Notice: Visit your account options to access your Patreon rewards for March. Come join our Discord! Since switching to SSL only we have noticed a decrease of 20 load. Please contact us if your code stopped working!

Ticket Information - ID: #49

ID:Category:SeverityReproducibilityDate SubmittedUpdated By:
0000049Feature RequestnormalN/A02/25/09 11:15AMdurandal
Assigned to:geltas
View StatusPublic
Target Version:0.2.1
Summary:Tag Implications
Description:Would like to have implications added to the site.

They would add more tags to a certain tag if present.
Additional Info:street_fighter => capcom
chun-li => capcom => street_fighter

Konst replied at 2010-01-27 23:56:19
I think that's a good idea - in fact I remember myself writing something similar in the forum a while ago - BUT we should be extra careful with implications, for tags are meant to actually describe the image, and not to serve as "identification card" or passport for a character.
And with too many implications, we may end up having descriptive tags for some characters that won't match what can actually be seen on a picture where the character appears.
For example, about their eye color when on the picture we see them from behind or too far away for the eyes to be seen, or even get the tag for a character's usual hairstyle/hair color while in fact the picture shows an alternate hairstyle/color etc.

tags replied at 2010-04-13 15:59:10
you'd only use the implication tags -when it applies-
it would certainly speed up things

tags replied at 2010-04-13 23:11:04
well,maybe i misinterpreted this wrong
what would be nice sure how to explain this
but you add a certain special tags while editing,and that'd translate it to a certain set of other tags

lozertuser replied at 2010-04-14 08:25:15
That would be aliases, or so it seems you are describing.

hentaiprovisions replied at 2010-12-03 11:19:55
Seeing as this hasn't been closed I assume it hasn't been implemented yet. Will this happen anytime soon? I think this would help A LOT with users barely tagging.

internetlovemachine replied at 2010-12-09 16:39:23
I just feel like pointing out this is completely separate from aliases.

Aliases is, for lack of a better word, changing "rabbit_ears" into "bunny_ears"

Tag implications is adding tags that you may have missed. Like if you add bunny_ears to an image, but not animal_ears, it'll add animal_ears by itself.

It would be incredibly useful for the people on this website who hardly tag.

jedi1357 replied at 2010-12-12 01:28:41
Once upon a time a mass edit was done to change post with rating:safe and non-safe tags (i.e. sex, cum, etc.) I would like to see that as an implication.

We can try an experiment like the wiki that will allow users to use a simple markup (if-than) to edit tag implications from a tab, or perhaps a "!" next to the "?" on image pages. The wiki seems effective so far. If people get crazy with it than tags can be locked. If this fails than it will be the purview of mods or lozer.

An effective system must allow for multiple implications per tag (i.e. cirno=>touhou cirno=>fairy). An erasure system (if-not) is also needed if we are to rely on a "wiki" interface. (i.e. sex=/=rating:safe) or to fix mistakes (cirno=undo=blue_eyes sense her eyes may not always be visible but you don't want to delete blue_eyes from all cerno posts, only the ones accidentally added by the implication in edit history). I doubt simply deleting an implication will delete the tags added by it so an erasure entry can be used to fix mistakes. Just add a short list of available commands beneath the edit window.

I doubt you want to go this far but "if-and" statements may be possible. (food+drink=>meal) or "and-than" (meal=>food+drink)

Tag history and wiki history keep track of user edits but maybe they will require implication #xxxx to be added next to the user name so the "undo" function can work.

Implication tab; entry:name=cerno
implication#0010;cirno=>blue_eyes (removed)

Tag history screen reads:
user:jedi1357 (implication#0010) -blue_eyes cirno fairy ice syanayuuji tagme touhou
user:jedi1357 (implication#0010) +blue_eyes cirno fairy ice syanayuuji tagme touhou
user:jedi1357 (implication#0009) cirno +fairy ice syanayuuji tagme touhou

touhou was already tagged, fairy added, blue_eyes was added than removed. Only the blue_eyes tags added by implication#0010 where removed, all other cirno+blue_eyes remains.

jedi1357 replied at 2010-12-12 16:06:12
See [forum]0996[/forum] for more ideas.

durandal replied at 2011-07-07 01:09:33
I'd also like an implication system. Looking at the sorry state of tags related to piercings gives a good feel of where this would help (i.e. pierced_* and *_piercing should imply piercing in pretty much all cases). As an alternative to the proposed system of having the implication automatically add the tags, I'd like to suggest two alternative approaches.

One approach would be to implement the implications as an edit-time suggestion, sort of like gmail's recipient recommendation. This means that implications that aren't 100% "if P then Q" situations would be fine - when someone edits a post and adds a certain tag, they just get offered a list of other, related tags to add if they want. The major downside to this is that it doesn't automatically add the implied tags to old posts. On the other hand, it doesn't automatically add potentially erroneous tags to old posts where the mistake might not be caught for a while.

Alternatively, rather than doing special logging, treat implied tags like special tags (e.g. rating:safe). So when an implication is processed on an image, rather than cirno adding touhou to the post, it adds something like implied:touhou. Alternatively, since it may be difficult to ignore the "implied:" while searching a separate field or table could be used to store implied tags (haven't looked at gelbooru's DB structure yet, sorry). The advantage of this would be streamlining the validation/normalization of tag implications. Just have a few buttons/links (like the ones next to tags in a search results page) to add, remove, or flag an implied tag. If an implication is resulting in a lot of removes or flags then you know that the tag implication is flawed should be modified or removed.

Anyway, just a thought. Not a critical feature but it would be useful in a number of cases.