Seems people think tags are for showing off they like the artwork. Used to be 20 counts, and aliasing will prevent more in the future.

I agree, and it should probably be applied across-the-board according to a corollary of the tag what you see rule -- namely, tag what you see, not what you feel". I think this greater issue has been addressed already by an admin comment, but I don't remember the thread.

This would also imply that tags like "omg" need to be removed from posts in which the "omg" refers to the viewer's reaction, and not to something happening within the image. I remember seeing a few of these.

Would this also invalidate "cute", though? This, again, is a subjective opinion, but I suspect that most of us find the same things to be "cute" and this has been an effective tag for doing so in the past (at least for me).

I think the issue with this tag is that it's just one example of a number of tags being used by viewers of images for their personal opinions of the art or the content of that art.

"do_not_want" also springs to mind. I have no idea how many others there might be.

I don't see a point for keeping the "what_has_science_done" tag either.

Or at least change it to something less accusing. Like "unusual" or something a bit more descriptive.

There, nuked the troll tags do_want and do_not_want

As for what_has_science_done, I think it's a very clear and defined tag; not everything can be tagged by simple objective means. Sometimes we need these somewhat subjective tags to serve a very important (blacklisting purpose)

Tags like "what_has_science_done" and "nightmare_fuel" are subjective, I agree, but at the same time they're JUST useful enough to warrant keeping, in my opinion.

Plus I don't want to completely eliminate ALL of e621's "personality" from the tags. For instance, there are also tags like lost_my_keys and pinkie_pie_out_of_fucking_nowhere that could most likely be replaced with other tags, but at the same time it's kind of fun having a few more humorous tags like that, as long as they're still serving some sort of function.

But yeah, tags like "do_want" and "do_not_want" are SO subjective that they're basically useless at best, and harmful at worst.

I know there were at least a few "do_not_want"-tagged images that used the tag to refer to a depicted character. I'm not sure if those images also were tagged "surprised" or "frightened" (or whatever might pass for that, here), but the characters in question clearly "did not want" what was happening to them.

RedRaven said:
I know there were at least a few "do_not_want"-tagged images that used the tag to refer to a depicted character. I'm not sure if those images also were tagged "surprised" or "frightened" (or whatever might pass for that, here), but the characters in question clearly "did not want" what was happening to them.

We could perhaps append the do_not_want tag to something like: do_not_want_(meme)

Which could possibly be applied to all the other 'meme' tags in the form of *_(meme)

That way, one can be surer that the tag they're searching for is the meme, and not a just single user's interpretation of it

(Maybe implicating all the *_(meme) tags to meme as well)

Yeah, I rather like the do_not_want tag. I don't think you need to alias it to anything, the appended "(meme)" is if the base tag is ambiguous in some way, which do_not_want is not.

As presently in actual use on this site "do_not_want" is clearly tagged for two entirely different reasons. The first is that the viewer does not want the image (or at least the content of the image). The second is that a character within the image does not want something that's depicted within it.

This, to me, is sufficiently ambiguous as to warrant some sort of action. Frankly, I like the tag, too, but it should be applied only to characters within the image and not state the feelings of a user on this site regarding the image.

I think that appending it to "_(meme)" is the way to go, since it sends a message to the tagger just what the tag is to be used for, especially if the tag as currently defined is invalidated.

This tag was already aliased away as it was horribly misused on every image where the character had an expression of horror or where the image itself was hoorific

RedRaven said:
As presently in actual use on this site "do_not_want" is clearly tagged for two entirely different reasons. The first is that the viewer does not want the image (or at least the content of the image). The second is that a character within the image does not want something that's depicted within it.

This, to me, is sufficiently ambiguous as to warrant some sort of action. Frankly, I like the tag, too, but it should be applied only to characters within the image and not state the feelings of a user on this site regarding the image.

I think that appending it to "_(meme)" is the way to go, since it sends a message to the tagger just what the tag is to be used for, especially if the tag as currently defined is invalidated.

I thought the DO_NOT_ANT TAG was for faces that say do not want or other things. Come on this was my favor tag and it always put me in a good mood looking up images tagged with it :/

For me the tag do not want is for someone in the mage that oes not want, but yeah i have seen it abused on pics people didnt like

Well, if the "do not want" is sex, then just mark it rape, and if the "do not want" is not sex, then it's probably just a silly meme and doesn't belong anyway.

The few exceptions almost certainly could be represented with some sort of useful tag otherwise.

If that was the original intent of the tag then I didn't see it. This tag was horribly abused and it's intention was blurry at best

Esme_Belles said:
Seems people think tags are for showing off they like the artwork. Used to be 20 counts, and aliasing will prevent more in the future.

and what about images like this that are do not want? http://e621.net/post/show/140715