RedCollarBlackCollar said:
https://hypnohub.net/post?tags=knight
Knight tag appears as character tag. Should we make it a regular tag, or remove it completely?
Removal won't be any use, since someone would add it again.
n0t_that_one_guy said:
I have a tag I'd like to suggest - "accidental dom," or "involuntary dom." Basically, where the dom ends up with one or more hypnotized subs, but didn't actually do anything to make it happen, or when a sub goes out of their way to hypnotize new subs without the dom's orders. A few examples:

https://hypnohub.net/post/show/77136/absurdres-ahegao-andra_-zko-blonde_hair-bra-brain_
https://hypnohub.net/post/show/75144/aware-black_hair-breasts-collar-consensual-female_
https://hypnohub.net/post/show/76837/breasts-consensual-dark_skin-female_only-femsub-fi
https://hypnohub.net/post/show/38489/aware-caption_only-carly_carmine-consensual-female
https://hypnohub.net/post/show/38490/blue_hair-boots-bracelet-caption_only-clothed-fema (for the last few lines)
https://hypnohub.net/post/show/26152/accidental_hypnosis-anonymind_-manipper-big_hero_6
https://hypnohub.net/post/show/47157/accidental_hypnosis-blonde_hair-blue_eyes-blush-br
https://hypnohub.net/post/show/42251/black_hair-blush-brown_hair-coin-empty_eyes-female

I know there's others, but I can't seem to find them at the moment.

The thing is, some of these fit the "accidental hypnosis" or "self hypnosis" or even "hypnotized hypnotist" tags, but searching for just one of those won't find all of them. I think there needs to be a tag that will do that.
If one sees it happen in the pic then it could be added but looking at your examples all of them only happen in text so the new tag you are suggestion should not be put on them.
MaDrow said:
Removal won't be any use, since someone would add it again.
As far as I know, there is a way to alter it. I wanted to check beforehand if there was a reason for why it's a character tag in the first place.

Argonis said:
If one sees it happen in the pic then it could be added but looking at your examples all of them only happen in text so the new tag you are suggestion should not be put on them.
Pretty much this. It's better to have more visual examples than ones relying solely on text.
Argonis said:
If one sees it happen in the pic then it could be added but looking at your examples all of them only happen in text so the new tag you are suggestion should not be put on them.
It's kind of a text-only thing. I mean, try to find an instance of accidental hypnosis that isn't either self-hypnosis or text-only - it's that kinda thing. Also, I didn't know that text-only tagging was a bad thing?
n0t_that_one_guy said:
It's kind of a text-only thing. I mean, try to find an instance of accidental hypnosis that isn't either self-hypnosis or text-only - it's that kinda thing. Also, I didn't know that text-only tagging was a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing necessarily. The issue is that the tagging system relies more heavily on what you see in an image. So it goes against tagging guidelines to have the vast majority of posts be tagged based on an element that's non-visual.
RedCollarBlackCollar said:
It's not a bad thing necessarily. The issue is that the tagging system relies more heavily on what you see in an image. So it goes against tagging guidelines to have the vast majority of posts be tagged based on an element that's non-visual.
I can understand that if it would clog up the search for people who want visual stuff, but if a tag's describing a largely text-only concept, who's being harmed by the ability to search for it? I don't see how anyone's better off with this tag not existing. Surely the ability to search for it at all and having to wade through text-only stuff if you're a purely visual person is better than not being able to search for it at all, even for the visually-oriented?
Hawkeye said:
I can understand that if it would clog up the search for people who want visual stuff, but if a tag's describing a largely text-only concept, who's being harmed by the ability to search for it? I don't see how anyone's better off with this tag not existing. Surely the ability to search for it at all and having to wade through text-only stuff if you're a purely visual person is better than not being able to search for it at all, even for the visually-oriented?
Nobody ever said that there's harm involved. It's mainly an issue of setting up precedent that goes against guidelines. If this one text-based tag is approved, then so should every other text-based tag.

Honestly in this specific instance, I feel like this could be a legitimate tag. Cause it can be clearly seen as visual, and I believe that I've seen an artist or two draw such images in the past. So it has the potential, it could just use some better examples backing it.
Bathing and bath seem like the same thing. Should there be a joint tag for them both?
RedCollarBlackCollar said:
Bathing and bath seem like the same thing. Should there be a joint tag for them both?
bath can stay as most likely that would be what would be typed for searching.
I feel that we really need to add a caption tag for captions. Having it redirect to the "text" tag just doesn't work. The "text" tag is there for any amount of text, even as low as one word or even a grunt or text written on the character themselves.. I think the caption tag should include the text tag automatically but not the other way around.

Right now there's no way to actually search for captions themselves, and there's a lot of people, myself included, that love captions specifically. I feel there's a large enough amount to warrant the separate tagging. I love em enough to make this post and volunteer to start going through and tagging them if the ok is given from on high, and if it's separated from the text tag.

I know a while back there was arguments about "text blocks" and I don't know how that was solved, but haven't seen them flagged in a while myself. But this would also fix the problem people had with those. With this you could just blacklist the caption tag and be fine.

I see no downsides to adding the caption tag, (aside from needing to go back and tag old captions.) But that doesn't need to be done immediately and I'm down to start doing it. It just makes it easier to search for a fair portion of posts on the site and that's the most important part of tags right?
there is a caption only tag.
Argonis said:
there is a caption only tag.
Yes, for when the picture isn't hypnosis related without the caption. Caption_only should probably be merged into a general caption tag for images/manips with hypnosis in the picture. There's a ton of captions I've seen that don't have that tag for whatever reasons.

I think an overarching caption tag would make much more sense.
Timo4545 said:
Yes, for when the picture isn't hypnosis related without the caption. Caption_only should probably be merged into a general caption tag for images/manips with hypnosis in the picture. There's a ton of captions I've seen that don't have that tag for whatever reasons.

I think an overarching caption tag would make much more sense.
I suppose that could work, though that feels like something the mods would need to discuss between ourselves before potentially implementing, given how many images would be retagged by it.