The bulk update request #3018 is active.

Reason: Unnecessary and excessive.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3018 (forum #341925) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3018 (forum #341925) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

This is unacceptable. The sound effects tag is almost useless the way it is, onomatopeia has an incorrect definition, and it is near impossible to find non-onomatopoeias for various themes, because artists always add them along with regular sound effects.

Certain specialized themes have sound effects that are incredibly difficult to find due to other themes being vastly more likely to have sound effects applied.

I don’t really see what’s “excessive” about most of these.
Why is a tag for a specific sound effect any less valid than tags for specific articles of clothing or … ? ! etc?
They certainly don’t hurt anything.

They're pretty useless given how little they're used and how little they would be used. If someone's looking for a post with a "gurk" sound effect, and they can't rely on gurk_(sound_effect) to find it, what's the point? It's just bloating the tag list on the few posts it happens to be on.

watsit said:
They're pretty useless given how little they're used and how little they would be used.

so let's use them more

The bulk update request #3034 is active.

Reason: These tags are vital to making the sound_effects tag searchable. The amount of overlapping concepts in art is far too high, and many of these tags address that. Some of these tags attempt to address certain topics where the sound effect is optional, or could otherwise cause a mistag if the user tagged the concept directly. A third important reason why these and other tags I have made similar to these are beneficial is that they target verbs that are not necessarily sound effects. This allows for better transparency when it comes to the broader category tags when we can actually see which terms are being used in the categories.

The system I have designed minimizes the number of tags we need to cover as many sound effects as possible, along with their variant sounds.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3034 (forum #342082) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

strikerman said:
so let's use them more

Easier said than done. A few users tagging it for a time isn't going to be enough, they'll just fall back into disuse and bring the issue back up. And I personally don't think we need to tag every potential word as a sound effect and each potential onomatopoeia.

watsit said:
Easier said than done. A few users tagging it for a time isn't going to be enough, they'll just fall back into disuse and bring the issue back up. And I personally don't think we need to tag every potential word as a sound effect and each potential onomatopoeia.

Each brick we put into the foundation stays there. Enough bricks and we get a wall, that will continue to be described as a wall for years to come. It is not about disuse, it is about being able distinguish between one massive, and mostly separate group of sound effects from another one. The tag is doing a terrible job at that.

We have an opportunity to add clarity to a very murky area of tagging. We also have an opportunity to cut through the noise associated with the tag. I have done much of the hardest part already, while at the same time minimizing the amount of tags needed to accomplish these goals.

Under the current system it is not possible to tell which verbs are a sound effect tag, and which are not. We will know which tags are not a pure sound effect tag through these tags.

thevileone said:
Each brick we put into the foundation stays there.

Except the scope of the foundation is growing faster than how many bricks are put in. It's not as if tagging little by little will ensure all posts will get properly tagged, because the number of posts that the tag would apply to is also growing. In the end, the tags will still only be applied to a small percentage of relevant posts.

thevileone said:
Under the current system it is not possible to tell which verbs are a sound effect tag, and which are not. We will know which tags are not a pure sound effect tag through these tags.

How often is the actual sound effect going to be relevant to finding a post, and not some other aspect like the action being performed, or the things involved in the action? Since literally any word can be used as a sound effect, the likelihood of the specific sound effect being tagged and remembered for a search will be low. Was it smack_(sound_effect) or slap_(sound_effect)? Or was it slam_(sound_effect)? Are those valid tags, or did they tag some other more widely-used word that's close enough?

Not to mention when it comes to other languages. ドン_(sound_effect), ドキ_(sound_effect), etc. They're just as valid as English words for someone wanting to search for posts with them.

watsit said:
Except the scope of the foundation is growing faster than how many bricks are put in. It's not as if tagging little by little will ensure all posts will get properly tagged, because the number of posts that the tag would apply to is also growing. In the end, the tags will still only be applied to a small percentage of relevant posts.

How often is the actual sound effect going to be relevant to finding a post, and not some other aspect like the action being performed, or the things involved in the action? Since literally any word can be used as a sound effect, the likelihood of the specific sound effect being tagged and remembered for a search will be low. Was it smack_(sound_effect) or slap_(sound_effect)? Or was it slam_(sound_effect)? Are those valid tags, or did they tag some other more widely-used word that's close enough?

Not to mention when it comes to other languages. ドン_(sound_effect), ドキ_(sound_effect), etc. They're just as valid as English words for someone wanting to search for posts with them.

It varies from case to case. This is about finding sound effects, and themes with common sound effects. That is the point of most tags, to find the thing the tag is about. ATM, the scope needs to be narrowed to improve the likelihood that the sound effect delivered matches the action the user is trying to search for. There are certain themes with a low probability that the sound effect in the image belongs to the action desired.

At least I assume that the two terms in a search will be related in some way and the searcher does not literally want any sound effect even the unrelated ones. If we have a tag for contact sound effects, the likelihood of that sound effect matching a search for a contact action is going to be higher than trying to search for all of the sound effects.

We can do better than that. Certain sound effects that are common (not every obscure term someone comes up with needs to have a tag) get their own tag, and we can lump synonyms into that tag. For these cases, we can give someone searching for kissing that makes a sound, a 1:1 certainty that the image contains a kiss with a kissing sound. Without such a tag, only about 1 in 10 images containing those two concepts (kissing + sfx) may contain a sound effect pertaining to the kiss.

The idea is that we can have larger categories that cover more sounds, as well as smaller tags for sounds that are worth having their own tag, or sounds that don't neatly fit into a big category.

It is difficult to address all of your points, but most seem to be settled when we keep sound effects that mean or refer to the same thing in one place.

if we are going to use specific sound effects it might be better to group them into tags like <action>_sound_effect rather than to have each individual possible onomatopoeia have one.

darryus said:
if we are going to use specific sound effects it might be better to group them into tags like <action>_sound_effect rather than to have each individual possible onomatopoeia have one.

We are doing this, but only when it applies to verbs that behave in a consistent way, and have synonyms that are used as sound effects. The tags are designed with a primary focus on onomatopoeia. Some of this is a work in progress (I wasn't ready to show off the tags yet), and for some concepts, the onomatopoeia examples are easier to tag than other sound effect examples.

There will be a time to figure out how to include other sounds into these tags, but for right now some tags should remain limited to the obvious examples. The specific format can be used for close derivatives of the term, so close match stuff can be used. It isn't intended to be super restrictive allowing for derived sounds to share the tag. That cuts back on tags we need, while keeping the very similar stuff in one place.

Should we keep these or toss them? I think at worst it's tagbloat, not really harmful. At worst if we alias them away is a lack of search results, especially if they are on images with spanking, slapping, etc happening

rainbow_dash said:
Should we keep these or toss them? I think at worst it's tagbloat, not really harmful. At worst if we alias them away is a lack of search results, especially if they are on images with spanking, slapping, etc happening

I think they're new enough that the best option is to let them be for awhile, to give that system of tags a chance to see how it plays out. Do they keep steadily growing in size or do they get abandoned after x months? Do they stay clean or do some of them get muddy aka need refined? All of that would be more informative about which of these might be useful vs not. I think it's jumping the gun to zap them so soon. There's precious little data to truly judge them with.

Also: a logical and minimal system for it is probably an improvement over the random attempts to tag each individual sound/spelling (which will always happen regardless). Sound effects can be weird overall, sometimes random too, but there ARE some helpful patterns that can add to some contexts. So I don't think it's useless. And it may take some trial and error to find which parts are the most useful. But again, we'd get more data by letting it play out for awhile, so then any decision can be better informed on it. So that's what makes sense to me. Just see how it plays out. If they're dead in a year but two of them have turned out to be helpful, then we'll actually know which ones those are by then. Zapping them won't be any harder if it comes to that, but by then we'll actually know for sure.

But that's just my two cents.

furrypickle said:
I think they're new enough that the best option is to let them be for awhile, to give that system of tags a chance to see how it plays out. Do they keep steadily growing in size or do they get abandoned after x months? Do they stay clean or do some of them get muddy aka need refined? All of that would be more informative about which of these might be useful vs not. I think it's jumping the gun to zap them so soon. There's precious little data to truly judge them with.

Also: a logical and minimal system for it is probably an improvement over the random attempts to tag each individual sound/spelling (which will always happen regardless). Sound effects can be weird overall, sometimes random too, but there ARE some helpful patterns that can add to some contexts. So I don't think it's useless. And it may take some trial and error to find which parts are the most useful. But again, we'd get more data by letting it play out for awhile, so then any decision can be better informed on it. So that's what makes sense to me. Just see how it plays out. If they're dead in a year but two of them have turned out to be helpful, then we'll actually know which ones those are by then. Zapping them won't be any harder if it comes to that, but by then we'll actually know for sure.

But that's just my two cents.

It would be difficult for me to state your message in a more elegant way. Thank you for your input.

Some of these tags were me creating inventory. I don't think many realize just how difficult it is to find some of these verb tags through the onomatopeia tag itself. We consider a number of popular slang terms as onomatopeia, and that obscures other real word stuff in ways that cannot be handled without additional tags. That is one of the purposes of the onomatopoeia tags I made. They capture more verbs, while leaving out a good amount of the slang words that only refer to sounds instead of actions.

The verb tags that have their own tags are ones that don't yet really have their own category yet (or were part of a concept that needed a more refined organization). Not all sound effects may end up getting their own category in the end, so until we have a better way of capturing the verbs, having separate tags will have to do for now. The most common, and well behaved verbs, as well as most classic comic book onomatopoeia will fit into those category tags.

I want to mention that different_sound_effects, and to some extended vowelless_sound_effects are tags we absolutely need. There are concepts that disproportionately take up the onomatopoeia tag, and they commonly appear alongside other sound effects. These serve as ways to find other sound effects even if there is a dominant slang term in the image. Ideally we should have tags that are capable of even sorting through comic page amounts of overlap. There are comics with sound effects on every panel.

It's tag bloat.

The bulk update request #3034 (forum #342082) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

cane751 said:
It's tag bloat.

That's something that should have been discussed before filing/approving the BUR. You don't just alias away half a dozen tags with triple digits post count and a dozen more with 50+ posts without first discussing it, if only because that makes it near impossible to track and undo the alias later.

fifteen said:
That's something that should have been discussed before filing/approving the BUR. You don't just alias away half a dozen tags with triple digits post count and a dozen more with 50+ posts without first discussing it, if only because that makes it near impossible to track and undo the alias later.

Filing the BUR is what gets the discussion started, one could make the argument that it was approved too hastily but that's subjective. One can (nearly) never know whether tags are benign or controversial beforehand.

I share the opinion of some others in the thread, that all the subcategories of onomatopoeia are excessive tagbloat. I can't imagine they'll be tagged accurately and often enough to be useful, additionally I don't know who would be looking for specific types of onomatopoeias in the first place. I think onomatopoeia alone is enough. Although, what furrypickle said is true, we can always check back in in several months or a year to see if it's worth having all the extra tags.

Having smack_(sound_effect) and slap_(sound_effect)
would be like tagging sex and intercourse on the same post.

Like I said, tag bloat.

cane751 said:
Having smack_(sound_effect) and slap_(sound_effect)
would be like tagging sex and intercourse on the same post.

Like I said, tag bloat.

The details can be hashed out, doesn't mean the entire batch should be thrown away.