Aliasing badly_animated -> poorly_animated.

Reason: Same meaning.

Frankly, I would advocate the removal of these tags, because they are subjective terms and not useful descriptions of the contents of an image (or animation).

For instance, is post #21604 "badly_animated" or "poorly_animated"? It's not exactly to the same quality as, say, Zone's works (such as post #91918).

This is the same reason that an effort was made to remove low_quality, though I see that a few images have started to accrue that tag again.

So I counter-propose the following tag aliases:
badly_animated -> invalid_tag
poorly_animated -> invalid_tag
low_quality -> invalid_tag

Reason: badly_animated, poorly_animated, and low_quality are subjective terms and inappropriate for use as tags.

Okay, so I was thinking of the low_skill tag when I was talking about low_quality, but I still think low_quality is subjective and should be aliased to invalid_tag.

For reference, the debate over low_skill is over in forum #2294. To quote our dearly departed mellis, of fond memory:

mellis said:
I'm not really a fan of a 'low-skill' tag, despite the fact that yes, some images really ARE terrible - since it's too subjective and has potential to cause drama/confusion as to what it constitutes.

I would prefer if people instead used tags to explain WHY it is low skill in objective terms, such as 'lined paper', 'unfinished', 'anatomy error', and so on. I realize that makes it harder to filter these images out, but I think that in the interests of objective tagging, the occasional suffering through glancing at a crappy thumbnail is a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.

ikdind said:
Frankly, I would advocate the removal of these tags, because they are subjective terms and not useful descriptions of the contents of an image (or animation).

For instance, is post #21604 "badly_animated" or "poorly_animated"? It's not exactly to the same quality as, say, Zone's works (such as post #91918).

This is the same reason that an effort was made to remove low_quality, though I see that a few images have started to accrue that tag again.

So I counter-propose the following tag aliases:
badly_animated -> invalid_tag
poorly_animated -> invalid_tag
low_quality -> invalid_tag

Reason: badly_animated, poorly_animated, and low_quality are subjective terms and inappropriate for use as tags.

UM HELLO

ITS CALLED A BLACKLIST TAG

THANK YOU

Subjective tags create an opening for drama and abuse. The minor convenience of their use in an image search or as a blacklist tool doesn't outweigh the possible problems easily created by them.

ikdind has an excellent idea to eliminate some of 'em.

it boggles me how some people don't read.

"Gosh I really love oranges. they're my favorite fruit. I just wish it wasn't so hard to peel them..."

"LOLOL don't buy oranges then genius LOLOL."

*Anyway*... I agree. This is one of those places where the tag is highly subjective, and a single person who decides that they don't LIKE an animation, for whatever reason, can tag it as that and for the post part, people won't ever object otherwise, whereas they might if someone decides to label a picture of a male as a female.

I really like the idea of getting rid of those tags. Alternatively we could go also in the opposite direction and add a "Excellently_Animated" tag or something, but better, I think, to avoid such subjective statements about quality in general.

SnowWolf said:
it boggles me how some people don't read.

"Gosh I really love oranges. they're my favorite fruit. I just wish it wasn't so hard to peel them..."

"LOLOL don't buy oranges then genius LOLOL."

*Anyway*... I agree. This is one of those places where the tag is highly subjective, and a single person who decides that they don't LIKE an animation, for whatever reason, can tag it as that and for the post part, people won't ever object otherwise, whereas they might if someone decides to label a picture of a male as a female.

I really like the idea of getting rid of those tags. Alternatively we could go also in the opposite direction and add a "Excellently_Animated" tag or something, but better, I think, to avoid such subjective statements about quality in general.

why don't we go the extra mile and add a peace_and_love and a air_guitar tag to every submission on e621 to discourage hateful comments

Incendiary said:
why don't we go the extra mile and add a peace_and_love and a air_guitar tag to every submission on e621 to discourage hateful comments

i like this idea, can we get this man a gold star?

Incendiary said:

While sometimes an artist has to be willing to accept critique, this site is not about critiquing artwork. It is about collecting and cataloging artwork, making it easier to search for a work based on its contents.

You want to claim that they're blacklist tags, but they're subjective tags. A person can't know what exactly they mean in order for them to be useful on the blacklist, unless the person is willing to accept that perfectly acceptable material will be filtered out, while what they consider to be garbage can still get through. That actually makes these tags worse than useless - they have both false positives and false negatives, based on the subjective standards set by the posters and subsequent taggers.

My point in case: Just as you claim post #78531 is badly_animated, I disagree that it meets that bar. If I were to blacklist "badly_animated", I would have never seen that flash. I could also just as easily claim that post #95236 and post #95232 are badly_drawn. If you had "badly_drawn" in your blacklist, you'd stop seeing your own posts, which you obviously felt were of adequate quality. We could bicker and argue about who is right, but the ultimate answer is "nobody", and the tags' meaning for any given image would ultimately rest on who gave up the fight first.

That, altogether, is why these tags are inappropriate.