Topic: [Bug] Being able to completely remove tags, including tagme, by using the edit mode on the post index

Posted under Site Bug Reports & Feature Requests

Bug: Being able to use the "edit posts" mode of the post index to completely remove tags from a post, and not have the post default to tagme with the lack of tags.

Expected Behavior: Posts that are "tag nuked" still having tagme as a default tag, despite how many were removed or how they were removed.

Actual Behavior: Posts being able to literally have no tags, shown as "no tags" in the tags area. Example.

Instructions to Replicate: Enter the post index of the site. Scroll & click "Edit Posts" under Mode. Select a post to edit, and remove all of the tags presented. Then, re-enter View Posts mode, and click the vandalized post.

This was a spur of the moment idea based around the new concept of the Edit Posts mode that was presented to me yesterday. This is another "who would of thought..." bug, that can easily be fixed once it occurs. It's relatively minor in comparison to that we default to Tagme anyhow, but as thought up of, this could be used to vandalize old posts that would otherwise need to be searched for, rather than stumbled apon. For instance, a year old post wouldn't be randomly "found" while normally browsing E6, it'd be searched for.

With Tagme, no matter how many times the post is vandalized it can be fixed by users who use the Tagme and tag said posts. So, this would literally remove the ability to find those posts, because it removes Tagme.

Updated

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
So, this would literally remove the ability to find those posts, because it removes Tagme.

There's still option of tagcount:0 to find stuff with a literal wipe.

tagcount:<4 is also useful without relying on tagme if you want to find vandalism and/or insufficiently tagged images.

Updated by anonymous

Wodahseht said:
There's still option of tagcount:0 to find stuff with a literal wipe.

tagcount:<4 is also useful without relying on tagme if you want to find vandalism and/or insufficiently tagged images.

Aye, but it still greatly hampers a common user's ability to find images. How many others do you know, that use those tags? (rhetoric, obviously)

Updated by anonymous

  • 1