Description
I had thought of two different ways to do this in mind:
-having like the blacklist another collapsible list of implicated tags and removing those in there from the main tags section.
-making tags itself collapsible while collapsing the implicated tags.

Why would it be usefull?
I don't know whats the goal of tags in posts itself but in my opinion a tag list with imo too many tags while having like half of it being implicated tags can disturb the experience. Mine it does.
The tag list in posts would become easier to operate and search through.

What part/s of the site page/s are affected?
I think only the posts page would be affected

if i'm understanding your proposal correctly,

this would mean, for example, if a post was tagged sandy_cheeks, then the spongebob_squarepants tag would disappear from the tags list?
(because spongebob_squarepants is implied by sandy_cheeks).

isn't it a very common use-case to investigate the copyright tag when you encounter a character you're not familiar with?
i'm sure i do that all the time when i'm browsing

How would the code know whether an individual tag was implicated or original? Using bipface's example, spongebob_squarepants could be either implicated or an original tag. Also, "disturbing the experience" sounds personal and subjective, which is a questionable rationale for something that sounds like a lot of work.

bipface said:
if i'm understanding your proposal correctly,

this would mean, for example, if a post was tagged sandy_cheeks, then the spongebob_squarepants tag would disappear from the tags list?
(because spongebob_squarepants is implied by sandy_cheeks).

isn't it a very common use-case to investigate the copyright tag when you encounter a character you're not familiar with?
i'm sure i do that all the time when i'm browsing

First thank you for your reply. I didn't think of the case of tags implicating tags of other categories. You could make it so that implicated tags to be hidden have to be in the same category but you dont have to because it doesn't disappear it gets hidden
either in the implicated tags if option (1) would be implemented
or under the tag that's implicating if option (2) would be implemented.
(1)In your example sandy_cheeks would be in the normal place like we used to while spongebob_square pants would be under the Implicated tags section which is collapsable.
(2)or sandy_cheeks would be a colapsable tag which contains Spongebob_squarepants.

It might have not much significants but with option (2) you would even have it easier because the copyrigth of the character would be directly under the character and you wouldn't have to search through the copyrights to find the right one if there are many characters and/or copyrights.

ccoyote said:
How would the code know whether an individual tag was implicated or original? Using bipface's example, spongebob_squarepants could be either implicated or an original tag. Also, "disturbing the experience" sounds personal and subjective, which is a questionable rationale for something that sounds like a lot of work.

It simply doesn't matter if. If you search for it it will show up. Also in bipface's example the spongebob_squarepants tag is the copyright while, if I understood you right, the spongebob_squarepants tag your talking about is the character so different tags and sandy_cheeks(character) doesn't implicate spongebob_squarepants(character)

You're right. I ment it subjectiv, too. I just forgot to write it like that. Thanks for the heads up ;D.Changed it

I didn't see the code of this site but depending on how the site is build up it doesn't have to be much work.
Which tags implicate which ones is already there and if you search for those it gets filtered already
With the example from bipface that sandy_cheeks implicates spongebob_squarepants is known
And even if spongebob_squarepants is not tagged in a sandy_cheeks post but you search for spongebob_squarepants that post will still show up.
So that means it is not necessarily realted to much work.

This one, too. Three months passed. Is this now denied or what is up with this?
I would really like to see this, too.

Given the use of implications like female/female → female, it would be impossible to distinguish between a tag that is present separately from the tags that imply it, and tags that are on the image solely because of those implications.
For example, post #598307 has a female background character who exists separately from the foreground female/female pair.

I already thought about that. Almost the same could be said about the momentary situation: Tags the works have are not seperat tags but many are just implicated.
Also that wouldn't hurt that much. The only time where that would lead to confusion would be something like male/female and you search in the tags for female or similar, but having this 100 tags long tag list of some works isn't really a better option in my (subjectiv) opinion. Also you would be able to add many tags at once with this system.
But I would also like it more if those don't get lost. So if we have another category "implicated" but can still move the implicated tags to the category "general" that could be solved.
Even if this is not possible I would like the option of them disappearing more than the momentary one.
I also thought about deleting tags already but if this doesn't get any attention, I don't want to put to much text into it.

Maybe my tolerance for long tag lists is higher than yours, but I rarely run into posts where the tag list is so long as to be unwieldy. And if implicated tags are hidden, then you have to be very familiar with what implications all the tags have to know when a tag is hidden vs missing. And IMO making an implicated category would make tags harder to find. So any collapsing would have to be user activated rather than default.

I'm not sure what you mean about deleting tags. You can't delete the implied tags because the system automatically adds any missing implied tags when the edit is submitted. Anyway the poit of tags is so you can search for or exclude images with certain characteristics, so even if you could delete female from a post with female/female that would be bad practice, as someone who wants to see zero females would now have to blacklist every tag that implies female as opposed to blacklisting that one tag. And someone who only wants to see images with at least one female and their tag of choice like say shower female would then have to search shower ~female/female ~female ~female/male ~female/intersex to get the same effect if the implied tags were removed.

It may also be easier for the developers and more impactful if the hide collapsed everything into tag groups that could be opened and closed. I'm just not seeing how implications disturb the user experience, maybe if you had an example post(s)

kaworu said:
Maybe my tolerance for long tag lists is higher than yours, but I rarely run into posts where the tag list is so long as to be unwieldy. And if implicated tags are hidden, then you have to be very familiar with what implications all the tags have to know when a tag is hidden vs missing. And IMO making an implicated category would make tags harder to find. So any collapsing would have to be user activated rather than default.

The only point is not the lenght of tag lists. Maintaining and looking through becomes easier, too.
I almost don't even look anymore at the tag lists because looking for a tag in a long tag list takes to much time. If the tag list is short that just probably means the tag list is pretty much incomplete and needs much work to complete (implicated tags don't get added by themselfs I think) and probably will be not much useful for looking up tags.
Also you don't have to be familiar (or at least more familiar) with implcations because they are just hidden and not gone. It's just a mousclick away and you'll almost have the same appearance like now. I would even say after some time people would get automatically familiar with implications with my suggestions.

I'm not sure what you mean about deleting tags. You can't delete the implied tags because the system automatically adds any missing implied tags when the edit is submitted. Anyway the poit of tags is so you can search for or exclude images with certain characteristics, so even if you could delete female from a post with female/female that would be bad practice, as someone who wants to see zero females would now have to blacklist every tag that implies female as opposed to blacklisting that one tag. And someone who only wants to see images with at least one female and their tag of choice like say shower female would then have to search shower ~female/female ~female ~female/male ~female/intersex to get the same effect if the implied tags were removed.

I mean the removing tags from works like somebody adds felin tag to a canin work and felin gets removed from that that work. What you describe would be removing the implication relationship of tags. I wouldn't change anything for those.

It may also be easier for the developers and more impactful if the hide collapsed everything into tag groups that could be opened and closed. I'm just not seeing how implications disturb the user experience, maybe if you had an example post(s)

I was searching for an example what proved to be pretty difficult. One point why is because of the vast number of tags but not solely from implications. Mainly clothing tags. I just found a small example at the species category of post #76329 . Ther are 9 tags while 7 being implicated.