Firstly, I'm not sure if this is the right section, so I hope I did it right.

Secondly, I'd like to reach out to @Rainbow_Dash for their opinion in this thread.

So, 10 days ago , Rainbow_Dash aliased cross_eye_stereogram -> side_by_side_stereogram. This caused me some confusion recently when I made a post -- I had thought that side_by_side_ was for parallel eyes and that cross_eye_ was for cross-eyes, and wasn't aware that wall_eye_ was a thing.

I did some digging around the forums and site logs and could find no discussion or reasoning behind this change, so I figure it was an initiative move. I went ahead and made a tag wiki for it so that people don't confuse it with wall_eye_stereogram in the future like I did.

That said, if we're going to be changing the names of the stereogram tags, then I think we should brainstorm some better names for all of them.

So, the purpose of this thread is twofold:

1. request for comment from RD

2. let's brainstorm to give cross-eye (side_by_side_) and parallel (wall_eye_) the best, most descriptive tag names possible. RD's commentary would especially be helpful here, for the sake of consistency between the tag names.

What? Nononono. Who even did this suggestion?
cross_eye_stereogram is side_by_side_stereogram
however side_by_side_stereogram is not always cross_eye_stereogram.

I even updated wiki to reflect this ages ago so that those trying to cross-eye walleye stuff don't get eyestrain.

See stereogram for the things I updated year ago!

A mistake was made with that alias and it has been corrected. Sorry about that.

Mairo said:
What? Nononono. Who even did this suggestion?
cross_eye_stereogram is side_by_side_stereogram
however side_by_side_stereogram is not always cross_eye_stereogram.

I even updated wiki to reflect this ages ago so that those trying to cross-eye walleye stuff don't get eyestrain.

See stereogram for the things I updated year ago!

Rainbow_Dash said:
A mistake was made with that alias and it has been corrected. Sorry about that.

Oh. In that case, I'll try to help out by spending some quality time with the side_by_side_stereogram tag, make sure they're correctly tagged. I'll also edit the wiki pages to unify them. Especially need to cross-link them so anyone reading them can get the gist no matter where they approach from.

Glad we could clear that up :)

Edit: I've made the edits to the wiki pages

side_by_side_stereogram
cross_eye_stereogram
wall_eye_stereogram

Looking good?

hungryman said:
Oh. In that case, I'll try to help out by spending some quality time with the side_by_side_stereogram tag, make sure they're correctly tagged. I'll also edit the wiki pages to unify them. Especially need to cross-link them so anyone reading them can get the gist no matter where they approach from.

Glad we could clear that up :)

Edit: I've made the edits to the wiki pages

side_by_side_stereogram
cross_eye_stereogram
wall_eye_stereogram

Looking good?

I went through side_by_side_stereogram -cross_eye_stereogram -wall_eye_stereogram and did my best. I had the most difficulty with post #5162. Neither version looks 3D.

hungryman said:
I went through side_by_side_stereogram -cross_eye_stereogram -wall_eye_stereogram and did my best. I had the most difficulty with post #5162. Neither version looks 3D.

Thank you.
That post looks like the original version is on left side and then someone just did some basic level of bad color adjustement to it and pasted it on the right side, I cannot see any depth to it either, so removing stereogram tags.

Mairo said:
Thank you.
That post looks like the original version is on left side and then someone just did some basic level of bad color adjustement to it and pasted it on the right side, I cannot see any depth to it either, so removing stereogram tags.

Considering that it's a low-quality post, would you like me to make two posts out of each side and parent one to the other, and then flag the original for deletion ("inferior quality")? It would only take me a couple minutes.

Here's what I've done so far:

• uploaded post #1755352 (left half)
• -> realized that I copied from the small view rather than the full-size view and uploaded a smaller version, flagged it and uploaded post #1755360
• uploaded post #xxxxxxx (right half) - waiting on this. Right half may be a low-quality edit, which would be pointless to upload
• flagged post #5162 - waiting on a second opinion before I do that

hungryman said:
Considering that it's a low-quality post, would you like me to make two posts out of each side and parent one to the other, and then flag the original for deletion ("inferior quality")? It would only take me a couple minutes.

You can always edit the original, but you can never get original out of edit.

That's already JPG file, so cropping would need to be done with dedicated tool that can crop JPG files without resaving the content, something like freevimager. Saving as PNG does prevent further quality loss, but this isn't good practise and resaving as JPG compresses the image more. In all cases we already have the original version here already, so cropping and reuploading is pointless.
uploading_guidelines#quality -> Edits

This is why I'm not going around no_sound + loop WebM posts with empty audio track, reuploading them without the audio track, because even though it is technically superior at that point, it's still modified from version we already have here. Only if the version we have is corrupted or badly encoded is there reason for post replacement.

So even if that post is nowhere near ideal, it's closest to original we have right now and generating anything out of it would essentially be inferior to it.
e621:image_quality

So in this case, finding source or actually superior version is what would be actually helpful.

Mairo said:
You can always edit the original, but you can never get original out of edit.

That's already JPG file, so cropping would need to be done with dedicated tool that can crop JPG files without resaving the content, something like freevimager. Saving as PNG does prevent further quality loss, but this isn't good practise and resaving as JPG compresses the image more. In all cases we already have the original version here already, so cropping and reuploading is pointless.
uploading_guidelines#quality -> Edits

This is why I'm not going around no_sound + loop WebM posts with empty audio track, reuploading them without the audio track, because even though it is technically superior at that point, it's still modified from version we already have here. Only if the version we have is corrupted or badly encoded is there reason for post replacement.

So even if that post is nowhere near ideal, it's closest to original we have right now and generating anything out of it would essentially be inferior to it.
e621:image_quality

So in this case, finding source or actually superior version is what would be actually helpful.

I'm a little confused. I get the reason for the deletion and the general philosophy (information is lost; quality not improved), but I'm having trouble interpreting the other thing you're saying. Are you saying that had I used a cropping tool that can crop JPGs without running them through JPG compression/uncompression, that the edit would have been kept? If so, why?

It seems to me that both the PNG I created and the non-recompressed JPG created by such a tool (like your example: freevimager) would be (at least in a pixel-per-pixel sense) identical and thus wouldn't be improving the quality of the original, so if a JPG->PNG would be deleted for not improving the quality, wouldn't the non-recompressed JPG crop also be deleted for the same reason?

hungryman said:
I'm a little confused. I get the reason for the deletion and the general philosophy (information is lost; quality not improved), but I'm having trouble interpreting the other thing you're saying. Are you saying that had I used a cropping tool that can crop JPGs without running them through JPG compression/uncompression, that the edit would have been kept? If so, why?

It seems to me that both the PNG I created and the non-recompressed JPG created by such a tool (like your example: freevimager) would be (at least in a pixel-per-pixel sense) identical and thus wouldn't be improving the quality of the original, so if a JPG->PNG would be deleted for not improving the quality, wouldn't the non-recompressed JPG crop also be deleted for the same reason?

No, it wouldn't have been kept. Simply saying that if only thing you are doing to JPG file is cropping, it's more ideal to crop it losslessly than it is to save it as PNG. In both cases information stays intact, but keeping JPG it also keeps format identical, where saving as PNG bloats the file in order to keep its visuals identical.

However in most cases on the site, usually when JPG files are modified, they are also edited to some degree, so in these cases PNG is almost have to be used to avoid quality degratation.