Like the title says; it seems like 50%+ of everything I click on is now tagged "invalid_tag"... why? Often these are tagged with tags that have thousands of other pictures using the same tags... and they're all applicable to the image. Why does this keep popping up?

http://e621.net/wiki/show?nordirect=1&title=invalid_tag

Tag 'efficiency' nazis. (you know who you are)

Ah, I didn't see anything about it when I searched on the forums. So I can keep right on removing the invalid_tags... but there are 517 pages of "invalid_tag" :{

Could we just server-wipe that tag entirely?

Violet said:
Ah, I didn't see anything about it when I searched on the forums. So I can keep right on removing the invalid_tags... but there are 517 pages of "invalid_tag" :{

Could we just server-wipe that tag entirely?

We do occasionally.

I suppose now would be as good a time as any.

It's being worked on, and has been since before this post was made. Do not panic, do not adjust your sets.

Furmillionaire said:
Tag 'efficiency' nazis. (you know who you are)

You sound a little butthurt. They make a cream for that, you know.

The tags on the "invalid tag" page are so fucking hilarious.
>possibly_sheathless
>crap_art
>pole>hole
>broken_anatomy

Kclub said:
You sound a little butthurt. They make a cream for that, you know.

no.

Problem solved.

It looks like "tail" was just added to the invalid tags list 19 hours ago. Which I protest, I searched with that tag quite a bit.

ThenIThought said:
It looks like "tail" was just added to the invalid tags list 19 hours ago. Which I protest, I searched with that tag quite a bit.

Wow... somebody had to have made a mistake.

Murmillos said:
Wow... somebody had to have made a mistake.

Nope. Somebody thought this was a good idea.

Murmillos said:
Wow... somebody had to have made a mistake.

Riversyde said:
Nope. Somebody thought this was a good idea.

It's not as if good intentions and mistakes are mutually exclusive.

Riversyde said:
Nope. Somebody thought this was a good idea.

Sorry, but I believe that to be an honestly bad call. Not every-being has a tail (most do, tho) so it's still a valid search / anti-search'ing tag.

Tail, if applied correctly, would be tagged to nearly every post on the site. It would be analogous to tagging "furry" or "arms" or "legs." It is extremely nondescriptive.

null0010 said:
Tail, if applied correctly, would be tagged to nearly every post on the site. It would be analogous to tagging "furry" or "arms" or "legs." It is extremely nondescriptive.

Male and female, being applied correctly, is tagged to nearly every post on the site. Tail would be tagged to about 2/3rds the posts. And at least to me, tail was far more useful, and precisely what made it useful was the ability to filter posts where one was visible, particularly specific types of tail: "fox tail" just as one would search for "multiple_tails"

ThenIThought said:
Male and female, being applied correctly, is tagged to nearly every post on the site.

The difference being that those tags are actually useful.

null0010 said:
The difference being that those tags are actually useful.

I said I found it useful, and if I were the only person who thought so, making it an invalid_tag wouldn't have filled it with 517 pages of submissions. How is it any less useful than, say, hair_over_eye, or purple_nipples? Tags are cheap, I wouldn't remove them if there's a way there could be useful. (And for the record, I do enjoy browsing submissions by the color of body parts.)

There are no longer any invalid_tags.

The tags hair_over_eye and purple_nipples are far more descriptive and specific than "tail" could possibly be.

well, i'll help you guys with that if you like, if i find any posts with the invalid tag tag ill remove from the post since i surf the site like at least once a day

ThenIThought said:
...
(And for the record, I do enjoy browsing submissions by the color of body parts.)

same here, interesting colored parts are cool lol
though i gota admit, the Avoidable_Anatomy_Mistake was also useful, but......waaaay to over abused.

null0010 said:
There are no longer any invalid_tags.

The tags hair_over_eye and purple_nipples are far more descriptive and specific than "tail" could possibly be.

There are no longer any invalid_tags, hence my use of past tense.

I don't quite get the criteria for an acceptable tag here... The tag can't be applied to the vast majority of posts. Unless of course, it's useful.

But the tag must be useful anyways. Unless of course, it's descriptive. Like the 20xx tags? Because those tell us... well, no, they tell me almost nothing. And in any event, "specific" and "descriptive" aren't reasons we tag submissions, it's because we filter for those tags. I think the vast number of tags was evidence of that. And tags are cheap, so the only reason a tag wouldn't be desirable is if the definition necessitates subjectivity or wouldn't make any difference to search results anyways (or of course some administrative reason like an angry artist).

ThenIThought said:
Like the 20xx tags? Because those tell us... well, no, they tell me almost nothing.

They tell you the year the art was published.

I still feel that tail should remain valid, but I've already said my piece in the body parts tag discussion. I think the way the tag system is used has been evolving subtly, even over the last year, so I'll say no more on it until it comes up again in the future.

'evolving', that's a nice word for it. I don't see why tags should ever be made invalid except in exceptional cases and it certainly shouldn't be policy to go out looking for tags to invalidate which it seems to be.

Furmillionaire said:
'evolving', that's a nice word for it. I don't see why tags should ever be made invalid except in exceptional cases and it certainly shouldn't be policy to go out looking for tags to invalidate which it seems to be.

If you look at the list of 'invalid tags' you'll see that most of them are, indeed, invalid. Most of them are redundant (furry (we have tags for things that are not furry), sexy (rating:q/e) explicit (rating:e) et.. various tags that are subjective ("sexy"... "possible sheath", "ugly"), tags that there are already tags for ("breeder_belly"), or down right negative and insulting towards the artists that we try and foster a good relationship with ("Anatomy_fail" can mean different things to a lot of different people.)

I only see maybe one or two tags in that whole list that MAYBE should stay, and those are few and far between, and most of them I could hear convincing arguements either way on.

tail isn't one of them. Especially when tailless exists as a underused tag and there are numerous other tail* takes out there that can be used to describe the tail in question.

I am curious which tags YOU would keep, Furmillionaire, out of the list of 'invalid tags" that the "nazis" have "cleansed".

SnowWolf said:
there are numerous other tail* takes out there that can be used to describe the tail in question.

This is my intent, to start tagging based on type of tail rather than using a bloated umbrella tag.

null0010 said:
This is my intent, to start tagging based on type of tail rather than using a bloated umbrella tag.

That's because you're awesome ;)

null0010 said:
This is my intent, to start tagging based on type of tail rather than using a bloated umbrella tag.

I don't mind that there are going to be changes and an ongoing evolution of the tagging system, but sometimes big things like this should be made more transparent before being rudely woken up too. I mean, lesser issues get bigger screen time then somebody deciding.. "You know what, since 2/3 of the images have a tail.. lets nuke that tag -- and not tell anybody!"

SnowWolf said:

and there are numerous other tail* takes out there that can be used to describe the tail in question.

Isn't this the same deal as with hair. We have a lot of tags to be used to describe the hair in question but still we use the hair tag

SnowWolf said:

Especially when tailless exists as a underused tag

Well doesn't this go against the tag what you see rule and wouldn't it end up being used as tail, i mean it's just another word for -tail

---
just throwing my two cents out there

Wait, what? Seriously, removing tail tag is a bit stupid. Yeah sure, 2/3 images would have that tag, but what about the tens of thousands that wouldn't? It helps narrowing down results quite a lot if you're searching for a specific images. :\

advanced fetish search

Snow! Ahoy! I don't think I've seen you around as of late. Nice to have your input again.

null0010 said:
This is my intent, to start tagging based on type of tail rather than using a bloated umbrella tag.

Huh. Ok, so that's reasonable. I hadn't thought of it, and I like it. But we seem to have been creating, or employing, a lot of "umbrella" or "meta" tags to gather more specific tags under it. Why not tail? The various piercing typs all imply piercing, and the different sorts of undead imply just that. We even created the very, very generic tag magic_user as a catch-all for wizards, warlocks, druids, mages, what have you. Why is tail not ok?

I guess, however, that like we have not_furry, we have, as you said, tailless. But I feel like that should only be used if there is an image of a critter that usually has a tail, based on the species, but in this case does not. Or if the character has had its tail cut off, then tailless makes sense. But what about all the pictures of elves? Or like post #195855 ? Or headshot/bust images? I think it's ok for them to get the tailless tag, but shit man. I think there are a lot more images where a tail is not visible than you think. Not "nearly every" image on the site would have the "tail" tag.

I think there should be a way to "auto-delete" the "invalid tag" tag. Instead of applying "invalid_tag" to every post with an invalid tag, just delete the tag. It would make tagging a lot easier.

hg3300 said:
I think there should be a way to "auto-delete" the "invalid tag" tag. Instead of applying "invalid_tag" to every post with an invalid tag, just delete the tag. It would make tagging a lot easier.

We delete them every couple of days.

And that way, hopefully the tagger will realize they have used a tag e621 deems useless or otherwise unacceptable, and will not use it again and search the tags for an accepted synonym, or else not use it at all in the case of rude or overly subjective tags.

What if every tag edit that results in invalid_tag or tagme still being on the post gets a banner warning displayed instead of just "Post Updated"? Yellow background.

trfg7xz2oxps said:
What if every tag edit that results in invalid_tag or tagme still being on the post gets a banner warning displayed instead of just "Post Updated"?

It would be better (and require much less work) to create (and maintain) a standardized tagging system like Danbooru's, rather than have users confused about big banners appearing on their screen, I'd imagine. We had one of those in production, but progress on that has slowed down recently.

Also, some of the tags that were aliased to invalid tag were one-time use tags or tags only used by one person. I wouldn't want every tag like these needing an alias and clogging up the system.

Ahh, damn. Sucks that we lost the "tail" tag. I hate when a character is supposed to have a tail is drawn without one. Like Rebecca Cunnignham. I liked being able to sort pictures of her based on which ones had a tail and which ones didn't.

But I can see how it would become overused... Though what exactly is the harm in overusing a tag? I mean, what about pictures with particularly cute tails that are just begging to be pointed out?

Thread necromancy HOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Who you callin' a Ho?

When this thread came back up, I immediately checked for new invalidated tags, wondering what had been taken down.

That kind of panic is the danger of thread necromancy.

31h253 said:
When this thread came back up, I immediately checked for new invalidated tags, wondering what had been taken down.

That kind of panic is the danger of thread necromancy.

you heard it here kids. Thread Necromancy isn't just annoying, it can be lethal.

Friends don't let friends necro threads.

Frederik said:
Ahh, damn. Sucks that we lost the "tail" tag. I hate when a character is supposed to have a tail is drawn without one. Like Rebecca Cunnignham. I liked being able to sort pictures of her based on which ones had a tail and which ones didn't.

But I can see how it would become overused... Though what exactly is the harm in overusing a tag? I mean, what about pictures with particularly cute tails that are just begging to be pointed out?

Well, at least he resurrected it with something relevant.

RedOctober said:
Snow! Ahoy! I don't think I've seen you around as of late. Nice to have your input again.

Huh. Ok, so that's reasonable. I hadn't thought of it, and I like it. But we seem to have been creating, or employing, a lot of "umbrella" or "meta" tags to gather more specific tags under it. Why not tail? The various piercing typs all imply piercing, and the different sorts of undead imply just that. We even created the very, very generic tag magic_user as a catch-all for wizards, warlocks, druids, mages, what have you. Why is tail not ok?

I guess, however, that like we have not_furry, we have, as you said, tailless. But I feel like that should only be used if there is an image of a critter that usually has a tail, based on the species, but in this case does not. Or if the character has had its tail cut off, then tailless makes sense. But what about all the pictures of elves? Or like post #195855 ? Or headshot/bust images? I think it's ok for them to get the tailless tag, but shit man. I think there are a lot more images where a tail is not visible than you think. Not "nearly every" image on the site would have the "tail" tag.

+1 to this.

Azula_Arktandr said:
+1 to this.

This thread is 4 or more years old now. Why would you do this?

FoxFourOhFour said:
This thread is 4 or more years old now. Why would you do this?

Azula wants the tail tag back, and this thread mentions its invalidation.

Also, it's kinda my fault.