Posted under General
The new take on thigh gap introduces a level of subjectivity where previously there was none. The tag as previously defined seemed to be working just fine; the gap served to denote the full or near flowering of a particular body type. It was either present or not because that's the way the artist wanted it. I hardly think matters are improved any for a tagger to have to judge if the gap is "fairly significant" enough to include.
Updated by a moderator
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Tagging practice will not change significantly as a result of the wiki edit which you seem to have neglected to mention, assuming that we all watch the history of the thigh gap wiki page raptly around the clock. If you feel so strongly about it, revert it. If it turns into an edit war, then it might merit a whiny forum thread.
Well, aside from the fact that I said "new take on" and "previously defined" as I linked to the wiki, and felt that was sufficient allusion to the definition change as to make explicit mentioning of it quite unnecessary, I figured a whiny forum thread was a better first act than getting into an edit war with a janitor. I could be wrong.
Yeah, now that I notice, the guy who made the change is ePlus, who is a janitor. All the more reason not to publicly announce your ire and to instead pm ePlus and try to work out a resolution. Nobody likes to be called out in a public venue before one-on-one negotiations have failed (or even been tried), and a janitor is in more of a position to do something about such a situation.
The forum is for discussion, not complaining, so in the future try to restrict your remarks about wiki changes to more along the lines of "X person made Y change, which I disagree with, but now that I think of it, there may be some ambiguity as to which is the correct course of action, and therefore I am submitting this issue before you forumgoers to elicit opinions on the same" rather than "X person made Y change which is stupid and therefore without actually stating any request I implicitly ask that all forumgoers who care about this topic (which is in my estimation necessarily a significant number) agree with me / censure X / take corrective action against the actions of X / etc.".
I certainly didn't intend to call anyone out, nor did I seek to call anyone stupid or have anyone censured for having made a change with which I disagree. I should think that changes with which one disagrees happens on a fairly frequent basis here, and that discussion about them would be taken with a certain level of detachment.
Yet I suppose I was seeking public feedback on how to proceed before reverting 7 pages of edits. It seems the public feedback is that I choose not the best venue. I was perhaps more concerned with the issue than with the man. Frankly I don't know why I didn't use a pm in this case, aside from the fact that I somehow felt that pm wasn't the proper place for a member to "negotiate" with a janitor. I am properly admonished.
Updated by Lokispawn
Hold on. 7 pages of edits? That merits discussion. Why did you not mention this in your post? Reverting a wiki entry or discussing it in PM is one thing, and detagging/retagging large number of posts is another. All I'm saying is that you should be more comprehensive when bringing up something like this. State the situation clearly and say what it is that you want discussed.
Anyway, now that this thread exists, what do people think? If it's still not clear, the wiki page "thigh gap" was recently edited to say that the tag should only be applied to posts where there is a "significant" gap between the thighs of a character. Accompanying this change was a swath of edits to remove the thigh gap tag from posts in which the thigh gap was judged not to be significant.
When I first created this tag a while ago, I made it with a certain look in mind. Yes, I agree "significant" is a bit subjective and considered that a lot before changing anything, but I was seeing a lot of missuse going on with the tag. I'll give you that half the posts I retagged had a gap, but the gap to thigh ratio was completely crazy (most gaps being about the size of a penny or dime).
I'm a strong believer in tagging only when it's a significant part of the post. More lately, it's turned into "I Spy" when you see the tag apple and you have to search for the apple in the post. In my opinion, tags should only be used if it's something the person searching would really like to see regarding that tag, not because it's there but not significant.
In the end, I do think my choice was a subjective one, but my creation of the tag was somewhat objective too. My original intent was for it to be a tag of significant gap (at least 1.5" or so) for those who really like that certain look rather than just, "Oh, there's a small gap there. Tag thigh_gap." But I will agree that thinking is somewhat subjective as well.
ePlus said: I'm a strong believer in tagging only when it's a significant part of the post. More lately, it's turned into "I Spy" when you see the tag apple and you have to search for the apple in the post. In my opinion, tags should only be used if it's something the person searching would really like to see regarding that tag, not because it's there but not significant.
For what it's worth I completely agree with your tagging philosophy regarding this, however we're in the minority. It's too easy for "significance" to be countered with "but that's too subjective" and what can you say to that other than "use common sense" which is also subjective?
In a perfect situation we could also somehow attach a "significance" value to a tag and filter out results where the tag is not of a certain significance threshold... but hah, then you're really talking subjectivity and on top of that *complexity* and it's just not a feasible idea.
So there's really nothing that can be done about it. Even though I will say that I rarely do searches on general: tags anymore because results are, overall, so diluted with images of the most marginal significance that it's not really worth sifting through.
