I found this tag: https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=oddly_sexy

It's got less than 50 posts tagged as it, has no description, seems way too subjective to be an actual tag, and seems like someone is using it as a personal pool type kind of thing.

Shouldn't this tag like... not exist?

Aye, it does look like someone was using it for a faux set (pools are for relevant images, like comics). Whether or not it is a valid tag is up in the air, because it depends on the viewer. I'm willing to say that a bunch of diaper posts (not the fetish, normal ones) could fit in oddly sexy...

Also, oddly sexy can be linked by using [.[*name*].], periods to stop it from working, instead of copying the URL.

*edit* it seems like it is not just one. It was a recent tagger that used it to specific images. The tag is otherwise scattered about by other users.

*the final edit* so yea, there are two users that tagged it into a faux set, and the rest were jumping on the band wagon. I won't list names, though...

Ye, most if not all are added by user #132554 - Could alias the tag to invalid_tag, but seeing as it's just one user adding to the tag, probably smoother to have an admin tell him to stop.

Peekaboo said:
Ye, most if not all are added by user #132554 - Could alias the tag to invalid_tag, but seeing as it's just one user adding to the tag, probably smoother to have an admin tell him to stop.

This was a while back, and as stated there were two main people, so I think just aliasing into invalid_tag is just simpler. It's not like they purposely made it as grouping tag, the first instance was more of a Why Boner (which may be a better tag, but isn't yet) and the second was sexy in general.

Since we seem to be very enthusiastic about invalidation as the go-to solution for cases like these,

don't forget to move the posts into a Set first if it happens

what Tito said

i'm hijacking this thread to encourage people to call titanmelon 'Tito'

:<

titanmelon said:
Since we seem to be very enthusiastic about invalidation as the go-to solution for cases like these,

don't forget to move the posts into a Set first if it happens

People were tagging it for random images, images they tagged. What would moving it into a set accomplish if we (or I) can't tell what they wanted from it? Or, what set would be appropriate for this?

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
People were tagging it for random images, images they tagged. What would moving it into a set accomplish if we (or I) can't tell what they wanted from it?

Isn't that generally when you'd use a set?:

As personal collection of post with no objectively uniform set of criteria

(from what I understand anyway; still trying to figure out all the differences between sets and pools)

--

Or, what set would be appropriate for this?

Hm, good question

If you're asking about a public set, then probably something meme-related

Or if inconsistency is really an issue, just keep it as a private set instead?

Knotty_Curls said:
what Tito said

i'm hijacking this thread to encourage people to call titanmelon 'Tito'

tittymelon

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Or, what set would be appropriate for this?

Why not just 'oddly sexy'?
It'll be extremely subjective, of course, but the exact definition of sets is up to whoever makes them.

titanmelon said:
Isn't that generally when you'd use a set?:

As personal collection of post with no objectively uniform set of criteria

(from what I understand anyway; still trying to figure out all the differences between sets and pools)

--
Hm, good question

If you're asking about a public set, then probably something meme-related

Or if inconsistency is really an issue, just keep it as a private set instead?

Isn't this what pools are for?

GDelscribe said:
Isn't this what pools are for?

No, pools are for things that definitely belong to each other, like pages of a comic or images from an art portfolio.

NotMeNotYou said:
No, pools are for things that definitely belong to each other, like pages of a comic or images from an art portfolio.

Thanks. Wasn't sure what the difference between sets and pools was for

From my understanding, a set is for themed images. Dickgirls uploaded by a specific artist, or fan characters from a specific copyright. Pools are for specific images, like a comic from an artist or a "frame by frame" (lack of better phrase) of a certain group of sequential images. Parent/child posts are good for what could be small pools (I usually think five or less), because it doesn't "need" to be a pool. I also consider comics that can be updated, against comics that are "dead" and don't need a pool because they don't update frequently.

The two users were using it to make a pseudo-set, by adding themed images of images they like. The most recent user was doing Judy Hopps. If someone else wants to do sets, feel free to; I personally don't touch them for no real reason. The tag should be removed and then aliased into invalid afterwards, reason being it is too subjective.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
From my understanding, a set is for themed images.

Sets are for whatever you want them to be.
They can be anything from sets of posts that share niche themes such as cum-covered Renamon or Pokemon sorted by egg group, to someone's unthemed set of favorites.

Sets are not policed beyond the normal rules ('don't be creepy', etc: no public 'I've repeatedly fapped to these'-type of sets allowed).

Yeah, sets can be about whatever you want them to be, we also never delete them, we just might make them private.

If you want to make a set that is, for example, based on the fibonacci numbers you're more than welcome.