Posted under General
Is there a way for a regular schmuck user like myself to apply a singular tag to entire pool of uploaded images, instead of having to edit each and every one of them individually? And if so, how do you do it?
(And sorry if this is somehow "not okay" to ask about. I couldn't find any other threads about it, so I simply had to ask.)
loliconcarnal said:
Is there a way for a regular schmuck user like myself to apply a singular tag to entire pool of uploaded images, instead of having to edit each and every one of them individually? And if so, how do you do it?(And sorry if this is somehow "not okay" to ask about. I couldn't find any other threads about it, so I simply had to ask.)
Blanket-tagging or mass-tagging over a large number of posts without looking at them individually is not recommended. People have gotten into trouble for doing so in the past.
The only feature you can use as a normal member to apply tags quickly is through the Edit mode, which allows you to tag posts through the thumbnails instead of having to load each page.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Blanket-tagging or mass-tagging over a large number of posts without looking at them individually is not recommended.
How about blanket-untagging or mass-untagging over a large number of posts with looking at them individually? (ie. all untags were accurate; the process involved first individually adding relevant posts to a set created for the purpose).
I got a record for doing that. As far as I can tell it is not against the rules you cited, unless it's somehow disruptive to do so.
savageorange said:
How about blanket-untagging or mass-untagging over a large number of posts with looking at them individually? (ie. all untags were accurate; the process involved first individually adding relevant posts to a set created for the purpose).I got a record for doing that. As far as I can tell it is not against the rules you cited, unless it's somehow disruptive to do so.
It's generally a really bad idea to mass delete tags without going through a tagging discussion unless it's something obvious like a typo for imminent/immenent that somehow reached dozens. That's technically an update not a deletion, though. Even then, an alias works better if the tag comes back on new posts. Likely imported from somewhere else.
Tag scripting is useful for variant sets and comics like you wouldn't believe. The edit mode is almost as good if not doing extremely repetitive tagging (it's the entire point of tag scripts). You can just copy and paste a pattern like ' -typotagname commontagname ' with the spaces to make it easier. This works well for something like a dozen posts with the same spelling.
alphamule said:
It's generally a really bad idea to mass delete tags without going through a tagging discussion
What discussion could that be?
IIRC I was just removing a common tag like 'anthro' from posts that it wasn't actually applicable to. I think I had about 300 posts lined up in the set.
I don't see how this is any different, functionally, from everyday tag-project stuff that people do via TagMe.Dev.
EDIT: Looks like it was in fact, adding the tag duo. https://e621.net/post_sets/19026 (no doubt this set includes some posts that have since had the duo tag added. I didn't update it since.)
Updated
savageorange said:
What discussion could that be?IIRC I was just removing a common tag like 'anthro' from posts that it wasn't actually applicable to. I think I had about 300 posts lined up in the set.
I don't see how this is any different, functionally, from everyday tag-project stuff that people do via TagMe.Dev.EDIT: Looks like it was in fact, adding the tag duo. https://e621.net/post_sets/19026 (no doubt this set includes some posts that have since had the duo tag added. I didn't update it since.)
Ah, OK.
savageorange said:
How about blanket-untagging or mass-untagging over a large number of posts with looking at them individually? (ie. all untags were accurate; the process involved first individually adding relevant posts to a set created for the purpose).I got a record for doing that. As far as I can tell it is not against the rules you cited, unless it's somehow disruptive to do so.
I don't know what is the specific instance you got cited for, but you would most definitely get punished for unjustified mass untagging (which would fall into the "do not remove tags that are valid" criteria).
One of the common ways people get punished is when they take it upon themselves to mass remove tags that they themselves feel are unneeded or invalid, without going through community discussion.
In those cases, it is recommended to instead submit a request for the tag to be nuked, sent to invalid_tag, or transferred to a more appropriate alternative.
thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't know what is the specific instance you got cited for, but you would most definitely get punished for unjustified mass untagging (which would fall into the "do not remove tags that are valid" criteria).
One of the common ways people get punished is when they take it upon themselves to mass remove tags that they themselves feel are unneeded or invalid, without going through community discussion.
In those cases, it is recommended to instead submit a request for the tag to be nuked, sent to invalid_tag, or transferred to a more appropriate alternative.
EDIT: actually it wasn't about adding duo taggings -- report just says 'don't batch tags off of posts', but my edit record in the cited time period has like .. 2 edits, so, not very informative (maybe about tagging things as duo and untagging them as group, given the two visible? At least one was a mistake, clearly.).
Updated
savageorange said:
I've noted it above; turns out it was adding duo taggings to relevant posts.EDIT: actually it wasn't about adding duo taggings -- report just says 'don't batch tags off of posts', but my edit record in the given time period has like .. 2 edits, so, not informative.
The set you linked is inaccessible to us because you most probably have set it to private.
If you have a problem with any records you have received, just contact the admin in question or escalate to higher-ups if necessary.
Considering said record is over 6 years old by now, you can ask from an admin to expunge it if you feel it is an eyesore.
Thanks. I don't really care that it is there, it was more that I didn't see a way to do anything differently. Sorry about providing a useless link; I've set it to Public status now.
savageorange said:
EDIT: actually it wasn't about adding duo taggings -- report just says 'don't batch tags off of posts', but my edit record in the cited time period has like .. 2 edits, so, not very informative (maybe about tagging things as duo and untagging them as group, given the two visible? At least one was a mistake, clearly.).
the record also links to stuff, but either the formatting was wrong to begin with or there was a change that broke the url so it doesn't work right.
the first one was supposed to be a link to you having nuked the tags of a post, the second one was the same thing.
dba_afish said:
the record also links to stuff, either the formatting was wrong to begin with or there was a change that broke the url.
the first one was supposed to be a link to you having nuked the tags of a post, the second one was the same thing.
Huh. Yes, those are different links than what I got from the report.
The records shown look like the result of buggy scripting.
Well, at least now I understand what it was even about!
alphamule said:
The edit mode is almost as good if not doing extremely repetitive tagging (it's the entire point of tag scripts). You can just copy and paste a pattern like ' -typotagname commontagname ' with the spaces to make it easier.
This, and with re621, you can use the keys ALT+ENTER to submit without having to move the mouse to and click the submit button, makes it a bit faster still.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Blanket-tagging or mass-tagging over a large number of posts without looking at them individually is not recommended. People have gotten into trouble for doing so in the past.The only feature you can use as a normal member to apply tags quickly is through the Edit mode, which allows you to tag posts through the thumbnails instead of having to load each page.
I was thinking specifically about a pool I came across shortly before making this thread, which contained a comic that used comic_sans as the font for the text in every single image (and yeah, I checked; it actually did). Now I, like many others, don't much care for it, and since I'm already 100% certain the tag is applicable for all the posts, I was thinking of how to apply the tag to the posts in the quickest and most efficient way possible.
Thing is, the comic was like... 30 or so pages long if I'm not mistaken, so editing every single post individually would just be a major pain in my ass. And that's the story about why I made this thread.
You can use https://tagme.dev, just put pool:ID in the search field
Careful about getting any projects about 1000 edits though, it'll get locked and you won't be able to edit the search or options
savageorange said:
EDIT: actually it wasn't about adding duo taggings -- report just says 'don't batch tags off of posts', but my edit record in the cited time period has like .. 2 edits, so, not very informative (maybe about tagging things as duo and untagging them as group, given the two visible? At least one was a mistake, clearly.).
It looks like we changed the URL parameters to that page sometime over the past 6 years, so those links were broken. I can give you the fixed links if you want (I'm not inviting drama over 2 mistakes made over 6 years ago), but I can confirm those were pretty unambiguously very bad edits that removed almost every single tag. I'm certain it was just a weird accident (especially since both were preceded by a valid edit you made within a couple hours), but I promise you it wasn't just removing duo or something; in fact, neither post had that tag.
Ah, I think I see how it happened. The user probably copied and pasted (a) tag(s), and accidentally selected all, for this to happen.
Mentioning URLs, going to start another topic in a second.
