Danbooru

nuke bangs

Posted under Tags

Mexiguy said:
an excuse for lazy tagging at worst (aka "what's the specific hairstyle again?, fuck it, let's just tag it bangs and call it a day")

I don't care about bangs, but I doubt that with removing a tag padding tag users suddendly start tagging better. Most will either find a new tag padding tag or just leave one out from now on.

Nacha said:

I don't care about bangs, but I doubt that with removing a tag padding tag users suddendly start tagging better. Most will either find a new tag padding tag or just leave one out from now on.

I never claimed that nuking bangs (or any other padding tag for that matter) will suddenly make lazy mintaggers magically tag properly, I was just saying that bangs was just pure tag padding either done either well-intentioned or maliciously.

Cattywampus said:

You're speaking with the benefit of hindsight here. How am I supposed to determine that before I know who I'm looking for?

While in theory there may be some way to deduce the minimum specific set of tags required beforehand, the reality is that this is a present search pain point for me that did not previously exist. I struggled finding Pinoko for similar reasons. What benefit are we getting from this additional friction?

Well then I don't actually understand your example scenario. Since you added the notes to that post, it must be that you knew what the character looked like, just not their name, which means you definitely knew where to start. Which means, presumably, you started with blue_archive green_hair, then added hood, then added fur trim, at which point, you have a search consisting of 11 posts, three of which are solo pics of the character you're looking for. How does bangs actually help at this point? Yet again, every post in that search should be tagged bangs, the only reason addng it to the search did anything is because some posts were incorrectly missing it.

So then, if you had an appearance to work with, why are you now suggesting that not to be the case? Alternatively, since all of the characters were already tagged, you could've just gone down the tag list, annotating characters as you identified their appearances. No multi-tag searching needed.

This is ignoring your assertions regarding the frequency of bangs. Whatever broad definition of bangs you are using in your statements is not one that I share, or anyone else I know for that matter.

I am using the literal definition that everyone uses. Hair that covers the forehead. That is what bangs are. That is the definition we were using before the tag was deprecated. If you're trying to say that's wrong, because the tag wasn't applied to 99% of posts like it should've been, that's because it was a shit tag that no one cared about except for lazy padding. What you don't seem to be understanding, is that if bangs were actually used as it was intended, it would be useless, because it would be almost everywhere.

Nacha said:

I don't care about bangs, but I doubt that with removing a tag padding tag users suddenly start tagging better. Most will either find a new tag padding tag or just leave one out from now on.

Since it's not deprecated with all the alternatives to it, I prefer either choosing the closest bangs tag even if it's slightly mistagging it or making up a new tag name that will probably be nuked/aliased in the future.

blindVigil said:

I am using the literal definition that everyone uses. Hair that covers the forehead. That is what bangs are. That is the definition we were using before the tag was deprecated. If you're trying to say that's wrong, because the tag wasn't applied to 99% of posts like it should've been, that's because it was a shit tag that no one cared about except for lazy padding. What you don't seem to be understanding, is that if bangs were actually used as it was intended, it would be useless, because it would be almost everywhere.

I'm pretty sure that them saying that your definition of bangs was wrong was in response to the claim that every character in the image should have the bangs tag, which is wrong - the ones annotated as Saya and Yuzu definitely shouldn't, I'm pretty sure I'd be right in not adding it to Arisu or Ayumu and there are several questionable ones as well - and not the claim that every post in blue_archive green_hair hood fur_trim should have had the bangs tag, which is right... and also probably the more relevant one to your general point

Updated

but not sure on choppy bangs, felt more like a padding tag after populating it rather than something useful.

That's because the way you have tagged it doesnt really hold to the idea that was first brought for this, to me
For example the purpose of choppy bangs or whatever the final name will be isnt to be tagged on stuff like post #6099184 which would fall into a v-shaped bangs tag or something of the sort, nor post #6076255 which should imo be tagged asymmetrical bangs.
In my mind, choppy bangs should be reserved for stuff like post #6159783 where the bangs actually dont just have mere indents but really do have that "fringe" look, with no dominant concentration of hair.

I'm not so sure about the name choice of double-parted bangs, comes off as something that would only be a sub-set of parted bangs when the main idea is to tag the cases of bangs parting with a concentration in the middle of the forehead, i'd even be in favor of something that tags more specifically that middle part regardless of the presence or lack of any other mass of bangs on the sides, and the m bangs/double-parted bangs idea would be covered by just mixing that new "center"/whatever bangs tag with parted bangs

But anyway should we start a new thread to specifically discuss what we do with new bangs tags?

Well, the problem with the choppy bangs, other than my tagging it for most choppy stuff, is that it'll be dominated with blunt bangs.

Mayhem-Chan said:

But anyway should we start a new thread to specifically discuss what we do with new bangs tags?

Go ahead if you want to, I just shared the padding tags I've created to make up for some situations of the bangs tag.

1 2 3 4