forum

Reword rule about map related tags

posted
Total Posts
13
Topic Starter
Mordred
Currently we have this wording:

"Do not include tags which have no relation to the beatmap or its song. Tags relating to the beatmap's style, storyboard, video, or background content are considered related to the beatmap and would be allowed in tags."

Now, if we go by this, it opens up a whole bunch of loopholes. Lets say Mapper X maps a song from Kancolle, and uses an Azur Lane background. According to this guideline, you would be allowed to include Azur Lane in the tags, despite the song not being related to the franchise in any way. As a result, anyone searching for Azur Lane songs would get a result for something completely wrong.

This is very misleading for no good reason, as it can lead to entirely different results than what you'd expect when searcing for something. Tags should help you find a song you're looking for, not a background. The same might apply to video / storyboard, including tags related to "style" seems rather unnecessary, but not something that has to be removed imo.

As such, I propose this rule to be reworded to something like:

"Do not include tags which have no relation to the beatmap or its song. Tags relating to the beatmap's style*, storyboard*, video*, or background artist are considered related to the beatmap and would be allowed in tags."


Obviously not the final wording, feel free to suggest better options, though with this the scenario I described would be really easy to avoid.


*idk if those should be changed as well
Annabel
i do agree that some clarification could be used for this.

i think keeping style, storyboard, and video would be fine as there are different types of mapping styles as well as crediting the making of a video (would also count for the background artist.)

not too sure what can really be done about unrelated bgs though as it's not a concrete case for everything, but some change in wording is a step in the right direction.
clayton
well... the thing being done wrong in that example is tagging a background that's clearly misleading for search results. so how about a guideline in the spirit of "don't add misleading tags" ?

it's not like all background tags are a bad idea. I've seen more than a few posts on /r/osugame where people try to find a map based on the bg, cuz it's all they can remember about the map
Topic Starter
Mordred
well that's basically what I'm trying to do here, so why not; maybe just use the currently existing rule and add a sentence add the end like:

"Do not include tags which have no relation to the beatmap or its song. Tags relating to the beatmap's style, storyboard, video, or background content are considered related to the beatmap and would be allowed in tags. Do not use tags that might lead to misleading search results."


sure not all bg tags are bad, like tagging the bg artist makes sense (I still think that should be done in the description but who really cares), but I don't think fully describing the picture is the way to go lol
clayton
deciding what is or is not worthy of tagging is backed on a lot of common sense that's just kinda hard to word into a rule. I think what u wrote now is best option though, at least it gives BNs the power to cite this when something dumb like ur example comes up
Topic Starter
Mordred
yea I agree with it being too hard to put into a rule

should we just go with go with that then?
clayton
https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/2937 , all I can think of to add is maybe an example if this isn't clear enough

this thread needs a few more bn/nat to confirm
Dored
o/ agree
Noffy
it could be cut down to just this instead maybe.
"Do not include tags which might lead to misleading search results.
"

could cut it down to just that sentence as it basically summarize what the guideline wants to do, and avoids having something requiring definition.

imo definitely needs an example added to be clear but no good ones come to mind right now.
pishifat
i dont really understand what noffy's trying to say

but i think the proposed pr is ok
Topic Starter
Mordred
do we even need to shorten it? I think what's currently there provides good examples for what's fine
clayton
well I think noffys point is that the rest is now kinda redundant

if the rule's good I'll update wording soon and get wiki dude 2 check
pishifat
maybe the bold sentence can be replaced by noffy's suggestion, but i dont think removing the second sentence is a good idea. stating clearly what's worth putting in tags is gooooood imo
Please sign in to reply.

New reply