Let's make a list?
I think objects are pretty self explanatory, but all objects such as sword should imply holding_sword and others.

But our vocabulary for describing more complex patterns such as facial expressions, actions, positions, aesthetics and stylistic features such as rough_lines or things like :> or :3.

Let's compile examples of posts for things we can't quite describe.

Stylistic things there's matte shading or solid shading.
here's some.

Post #193039, Post #193038, Post #193030, Post #193029, Post #193011

It's very clear why these are similar, but their tags are vastly different, and also, they're all fairly appealing to me. I find art style has a much bigger impact on my reaction than objects or if her eyes are brown. Artists are good, characters general are drawn similarly. But you could draw a character in one style or another and I would and wouldn't like it. A lot of the tags we use are useful because certain characteristics correlate with certain anesthetics but why not just be able to search by aesthetic?

Here's some non examples of the above category.
Post #193012 the enviroment has a different kind of depth, the artists was trying to achieve that, which makes it "feel" different.

Post #193017, it's bubblier and the lines are thicker.

Post #193019, you can see.

Post #193023.

They are very similar, but there's something about them that makes them different. I can't quite put my finger on it exactly. There are some important similarities so maybe the tag should apply if a certain style or artistic approach is in the image, even if it's just a component of an image.

like Post #193008 is laid out like a scene with explicit emotions that fill the environment from the shading, facial expressions, and body positions and it has a matte look to part of it but there's something different, so maybe break it down into its base components so matte -rough_shading would be a good search.


Also for some searches (not of characters or artists or particular objects) that have thousands of results while another may only have 5 - 20, similar to how some forum posts are huge while others are tiny. More balance would indicate that there's just the right amount of specificity among different aesthetics. If something is too specific or too broad it's useless without just the right -[tag] things.

Maybe each person could be assigned just a few aesthetics to manage (maybe called stylistic components) making a users/janitors job simpler so they'd be more apt to help. Also it's hard to keep track of ideas that you haven't been taught since you were a little kid. what the hell is aesthetic anyway?

so like, make some new tags and give examples below of several images.
My opinion on tags is that if it's ambigious, it shouldn't be a tag. While we strive to tag posts clearly and accurately, we shouldn't get bogged down by subjective interpretations that differ with each poster. Tags that are used and maintained should be as objective as possible.

For example, when I think of "matte" I think "non-glossy finish" or "matte painting in filming". So when you say matte shading I think of any rendering style that isn't glossy/shiny, which according to my standards of glossiness apply to 90% of the 2D art submitted on this site which makes the tag useless. Others might have a stricter interpretation of it and only apply it to 10%, and it still becomes ineffective because when they search for the tag they'll find out that other people (possibly with the same opinion on matte as me) have "polluted" many other posts with the tag making it difficult to find the ones that do meet their standards for that tag.
Alacaster said:
Let's compile examples of posts for things we can't quite describe.

Stylistic things there's matte shading or solid shading.
I love that idea. I always thought about something like this, but there's the subjectiveness of it all...

altuser said:
My opinion on tags is that if it's ambigious, it shouldn't be a tag.

...

For example, when I think of "matte" I think "non-glossy finish" or "matte painting in filming". So when you say matte shading I think of any rendering style that isn't glossy/shiny, which according to my standards of glossiness apply to 90% of the 2D art submitted on this site which makes the tag useless. Others might have a stricter interpretation of it and only apply it to 10%, and it still becomes ineffective because when they search for the tag they'll find out that other people (possibly with the same opinion on matte as me) have "polluted" many other posts with the tag making it difficult to find the ones that do meet their standards for that tag.
..but if we make a strict definition with many exemples it maybe be better than nothing and work.

Like, many tags are ambiguous but still exist. "Loli" itself, for exemple. What is a "tomboy", how feminine does a shota have to be to be considered a "trap", what counts as an "ahegao", what is "realistic" or "photorealistic", what is "bad anatomy" and not just stylization, how can you know an image depicts "rape" without the context, etc... There's many tags we already use without much problem that you could argue are even more ambiguous, but if there's a consensus or an stated standard they become an useful categorization nevertheless.
We define a "loli" by the viewing of thousands of examples of the thing, that's all we need to make tags non-ambiguous. So "make a list."
sex

could use more work with filling in positions, keep it in mind.

and mandatory tags also
Alacaster said:
and mandatory tags also
I think you may want to take a look and maybe reform the existing tag guidelines:

howto:tag
howto:tag checklist
Life_isn't_fair said:
I think you may want to take a look and maybe reform the existing tag guidelines:
So I guess pools are just being underutilized and I should read more.