HypnoHub - Bottomless and topless tags.

HypelHub

05/13/16 03:09AM

Bottomless and topless tags.

I may be confused about whether or not this is the best place to bring this up, but the bottomless and topless tags in their current state aren't exactly the greatest.

We have a nude tag, a bottomless tag, and a topless tag. The nude tag should apply to submissions where someone isn't wearing clothing, the bottomless tag should apply to submissions where someone is wearing only a top, and the topless should apply to submissions where someone is wearing only a bottom.

Currently, if someone is nude, the bottomless and topless tags are automatically applied. This is very counter-productive.

When I want to look for some submissions where someone is wearing only a shirt or the opposite (very nice look, by the way), I'm given every submissions where someone is nude as well.

It's a bit of a difficulty on top of being stupid.

(That is all.)

plsignore

05/13/16 03:57AM

topless -bottomless
or
bottomless -topless

HypelHub

05/13/16 04:59AM

plsignore said:
topless -bottomless
or
bottomless -topless

I don't follow?

plsignore

05/13/16 05:30AM

HypelHub said:
I don't follow?

You could also do "bottemless -nude", and that would work too.
edit: actually not, since a lot of people skip the nude tag. Regardless, it's still less of a problem than you think

HypelHub

05/13/16 05:35AM

plsignore said:
You could also do "bottemless -nude", and that would work too.
edit: actually not, since a lot of people skip the nude tag. Regardless, it's still less of a problem than you think

But tagging something nude shouldn't automatically tag it bottomless or topless as well. Duh if they're nude they're not wearing a top or bottom. Those tags should be reserved for specifically what they say. Someone who is wearing clothes minus their top or minus their pants and undergarments.

plsignore

05/13/16 05:40AM

HypelHub said:
But tagging something nude shouldn't automatically tag it bottomless or topless as well. Duh if they're nude they're not wearing a top or bottom. Those tags should be reserved for specifically what they say. Someone who is wearing clothes minus their top or minus their pants and undergarments.

You said it yourself. By defintion, a nude person is also topless and bottomless.
Topless doesn't imply they are wearing pants, just that they're not wearing a shirt. Adding a tag implication just makes things more comprehensive and accurate, while saving time when tagging.

If you want to be sure they're wearing pants, add -bottomless to your search. That's like, the whole point of tags.

HypelHub

05/13/16 06:21AM

plsignore said:
You said it yourself. By defintion, a nude person is also topless and bottomless.

It's redundant. So so redundant and anti-productive to the purpose of the tagging system.

Topless doesn't imply they are wearing pants, just that they're not wearing a shirt. Adding a tag implication just makes things more comprehensive and accurate, while saving time when tagging.

If you want to be sure they're wearing pants, add -bottomless to your search. That's like, the whole point of tags.

Google "topless girl/boy." In the industry of porn, topless means only missing a top. I'm trying to get things to match up to their median, not to stay true to their absolute literal definitions.

plsignore

05/13/16 06:29AM

HypelHub said:
It's redundant. So so redundant and anti-productive to the purpose of the tagging system.

Not really.

We've already got a system in place here that works fine. It's a bit different than other boorus, but not by much, and the hours of work needed to change it simply aren't worth it.

Mindwipe

05/13/16 06:49AM

I mean, a nude person is both topless and bottomless, so the implication is correct. Also what plsignore said. Using exclusions is part of how the site's search function works. You should definitely make use of them.

hypnohub.net/post?tags=topless+-bottomless

plsignore

05/13/16 06:56AM

Mindwipe said:
I mean, a nude person is both topless and bottomless, so the implication is correct. Also what plsignore said. Using exclusions is part of how the site's search function works. You should definitely make use of them.

hypnohub.net/post?tags=topless+-bottomless

To be fair, I do kind of see his point. Both gelbooru and e621 both specify that someone tagged as nude shouldn't be tagged as topless and vice-versa, and I'm sure other boorus probably do it that way too. But ultimately, this way isn't wrong, either.

And more importantly, changing it would take a lot of work, which I don't think anyone wants to put in. There's enough images that aren't tagged right with the current system. Changing the system would make the problem worse

greasyi

05/13/16 07:18AM

By your logic, anyone searching for generic sex toy stuff would have to search for something like "~sex_toy ~dildo ~anal_beads ~vibrator" instead of just "sex_toy" because it's redundant, duh if there's a dildo there's a sex toy. Good luck guessing all the sex toys that have tags or scanning through the 953 <<hypnohub.net/tag?name=&am...r=count&commit=Search|tags>> with 10+ images since there's no formal system linking them up anymore.

More relevant, it's hard to tag a character nude if you can only see them from the belly-button up while they give someone a blowjob. Fortunately I can just search "topless fellatio" instead of "fellatio ~topless ~nude" and I know I'm going to get all the plausibly-maybe-nude-or-at-least-nothing-on-top dick-sucking images. The point being that no system is optimized to make every search maximally easy.

Increasing discoverability of images at the cost of sometimes making people be a little more specific when they search is a perfectly fine price to pay.

HypelHub

05/14/16 01:36AM

greasyi said:
By your logic, anyone searching for generic sex toy stuff would have to search for something like "~sex_toy ~dildo ~anal_beads ~vibrator" instead of just "sex_toy" because it's redundant, duh if there's a dildo there's a sex toy. Good luck guessing all the sex toys that have tags or scanning through the 953 <<hypnohub.net/tag?name=&am...r=count&commit=Search|tags>> with 10+ images since there's no formal system linking them up anymore.

More relevant, it's hard to tag a character nude if you can only see them from the belly-button up while they give someone a blowjob. Fortunately I can just search "topless fellatio" instead of "fellatio ~topless ~nude" and I know I'm going to get all the plausibly-maybe-nude-or-at-least-nothing-on-top dick-sucking images. The point being that no system is optimized to make every search maximally easy.

Increasing discoverability of images at the cost of sometimes making people be a little more specific when they search is a perfectly fine price to pay.

That comparison doesn't really work at all but I've lost the will to argue any more.

plsignore

05/14/16 02:04AM

HypelHub said:
That comparison doesn't really work at all but I've lost the will to argue any more.

That's the spirit!

greasyi

05/14/16 05:54AM

And that's the story of how HypelHub learned the method by which absolutely all HypnoHub issues are resolved.

dinnerdog1

05/15/16 01:26AM

You could just blacklist the nude tag, then toggle it off (by opening the blacklists, and clicking on the nude tag's text) when you want to see full nude. That's what I would do if I wanted to see either or, but not both. Allowing you to circumvent typing "-nude" every time. I'm not sure how long toggling a blacklist lasts before it resets, but it might survive regular browsing. It would only require two clicks at most (one if the blacklisted list is already open) to enable/disable.