I know we've had this discussion before, but the cute tag is still overused. Wiki says to only tag it if something is overly adorable and cute, but it's frequently tagged in a way that's indistinguishable from subjective tags that we've already invalidated (such as pretty).

post #29271 post #391417 post #200601 post #277218

Last time, we came to the conclusion that it should be kept anyway. So I'm not calling for it be invalidated. But how would you feel if it was renamed to something like overly_cute or too_cute? I think it'd be mistagged less if the usage was more obvious.

(See forum #93485 for the previous thread.)

I like too_cute, but wouldn't people still be able to misuse the tag if cute is aliased? What about adorable?

I think the best option is to just try to keep the cute tag as clean as we can.

objectively_cute
no not really

too_damn_cute

^

Ko-san said:
I like too_cute, but wouldn't people still be able to misuse the tag if cute is aliased? What about adorable?

Certainly, it'd still get overused because of the current aliases. But changing the main tag to something more obvious would help the taggers notice the mistake.

Halite said:
I think the best option is to just try to keep the cute tag as clean as we can.

We tried that for months. It requires daily cleanup just to keep up with the newly tagged ones, and nobody's got time to fix the old ones.

TheHuskyK9 said:
too_damn_cute

Perfect! +1

Genjar said:
...
We tried that for months. It requires daily cleanup just to keep up with the newly tagged ones, and nobody's got time to fix the old ones.
...

Welcome to e621.

What do you think happens with problem tags?
Just myself I have 3 different searches I run multiple times a day to keep certain tags clean.

titanmelon said:
objectively_cute
no not really

abjectly_cute ;) explosively_cute?

Actually I'm also +1 on too_damn_cute.

Dump everything with the cute tag into a cute set. Let subjectivity run rampant. Ignore.

Same for the amazing tag.

It would be best if future posts tagged with cute or amazing were passed directly to their sets (or is that already possible?), removing/converting/aliasing the tag in the process of course. To that end, (publicly maintainable) sets should be listed on any post belonging to them, probably somewhere on the side, simply to raise awareness that the sets exist. These would be "ideal" feature requests or requirements to enable my idea.

This is all following the understanding that tags should be objective only whereas sets permit subjectivity as well.

EDIT: Thinking far ahead if this idea were brought into a functional tagging convention, then its desirable end state or purpose would have a healthy separation of objectively visible properties as tags from abstract (e.g., cute), meta (e.g., joke tags), or implied (i.e., resurrect implied/imminent tags that were aliased away and other things falling outside of TWYS) ideas as sets. The upshot for taggers, as I see it, is the freedom to ignore sets entirely... unfortunately, that's more of a cosmetic change since the root problem of subjectivity is not addressed. Rather, the convention acknowledges that certain tags and ideas are inherently problematic and de-emphasizes them accordingly while still allowing them to exist. Well... that's my vision, anyway.

I say we remove the cute tag all together. Too opinionated. What I find cute, someone else might not, and what they find cute, I might think is ugly.

Cuteness is actually significantly less subjective than most other measures of attractiveness.
It is possible to quantify cuteness to a point, the only real issue is where the cut-off for cuteness is.

Halite said:
Cuteness is actually significantly less subjective than most other measures of attractiveness.
It is possible to quantify cuteness to a point, the only real issue is where the cut-off for cuteness is.

That e rating

Halite said:
I think the best option is to just try to keep the cute tag as clean as we can.

^^

This

Halite said:
I think the best option is to just try to keep the cute tag as clean as we can.

+1 too

savageorange said:
abjectly_cute ;) explosively_cute?

Actually I'm also +1 on too_damn_cute.

kirby_cute.