From time to time, there’s always going to be some person that wants to ruin certain things for everyone, especially whenever it comes to downgrading, which is obviously a bad thing. Some people nowadays unjustifiably does this kind of thing just because of how much they disagree with it, and how wrongfully biased they are. It’s not about what works for you, and what doesn’t work for you, it’s about the fact that the things that are unjustifiably reversed (or so I’m told) despite having big advantages for not only the people in charge, but the userbase as well. The over specificness is a good example of this. In all honesty, it’s good to use it because it not only adds more details to something, but it also adds in MORE honesty to things like information and the whole nine yards, and it gives you a more clear understanding of what the things are. These are the pros, and as far as my thoughts go, the advantages here outweigh the disadvantages.
In the past, the Superpower Wiki for example, was kind of against this sort of thing, and I hold strong resentment for this kind of practice. Both Kuopiofi and Imouto-tan are the worst-case scenario. Anytime there are overly specific details put into the wiki pages, he downgrades them into unclear details on how the abilities work. I don’t necessarily hate/dislike those people for it, but because of the fact they do this kind of stuff, it frustrates me every time they engage in it. The thing is, it’s always a certainty that the users adding articles with overly specific details, will be confused and rather frustrated that the articles they’ve published have been downgraded. I can include myself in this regard because I am biased against declining overly specific things. Because again, as I’ve said earlier, it’s necessary to use because it adds more details to something, it adds in more honesty to things like information for instance, and it gives you more clarity of what the things are, and so forth.
I looked everywhere online about why exactly overly specificness is a bad thing, and I didn’t even see a SINGLE webpage that discusses this. After I’ve seen zero pages in relation to the matter, I got an overwhelming thought that people part taking in this kind of thing are unjustifiably biased against over specificness, and are just painfully arbitrary, blatant, and also capricious in whatever it takes to “keep something in better shape,” but in reality, it does the complete opposite, it makes the quality of something worse, especially with the details. I couldn’t even comprehend why most if not all people agree with the stance that over specificness is problematic, it just literally baffles and Irritates the heck out of me.
I was on the Derpibooru site adding additional tags in relation to the posted images, but out of nowhere, some select people in terms of the people at the top, are removing the tags because they were “too specific,” and that’s yet another site that does it, and then they banned me more than just twice at this point in time. This is just abolute BS.
I have every right to add the tags to make the images more easier to find and locate, and the higher staff are reversing them from the images. I’m extremely sick of this trend, and it must always be fought against.
There’s a difference between it being used poorly, and to using it properly. The former contains those issues, while the latter case has zero messy sentences, no clutter, no confusing sentences, and also not unclear or even difficult to read descriptions. To reiterate, if you people disallow over-specificness, why not allow it if it was done well, and having a hands-on deck relation to the subject?
Over-specificness is a good thing because again, it adds more clarity, as well as honesty, to explain how something works, what the faults are, the origin of something, etc etc. If you guys in terms of the higher-ups won’t listen, then there must be a compromise. Either you make an additional kind of tags menu for the less relevant tags to be added into, or even make a “sort by” scroll list to sort out the less relevant ones at the bottom of the menu or something. Or alternatively, make a sub-page to the tags page for the said kind of tags that get constantly removed by you guys.
You people in terms of the higher-ups are just wrongfully biased, whether you want to deny it or not. The tags help images to be more easier to locate and to identify the images. The symbol I was using is to both split and clarify the certain variations to what the image features. And how in the HECK, are the tags bad? Redundant or not, they still have merit in being useful in locating the images easier, but if the tags are poor in quality like with the names being messy, I can perfectly understand that. But no, you literally want to delete the tags that would’ve made the images easier to find and to even locate, on what a person’s favourites are, and its literally frustrating and depressing at this rate.
The tags are not unnecessary to add, but in truth, they aren’t necessary to add in either. They are added by someone’s own will to do so, and that it their job. It goes to show how I am mixed when it comes to higher-up administrations, because I know for a God damn fact, that power (no matter what type it is) tends to corrupt others, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What you people are doing is just biased in the wrong ways and its also blatant.
The userbase might not be the bosses, but in certain conditions, they can be, I can guarantee that.
Granulated or not, tagging is used for finding images more efficiently and easier, regardless of how far it goes. I still have a right to point out and criticize the issues w/o retaliative punishment and mockery. Again, I have a right to criticize and point out the issues that have to be changed/fixed, especially when I find them frustrating and/or just ruins the freedom of other users. Why can’t we just add whatever tags we want as long as the said images fit with them in terms of what they depict? It doesn’t make the site any better directly, it just makes things painfully limited and worse for the userbase itself.
Like I have said about the compromises, the volunteers/people running the imageboard site, can make another tag box for images to have for granulated tags, and as for the tags page itself, it can have itself a sub-page for the same exact tags you are against, so it will be less ‘messy’ and ‘unorganized.’
This is as close to your level as administration and volunteering as I can get, and this is just a compromising solution where both the userbase and the higher-ups take the victory, rather than making things look terrible for either side.
I mean sure, there may be issues that aren’t exactly a big deal, but I know for a fact that there can be issues that affect something in a negative way. Limiting the tags is a poor decision, and it just makes the site even less fun to use.
And besides, I am NOT even an expert in creating image boards and websites myself. To be clear, that’s not the userbase’s job, its the administrators’ job.
I am biased against administrative measures that value order above freedom to put it this way, instead of balancing both order and freedom to make everything else more compromising for both the userbase and higher-ups.