I'm sure a number of you have seen it(probably most of you).
A lot of people are now taking existing 2d art and animating it in flash.

I'd like to propose a tag for these pieces of work, largely because I think 90% of them are awful and want them on my blacklist.
Though I'm sure there are also those that enjoy them and would like to search them out as well.

I am however finding some difficulty thinking of an appropriate 1-2 word tag for them.

What's up with the spate of people wanting new tags just to blacklist something they don't like?

It's a perfectly valid tag.

So we need to have something more than 'animated'? Because they're animated. What do you want? Why not just blacklist 'edit' and 'animated'? Or find the artist that does them and blacklist them? There doesn't need to be a new tag for it.

manually_animated?

If the post that the gif is based on is on e621, you can (possibly) find it by searching for animated ~ischild:true or animated isparent:true

The latter method assumes many things though

Blaziken said:
So we need to have something more than 'animated'? Because they're animated. What do you want? Why not just blacklist 'edit' and 'animated'? Or find the artist that does them and blacklist them? There doesn't need to be a new tag for it.

As true as that might be, I feel that having to do multiple workarounds to find, or not find something tag-related seems counter-productive

titaniachkt said:
As true as that might be, I feel that having to do multiple workarounds to find, or not find something tag-related seems counter-productive

Tag bloat is bad in all cases. At this point we'll end up tagging a picture something like 'hair long_hair hair_strand blue_hair cool_colored_hair face round_face eyes large_eyes blue_eyes nose big_nose long_nose teeth fur fur_strand blue_fur cool_colored_fur standing upright non_feral anthro...' etc etc ad nauseum.

Blaziken said:
Tag bloat is bad in all cases. At this point we'll end up tagging a picture something like 'hair long_hair hair_strand blue_hair cool_colored_hair face round_face eyes large_eyes blue_eyes nose big_nose long_nose teeth fur fur_strand blue_fur cool_colored_fur standing upright non_feral anthro...' etc etc ad nauseum.

If it makes finding an image that much easier, and can feasibly be implemented, I don't see why not

titaniachkt said:
If it makes finding an image that much easier, and can feasibly be implemented, I don't see why not

1.) We already have a bitch of a time getting people to add at least four tags. Plopping on more and more and more to appease the minority gets us nowhere other than chasing our tails quickly.
2.) That is not the point of tags. It is not to create a 1001% perfect system. It is to create enough of an approximation so the average guy can walk in off the street and find it. We're not looking for scientific detail, we're looking for dead reckoning.

Blaziken said:
1.) We already have a bitch of a time getting people to add at least four tags. Plopping on more and more and more to appease the minority gets us nowhere other than chasing our tails quickly.
2.) That is not the point of tags. It is not to create a 1001% perfect system. It is to create enough of an approximation so the average guy can walk in off the street and find it. We're not looking for scientific detail, we're looking for dead reckoning.

That's true too

So yeah, for OP's question. 100% against, in entirety. There's already a solution in place, we do not need more.

I suggest a pool, if that.

Rainbow_Crash said:
I suggest a pool, if that.

There might be thousands of it, it will be a really long day to do that...

There are only about 200-300, but I think even a pool is overkill. You should utilize your blacklist to filter content that you don't want to see, regardless of if it was previously 2D or not.

Blaziken said:
Why not just blacklist 'edit' and 'animated'? Or find the artist that does them and blacklist them? There doesn't need to be a new tag for it.

This.

Maybe because most of them aren't tagged as "edit".
Your "work around" for my suggestion is non-functional.
Therefor your argument against my suggestion is invalid.

Blaziken said:
What's up with the spate of people wanting new tags just to blacklist something they don't like?

That's what the blacklist is for. If people don't want to see something ever, and they can concisely define what it is in a way that isn't going to inspire tagwarring, then new tags should come into existence so blacklists work.

Hammie said:
Maybe because most of them aren't tagged as "edit".
Your "work around" for my suggestion is non-functional.
Therefor your argument against my suggestion is invalid.

If they all qualify for the edit tag, then the argument that 'animated edit' is an invalid blacklist string isn't dependent on whether they actually HAVE the edit tag. If they don't all have a tag they qualify for, then go add the relevant string to your blacklist, then search for pictures that ought to have the edit tag.

31h253 said:
That's what the blacklist is for. If people don't want to see something ever, and they can concisely define what it is in a way that isn't going to inspire tagwarring, then new tags should come into existence so blacklists work.

If they all qualify for the edit tag, then the argument that 'animated edit' is an invalid blacklist string isn't dependent on whether they actually HAVE the edit tag. If they don't all have a tag they qualify for, then go add the relevant string to your blacklist, then search for pictures that ought to have the edit tag.

My apologies, I said "most of them" when the appropriate phrase, upon further research, is "none of them".
Upon searching for "animate edit" you get 41 images, and 1 of them is what I'm talking about.

Now that may be simply a lack of tagging, but to me it seems more likely that the "edit" tag as it's currently being used doesn't apply to the situation being discussed.

Hammie said:
My apologies, I said "most of them" when the appropriate phrase, upon further research, is "none of them".
Upon searching for "animate edit" you get 41 images, and 1 of them is what I'm talking about.

Now that may be simply a lack of tagging, but to me it seems more likely that the "edit" tag as it's currently being used doesn't apply to the situation being discussed.

Ah! I should be the one apologizing. I could've found that out for myself with a bit of research, and I didn't even check. It looks like you're right that a blacklist combo using the edit tag wouldn't be very graceful here.

If the "edit" tag is considered appropriate for this use, I'd be fine with using it to be honest, I'm just not sure it's the right tag since out of 1384 images tagged as "edit" only 1 is one of these animated versions of a non-animated picture.

Edit: And as far as the earlier "tag bloat" argument.
More tags are always better, they provide a better search functionality.
The correct means of reducing excess tags is through appropriate use of aliases and implications.
Not tagging because people are too lazy to tag properly is a terrible reason to vote against a new tag.

If it is a piece of art that is taken and edited by another person i.e. not the artist, then it qualifies for the edit tag. Yes, it's generally used when someone feels icky for getting tight in the pants looking at a girly boy shoops out the bulge, but the images you mention were edited, so by all means, stick edit on them.

I would help, but frankly I have no idea what images you're talking about.

Hammie said:
Maybe because most of them aren't tagged as "edit".
Your "work around" for my suggestion is non-functional.
Therefor your argument against my suggestion is invalid.

So tag them edit instead of making a brand new tag to describe something that the tagging system can already describe.

This thread makes me realize (even more) just how important it is to have people who don't think alike (in moderation)

Things would be pretty chaotic; with suggestions and approvals being tossed around in a never-ending cycle of implementation/aquittal every other day

Really crazy stuff

Hammie said:
Maybe because most of them aren't tagged as "edit".
Your "work around" for my suggestion is non-functional.
Therefor your argument against my suggestion is invalid.

Then tag them as edit yourself if you want it so bad. Drop the snark if you want people to actually help you.

I meant no snark, I was merely stating my argument against you solution.
If you read any rudeness or anger in that I am sorry, but I can't help how you choose read my comments.

Again, I was uncertain of the appropriateness of the "edit" tag in that situation due to it's near complete lack of use in the situation.
If that is the correct solution I'm more than happy to accept it, but I simply wanted to be sure that it was the correct solution before I just start throwing tags around.

the gif tag would have probably worked for you. before it was aliased that is.

luvdaporn said:
the gif tag would have probably worked for you. before it was aliased that is.

But they are mostly flash, not gif.

Hammie said:
But they are mostly flash, not gif.

well fuck. nevermind then.