[Announcement] Tag categories for existing tags can no longer be changed via metatag

In category: General

Greetings!

As the title says we have just pushed a change that the category of established tags can no longer be changed via metatag (artist:, etc) but instead has to be changed via editing the tag itself. We have also added a new moderator action to keep track of who changes what tag category.

If you wish to change the category of a existing tag now please edit the tag on our Tags page, linked at the top of the page.
The process is straightforward, go the page linked above, search the tag you'd like to change (the search field supports wildcards), and click edit besides the tag you'd like to change. Then simply select the new category and save it.

If a tag's category is locked and you're confident it's wrong please contact one of our admins and we'll have a look.


Good news for some of our privileged users: Using Metatags is still possible for anyone at the privileged rank or above.


NotMeNotYou said:
As the title says we have just pushed a change that the category of established tags can no longer be changed via metatag (artist:, etc) but instead has to be changed via editing the tag itself. We have also added a new moderator action to keep track of who changes what tag category.

If you wish to change the category of a existing tag now please edit the tag on our Tags page, linked at the top of the page.
The process is straightforward, go the page linked above, search the tag you'd like to change (the search field supports wildcards), and click edit besides the tag you'd like to change. Then simply select the new category and save it.

If a tag's category is locked and you're confident it's wrong please contact one of our admins and we'll have a look.

I'm not understanding the technolingo used here.


NotMeNotYou said:
Greetings!

As the title says we have just pushed a change that the category of established tags can no longer be changed via metatag (artist:, etc) but instead has to be changed via editing the tag itself. We have also added a new moderator action to keep track of who changes what tag category.

If you wish to change the category of a existing tag now please edit the tag on our Tags page, linked at the top of the page.
The process is straightforward, go the page linked above, search the tag you'd like to change (the search field supports wildcards), and click edit besides the tag you'd like to change. Then simply select the new category and save it.

If a tag's category is locked and you're confident it's wrong please contact one of our admins and we'll have a look.

I'm glad honestly! It's always a mess when users in general end up changing vague tags to other categories and messing up a lot of posts in the process, so haven't it be a little harder to access via the tag page I feel will encourage them to search for possible alternate tags they were looking for


...It sounds as if this is intended to only affect existing tags, not the creation of new artist/character/etc tags, correct?

If that's the case, then I think something may have gone slightly awry with the coding- I was just now trying to create a tag for a previously-untagged character and it failed, giving me the following error message:

Something went horribly wrong...

Unexpected error (150ce45d4a5ada940fb989bcc6b0cabc)

Give this to an admin to report the issue: 150ce45d4a5ada940fb989bcc6b0cabc

I double-checked the Tags page for an entry afterwards, and even with 'Show empty tags' enabled it's still not finding anything. If I'm misinterpreting the announcement or doing something wrong, please let me know, but if not then it looks like the update broke something.

Update
I was able to create the new tag after all, but I had to do so by creating it as an un-metatagged general tag and then manually changing it from the tags page. So novel tags /are/ still possible- but is this how the implementation is intended to behave?


Cryptic_Cryptid said:
Update
I was able to create the new tag after all, but I had to do so by creating it as an un-metatagged general tag and then manually changing it from the tags page. So novel tags /are/ still possible- but is this how the implementation is intended to behave?

Yes. This, imho, was most likely implemented to prevent casual users from changing tag catagories out of the blue. This would often create big messes, especially with vague tags often in the artist and/or character categories


So for example if we type artist:ArtistXYZ or copyright:CopyrightXYZ they will not show up as those types of tags?


BlackLicorice said:
So for example if we type artist:ArtistXYZ or copyright:CopyrightXYZ they will not show up as those types of tags?

Yes. You can create the tags as general tags, and then later change their typings manually via the tags page. It's not hard to do, but is better for preventing obnoxious cleanups and tag fixes


Only problem I have is that I'm receiving the error message as well when I use meta tags, even though privileged and higher should be able to use it fine

Mind you, NMNY said "some" so maybe it's only available to a limited amount of privileges users for testing. This assumption correct at all? Or is it just a small bug for the moment? @NotMeNotYou


DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

Mind you, NMNY said "some" so maybe it's only available to a limited amount of privileges users for testing. This assumption correct at all? Or is it just a small bug for the moment? @NotMeNotYou

Meta tags should work for all tags that have less than 100 posts attached to them. If that doesn't work it sounds like a bug.


NotMeNotYou said:
Meta tags should work for all tags that have less than 100 posts attached to them. If that doesn't work it sounds like a bug.

Guess it's a bug then! I was attempting it with an artist who has only 1 post on here, and it gave the error. Oh well

leomole
Privileged
8 months ago
2014 anthro bottle bottomless brown_fur brown_nose brown_tail chair clothed clothing computer desk domestic_cat eyebrows eyelashes felid feline felis fur girly green_eyes hair headphones hoodie inside jailbird leaning leaning_back legwear liam looking_at_viewer looking_back male mammal multicolored_fur multicolored_tail office_chair reclining short_hair sitting slim smile snout socks solo tan_fur tan_hair tan_tail topwear two_tone_fur two_tone_tail

Rating: Safe
Score: 155
User: Onii-chan
Date: May 09, 2014

Oh, good. Type changes by new users are a mess to sort out.


It looks like I messed something up and some of the changes I made didn't make it to the rollout. The inability to create new tags with types is a mistake and will be fixed. Priv+ getting errors when changing types is also a bug(and one that slipped through testing, sorry about that.)

I'll work on getting fixes put up for this soon.


KiraNoot said:
It looks like I messed something up and some of the changes I made didn't make it to the rollout. The inability to create new tags with types is a mistake and will be fixed. Priv+ getting errors when changing types is also a bug(and one that slipped through testing, sorry about that.)

I'll work on getting fixes put up for this soon.

Awesome Kira! I figured it was a bug, hope the fix goes well.

Quick question: are pool tags considered metatags to the upload system? Will they be denied by the uploader like the other metatags? Just curious of course, as once this issue is fixed it won't be a big deal, I just utilize pool tags a lot when uploading to fill and complete pools.


I'm now getting a 500 error if I try to create a tag via a post edit (without using metatags). (21f735c6169d85cf3e5fed5d0d355ab7)

Posting here 'cos I figure it's probably related to recent changes.

In the meantime if someone Privileged+ could add a vertigo_(character) tag for post #1721941 that'd be great. People already trying to re-add the artist tag.

Edit:
Fixed, thanks.


Things should be fixed up so that they behave the way described now. Pool tags are not actual tags so they are not applicable to type changes and can be used by anyone.

If you're continuing to get 500 errors when creating tags/changing types, please post a reply and I will look into it.


Not the biggest fan as it makes cleaning up tags a little bit annoying, but if it helps prevent people with vandalism in mind, I guess it'll be fine.


MissChu said:
Not the biggest fan as it makes cleaning up tags a little bit annoying, but if it helps prevent people with vandalism in mind, I guess it'll be fine.

I'm not a fan of putting hurdles into people's paths either, but this has been abused far too often because it was so convenient and people didn't bother to check if the tag already had a use before using it.


NotMeNotYou said:
I'm not a fan of putting hurdles into people's paths either, but this has been abused far too often because it was so convenient and people didn't bother to check if the tag already had a use before using it.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I completely understand the reasoning behind this. I'll just keep working on fixing misplaced tags when I see them.


KiraNoot said:
Things should be fixed up so that they behave the way described now. Pool tags are not actual tags so they are not applicable to type changes and can be used by anyone.

If you're continuing to get 500 errors when creating tags/changing types, please post a reply and I will look into it.

Attempted to make a new artist tag when posting an image for an artist that did not exist yet. First, I ran in to several 500 errors (78cf6fa754013f328042d15bb4c232b7).

When it finally posted, somehow despite saying artist:vikiboy, it got made into a character tag instead. Of course, I was able to go to Tags and manually change the tag type, but I'm not sure why it defined it as character when I explicitly said artist.


AlricKyznetsov said:
Attempted to make a new artist tag when posting an image for an artist that did not exist yet. First, I ran in to several 500 errors (78cf6fa754013f328042d15bb4c232b7).

When it finally posted, somehow despite saying artist:vikiboy, it got made into a character tag instead. Of course, I was able to go to Tags and manually change the tag type, but I'm not sure why it defined it as character when I explicitly said artist.

You're lower than priviliged, so the error to change the category is expected

It changing into a character tag somehow isn't. Did you check if perhaps someone else just happened to change the type of the tag at the same time as you adding it?


DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
It changing into a character tag somehow isn't. Did you check if perhaps someone else just happened to change the type of the tag at the same time as you adding it?

I've recently created two tags ending in _(character), one of which I'm 95% sure I didn't attempt metatag use for, and both came out as character tags.
I assumed there's some form of automation for tags containing certain text.


MagnusEffect said:
I've recently created two tags ending in _(character), one of which I'm 95% sure I didn't attempt metatag use for, and both came out as character tags.
I assumed there's some form of automation for tags containing certain text.

_(character) is a site-recognized suffix, it will appropriately categorize the tag when used.


My disposition to this is pretty similar to the above; it's going to be annoying to spot-fix changes now, but it should help in stopping accidental changes to tag types.


Siral_Exan said:
My disposition to this is pretty similar to the above; it's going to be annoying to spot-fix changes now, but it should help in stopping accidental changes to tag types.

Or intentional vandalism from the lazy. Hopefully.


DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
You're lower than priviliged, so the error to change the category is expected

It changing into a character tag somehow isn't. Did you check if perhaps someone else just happened to change the type of the tag at the same time as you adding it?

As far as I know, the 500 issue was fixed for awhile.

For the second point, no. No other posts with that tag exist.


AlricKyznetsov said:
As far as I know, the 500 issue was fixed for awhile.

For the second point, no. No other posts with that tag exist.

The issue was fixed for users that are privileged and higher. Privileged and up were to always still have the ability, just that if you are below that you would be barred from changing tag types via metatags and must rely on the tags page. However, a glitch early in this feature removal's implementation made it so that even privileged and up couldn't change tag types via metatags and everyone was relegated to the tags page for any tag type changes. It has since been fixed so that, user privileged and higher, can use metatags but lower users cannot and have to use the tags page.


DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
The issue was fixed for users that are privileged and higher. Privileged and up were to always still have the ability, just that if you are below that you would be barred from changing tag types via metatags and must rely on the tags page. However, a glitch early in this feature removal's implementation made it so that even privileged and up couldn't change tag types via metatags and everyone was relegated to the tags page for any tag type changes. It has since been fixed so that, user privileged and higher, can use metatags but lower users cannot and have to use the tags page.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

As I stated in my first post, I was creating a new tag, not changing tag type for a previously created tag. They specifically stated that all users would still have the ability to define a tag type with metatags when creating a new tag when making an upload.


AlricKyznetsov said:
Attempted to make a new artist tag when posting an image for an artist that did not exist yet. First, I ran in to several 500 errors (78cf6fa754013f328042d15bb4c232b7).

When it finally posted, somehow despite saying artist:vikiboy, it got made into a character tag instead. Of course, I was able to go to Tags and manually change the tag type, but I'm not sure why it defined it as character when I explicitly said artist.

The error you received here was because the site you attempted to direct upload from timed out when the site tried to contact it.

Tags with zero posts are not tags that don't exist, they are simply tags with no posts on them. I can see where this might be confusing. So you will still get warnings for these tags if you attempt to change the type on them.

Going back through all of the errors collected since the fix, there have been no 500 errors related to tag type changing since I announced the fix for it.


MagnusEffect said:
I've recently created two tags ending in _(character), one of which I'm 95% sure I didn't attempt metatag use for, and both came out as character tags.
I assumed there's some form of automation for tags containing certain text.

There is no automatic tag type changing. The tag likely existed in the past and had the type changed then, but was sitting at zero posts.


So I'd like to propose a problem, and I hope you guys have a decent solution. What happens when somebody creates a bunch of new valid tags on one image, but doesn't categorize them properly? Do we really have to search each individual tag in the tag page, and are new users uploading for the first time expected to do the same? I'm not entirely sure what problem this is intended to fix, but as someone who spends a lot of time in general tags I can think of how this is a problem.

Let me break it down just to clarify what I mean. If I see a new tag in general that looks like it could either be an artist or a character tag, I'm now gonna have to open the post in a new tab to see whether the post has an artist tag already, then I have to go back to the tag page and open the edit page in a new tab(because it doesn't save type and order settings when it takes takes you back), and then I have to change the tag category and close both tabs?

I would personally love if you could implement the tag type selection box into the tag list itself. Hell, I'd love it if it were just on the tag's wiki page. Then I wouldn't have to open the tag list and manually search for it just to edit a single tag. It seems like such a massive inconvenience given the number of times new tags are dropped into the wrong category, I can't possibly fathom what problems it is offsetting.