Guidelines for Tagging, Flagging, etc...

Pheaton I totally understand where you are coming from. This is a common dilemma in tagging.

But, I believe that the issue you raise is one where the versatility of the search engine comes into play more than tagging guidelines. If the search engine is able to show all image tagged shoes , regardless of whether it has been tagged red shoes, green shoes, nike shoes, adidas shoes, then it removes the need to tag a wallpaper as only shoes, and is enough to tag it with one combine tag, say, 'green shoes'.

As for color tags, I for one am of the opinion that color tags should always be combined tags. Color should always be an adjective. Because it's always an object that is colored, and the tag is describing that object. The same logic applies to a background too. Take green shoes in your example. How much real estate will they really take up in the entire wallpaper of a person wearing green shoes. It does not warrant to be tagged just green , because a very small portion of the image is actually green . But it makes perfect sense to tag it 'green shoes'. Whether or not it needs that additional tag of just shoes depends on the versatility of the search engine.

lezboyd said:

But, I believe that the issue you raise is one where the versatility of the search engine comes into play more than tagging guidelines. If the search engine is able to show all image tagged shoes , regardless of whether it has been tagged red shoes, green shoes, nike shoes, adidas shoes, then it removes the need to tag a wallpaper as only shoes, and is enough to tag it with one combine tag, say, 'green shoes'.

Thats what I thought. As far as I remember you guys plan on changing the search engine with the start of the beta. Until then I'll add both, as people will add it anyway. But I'll reconsider it after the beta started.

As for color tags, I for one am of the opinion that color tags should always be combined tags. Color should always be an adjective. Because it's always an object that is colored, and the tag is describing that object. The same logic applies to a background too. Take green shoes in your example. How much real estate will they really take up in the entire wallpaper of a person wearing green shoes. It does not warrant to be tagged just green , because a very small portion of the image is actually green . But it makes perfect sense to tag it 'green shoes'. Whether or not it needs that additional tag of just shoes depends on the versatility of the search engine.

Okay, that sounds perfect for me. In general I also consider if an item is big enough to describe it, which also counts for color. If you just see the tip of a shoe it doesn't need to be mentioned. If you can see shoes, maybe blury in the background, I may add a shoe-tag, but I don't think that color is important enough, as it plays just a minor role.

Anyway - As I am cleaning up my wallpaper collection another idea came to my mind. As a father of three kids (two of them teens), I thought about, that it might be a good thing to have a tag which marks a wallpaper as allowed and verifyed for kids. Something like "for kids" or "kid ready" (english isn't my native language, so there might be better options). This way at least parents are able to find wallpapers for their kids right away, without the need to scroll through inappropriate stuff. It's just a thought, nothing more. :)

We have purity flags for that. Disable Sketchy and NSFW from browser options (under user settings), and you should be good to go. Re-enable them when the kids aren't around ;)

lezboyd said:

We have purity flags for that. Disable Sketchy and NSFW from browser options (under user settings), and you should be good to go. Re-enable them when the kids aren't around ;)

I know, but that was not what I meant. I meant a tag, which helps to find wallpapers which are especially or also for kids. Like, let's say, disney wallpapers or. You know, that kind of wallpapers, which you would use as a background on your kids PCs.

As I said, it was just an idea. :)

Pheaton, we were discussing compound tags like pink bra recently but haven't decided what exactly to do about them for now. Just now there's nothing officially wrong with them, so don't worry about using them. As always, use common sense. Some of these compounds are useful in our current system but others aren't and won't be kept.

As for child-safe walls, we try to only have so many categories and what have you, so your best bet for now are specific tags in SFW.

not sure I should post this here... shouldn't this be NSFW ?

whismerhill Pretty obvious case for the first rule for flagging NSFW.

whismerhill This thread is for discussing rules regarding tagging, flagging, etc., and not specific wallpapers. I am sure a forums search would yield threads specific to that.

Hi. I have question, in fact even a problem with tagging wallpapers where the gaze of model is just... piercing. I remember that in old days there was a tag "piercing eyes" but it is missing now. I tried to add "piercing eyes" or "piercing gaze" again but site doesn't allow it. Why it has been removed and blocked? I understand it's not popular and used daily but.. it's me, I need it ;)

Another thing, why we can't delete uploads that has been reported? I just realized that one of my today's uploads is a duplicate and it was already reported. I could simply delete it saving the work for moderator but I can't do that.

Cryzeen said:

Another thing, why we can't delete uploads that has been reported? I just realized that one of my today's uploads is a duplicate and it was already reported. I could simply delete it saving the work for moderator but I can't do that.

You can delete your own uploads withis 24 hours from uploading. After that period mods take care of all dupes.

kejsirajbek said:

Cryzeen said: You can delete your own uploads withis 24 hours from uploading. After that period mods take care of all dupes.

But I can't. It says that I uploaded it 10 hours ago and there's no Delete Upload button. Pic rel.

Cryzeen said:

kejsirajbek said: But I can't. It says that I uploaded it 10 hours ago and there's no Delete Upload button. Pic rel.

Strange. Maybe because it was reported? Another bug? AksumkA will know about it more I think.

Not a bug, this is by design. We want to make sure that we have a staff member see any reported uploads before they get deleted in case we need to take some action against a rule breaker.

AksumkA said:

Not a bug, this is by design. We want to make sure that we have a staff member see any reported uploads before they get deleted in case we need to take some action against a rule breaker.

I guess that make sense, of course in case where you can track uploaders of abandoned wallpapers cuz that button is still there.

Why someone still and still removing correct tags like "sitting on the chair", "young woman", "Julia", Katerina", "Katerina (model) from wallpapers, pictures??

alistair33 said:

Why someone still and still removing correct tags like "sitting on the chair", "young woman", "Julia", Katerina", "Katerina (model) from wallpapers, pictures??

PM me examples you know for sure those tags been removed and I'll sort it out. Thanx

I've removed some of those tags! "Sitting on the chair" is a tag that has been reported, and is not really necessary. We have tags for "sitting" and "chair" that should be sufficient to the task. And a few of the walls involved stools, couches, and other things that weren't chairs anyway.

I also removed some "young woman" tags from walls of women who aren't that young! They're full-grown adults, and tags like "women" and "model" should do the trick.

As for the first names of models, why add it as a separate tag when the full name of the model is already tagged? It just creates confusion and makes it more difficult to find particular models, especially those whose last names are unknown or who only use a first name professionally.

I apologize if any of these conceptions run contrary to the established tagging guidelines.

"Sitting" have above 32.000 tagged wallpapers, so "sitting on the chair" is useful tag. "Chair" have many pictures too. "Young woman" tag involves women, girls like schoolgirls, students and little older. It's not problem, when both tags "young woman" and "aduld woman" are side by side.

Someone sometimes not remember surname and only remember name, so tag with name only is very useful. More tags helps in searching specific wallpaper.

Hey, alistair33! Thanks very much for your reply. I appreciate being able to discuss the finer points of tagging with you!

I think I see where you're coming from, and I guess I'm just coming at tagging from a slightly different angle. Let me try to explain by going through the tags we're debating... Strap in, this might get long! Of course, any other gentle readers out there are certainly encouraged to participate and share their own opinions of these very important serious matters!

"Sitting on the chair": I see the primary purpose of tagging as making walls available for searching via tags. Yes, there are a lot of "sitting" walls, and a lot of "chair" walls. But if you search for "sitting" + "chair"... that will give you every wallpaper that could be tagged "sitting on the chair" without going through the effort of tagging all those walls. That's why I said that the "sitting on the chair" tag was somewhat redundant. You can achieve the same results with the existing search engine. Magical, right?

"Young woman": This is certainly more of a gray area. The tag is often (erroneously, in my opinion) applied to nude models, who are clearly adult enough to participate in the adult entertainment industry. I usually remove those whenever I encounter them. If we're talking about ladies clearly younger than voting age (18), then sure, the tag is appropriate. I've tagged walls with it myself. But you can also just search for "schoolgirl" if that's your thing.

I should say that I do rather see a problem with a wall being tagged both "young woman" and "adult woman." It's like tagging a wall "indoors" and "outdoors," or "blonde" and "brunette." There might be a few instances where that's appropriate, but having opposite tags rubs the wrong way! Other thoughts on this topic are certainly welcome…

First Name Tags: Here's where I really see us looking at things from different vantage points. If you're using the first name tags to find models whose last name may have escaped you... well, just search for the first name. All the models with that name will appear. Scroll until you find the girl of your momentary fancy!

For example, let's say you had a yearning for some fine lady named Rosa... but what was her last name? No worries! Search for "Rosa" and you'll find 151 walls, including images of Rosa Salazar, Rosa Acosta, Rosa H., Rosa Brighid, and more. Your lovely Rosa is bound to be there somewhere.

BUT! I find myself trying to complete names of models, and unite walls under one common name. So if I go to More > Tags and search for “Rosa,” I can find all the other Rosa’s, but also the tag “Rosa” itself. There are only three walls here for Ms. Rosa Without a Last Name. There’s all of the same lady, all from OnlyTease Magazine. With a little detective work, it’s easy to determine that this lady is none other than Rosa Brighid, who already has 16 other walls on the site. Usually, I would then tag those three walls with the lady’s full name, and delete the “Rosa” tag. And then we’d have all of Ms. Brighid’s wall united under one name, and ZERO unidentified Rosa’s on wallhaven. And there would be much rejoicing!

I haven’t done this yet, so you can investigate yourself and see what I’m on about. But if all the Rosa Acostas, Rosa Salazars, etc. were also tagged simply “Rosa,” then this kind of correct identification and unification would be vastly harder. There’s a reason sites like MetArt will have a “Rosa A.” and “Rosa B.” and “Rosa C.” It’s so you can search for the general (“Rosa”) and also search for the specific model you want.

As you can hopefully see, in cases like this, more tags does not help in searching for a specific wallpaper. Quite the contrary!

So, that’s were I’m coming from. I hope that all made sense! TL;DR! Have a good weekend. Cheers!

Well, here I thought we were having a pleasant, productive conversation about tagging practices. But now I'm apparently banned from adding or removing tags.

Why bother?

I'll provide 1 example for each of the tags I list below. There were many examples though so it goes beyond a few mistakes. You're being way too harsh on removals of walls. I went through your recent wall removals and you are removing tons of tags that apply to walls. You are removing ass cheek tags where the walls main subject matter seems to be the ass cheek.

1920 x 108086PNG

1302 x 184288

1181 x 174833PNG

1920 x 108070PNG

4010 x 6338113

At the end of the day. You are being way too harsh on removing tags from walls. Just take a week off and relax from deleting tags. When you come back please don't be as harsh. If you dislike a tag report it first and possibly message a mod about it to expedite the removal if it's not a valid tag rather than just deleting a ton of the tag from walls.

So, the ban doesn’t have anything to do with the above discussion? OK, fine. Weird, but fine. Thanks for offering some more clarification of your reasoning for banning me. I’m happy to discuss the issues you raised. I would, however, have been happier to discuss them without getting banned! I’m not sure why we couldn’t have just had a conversation; I’m a reasonable person and you certainly know how to reach me.

And it’s not as if I’m uploading closeups of genitalia, or putting things in the wrong category, or changing purities, or actually breaking ANY of the rules that I can tell. All I’m doing is trying to tag wallpapers consistently and correctly. I’ve added thousands more tags than I’ve deleted. Perhaps you could look at the log of tags I’ve added to walls for a more balanced view.

I really appreciate Wallhaven, and I’m only attempting to make a positive contribution. I would think that you’d be interested in encouraging careful, thorough taggers. Instead of discouraging them.

Anyway, I would like to address the tags you mentioned. I’ll go from what seems to me to be the most clear-cut to those more open for discussion…

Shirtless: The very first post in this ‘Guidelines for Tagging, Flagging, etc.” thread (from cfunk, 6 years ago) offers the following guideline: “topless is for ladies, as you've surely noticed, and shirtless is for dudes. It's a bit inconsistent but people tend to think of women going topless and men shirtless.” Following this sage advice, I’ve removed the shirtless tag from walls featuring upwardly unclothed women and replaced them with topless.

Bottomless: Also earlier in this thread, stolichnaya80 (6 years ago) offers this guideline: “If a post is tagged nude, surely it doesn't need to be tagged topless, and bottomless as well.” The example you provide above is actually nude, not bottomless. So in this case, and others, I’ve removed the bottomless tag and added the nude tag (or made sure it was already there.)

Nature: It was my understanding that the nature tag should be applied to things like bird and bees, landscapes and trees, lions and tigers and bears, etc. For women in the great outdoors, I believe that the appropriate tag is women outdoors, hopefully accompanied by a tag or two describing the location (forest, desert, urban, beach, etc.) So whenever I’ve removed the nature tag, I’ve replaced it with women outdoors and other relevant tags. (I do see what you mean that this could be achieved by searching for nature and disabling people.)

Ass Cheeks: You mentioned reporting tags. This one was reported quite a while ago (and not by me!). There is, in fact, an already existing tag that describes this part of the anatomy perfectly: ass. I’ve yet to see an ass without cheeks, or an ass cheek somehow independent of an ass. So this certainly seems like a redundant, duplicate tag. Whenever I’ve deleted an ass cheek, I’ve made sure to add the ass tag. To do otherwise would be half-assed! (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Female Only: I think this is weird tag, because it’s describing an absence (of men, I suppose?) rather than a presence (of women). That is, it’s a tag that draws attention to something that’s not pictured in the wall. It’s like tagging a forest “trees only.” What does that mean? The overwhelming majority of walls of women are “female only” I guess. But I think the tags women and group of women would be more useful and appropriate to this wall. This tag has also been reported but continues to be used.

Naked Apron: I guess I can see how this could be a useful search. The problem is that it’s not the apron that’s naked, it’s the person. And if the person if wearing an apron, are they really naked? Whenever I’ve deleted this tag, I’ve also added the tag apron. I think apron plus partially clothed would be the best combo for these walls.

In conclusion, I hope that you can see that I’m not removing tags maliciously, or randomly, or for fun and profit! I’m not being “harsh” or “picky.” Whenever I do remove a tag, I try to replace it with the best option(s). And then I usually add some more tags to more thoroughly describe the wall and make it more easily searchable. I would love to hear from other users regarding these tags; perhaps some consensus could be reached through more discussion. And maybe then we could have a little less banning without discussion. Cheers!

Sadly the guidelines from 6 years ago are a bit outdated and don't accurately reflect the needs and wants of the user base today. While being 100% accurate about what a wall might depict is nice, it should also be considered what people might use in their searches to actually find walls.

Shirtless: I can see where you're coming from with shirtless.

Bottomless: When it comes to nude fitting for bottomless, this can be vague and often up for discussion, and I can see a reason for both tags being used. By definition, nude is no clothing at all. Arguably that wall is not nude since she is wearing gloves and leggings. To some, they would like to have that nude tag because they can see her ass and boobs, but to others they may want the bottomless tag because she has no underwear, skirt, pants, etc. This is a case where being literal can harm potential searches for walls like this.

Nature: Another case of where being literal can harm searches was the nature tag. While the advanced user may look for their women in specific locales such as the forest, desert, snow, etc. The more basic of users may just be looking for general purpose nature shots of women. By removing the nature tag, you remove the ability of these basic users to get a broad view of these various types of walls for the women category.

Ass Cheeks: This is one of those harder ones to deal with as the argument for keeping both can arise. When one uses the ass tag, it can be assumed that the subject matter is a man or woman's ass, but if they want to be more descriptive, they can use the ass cheek tag to describe that the actual flesh of the ass is showing, rather than being encapsulated by undergarments. This is a situation where it can allow for a more in depth search is done right.

Female Only: I'll merge the tag into group of women, but it would have been nice to see if anybody was actually using the tag or not, but since you might have deleted all their uses I cannot verify if the user base was using it.

Young Woman: If she looks under 30 let the tag be. We don't allow walls of those under 18 anyways so let people look up potentially late teens/twenties have that opportunity.

In the end, While being literal can help users find specific walls, it is also fine to leave in tags that can also fit the situation to allow both basic and advanced users a means of finding walls. So before going on deleting sprees for tags you don't like (such as sitting on chair) and mass deleting the tag from walls because you feel it isn't a useful tag, report them first. Since tags like sitting and chair might not actually depict what people want when searching for a girl sitting on a chair. Since a person may be sitting on the ground, and have chairs around them so both those tags may be relevant to that wall without having a girl sitting on a chair.