So, I feel like the current standard originated in a time when implicates weren't as inclusive. Some being able to add 2 or 3 more tags if not more, and though not many abuse 4 tags being the minimum I have seen it.

I Think a 10 tags minimum would be fair, with the few exceptions of those zero content title images to series most all images should be able to get at LEAST 10 tags attached. As with how I said earlier, many tags having implications would probably bump those 10 tags up to 18 without extra effort from the poster which would end in better results using the search engine.

+1

I agree with Versperus on this one. Tagging is such an easy thing to do, as the system is so replete. Before someone starts uploading images, they really should be familiar with the tagging system to start.

One potential hitch I see is a spike in neutral records for uploaders who don't hear about the new system. Communication would be necessary to get the word out to everyone and minimize that.

The main benefit I see, of course, is that more tags right at the outset would help people using blacklists and tag searching. I know I personally have a lot of images slip through my blacklist when they're first posted because the tagging isn't complete.

That is one way to address the issue of undertagging.

A better way I think, is for us to set to default the improved uploading page: https://e621.net/post/upload?use_new=true

Discussion in forum #256093

6-8 minimum tags could also do.

Though, I'm not sure a person who only tags 3-5 tags will even care enough to add more, even if they're supposed to according to the rules.

How about making it so content can't be uploaded without a certain amount of tags? Nah, no way that could be enforced.

Main issue which was brought up when this has been talked about are edge case posts, e.g. near empty pages in comics, where there might be a word and gradient, at which point there's objectively no more than 4 tags possible for the post.

But at the same time, I have seen so many cases like bowser, implicates mario bros, which implicates nintendo, which implicates video games so someone uploading their local folder full of bowser will get essentially free pass with uploading using single tag.

I really love the Improved Uploading Page @leomole pointed to. I also think @Peekaboo is onto something with the idea of simply not allowing a piece to upload at all until a certain number of tags are attached.

You know, I'm just a regular member, so I know the value of my input is probably limited. However, for me, the biggest usefulness for tags is blacklisting.

With both of the above in mind, what I wonder is whether the Improved Uploading Page could have a block of checkboxes added for the most commonly blacklisted tags. That way, they're less likely to slip an uploader's mind during the process? Then, once the button is clicked to commit the process, the number of tags is checked before a final go-no-go on the upload.

CCoyote said:
With both of the above in mind, what I wonder is whether the Improved Uploading Page could have a block of checkboxes added for the most commonly blacklisted tags. That way, they're less likely to slip an uploader's mind during the process? Then, once the button is clicked to commit the process, the number of tags is checked before a final go-no-go on the upload.

This makes me think of AO3's box of "Archive Warnings" for all uploaded fanfiction. It includes some of the things people readily avoid at the top of the upload page, like rape, character death, and underage.

I like that feature there. It reminds everyone to put those commonly avoided warnings before the tagging section.

+1

I'd say raising it to 6 is a fine start.
Mostly because as I'm writing this, there are no posts with under 7 tags.
tagcount:1..6

So it shouldn't be impossible, for any future posts to be tag with at least 6 tags.

I'm on board with discouraging lazy tagging, but I'm not sure what new number (if any) would materially improve tagging quality here without impacting edge-case zero_pictured comic covers and the like.

Other alternatives to raising minimum tag limit include:

• (1) (addressing Mairo's point) revising the current rule to (change in bold): "Minimum of four tags required upon upload. Ratings, tagme, and automatically implicated tags don't count."

• (2) adding a rule requiring certain "important" categories to be tagged when applicable (e.g., number of characters, artist name/unknown artist, species). The rule could be enforced with "not applicable" checkboxes for each category on upload, or just added on to existing tagging rules (users would be warned only after frequent negligence)

engageforth said:
Other alternatives to raising minimum tag limit include:

• (1) (addressing Mairo's point) revising the current rule to (change in bold): "Minimum of four tags required upon upload. Ratings, tagme, and automatically implicated tags don't count."

I'm pretty sure that this would already be a thing even with current rules if it weren't for one single thing: we do not have any data what tags were implicated and what were actually applied.

Even with my example above, user could've tagged those tags manually, even if the likelyhood of it is minimal.

Let's say someone uploaded a completely white picture.

zero_pictured
not_furry
white_background
simple_background
monochrome
minimalism
[artist]
[year]
digital_media_(artwork)

That's nine potential tags. Add three more if there's any sort of text visible:

[language]_text
text
[color]_and_white

We probably wouldn't even allow a pure white page, even as part of a comic, I would guess. So it seems like we could fairly raise the minimum tag limit.

With that said, we could always have an exception in the rules for minimalist images where very few tags apply and where less experienced users might struggle.

Clawdragons said:
Let's say someone uploaded a completely white picture.
...
That's nine potential tags. Add three more if there's any sort of text visible:

Main problem with discussion was that users who aren't aware of tags like zero pictured would still have trouble finding those 9 specific tags that could apply. That's also partially reason why I did ask for new upload form which Kira worked on hard.

Exclusions are bad, but I could almost imagine that if the limit is raised, zero pictured posts could be excluded to avoid things like users being extremely scared of posting stuff just because they have to get tags and they have no idea what they should be.

Mairo said:
Main problem with discussion was that users who aren't aware of tags like zero pictured would still have trouble finding those 9 specific tags that could apply. That's also partially reason why I did ask for new upload form which Kira worked on hard.

Yeah, that's what I meant with my "less experienced users might struggle" comment.

Exclusions are bad, but I could almost imagine that if the limit is raised, zero pictured posts could be excluded to avoid things like users being extremely scared of posting stuff just because they have to get tags and they have no idea what they should be.

Exceptions are kind of the way the world works. Trying to hold too tightly to a black-and-white absolutist ruleset can cause more problems than allowing some simple and reasonable exceptions, like I think this one would be.

Mairo said:
I'm pretty sure that this would already be a thing even with current rules if it weren't for one single thing: we do not have any data what tags were implicated and what were actually applied.

Even with my example above, user could've tagged those tags manually, even if the likelyhood of it is minimal.

Right, I should've clarified that the new rule would apply regardless of whether the implications were manually or automatically added.

It might seem unfair at first glance, but since an implication means that tag 1 always comes with tag 2, I think it's reasonable that users be expected to come up with at least 4 reasonably "distinct" tags.

Maybe phrase it something like, "You must add a minimum of 4 tags to each post. Tags that always go together (fox->canine, orgy->sex) only count as one tag for the 4 tag minimum."?

engageforth said:
Maybe phrase it something like, "You must add a minimum of 4 tags to each post. Tags that always go together (fox->canine, orgy->sex) only count as one tag for the 4 tag minimum."?

One problem with that is if certain tags are missed, whether it be on purpose or by accident.

For instance, say that the first two tags you thought of when trying to tag a picture were human_on_feral and male/female. These then imply a whole bunch of other tags.

However, what if someone didn't tag those two? What if they instead tagged male, female, human, feral, interspecies? All those tags would be present simply by tagging male/female and human_on_feral via implications.

The system definitely shouldn't allow a worse-tagged image to meet the minimum while a better-tagged image fails.

Clawdragons said:
For instance, say that the first two tags you thought of when trying to tag a picture were human_on_feral and male/female. These then imply a whole bunch of other tags.

However, what if someone didn't tag those two? What if they instead tagged male, female, human, feral, interspecies? All those tags would be present simply by tagging male/female and [[human_on_feral] via implications.

The system definitely shouldn't allow a worse-tagged image to meet the minimum while a better-tagged image fails.

That's a good point. There doesn't seem to be an elegant solution to that - perhaps we would just have to accept the loophole, or enforce the new rule selectively and hope nobody complains (if a post only has human_on_feral, male/female, and their 7 implied tags, we don't discipline, since tagging two genders or body types is nowhere near as lazy as tagging only a character name and their source copyright)

the zero pictured issue is why I suggested it to be an acceptation to the rule should the bar be raised on minimum tagging, as I'm well aware only people whom have a good knowledge of the tagging system here would be able to fill those gaps, that being said it's the only circumstance I can think of where it wouldn't be possible to input 10+ tags, and those images are already exemptions from the system in that they are only aloud should they fall into image or pool series

If no one can think of any counterexamples other than the zero_pictured comic cover-type posts, I think we can just note that single thing as an exception in the rules and upload page.

If so, I agree with Versperus/OP that ~10 tags (including auto-implications) would be a good new minimum.

A minimum of 5-6 would hardly change things from the way they are now; it would only be useful for making edge cases easier to upload (which would be a moot point if we're excepting them)

Just as some info:
tagcount:4..7 only returns three pages,
tagcount:4..10 returns 78 pages.

With saying an exception for zero_pictured, I couldn't help but think "what if people don't know about that tag?", I think upping the tags is a good way to just stop people uploading, as people who don't know half the tags would just not bother.

Secondly, one feature I really wish was highlighted, then had flashing arrows to it saying "click this button!!" Is the "related tags" feature. I always put as many as I can think of, click that, and then just go down the list, clicking them to add them. Sometimes they're more obvious ones I've missed and others are ones I'd never think existed, like eyebrows.

I'd say to only up the tag limit if that feature was made a bit more prominent. Aside from the people who don't tag because of laziness, I think most just don't know about the tags and don't realise that feature exists, with it just looking like a hyperlink to a wiki rather than a "this is a seriously helpful feature, you should really click this" thing.

For example, this post is really under-tagged:
post #1870555

Click "edit" > "related tags" and there's already a *lot* of tags you could apply to put it above ten.

Sorry for going on about it, but it does kinda bother me that people don't use that feature, and I'm pretty sure it's because most people don't know about it. Even on the new upload form, after using big buttons for everything else, the "related tags" link is still a small bit of text.

To be fair, if that feature *was* more prominent, you could probably set the limit much higher.

Quick edit:
It still doesn't really cover the unknown tags that it doesn't suggest, like inner_ear_fluff, which often only gets suggested when you add tuft, but then you'd still need to know tuft was a possible tag. I still think it'd be a useful start in increasing tags on posts though.

Pupslut said:
Just as some info:
tagcount:4..7 only returns three pages,
tagcount:4..10 returns 78 pages.

With saying an exception for zero_pictured, I couldn't help but think "what if people don't know about that tag?", I think upping the tags is a good way to just stop people uploading, as people who don't know half the tags would just not bother.

Secondly, one feature I really wish was highlighted, then had flashing arrows to it saying "click this button!!" Is the "related tags" feature. I always put as many as I can think of, click that, and then just go down the list, clicking them to add them. Sometimes they're more obvious ones I've missed and others are ones I'd never think existed, like eyebrows.

I'd say to only up the tag limit if that feature was made a bit more prominent. Aside from the people who don't tag because of laziness, I think most just don't know about the tags and don't realise that feature exists, with it just looking like a hyperlink to a wiki rather than a "this is a seriously helpful feature, you should really click this" thing.

For example, this post is really under-tagged:
post #1870555

Click "edit" > "related tags" and there's already a *lot* of tags you could apply to put it above ten.

Sorry for going on about it, but it does kinda bother me that people don't use that feature, and I'm pretty sure it's because most people don't know about it. Even on the new upload form, after using big buttons for everything else, the "related tags" link is still a small bit of text.

To be fair, if that feature *was* more prominent, you could probably set the limit much higher.

Quick edit:
It still doesn't really cover the unknown tags that it doesn't suggest, like inner_ear_fluff, which often only gets suggested when you add tuft, but then you'd still need to know tuft was a possible tag. I still think it'd be a useful start in increasing tags on posts though.

I don't think ignorance should be the reason to hold back, if anything a higher tag minimum should encourage people to learn the system if they wish to post here, something of this nature would likely get a PSA from an admin, include links to the tags wiki and tagging cheat sheet in said PSA, and I don't think there would be much issue. Also remember that most mainstream tags implicate, and the only people I've seen whom haven't been able to tag with quality are those that haven't taken the time to read the tagging system, or those whom only do the bar minimum. The ladder being the biggest reason I want a upped tag minimum.

Pupslut said:
tagcount:4..7 only returns three pages,

Returns zero now. I got bored. o.o

CCoyote said:
Returns zero now. I got bored. o.o

ahahha I also hit order:tagcount_asc

leomole said:
That is one way to address the issue of undertagging.

A better way I think, is for us to set to default the improved uploading page: https://e621.net/post/upload?use_new=true

Discussion in forum #256093

Wait what, how long has this page been a thing? This is great.
Also lets me shave some tags off the quick list.

I love when people see a problem and fix it. Come by my house, I'll give you cookies <3