because the results are quite a lot.

Provence said:

It would have only have overlap with multiple_views, because it's a tag that focusses on only one character in a multiple_views scenario.
That's what the tag is I'm suggesting, and hence why it would have actually zero overlap with the solo tag as it is used now.

However, it of course has a probably massive overlap with multiple_views.

Btw. what's the ratio of multiple views with only one character compared to multiple views with multiple characters to the multiple_views tag?

I understand the issue very well. However, it seems that you are misreading what I wrote.
To put it in a tag name: solo_multiple_views. Probably a shitty name, but hoopefully brings the concept closer.

What I want to discuss is the feasability of such a tag. Because to me this sounds like a preferable option since it doesn#t tinker with solo at all, but creates a subset tag for multiple_views.

That's only a marginal improvement over the status quo, and still doesn't address solos other inherent problems. Solo multiple_views mistags may not be the only way solo is misused, but it still makes up a not-insignificant percentage of them. Those posts wouldn't be considered mistags if solo wasn't defined the way it is, and this proposed second tag wouldn't do anything to fix that.

It's also passing the buck. -multiple_views is too much of an inconvenience, apparently, but making everyone else use a second tag is fine. A second tag that now needs to be populated, by hand most likely, and kept clean, while everyone continues to misuse solo regularly. It's just more work for everyone, while known problems are allowed to persist, problems that have an easy solution. Instead of removing solo from multiple views posts, you're now replacing solo with solo multiple_views. It's the same amount of work, there's just now a third tag to keep track of.

Meanwhile, making solo inclusive reduces the total number of mistags, makes a previously virtually impossible search actually doable, and adds a very slight, and easily worked around, inconvenience to "one instance of one character" searches.

One of those sounds a lot better to me.

Updated

...well. After everything that has been said, I see myself agreeing with vigil and nnt because:

  • Having to add -multiple_views or -solo is a small price to pay for solving the problems mentioned, compared with the searches NNT showed.
  • The ability of filtering multiple views from solo or vice-versa with a mere - prefix makes even the gardening of either tags easier, as you can now trim the results further.

The ideal scenario would never having to search for something like (1girl -1boy -1other) OR... regardless of what you're searching for, but if this is ever possible to solve, it's not happening today, I think the proposed solution may be small but it's effective where it's applicable.

Updated

BUR #10214 has been rejected.

mass update multiple_views ((1girl -1boy -1other) or (1boy -1girl -1other) or (1other -1girl -1boy)) -sex -oral -comic -solo_focus -multiple_girls -multiple_boys -multiple_others -crowd -people -> solo

Instead of walls of text and brainstorming that will be lost with time, let's have this BUR, which include my own +1 as per previous post.

This BURs means: upvote it if you agree with including multiple views to solo and downvote it if you prefer keeping the status quo, whether the BUR itself gets approved or not is not the main point.

Edit: fixed what kittey said.

Updated

Hyozen said:

BUR #10214 has been rejected.

mass update multiple_views ((1girl -1boy -1other) or (1boy -1girl -1other) or (1other -1girl -1boy)) -sex -oral -comic -solo_focus -multiple_girls -multiple_boys -multiple_others -crowd -people -> solo

The second line does nothing because multiple_views solo status:any already has no results. Excluding that huge bracket of stuff from it will not make it have any either.

Edit: Second line was removed from the BUR.

Updated

Regarding the BUR:

Shouldn't solo focus be removed from the above as well?

There are also plenty of things like post #5326964 which would get caught up in this as well, which shouldn't be.

Also what implications would this have for multi-panel comics with just a single character, which are traditionally excluded from solo (even though the wiki doesn't specify it)? I notice also that some of these multiple views posts are in comic form. Hardly anyone seems to tag comics with multiple panels depicting the character with the solo tag, but the logic of this change would mean they should be included in solo if this change goes ahead.

I think the main point of the BUR isn't necessarily to be a fully functional, to-be-passed-as-is BUR but rather just to be able to vote on whether to include multiple_views_of_just_a_single_character in solo or not, since you can't vote on forum posts without a BUR.
As for comics I'm not sure what would be preferable. I'll admit I haven't thought about those in the context of solo and multiple_views, but if we've had an arbitrary "don't include multiple views in solo" caveat until now then we could just as well have one about not putting solo on comic pages if it's to be avoided.

Updated

The "don't include multiple_views" caveat is not arbitrary. You may think it would be better off it were not there but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

Thing is, the logic for comics is literally the same as the logic for multiple_views - ie. that there are multiple depictions of a character there and thus it is not a solo piece in the sense that danbooru uses the term. Including multiple_views posts but excluding comics really would be arbitrary.

It's a caveat that was half-decided by like four people in a forum thread 13 years ago, then appended into the solo wiki at a time where solo still included solo_focus. Go figure why even back then "girl getting gangbanged by dudes out of focus" counted as solo, but not "one single character having a front and back view in the same picture".
Hell, multiple_views as a tag didn't properly exist when that thread was a thing, and solo has changed in its application since then with the introduction of solo_focus without the concept of multiple_views being addressed in that discussion because it wasn't a properly used tag so who cares. It's just stuck as a caveat to solo since initially introduced for no particular reason.

Considering as a result it completely prevents someone from searching "all the art of just a single character"... That's pretty arbitrary.

Updated

The number of people who were involved in the decision; whether x or y tag existed or not at the time; whether it prevents searching for specific things... none of those things make it arbitrary.

I also don't think the first two are relevant to the discussion at all. The third one is, however, and is the reason why I have not anywhere stated that the change should not happen.

1 2 3 4