Regarding the usage of backless outfit, if a character's outfit is canoncially backless, but it cannot be inferred from the context of the post alone, should it be tagged, or is this simply a case of "canon tagging" that can be perceived as blatant mistagging for people not familiar with the work or character?
cc @AbsoluteRainbow (The person who's been mass tagging backless outfit on a bunch of posts purely on the basis of "this character has a known backless outfit" including on posts where the back isn't actually visible.)
To me, even if you consider object permanence, this doesn't seem like the spirit of what the tags were intended for, nor what people want to see in it.
If you cannot see the feature of the tag you should not tag it. You should not tag backless outfit on a character whose back is not visible in the same way you should not tag shoes if the feet are out of frame.
Was writing my own forum topic about this but got beaten to the punch lol.
For me, tagging posts like post #5240459 as a backless outfit feels like it goes against the spirit of the tag and for what people searching for it would want to see. If there really is a demand for outfits where you can somewhat tell from the front that it's backless then there should be a seprate tag for it, though such a tag would be hard to apply and I fear it would be subject to canon tagging more than it would be useful.
Likewise, the same issue applies right now with the recent edits where canonically backless outfit wearing characters have had the tag applied in scenarios where even object permeance doesn't apply. (post #9202441post #9250221post #8896615)
One of the first rules of tagging is "tag what you see, not what you know" for a reason, IMO; it can lead to some awkward/unintuitive situations, for sure, but the alternative is way, WAY worse in terms of ambiguity, not to mention that tagging work is always in high enough demand that source material expertise should not be required beyond copyrights/characters
Out of the example posts, I'd actually argue post #5240459 might be the only one where it applies. IMO, with how much of the front/side you can see, it should be pretty obvious that the outfit in question is backless.
Techturd said:
One of the first rules of tagging is "tag what you see, not what you know" for a reason, IMO; it can lead to some awkward/unintuitive situations, for sure, but the alternative is way, WAY worse in terms of ambiguity, not to mention that tagging work is always in high enough demand that source material expertise should not be required beyond copyrights/characters
It's more a guideline because in many cases you need a bit of knowledge for the tagging to make sense in the first place. The question of how much use of knowledge is too much doesn't have a definite answer.
One of the first rules of tagging is "tag what you see, not what you know" for a reason, IMO; it can lead to some awkward/unintuitive situations, for sure, but the alternative is way, WAY worse in terms of ambiguity, not to mention that tagging work is always in high enough demand that source material expertise should not be required beyond copyrights/characters
I tagged based on facts, not only knowledge. The visuals do help with the tagging.
NiceLittleDan said:
Likewise, the same issue applies right now with the recent edits where canonically backless outfit wearing characters have had the tag applied in scenarios where even object permeance doesn't apply. (post #9202441post #9250221post #8896615)
It's more a guideline because in many cases you need a bit of knowledge for the tagging to make sense in the first place. The question of how much use of knowledge is too much doesn't have a definite answer.
Thank you. But this is all I'll be talking, since I literally have nothing else to talk about here. So yeah
I tagged based on facts, not only knowledge. The visuals do help with the tagging.
That's the same thing. Tagging a character with backless outfit when you can't actually see their back is no different from tagging a character as a demon just because they're canonically a demon despite looking indistinguishable from a normal human.
Thank you. But this is all I'll be talking, since I literally have nothing else to talk about here. So yeah
@AbsoluteRainbow if your're saying you tag based on facts, then explain why you tagged post #9255184 as backless? If you're using facts, then you would have already known that Ganyu's Twilight Blossom outfit doesn't even expose her back in her character model? Tagging "based on facts" is the same as saying "if a person canonically has red eyes, then it should be tagged even if their face cannot even be seen in the post".
As BlindVigil and Nonamethanks indicated earlier, your tagging effectively boils down to "tagging stuff without even properly looking at the post in question to see if it even applies". And FYI a lot of people who used your tagging logic have gotten in trouble or even banned for applying tags incorrectly to posts without valid visual justification.
@AbsoluteRainbow if your're saying you tag based on facts, then explain why you tagged post #9255184 as backless? If you're using facts, then you would have already known that Ganyu's Twilight Blossom outfit doesn't even expose her back in her character model? Tagging "based on facts" is the same as saying "if a person canonically has red eyes, then it should be tagged even if their face cannot even be seen in the post".
As BlindVigil and Nonamethanks indicated earlier, your tagging effectively boils down to "tagging stuff without even properly looking at the post in question to see if it even applies". And FYI a lot of people who used your tagging logic have gotten in trouble or even banned for applying tags incorrectly to posts without valid visual justification.
Update. While I believe your attempts at out-of-context is contradictory given the factual rules...
Thank you for correcting my mistake. I thought Ganyu's Twilight Blossom was backless, when it's not really are.
Fine then, thank you for the feedback. I'll be taking my leave from this forum here, you guys can do just about anything with the posts involved now, even if you deem these posts not backless AT ALL, regardless of the canon or context. After all, who tags based majorly on outside knowledge instead of what unfamiliar users can even see on a post itself?
Now I've stopped trying to force the backless_outfit tag for the sake of context alone. I now carefully see the post to see how much of the back first.
Now I've stopped trying to force the backless_outfit tag for the sake of context alone. I now carefully see the post to see how much of the back first.
And yet you still added the tag to post #8882877 just now, which does not show the back at all. If you can’t see the back from behind, then you shouldn’t tag it. The subject should be at least facing partially away from the viewer or you won’t be able to see enough.
Also, I would prefer you conduct yourself with more grace in the future. Throwing passive-aggressive tantrums won’t give you any points here.
And yet you still added the tag to post #8882877 just now, which does not show the back at all. If you can’t see the back from behind, then you shouldn’t tag it. The subject should be at least facing partially away from the viewer or you won’t be able to see enough.
Also, I would prefer you conduct yourself with more grace in the future. Throwing passive-aggressive tantrums won’t give you any points here.
Ok then.
Update: fixed post #9160190 for you guys, but for different reasons than originally found out. Specifically, she's not wearing her bodysuit at all.
Update #2: Can anyone locate the tagged posts with suspicious visual context clashing with said posts' involved tags in a way that would dumbfound newcomers, similar to what you spotted me mass-tagging? I did locate some unqualified but active posts and fixed the tags accordingly.
Can we make a list of backlesshalterneck outfit qualification list? A nice guide to help others carefully tag the character wearing canonical outfits like such but not fully shown said outfits' relevant details. This way, we would kept more people from polluting the tags with unclear application of the canonically relevant tags with not enough visibility in each post to be worthy of such tags.
My on-off obsession with backless halterneck stuffs are because... they're the most appealing to me. Unfortunately, I sometime wound up being so carried away and brought the tag so intrusively (given the rules and the appearance - especially as must tag what you SEE, not only KNOW), I ended up polluting the tags. That's for sure, and I apologize sincerely for polluting the tags. I'll be very careful from there on out. Thank you.
Any questions? What other examples and the specifics do you want to add, aside from having to tag based on the visible content of each post? Anything to add?
If its a halterneck but it's straight-on and you can't tell whether or not it's backless, don't tag it. Don't know why this is hard to grasp. Arguably any outfit could be backless, you should only tag it if you can tell.
Same as backless. Can you reasonably tell from the image alone that it is a halterneck/bodysuit/leotard/etc.? Then you tag it. Otherwise, you don’t.
We don’t need a list for costumes that canonically have these features. It would actually be more likely to increase mistags because now you’re telling others which outfits are backless, meaning users who don’t understand the tagging system may use that information to add it to posts where those features are not visible.
Same as backless. Can you reasonably tell from the image alone that it is a halterneck/bodysuit/leotard/etc.? Then you tag it. Otherwise, you don’t.
We don’t need a list for costumes that canonically have these features. It would actually be more likely to increase mistags because now you’re telling others which outfits are backless, meaning users who don’t understand the tagging system may use that information to add it to posts where those features are not visible.
Uhhh... I meant the actual qualifiers, not just the costumes. But ok
Uhhh... I meant the actual qualifiers, not just the costumes. But ok
The actual qualifiers are "can you see that its backless? if yes, tag it, if no, don't". There isn't really much else to add. If you can see that it's sideless, you can tag that. But if you can't see the back, don't tag it. End of story.
