Creating a partran_(character) tag and then making the patran tag a copyright tag. He commissions a lot of stuff, most of it in the same theme.

Peekaboo said:
Creating a partran_(character) tag and then making the patran tag a copyright tag. He commissions a lot of stuff, most of it in the same theme.

I thought we didn't tag commissioners...? Has that changed?
If we start doing it for one, we'd have to do it for all; and that's going to get messy quickly.

Genjar said:
I thought we didn't tag commissioners...? Has that changed?
If we start doing it for one, we'd have to do it for all; and that's going to get messy quickly.

We don't?
I've seen it a few times, that dude who commissions that comic about lions having incest sex, for example.

Edit: Also, marefurryfan.

Peekaboo said:
We don't?

Just what I've heard from other taggers. I'm not sure if admins have ever said anything about it, but I was under the impression that the commission info should go in the description.

From what I remember, the argument against tagging it was was that it's pointless for searching: there's usually no common themes that aren't already covered by characters.

Additionally, tagging (for example) Pokemon images as copyright to someone else besides Nintendo might not be a good idea. Not after what happened to paheal.

And it'd be messy. Some commissioners are also artists, and character owners: so that's three separate tags for the same person. For instance, just about everything tagged as Nicobay would also need to be tagged as Nicobay_(commissioner).

As far as I know, it's greatly discouraged to create commissioner tags. And though a few have slipped through, they tend to get cleaned up when people catch it and/or have the time. I don't know what the official word on it is though, I just swear I've seen an admin agree about this somewhere and it does seem to be the consensus. Sometimes I use the commissioner's name to differentiate a character-who-has-a-common-name's tag from the rest, by adding the owner's name in parentheses after the name to make the character tag. It kills two birds with one stone, but only when it's needed. And sometimes I include commissioner info in the description with the other "about this image" type of info. But I don't think they're supposed to get their own tag though.

https://e621.net/post/index/1/pussy%20-female%20-male%20-herm%20-intersex%20-ambiguous_gender

Lance_Armstrong said:
https://e621.net/post/index/1/pussy%20-female%20-male%20-herm%20-intersex%20-ambiguous_gender[/quote]

Did most of them. However, there's still a handful left that I wasn't quite sure which way to tag them. Hopefully someone with a little more experience on tough-to-tag-gender stuff (Genjar maybe?) can get those last ten.

Whoa. That project's nearly finished? I didn't expect to see that in my lifetime.
Whoever's been tagging that overtime deserves a medal...or dozen.

There's still a few left. I'd personally tag most as female, but I know some taggers would disagree. We might need admin calls for those.

v Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking about. I should've taken closer look at the search. But at least that one's shrinking too.

Genjar said:
Whoa. That project's nearly finished? I didn't expect to see that in my lifetime.
Whoever's been tagging that overtime deserves a medal...or dozen.

There's still a few left. I'd personally tag most as female, but I know some taggers would disagree. We might need admin calls for those.

I'm going to guess you're thinking of this one: https://e621.net/post/index/1/female%20male%20-straight%20sex%20-bisexual%20-intersex%20-gay%20-ambiguous_gender and no, it's been shaved down to only 7 pages as opposed to the 15-20 pages it used to have. So it could get there, but it's not there yet.

Thanks, fp. @g: that was easy mode... pussy, hold the gender.

furrypickle said:
I'm going to guess you're thinking of this one: https://e621.net/post/index/1/female%20male%20-straight%20sex%20-bisexual%20-intersex%20-gay%20-ambiguous_gender and no, it's been shaved down to only 7 pages as opposed to the 15-20 pages it used to have. So it could get there, but it's not there yet.

That feel when you forgot a project you started. :V
I really need to start tagging more.
Apart from that one, which is the most urgent project in need of fixing?

Peekaboo said:
That feel when you forgot a project you started. :V
I really need to start tagging more.
Apart from that one, which is the most urgent project in need of fixing?

I would say tagging all the basic tags taht get forgotten : orientation, number of characters, and mistags on commonly mistagged posts (I did back_turned vs from_behind tho)

Yeah, I concur.
All of those basic tags are extremely useful in narrowing down other projects, so if you run out of other things to do... tagging the missing orientations and character counts always helps.

(As for back_turned != from behind, that's an another eternity project: no matter how often it is cleaned, there's always new ones. Maybe we should consider aliasing from_behind to something like sex_from_behind or from_behind_position, to clarify the usage.)

Genjar said:
Yeah, I concur.
All of those basic tags are extremely useful in narrowing down other projects, so if you run out of other things to do... tagging the missing orientations and character counts always helps.

I currently have a project of my own, I am cleaning the "tail" tags a lot of post are mixed up or mistagged, and a few implication could be created.

Peekaboo said:
We don't?
I've seen it a few times, that dude who commissions that comic about lions having incest sex, for example.

Edit: Also, marefurryfan.

I just thought about another one - Whitekitten
In his case, he having his own tag is really important, since it allows users to avoid the content that is most always present in his art. I.e. women being raped and slaughtered.

Well... I'm new here. How do I start a tagging project?

Glutamate said:
Well... I'm new here. How do I start a tagging project?

Welcome! :)

Before you take on any tagging projects I would suggest taking some time to go through lots of posts and clicking the question marks next to the tags, this will take you to the tags' wiki entries explaining where and why to use the tags.

Also have a look at the tagging checklist here: https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=e621%3Atagging_checklist for more information.

If you are ever unsure of something just ask, there will always be someone willing to help you out. Asking for advice is much better than making a mess and making someone have to go through your edits and correct everything.

Once you feel you're ready there is a list of tagging projects here: https://e621.net/forum/show/142149

DragonFox69 said:
Also have a look at the tagging checklist here: https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=e621%3Atagging_checklist for more information.

If you are ever unsure of something just ask, there will always be someone willing to help you out. Asking for advice is much better than making a mess and making someone have to go through your edits and correct everything.

Once you feel you're ready there is a list of tagging projects here: https://e621.net/forum/show/142149

Thank you!
So, what exactly is a tagging project? You just propose it and then people help you do it? Any deadlines? Any rewards?

Glutamate said:
Any rewards?

Well, it increases the "Tag edits" count on your profile.

Glutamate said:
Thank you!
So, what exactly is a tagging project? You just propose it and then people help you do it? Any deadlines? Any rewards?

Tagging projects are in a way their own reward. Useful and concise tags are what makes e621 a great site, without them we would be just another image board. Most of the time, diligent users just go about their day browsing images and correcting tags when they see mistakes, but sometimes someone notices a big problem that needs to be manually fixed on thousands of images, and is going to take a lot of work. When a user finds a truly massive problem they'll bring it up here, and get many people to work on fixing it.

If you're an awesome user, and tag things appropriately and fix messed up tags, you'll eventually get noticed by the mods/admins and they'll grant you some more privileges.

So in other words, don't worry about starting a tagging project yet, instead you should just learn the tags and figure out how they all work (including tag aliases/implications), or you could join an existing project. Just have fun :D

Glutamate said:
Thank you!
So, what exactly is a tagging project? You just propose it and then people help you do it? Any deadlines? Any rewards?

A (probably) made-up example of a tagging project:

For years people have been tagging things feet. At first this applied mostly to human feet, but also when the feet are the focus of the picture. Eventually this ended up with 50000 tags tagged feet with a mesh of human feet, anthro feet, foot fetishes, and even some monsters and other creatures being tagged feet just because they happen to have a foot showing in the background. The result is that the tag is rendered basically useless and impractical for searching/blacklisting.

A user notices this and proposes that this is a problem on the forums, some discussion happens over the next few weeks and a plan has been put into place with the blessing of the admins.
There was also some discussion about how under-utilized the foot_fetish tag is and that it should probably be tagged too. Since this tag was alredy agreed upon in the past, it didn't need admin approval.

• The main project: Feet should be broken down into human_feet, foot_focus, 2_toes, 3_toes, etc.
• A related (informal) project: The barely used foot_fetish tag should probably be tagged while we're at it.

Since there is no way to automate this, it all has to be retagged manually on each individual post by volunteers who show interest in improving the site.

Edit: Oh, and no deadlines that I've ever seen. The closest was more "this is a high priority right now" when a huge amount of tags accidently got mixed together (I think it was masturbation and handjob, which got mixed up with female masturbation) and it screwed up the tags for a short period of time, but otherwise no.

Recommended reading: e621:Tag what you see and the actual policy (which is actually shorter).
Optional: Overly specific (semi-related, but it's about preventing tag bloat), howto:tag genders (if you do anything with genders keep this handy).

Just a quick question: which one sounds better, feralized or feralization?

I've already tagged a few, since it looks like there's enough to warrant having a tag for them. But which tag would be better for 'non-ferals turned into ferals'?

Genjar said:
Just a quick question: which one sounds better, feralized or feralization?

I've already tagged a few, since it looks like there's enough to warrant having a tag for them. But which tag would be better for 'non-ferals turned into ferals'?

feralized makes more sense to me. a) sounds better, and b) more consistent with anthrofied
Unless the picture depicts a -transformation- from non-feral to feral -- IMO that warrants its own tag (and feralization fits that case well)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. It's also more consistent with humanized. I guess I'll move those over, unless someone objects..

Feralized sounds good to me and some really good points made in favor of it. I think it sounds like a good plan.

Genjar said:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. It's also more consistent with humanized. I guess I'll move those over, unless someone objects..

Being consistent with humanized is a good enough reason for me.

*zation
*sation
*ized
*ised

Genjar said:
Just a quick question: which one sounds better, feralized or feralization?

I've already tagged a few, since it looks like there's enough to warrant having a tag for them. But which tag would be better for 'non-ferals turned into ferals'?

Agreed for the same reasons everyone else stated, but also because feralization sounds too much like sterilization to me, lol.

Shouldn't we consider aliasing ponification to ponified then?

Circeus said:
Shouldn't we consider aliasing ponification to ponified then?

Sure sure, I like tag consistency

For the love of [deity], why don't people tag their breast sizes more often?

What's the point of having a blacklist if you have to be the one to add the blacklisted tags in the first place

titanmelon said:
For the love of [deity], why don't people tag their breast sizes more often?

What's the point of having a blacklist if you have to be the one to add the blacklisted tags in the first place

I'll be honest, I probably don't tag then as often as I should simply because I'm not often a good judge of which tag fits which breast sizes. If the wiki's for each size were better organized I know I would have a better time at it, I suspect most people have the same problem.

A small (currently 30-50 posts) one: loli rating:s . Per the wiki, apparently loli should only be tagged on explicit or questionable posts.

savageorange said:
A small (currently 30-50 posts) one: loli rating:s . Per the wiki, apparently loli should only be tagged on explicit or questionable posts.

Hrm. I tried, but I think I've seen too much porn to rate most of those properly. Many seem questionable to me, but I dunno if that's just my dirty mind talking. :P

Genjar said:
Hrm. I tried, but I think I've seen too much porn to rate most of those properly. Many seem questionable to me, but I dunno if that's just my dirty mind talking. :P

I see a few I can pull out. I don't know that I'll be able to hit all of them, but every little bit helps with these borderline cases.

Edit: Easier than I thought. There's 6 more that I couldn't quite place one way or the other.

I will be glad to help!

brother -sister -brothers -brother_and_sister -mother -father -- about 120 posts, mostly missing relation tags (brothers, brother_and_sister, mother_and_son, mother_and_daughter, father_and_son, father_and_daughter, cousins.)

similarly -brother sister -brothers -brother_and_sister -mother -father.

A lot of the characters from Animal Crossing aren't getting the *_(animal_crossing) suffix to their names, which results in them being tagged along with any character with the same name. While a few of them have been fortunate to not have other characters with that same name, I feel that they should still get the suffix just to be safe.

Furrin_Gok said:
A lot of the characters from Animal Crossing aren't getting the *_(animal_crossing) suffix to their names, which results in them being tagged along with any character with the same name. While a few of them have been fortunate to not have other characters with that same name, I feel that they should still get the suffix just to be safe.

Some search links to help:

• apollo)
• diana)
• hugh)
• isabelle)
• olivia)
• villager)
• winnie)
• - tom_nook (0 results)
• whitney)
• -digby (0 results)
• reese)
• kicks)
• rosie)
• rover)
• cyrus)
• bob)
• francine)
• -lolly (0 results)
• bonbon)
• -gracie (0 results)
• chief)
• fang)
• carmen)
• marina)
• -punchy (0 results)
• -marshal (0 results)
• bianca)
• tiffany)
• freya)

Could we get a cleanup in aisle straight solo? This one goes wrong in a surprising number of ways. I'm not even sure the ones with disembodied penises are wrong.

The ones with disembodied penises should be straight duo. This is kind of an odd case -- disembodied tentacles don't count as a character, but disembodied penises do. Dildos don't (meaning that TWYS kind of falls over here -- you can't always tell whether something is disembodied_penis or dildo)

Anyway, a more accurate search may be straight solo -duo, because of multi-scene images.

savageorange said:
Some search links to help:

I tried my hand at going through some of those. I don't know the characters that well though so I only went through name animal_crossing and moved any over that looked like it was that character. There's probably still a few laying around that didn't get labeled animal_crossing (which is easily possible since only a few are actually implicated it).

savageorange said:
The ones with disembodied penises should be straight duo. This is kind of an odd case -- disembodied tentacles don't count as a character, but disembodied penises do. Dildos don't (meaning that TWYS kind of falls over here -- you can't always tell whether something is disembodied_penis or dildo)

Anyway, a more accurate search may be straight solo -duo, because of multi-scene images.

If that wasn't confusing enough, there's also the penis_tentacles (which tend to get tagged with penis).

On the search though, I usually do the equivalent of straight ~solo ~solo_focus -duo -group because you never know what something is going to get labeled in the end.

pants_pull is a mess. I've sorted a bunch, but at a guess, over half are just pants_down (when no one is touching them) or pantsing (when someone else is doing it and surprising the recipient), with a smattering of panty_pull.

ETA: Nevermind. I finished it.

31h253 said:
Could we get a cleanup in aisle straight solo? This one goes wrong in a surprising number of ways. I'm not even sure the ones with disembodied penises are wrong.

I've started cleaning this and it seems there are two main resons for the mistags:

1. Posts containing disembodied_penis are being tagged as solo.
2. Posts with one female character with cum, dildo and/or tentacles in the picture are being tagged as straight which implies male and female.

Here's a small project to look into: anthro not_furry

I would look into it myself, but I'm not exactly sure what constitutes not_furry. I generally only tag it for posts that are obviously unrelated and leave the rest alone, but I'm not sure enough about them to go through and retag them.

parasprite said:
Here's a small project to look into: anthro not_furry

I would look into it myself, but I'm not exactly sure what constitutes not_furry. I generally only tag it for posts that are obviously unrelated and leave the rest alone, but I'm not sure enough about them to go through and retag them.

Many of pictures I see (like orcs) falls under humanoid which is not furry.
BTW what is status of animal_ears? Animal ears wiki states that:

Although kemonomimi characters are generally considered not furry, the style tends to be fairly well-tolerated within in the furry fandom.

but not_furry wiki states:

Anything that cannot be considered even remotely furry gets this tag. This uses the term furry in a loose sense, which includes arguably distant things such as kemonomimi as being furry.

So I don't know whether pure animal_ears pics should get not_furry tag or not.

I'm also not sure how to classify flora_fauna in pictures like
post #432082

I don't think that orcs and such should be tagged as anthros, now that they have their own humanoid category. But it'd probably be best to have a consensus about that before untagging them.

Granberia said:
BTW what is status of animal_ears?

No idea. It has been discussed a of times, but it's one of those things that splits opinions: half of the users say that they're not furry, and the other half disagrees.

And yeah, the wiki is ambiguous. I don't know how to tag them, so I usually add -animal_ears to my project searches. :/

Genjar said:
I don't think that orcs and such should be tagged as anthros, now that they have their own humanoid category. But it'd probably be best to have a consensus about that before untagging them.

Uhm, you were a little late. At least for those tagged with anthro not_furry.

No idea. It has been discussed a of times, but it's one of those things that splits opinions: half of the users say that they're not furry, and the other half disagrees.

And yeah, the wiki is ambiguous. I don't know how to tag them, so I usually add -animal_ears to my project searches. :/

So...
not_furry are such posts that when you upload one of them you can't be sure whether admin will delete it for being irrelevant.
We're not sure whether animal_ears are not_furry.
Therefore when you upload animal_ears post you can't be sure whether you can't be sure whether admin will delete it for being irrelevant.
Sounds awesome. Do we have, by any chance, any tag that we're not sure whether it should imply animal_ears?

Granberia said:
Many of pictures I see (like orcs) falls under humanoid which is not furry.
BTW what is status of animal_ears? Animal ears wiki states that:
but not_furry wiki states:
So I don't know whether pure animal_ears pics should get not_furry tag or not.

Note that I'm the last person to edit that wiki. Before I edited it, it read:

Kemonomimi characters are generally considered not furry, but the style is more tolerated today in the furry fandom.

Which is awkward gramatically, but is even less awkward than the last edit 2 years before that:

Kemonomimi considered are generally not a furry but the style is more tolerated today in the furry fandom.

Oh, but the only thing that ends up here that I can say for certain is not_furry is things like anime/hentai (excepting certain ones like utawarerumono). I'm torn as far as computer-rendered alien 3D porn goes.

But if there was a picture of something that was just a human from 2kinds, it's obviously not something I'd be willing to tag not_furry...because...well... the rest of the series is.

Granberia said:
Uhm, you were a little late. At least for those tagged with anthro not_furry.

Those and similar tags usuallly tagged as humanoid, which to me almost feels like a copout...a useful copout...but a copout all the same.

Genjar said:

No idea. It has been discussed a couple of times, but it's one of those things that splits opinions: half of the users say that they're not furry, and the other half disagrees.

And yeah, the wiki is ambiguous. I don't know how to tag them, been avoiding tagging those the best I can. :/

Granberia said:
Many of pictures I see (like orcs) falls under humanoid which is not furry.
BTW what is status of animal_ears? Animal ears wiki states that:
but not_furry wiki states:
So I don't know whether pure animal_ears pics should get not_furry tag or not.

I'm actually not sure the wiki for humanoid should have that part about being also not_furry. Seems like it is combining meanings and unnecessarily confusing the issue.

I always saw it as a venn diagram with not_furry on one side and including things like orcs, a lot of flora_fauna, etc. And then humanoid on the other side, and including all of your almost-human-except-for-[fill in the blank here] types of creatures. So human-except-for-the-animal-ears would be a natural fit for humanoid under that definition, and that would reduce all the times they're mistagged as human just so that some poor soul can blacklist it from their searches because its "too human-like" for what they want. So, stuff like human-except-for-random-animal-ears would only get humanoid but is obviously still considered to be furry. While stuff that's non-furry but still humanlike (like fairies and a lot of your human-except-it-has: wings, or a tail, or funny skin-color, or horns, etc) might end up with both humanoid and not_furry depending on the details. And stuff like a lot of flora_fauna and a lot of goblins, orcs, etc would only get the not_furry tag.

The wiki for humanoid doesn't allow for this type of usage. But I think it would work a lot better this way, and allow a clear distinction between stuff that's "too humanlike but still isn't technically human enough for the human tag" (those would go under humanoid regardless if they're also not_furry or not) vs "stuff that's not furry, but is something else" like that sunflower girl granberia thumbed, or most of your orcs, trolls, goblins, flora_fauna, demons, a lot of aliens, etc with only a few exceptions. (those would go under not_furry regardless if they're also humanoid or not). And not treat them as exclusive tags since they're about different things and they sometimes overlap.

So we'd tag animal_ears as humanoid?
Yes, that seems like a good fit for them. I'd certainly prefer that to the current system, largely because we have so many categories that it's hard to exclude those from searches (because of the tag limit).

The humanoid wiki entry is just work in progress. I wrote it because nobody else volunteered, but I'm not fluent in English and it'd be great if someone could update and clarify it.

The reason I put in that bit about non-furries was so that species such as gnoll (see the wiki entry) or lizardfolk wouldn't get tagged as humanoid. (Those species are generally classified as monstrous humanoids in RPGs, but anthro is a better fit for them here.)

Genjar said:
So we'd tag animal_ears as humanoid?

I currently tag most of them humanoid and very occasionally I'll actually tag one anthro. I figure 9999/10000 posts should fit under human, anthro, humanoid, or feral (ignoring things like centaur and satyr because I gave up on those for the moment) and I'd started going through -human -anthro -humanoid -feral with this in mind.

I personally tag them as humanoid simply because when you don't they end up in really random searches (I tend to use -human -humanoid a lot because I'm a pleb like that).

Genjar said:
The humanoid wiki entry is just work in progress. I wrote it because nobody else volunteered, but I'm not fluent in English and it'd be great if someone could update and clarify it.

Believe it or not, one of the big reasons I haven't even touched that wiki is because I thought you did such a good job explaining it.

Does anyone know what species tag should get moomins? For me they look like anthro hippos, but I'm not 100% sure.

Need help with this project: https://e621.net/forum/show/145699

"Alias deleted. It looks like both muscular_intersex and muscular_female serve a valid purpose as tags and should be kept. I also implicated muscular_intersex to --> muscles since muscular_female is already implicated.

Any help restoring images that should be tagged with muscular_intersex is appreciated. I got only some them and I'm pretty sure there's a lot of images still out there which could use the tag."

Peekaboo said:
Need help with this project: https://e621.net/forum/show/145699

"Alias deleted. It looks like both muscular_intersex and muscular_female serve a valid purpose as tags and should be kept. I also implicated muscular_intersex to --> muscles since muscular_female is already implicated.

Any help restoring images that should be tagged with muscular_intersex is appreciated. I got only some them and I'm pretty sure there's a lot of images still out there which could use the tag."

Alright, I did a bunch of them for now. I went through most of muscles intersex -male -muscular_intersex muscular_female and some of intersex muscles -male -muscular_intersex. I plan to do more later but these tend to be pretty obvious so I hit the tag limit pretty quickly.

After we're done with this, it may be worth going through muscular_female intersex because I've already found a few images that were tagged female just because they had musclular_female tagged. I think a few people may have tagged it thinking "female body" or something (since we didn't have muscular_intersex for a while). Edit 2: Never mind, there was only about 50 and I just went through them.

Edit: I went through most of gideon intersex, hopefully that should work with most of them. I also went back and removed herm from a number of images that were just dickgirl (there were a surprising number of them).

Edit 3: Alright, went through muscles intersex -male -muscular_intersex and skimmed hyper -muscular_intersex to pop it over 1000 posts. I'll leave the rest to you guys for now.

I just added the tag group:sex positions page because one doesn't exist

Do whatever you want with it

There's also from_behind, but I'm not sure if it should be listed there. Since it's more generic than other positions.

Recent discussion of year tags has reminded me:

Posted this year and missing year tags:

• {{date:>2014-01-01 -2014 -2013 -2012 -2011 -2010}

(the remaining tags -- 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 -- will have to be excluded via blacklist, I guess.)

(and similar permutations, eg:

• date:<2014-01-01 date:>=2013-01-01 -2013 -2012 -2011 -2010
• date:<2013-01-01 date:>=2012-01-01 -2012 -2011 -2010 -2009
• date:<2012-01-01 date:>=2011-01-01 -2011 -2010 -2009 -2008
• date:<2011-01-01 date:>=2010-01-01 -2010 -2009 -2008 -2007
• date:<2010-01-01 date:>=2009-01-01 -2009 -2008 -2007 -2006

)

EDIT: Thanks to Genjar in the Tagging Project thread for notifying me that negative wildcard searches don't work currently. I've corrected the above links.

Total missing year tags, over the entire database, number about 383000. )

EDIT: As furrypickle points out, being uploaded in 2014 does NOT mean that they should be tagged 2014.
It's probably true that -most- uploads in a given year will also have been created that year, but they could easily date back to 1990 -- the year tag should match the original publication date, not the upload date.

savageorange said:
Recent discussion of year tags has reminded me:

Uploads missing year tags:

date:>2014-01-01 -2014 -2013 -2012 -2011 -2010

(the remaining tags -- 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 -- will have to be excluded via blacklist, I guess.

(and similar permutations, eg date:<2014-01-01, ...)

This would be great actually.

Just to clarify if someone is jumping into this tagging project for the first time: the year we want tagged on the image will be the year the image was made and not the year it was uploaded here. Sometimes they're the same, but sometimes they're not the same if the image was uploaded here months or years later. Just something I know some taggers will take for granted as being obvious, but there's a chance that not everyone would automatically know that.

furrypickle said:
This would be great actually.

Just to clarify if someone is jumping into this tagging project for the first time: the year we want tagged on the image will be the year the image was made and not the year it was uploaded here. Sometimes they're the same, but sometimes they're not the same if the image was uploaded here months or years later. Just something I know some taggers will take for granted as being obvious, but there's a chance that not everyone would automatically know that.

Thanks, I've edited to clarify that. In general, we have the 'date:' metatag, which I hope might clue in some people that we automatically timestamp every post as it's posted, so tagging according to the post timestamp is not only incorrect but 100% redundant.

This is a large project. Items in the 'this year' selection number 88000+, in the 'all years' selection they number ~383000 total.
Over in this thread I suggested that web scraping could be reasonably used to correctly assign these tags, for images that have suitable source links (eg. to DA, FA, HF, IB, etc rather than a direct link to an image itself). My estimate was that 71% of post (search used: source:*/* compared to frontpage post count) have source links, and perhaps half of those posts have -suitable- source links --> about 35.9% of posts missing year tags might be able to be tagged in this way.

EDIT: I did a quick histogram on the site domains found in source URIs. These are the top 9 in my sample:

• www.furaffinity.net (127972 occurrences)
• deviantart.com (32863 occurrences)
• furaffinity.net
• www.pixiv.net
• tumblr.com
• inkbunny.net (11384 occurrences)
• www.hentai-foundry.com
• rule34.paheal.net
• metabooru.com (1185 occurrences)

Of these, #1, #2, #3, #4, #6 and #7 should be reliably webscrapable (with a valid login + an appropriate XPath).

#5 has varying styling that may or may not include date information.
#8 is incorrect (date information is upload time, not date of original publication)
#9 appears to be dead (server not found)

I've been chugging along finding and tagging dates using this search. Any picture from 2009 or earlier get filtered to the top.

Sneaky said:
I've been chugging along finding and tagging dates using this search. Any picture from 2009 or earlier get filtered to the top.

You linked a furaffinity image, not a search format...

Furrin_Gok said:
You linked a furaffinity image, not a search format...

Lol, that's what I get for multi-tasking. This is what I meant.

I edited the original post.

Sneaky said:
Lol, that's what I get for multi-tasking. This is what I meant.

I edited the original post.

I think it might be easier to just make a blacklist line like this:

2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980

And probably these as well:

not_furry, real

This opens up the search so that you can break up what's left by adding things like anthro, equine, rating:q (tends to be harder to find the source for), hassource:true, source:deviantart.com, artist_that_always_puts_the_date_in_the_top_left_corner, etc.

I'd probably still recommend using -2014 -2013 -2012 -2011 (-2011 optional) at least just because that would eliminate over 100000 images from the search while also reducing the chance of getting a lot of blank pages in the process, but you still get the benefit of being able to use an extra couple terms.

Related: order:id is kind of fun because it's oldest first. You might be interested in that one as well.

Edit: date:2007-1-1..2009-12-31 would eliminate anything posted past 2009, which would probably help you quite a bit if you're concentrating on the older posts.

parasprite said:
I'd probably still recommend using -2014 -2013 -2012 -2011 (-2011 optional) at least just because that would eliminate over 100000 images from the search while also reducing the chance of getting a lot of blank pages in the process, but you still get the benefit of being able to use an extra couple terms.

I found that temporarily adjusting my blacklist (which I do not otherwise use) is often a very convenient way to get around the search term limit.

Circeus said:
I found that temporarily adjusting my blacklist (which I do not otherwise use) is often a very convenient way to get around the search term limit.

It works well for them because it doesn't cost the servers anything; it's all processed on your own computer.

i just started swapping out some of the pics tagged "bigger_version_at_the_source" with the full size pics after coming across one with that tag (the tag bugs me as it strikes me as the uploader being lazy). hope thats ok.

oh and also narrowing the source links on said pics down from 3 (why is there 3 source links all leading to the same place basically?) to 1.

edit: i can only do 9 uploads at a time currently so it might take me a bit of time to swap them all out.

treos said:
i just started swapping out some of the pics tagged "bigger_version_at_the_source" with the full size pics after coming across one with that tag (the tag bugs me as it strikes me as the uploader being lazy). hope thats ok.

oh and also narrowing the source links on said pics down from 3 (why is there 3 source links all leading to the same place basically?) to 1.

edit: i can only do 9 uploads at a time currently so it might take me a bit of time to swap them all out.

Finding and uploading the bigger quality version is always awesome and very much encouraged. *high fives* That is excellent!

However, (and this is important) please don't remove alternate source links. Those need to stay on there. I understand you have good intentions and that the reasons behind this rule may not be obvious. So I'm going to explain why each type of source link is important. For example, on post #576121 there's three possible types of source links for the same image:

https://inkbunny.net/RAGEmachine
https://inkbunny.net/submissionview.php?id=524175
https://inkbunny.net/files/full/684/684249_RAGEmachine_myst_christmasbubbles.jpg

Now you asked 'what's the point of having all of them when they lead to almost the same place?' There's two main types of reasons: 1, as backup links and 2, the URLs themselves provide different kinds of information. Specifically though:

• The link to the artist's gallery/profile (https://inkbunny.net/RAGEmachine) gives us the artist's name. Even if they delete their account so that the link itself no longer works, we still have their name off of the URL. Which is useful for double-checking the tagging. Or for trying to re-find the artist elsewhere on the web.

• The link to the page the image was on (https://inkbunny.net/submissionview.php?id=524175) is probably the most obviously useful. It has all the information about the image on that page, so of course it would be handy to include it as a source. It is handy BUT it doesn't have everything. This type of URL is perfect for going straight to the image so that you don't have to search the artist's entire gallery. But if they ever delete the image, reupload it with a change, or move to a new account, etc then this would become a broken link. And without a second link to the artist's profile/gallery, then it's hard to find out if they just moved the image or if they deleted their entire profile. It's also a lot harder to find their gallery page when the more direct link you had no longer works. Links don't last forever. But if we also have a second source link that goes to their gallery page, then that lets us see if they moved accounts and reuploaded their art there instead. So a link directly to the image's page is extremely useful. But it can be very limiting if it's the ONLY source link. It's much better when we have at least a second source link to the artist's gallery as well.

• A direct image link (https://inkbunny.net/files/full/684/684249_RAGEmachine_myst_christmasbubbles.jpg) is mainly useful because it gives us the original file name. Depending on the site, that can give important clues about the image, (like the artist's name, some keywords to search under, etc). And it can also help us search for more information about it, especially when links break and sources have to be re-found.

Because all of these types of source links are useful, we purposely made it so that e621 allows up to five URLs as sources. That way we could have all three types of source links on an image and we wouldn't have to choose between them. It's better if we can have them all instead of choosing just one. So you need to keep the other types of source links on the image instead of narrowing it down to only one type of source link. The others are just as important, and we need to keep all of them whenever it is possible. And we generally don't like users to be removing any valid source link as long as there's room to keep all of them. Hopefully that's clear. If not you can Dmail me about it with any questions and I'd be happy to answer them.

That was important. But I also don't want it to overshadow the rest of what you're doing with uploading the bigger versions from the bigger_version_at_the_source tag. Because that is also important and is great for the site. Often times the bigger version is discovered later by someone else (furaffinity limits size more than inkbunny for instance, but a lot of images get found first on the artist's FA account). Or the uploader isn't familiar enough with the tricks of the source to know how to upload the biggest version the first time. But any time someone can upgrade the image we have with a better quality version is hugely appreciated. So, thanks for doing some of that. There's a lot under that tag which need doing, and it benefits everyone on the site whenever someone takes the time to do some of them. So that part is very awesome.

treos said:
i just started swapping out some of the pics tagged "bigger_version_at_the_source" with the full size pics after coming across one with that tag (the tag bugs me as it strikes me as the uploader being lazy). hope thats ok.

oh and also narrowing the source links on said pics down from 3 (why is there 3 source links all leading to the same place basically?) to 1.

edit: i can only do 9 uploads at a time currently so it might take me a bit of time to swap them all out.

A bit of a recommendation, I'd avoid trying to reupload pictures that aren't furry (only humans, humanoid, non-furry aliens). Although it may have been approved at some point in the past, the same content would probably get rejected if you tried to reupload it now.

While you might be able to talk them into approving it (I have no idea if they would) it probably isn't worth trying, at least for right now. You wouldn't want to temporarily tie up your upload limit or risk getting it automatically reduced due to deletions, since that would just get in the way of your project.

i'll keep that in mind with further uploads from that tag category. the multiple source links i mean.

"I'd avoid trying to reupload pictures that aren't furry (only humans, humanoid, non-furry aliens). "

ah, that's fine with me. i tend to prefer furries (or non-human creatures in general) over humans anyway. >.>

Mod,s change the tag type for snowflake to general.

parasprite said:
I think it might be easier to just make a blacklist line like this:

And probably these as well:

This opens up the search so that you can break up what's left by adding things like anthro, equine, rating:q (tends to be harder to find the source for), hassource:true, source:deviantart.com, artist_that_always_puts_the_date_in_the_top_left_corner, etc.

I'd probably still recommend using -2014 -2013 -2012 -2011 (-2011 optional) at least just because that would eliminate over 100000 images from the search while also reducing the chance of getting a lot of blank pages in the process, but you still get the benefit of being able to use an extra couple terms.

Related: order:id is kind of fun because it's oldest first. You might be interested in that one as well.

Edit: date:2007-1-1..2009-12-31 would eliminate anything posted past 2009, which would probably help you quite a bit if you're concentrating on the older posts.

Thanks! I'll definitely try some of those.

:/ replacing these pics is raising my upload limit but i can still only flag 5 of the pics i'm replacing at a time so if anyone sees me leave a "bigger version of post #" comment, after i upload 5 pics in a row, thats why.

9, 10, and these next 11 make 30 pics replaced with the larger versions so far.

edit: uh...this ones too big to replace. https://e621.net/post/show/576363 (full size pic is 1189 x 21111 now THAT is an absurd resolution lol) i'll let an admin sort this one out if you guys want the full size pic.

edit2: whats the file dimensions limit anyway? i saw one pic that was a bit over 26000 tall after the one i linked above.

treos said:
:/ replacing these pics is raising my upload limit but i can still only flag 5 of the pics i'm replacing at a time so if anyone sees me leave a "bigger version of post #" comment, after i upload 5 pics in a row, thats why.

9, 10, and these next 11 make 30 pics replaced with the larger versions so far.

edit: uh...this ones too big to replace. https://e621.net/post/show/576363 (full size pic is 1189 x 21111 now THAT is an absurd resolution lol) i'll let an admin sort this one out if you guys want the full size pic.

edit2: whats the file dimensions limit anyway? i saw one pic that was a bit over 26000 tall after the one i linked above.

superabsurd_res

About 99% of the 300-some pics tagged with stitch are in need of the experiment_(species) tag.