Reason: subjective

agreed

Then you'll also have to eliminate, among others:

what
nightmare_fuel
lol_comments
cute

forum #18883

I'm going to surmise that you're bringing this up in response to the recent batch of shitty image macros that have been posted with this tag slapped onto them. It's misuse like that that creates problems with allowing a tag as subjective as this. I support nuking it.

ippiki_ookami said:
I'm going to surmise that you're bringing this up in response to the recent batch of shitty image macros that have been posted with this tag slapped onto them. It's misuse like that that creates problems with allowing a tag as subjective as this. I support nuking it.

Agreed; it takes way too much effort to maintain than other subjective tags (what, nightmare_fuel, cute etc.) because of how wide the tag's scope can be

There was also forum #25256, updated somewhat recently

GreyMaria said:
Then you'll also have to eliminate, among others:

what
nightmare_fuel
lol_comments
cute

what and nightmare_fuel are practically traditional. cute i could do without.

RIP fun e621

I however do not support removing this tag. There is a clear difference between when something is sarcastically amazing or when the tag is abused in said fashion, and when it really belongs on something that an artist toiled for days creating.

Some tags we have are just going to be a bit subjective like nightmare_fuel, cute, what, what_has_science_done, where_is_your_god_now.

Like snow said before, not all subjective tags are bad and need to be removed. Also like what Char said before of keeping some of our traditional tags here

Rainbow_Dash said:
I however do not support removing this tag. There is a clear difference between when something is sarcastically amazing or when the tag is abused in said fashion, and when it really belongs on something that an artist toiled for days creating.

Some tags we have are just going to be a bit subjective like nightmare_fuel, cute, what, what_has_science_done, where_is_your_god_now.

Like snow said before, not all subjective tags are bad and need to be removed. Also like what Char said before of keeping some of our traditional tags here

We're not saying they all need to be removed. Just this one.

Yes but as Snow defended long ago, it is here for the same reason the other ones are here; some tags will simply be subjective but that doesn't mean we have to nuke them all. We have subjective tags for bad things (such as science, god, what, nightmare, all abbreviated) so we need at least one tag for those posts that are simply the most incredible things found on the web

Super punish ones that use subjective tags to troll :D

CamKitty said:
Super punish ones that use subjective tags to troll :D

So much this; we shouldn't let one incident lead to an alias

Better idea: staff who aren't lazy

Equally valid idea: vigilantes who patrol the tags, looking for things that don't belong OH WAIT we have tagging projects for that

Rainbow_Dash said:
So much this; we shouldn't let one incident lead to an alias

We aren't, and it isn't. People have been tagging amazing on mediocre and crappy images since forever. Recent use of it has just made it more obvious. And it's not like we can just make it a tagging project, or else we're just having users delete the tag from images they personally don't find amazing. At least with the other tags mentioned, people can generally agree on them. This one is all over the place.

@ippiki_ookami
Exactly same reasoning goes for cute tag, should it be also removed?

Looks like it's time to get down with those subjective tags. :o

How about we just go ahead and lay down a couple of definitive definitions for "amazing".

Exempli gratia "a high-quality work of art with meticulous attention to detail, likely to leave the viewer awe-struck with its perceived beauty".

orperhapsnotlazyadministration

Here, I'll go ahead and take down some post numbers that are tagged as, but aren't truly, "amazing".

post #268928 post #266827 post #264843
post #264794 post #262868 post #252522
post #248909 post #248383 post #246121
post #242517 post #242602 post #239857
post #239120 post #234693 post #234669
post #231306 post #230654 post #230094
post #227596 post #227595 post #226129
post #224583 post #224582 post #267394
post #240816 post #226548

This is only from the first page of results, and isn't all of them (of course), but these clearly do not follow the quality standards or the actual spirit of what 99.5% of people would consider as "amazing".

This isn't that hard.

E: okay can we like
allow thumbnails to stack more than one on a line
please

E2:

<GreyMaria> what the actual fuck greymaria
<GreyMaria> are you seriously up at 4 AM making a stink over the "amazing" tag on your favorite furry porn repository

GreyMaria said:

This is only from the first page of results, and isn't all of them (of course), but these clearly do not follow the quality standards or the actual spirit of what 99.5% of people would consider as "amazing".

This isn't that hard.

Sorry, but you're not "99.5% of people", or am I not knowing something important?

I've tagged post #248909 as amazing, and I think it deserves to be tagged by it. (Or it would deserve to be under epic tag before previous aliasing) I also think that post #248383, and few others of what you've shown deserve that also.

I'm not telling that I'm right, but for sure it is not simple to decide.

The problem here is that there are two different concepts at work:

"I think X is amazing."

"I am amazed by X."

It's the same as thinking a woman is pretty: You can say "I think she is pretty." (locally subjective), or you can say "She has qualities that many people think are pretty." (globally subjective), or you can even say "She has qualities that have been scientifically-demonstrated to be appealing to the base human taste." (objective).

anomaly said:
I'm not telling that I'm right, but for sure it is not simple to decide.

Which is the root problem of tags as subjective as amazing is. It's way too easy to get in a fight with someone over what is and is not amazing, which is what makes it a bad tag. If you see an apple, the apple tag is applied; no amount of arguing will make that apple an orange.

Amazing on the other hand, is so subjective that it is very difficult to accurately apply it to images. Same goes for cute, beautiful, gorgeous, handsome and other subjective tags.

GreyMaria said:
Better idea: staff who aren't lazy

GreyMaria said:
orperhapsnotlazyadministration

I'd really like to hear your reasoning over why you think this is a result of lazy staff.

Kclub said:
Amazing on the other hand, is so subjective that it is very difficult to accurately apply it to images. Same goes for cute, beautiful, gorgeous, handsome and other subjective tags.

With the exception of cute, I can certainly see aliasing those away.

As I said earlier, cute is easy to agree on, and it's not often misused. So cute isn't going away. Same goes for what and nightmare fuel. They serve functional purposes, and countless people have them on their blacklists.

I think this is amazing, you don't....
I think this is cute, you don't...
I think this is nightmare fuel, you don't...
I think this is an invalid tag, you don't...

I think this is irrelevant, you don't...

Subjective621.net

anomaly said:
post #248383

Missing a few key criteria such as "extremely high art quality" and "meticulous attention to detail" and most certainly "a depiction of a scene which would leave the average reader awe-struck".

Kclub said:
I'd really like to hear your reasoning over why you think this is a result of lazy staff.

"Oh no, someone tagged a very obviously shitty image as 'amazing'!"
"Oh no, a retarded troll user uploaded a bunch of memes and image macros tagged 'amazing'!"
"Oh no, the 'amazing' tag is being so widely misused on everything ever! Let's alias it away instead of doing the very simple task of cutting the crap!"

arent you just a peach

It's just what it sounds like to me. I can't claim that's what actually goes on.

I vote all tags to be changed to invalid tags on April first, 2013.

GreyMaria said:
"Oh no, someone tagged a very obviously shitty image as 'amazing'!"
"Oh no, a retarded troll user uploaded a bunch of memes and image macros tagged 'amazing'!"
"Oh no, the 'amazing' tag is being so widely misused on everything ever! Let's alias it away instead of doing the very simple task of cutting the crap!"

Creating guidelines for how the amazing tag should be applied is easy; policing the tag to make sure it's being applied correctly is not.

But it's the same as cute or what; it's not being slapped on everything and people can agree on what has been meticulously crafted and shows remarkable detail than they can agree on what qualifies as cute. So it's not going away. We can clean it up and keep a better eye on it but like amazing_background, it serves a very valid and clearly defined purpose.

If this tag is aliased, it is taking a lazy route out, and that doesn't help much. I stand by what Snow said about it being like the other subjective tags. I mean it really is just for the medium or rendering, rather than the content

The issue with amazing is that unlike the rest of the subjective tags, it is directly related to the quality of the image, as opposed to the properties. In my opinion, most "amazing" images can be found by just ranking via faves anyway. Vote nuke/invalid.

Bu you see, I have noticed a pattern: the fave count of an image is unrelated as to how well made the image is. Meaning that something simple that has a lot of personal meaning to a lot of people will have a high favcount, but this doesn't not need the amazing tag. Whereas something meticulously crafted will carry a sub-par favcount, or score for that matter.

This tag is intended just for the rendition of the image, not the meaning it may carry. So if we just follow that guideline, it will be more structured than the other subjective tags

I can find you an image that has over 200 favorites and isn't really quality. Just teach me how to search by number of favorites.

EDIT: Aw damn, she really is the fastest pony in Ponyville.

Rainbow_Dash said:
But it's the same as cute or what; it's not being slapped on everything and people can agree on what has been meticulously crafted and shows remarkable detail than they can agree on what qualifies as cute. So it's not going away. We can clean it up and keep a better eye on it but like amazing_background, it serves a very valid and clearly defined purpose.

If this tag is aliased, it is taking a lazy route out, and that doesn't help much. I stand by what Snow said about it being like the other subjective tags. I mean it really is just for the medium or rendering, rather than the content

post #230094

Sorry, not that amazing in my opinion.

post #223628

Great, they learned how to apply a filter in Photoshop. Still not amazing.

post #268928

Definitely not worthy of an 'amazing' tag. Not bad, but not amazing either.

post #219535

Tugs at my memory strings, but that doesn't warrant it enough for the amazing tag.

post #197342

I mean, really? This is what people are considering amazing?

Do you see where I'm going with this random sampling? It's wishful thinking to expect the userbase to appropriately apply this image based on rendition and not content, and especially to not disagree on what is and is not considered amazing. It's why you can't not be subjective with beautiful/gorgeous/handsome, because everyone has a different ideal that represents each of those classifications.

My vote is 100% in favor of nuking/invalidating the tag. It's not lazy, it's expedient and makes sense when the userbase is considered as part of the problem.

Rainbow_Dash said:
This tag is intended just for the rendition of the image, not the meaning it may carry. So if we just follow that guideline, it will be more structured than the other subjective tags

You are giving the people who use this site way more credit than you should be.

FUN FACTS:

- The front page of order:favcount only contains five items that are NOT rated Explicit.
- This list contains zero non-animations that would qualify for amazing.
- The top nine are all animations. Only one is Corruption of Champions, and it has the single highest number of favorites.
- Only four images on the front page of order:favcount depict gay activity. I can't say the same for any of the animations.
- A large majority of the highest-favorited images are Flash animations. In fact, the sixth-highest favorited image is a Questionable-rated Flash; the ninth is a Safe-rated Flash.

Kclub said:
You are giving the people who use this site way more credit than you should be.

Incinerate the userbase. Lot safer for our sanity in the long run.

Also, you have to understand that a lot of people mistagging "amazing" are between the ages of twelve and nineteen.

GreyMaria said:
I can find you an image that has over 200 favorites and isn't really quality. Just teach me how to search by number of favorites.

EDIT: Aw damn, she really is the fastest pony in Ponyville.

post #269553
Was there ever any doubt?

Rainbow_Dash said:
post #269553
Was there ever any doubt?

Had to laugh.

ANYWAY post #105085 is like a prime example of why "high number of favorites" =/= "amazing".

Also post #205930. HOW THE HELL DID IT GET SEVEN HUNDRED FAVORITESDFGHJKL

Kclub said:
words

You are missing my point entirely; it is the same as cute or the other subjective tags. It will be misused like the other tags are; doesn't mean we have to nuke it on sight. That is lazy and only proper protocol of a xenomorph outbreak.

If we simply clean up the tag and it's wiki, we can get a lot of use out of it. Obviously those are not amazing right there.

Also, like grey said, using order:favcount merely returns what the most people are fapping to, pardon being blunt

GreyMaria said:
post #105085 is like a prime example of why "high number of favorites" =/= "amazing".

I personally think that image is fucking amazing, but I also immediately recognize why many others wouldn't think that at all. It proves subjectivity, not invalidity.

The decision to be made is whether a subjective tag is worth having: It's clearly not invalid, and you cannot prove that it is.

Foobaria said:
I personally think that image is fucking amazing

The quality of the art isn't even that high above "good", and her boobs look like they're made of plastic!

"I'd fuck that until my dick falls off" =/= "amazing".

GreyMaria

You are a little spitfire, aren't you just?

Foobaria said:
You are a little spitfire, aren't you just?

I just have a problem with women who think they need implants.

And with men who think implants look good, look "natural" and can ever feel "natural".

GreyMaria said:
I just have a problem with women who think they need implants.

And with men who think implants look good, look "natural" and can ever feel "natural".

You are nowhere near as far into my mind as you think you are, son. Most of the time, I don't give a flying rat's ass whether the tits are big or small, and skip right down to the lower half.

Also, I'm able to treat my porn and my reality differently and keep them separate, a skill more people need to learn.

I have a partial solution. I suspect that a large amount of the images incorrectly tagged "amazing" are actually idiots tagging things epic, win, awesome, or badass, which are aliased to amazing. I propose removing all the tag aliases that point towards amazing and repointing them to invalid_tag.

Foobaria said:
skip right down to the lower half.

Oh, wow, a clitoral hood piercing! That's the most amazing thing I've ever seen in my life!

Also I can't help but notice what seems to be a suspicious lack of evidence for an anus.

Foobaria said:
I don't give a flying rat's ass whether the tits are big or small

Not my point. My point is that the breasts look like they've had exceedingly large implants put into them and that this makes them look fake and unappealing and undesirable and very much not amazing.

null0010 said:
I suspect that a large amount of the images incorrectly tagged "amazing" are actually idiots tagging things epic, win, awesome, or badass, which are aliased to amazing.

win I would agree should be aliased to invalid. Same with badass. And similar things.

epic is one of those things society misuses. Invalid away.

awesome is basically a weaker amazing if you ask me.

So.

null, I like your suggestion of removing the tags that are aliased to amazing. We should try that first and give the issue some time to see if that helps to minimize the improper use. Hopefully amazing hasn't been drilled into the heads of those that were using badass, awesome, epic, and the rest, as a result of said aliases.

There's strong precedent for subjective tags, that's not a reason to nuke a tag. Tags are cheap, there needs to be significant rationale that their existence is actually a hindrance, compared to not having them at all.

The problem I think people are having with amazing is that it's not specific or well-defined.

I like browsing these sorts of tags, amazing included, so just's just give it a better definition.

Agreed (in general);

So the current proposition includes-

?
-
Additionally, since it seems like there's a strong agreement about keeping amazing, to keep a degree of objectivity to the tag, how about:

Using the amazing tag to refer to the post medium, as well as the creation method, but not the thematic content

So, for example:
post #197995 would get the amazing tag because of the sheer scale invoked
post #158331 might get the the amazing tag because of the level of detail & use of colour which is not usually present in most images
And post #166155 could get the amazing tag because of the inclusion of so many characters (see everyone/ absolutely everyone), in addition to the scale used, as well as the level of detail present

Conversely, these probably would not get the tag:

post #184016 compressed, watermarked animated gif
post #90688 screen-capped, edited image with Comic Sans
post #157289 screen-capped image macro

I always liked the amazing tag.
It stands for "amazing" art, that is on a level of quality (and sadly lulz epicness!!1 too).
Most of the images tagged "amazing" are drawn in a professional fashion.
I recommend cleaning it up and removing non amazing images, but keep the tag for images with very high quality that show a lot of skill.

In this case, we might need a separate tag, since we've several major opinions on what amazing should consist of.

1) The current usage, in which epic/badass/etc is aliased to, and which the current wiki definition fits.
2) Some other tag for high quality work: We do have a tag for that, though sorely underused: high_quality
3) Massive_scale: Quantity of detail, as opposed to quality.

Note that high quality landscapes should then be tagged as: "high_quality" "landscape" Not all high quality landscapes qualify for massive scale, and vice versa. (e.g. #117709 is massive_scale, but not high_quality)

I agree with the kitchen appliance; the reason so many things are tagged amazing is that they are being tagged epic or awesome or the like. We should find these aliases, rip out their jaw and drive them back into the sea!