Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
To clarify: THIS is a vacuum
THIS is a nauli
Most naulis begin with a vacuum, but not all vacuums progress to naulis.
Maybe vacuums, naulis, belly-rolls and belly-dance should be children of 'abs control' ... and 'abs control' should be a child of 'muscle control' ... unless 'abs control' should be a child of 'abs' ... which would make them grandchildren.
To clarify: THIS is a vacuum
THIS is a nauli
Most naulis begin with a vacuum, but not all vacuums progress to naulis.
Thank you for clarifying the difference. Vacuum I knew, nauli I didn't. But that's not actually the clarification I was requesting...
Do you know the purpose of doing an ab vacuum (and since you mentioned nauli, do you know the purpose of nauli)?
Can you confirm (or correct) that the purpose of the ab vacuum is:
The ab vacuum helps flatten the lower abdomen by strengthening deep muscles that have lost their muscle tone --?
The ab vacuum helps shrink the waistline by flattening the lower abdomen and pulling the sides in by increasing the muscle tone of the deep muscles worked --?
Add children of glasses: sunglasses
Add children of hat: beach hat, bucket hat, baseball cap, helmet
Add children of animal: cat, pets
Add children of body hair: hairy armpits, hairy arms, hairy legs
Add children of pool: poolside, swimming pool, infinity pool
Add children of costume/cosplay: street fighter cosplay
--
Also, I see that the "costume/cosplay" tag has already had a lot of child tags added to it. But would it be better to classify them in layers of hierarchy, in order to group together certain types of cosplay?
What I mean is: right now "chun-li cosplay", "cammy cosplay" and "juri han cosplay" all point directly to their parent tag "costume/cosplay".
But maybe it would be better to set it up like this:
Similar groups could be created so that "wonder woman cosplay", "supergirl cosplay", "she-hulk cosplay" etc would all be grouped together under a parent tag called something like "superhero/comics cosplay", and then that tag could have the parent tag "costume/cosplay".
So, which of these three options do you think is the best way to organize them?
Also, I see that the "costume/cosplay" tag has already had a lot of child tags added to it. But would it be better to classify them in layers of hierarchy, in order to group together certain types of cosplay?
What I mean is: right now "chun-li cosplay", "cammy cosplay" and "juri han cosplay" all point directly to their parent tag "costume/cosplay".
But maybe it would be better to set it up like this:
- "street fighter cosplay" has the child tags "chun-li cosplay", "cammy cosplay", "juri han cosplay", "sakura cosplay", "marisa cosplay"
- Then "costume/cosplay" has "street fighter cosplay" as a child tag.
- So the individual character tags would no longer be direct child tags of "costume/cosplay".
Similar groups could be created so that "wonder woman cosplay", "supergirl cosplay", "she-hulk cosplay" etc would all be grouped together under a parent tag called something like "superhero/comics cosplay", and then that tag could have the parent tag "costume/cosplay".
I see your thinking here, but going more fine-grained could be a slippery slope.
Cheetara is a popular cosplay, but she's not a superhero (moreso a cosmic refugee among a group that keeps their royal allegiances). There aren't enough female Thundercats to justify a standalone Thundercats medial category. Putting her in under top-level cosplay seems best.
Fine-grained would also lead to confusion and disagreements about how to classify them. The next argument could be that street fighter characters should be classified under the first game version they were released under. Nevermind the endless possibilities for subcategories under superheroes.
So, which of these three options do you think is the best way to organize them?
- All individual character cosplay tags point directly to "costume/cosplay" as the parent tag (like they do right now).
- All individual character cosplay tags point directly to "costume/cosplay" as the parent tag, but they also have their series/group tags as another additional parent tag. (So "chun-li cosplay" is a direct child tag of "costume/cosplay" and a direct child tag of "Street fighter cosplay".)
- All individual character cosplay tags point only to their character group tag as a parent, and then that group tag points to "costume/cosplay" as its parent. (So "chun-li cosplay" is a child of "Street Fighter cosplay", and "Street Fighter cosplay " is a child of "costume/cosplay".)
New tag hierarchy system
You may notice that sometimes when you go to a tag page, for example biceps flex, you see something like this:
This is the new tag hierarchy system I just released.
The way it works is this: Any time you search for a tag, all images tagged with its children (recursively) are also included in the search results.
For example, with the above: If you search for "biceps flex", the results also include "front double biceps", "peaked biceps", "back double biceps", and "biceps rear peak". If you search for "biceps", the results include "biceps flex" and all the other aforementioned tags. If you search for "biceps rear peak", you just get the results for that, without "biceps flex"; unless "biceps rear peak" also has children of its own, which can't be seen in the above screenshot.
Also, if you are subscribed to "biceps", you also get notifications when images are tagged with any of its children, recursively.
...
Also note that under any particular image or model, all the parent tags are also pulled in (in gray), and do not count towards the 10 tag limit.
NOTE: When tagging an image, please use the most specific relevant tags. This is because the parent tags are automatically pulled in. For example, if you tag an image with "biceps flex", it is essentially automatically tagged with "biceps" also, since "biceps" is a parent of "biceps flex". If you were to only tag with "biceps", then the additional detail of "biceps flex" would be missing.
...
Chainer already explained that it's set up to automatically include all children under their parents, however many levels there are...
I read that. But that's an explanation that it's technnically possible for the system to support multiple layers of tag hierarchy. I was asking if people actually want to use it like that, in this specific situation of cosplay tags.
My suggested option (3) would follow that multiple layer system. (That's my personal preference.)
I added option (1) in case people might say: "Well, we've already started having all individual character cosplay tags as direct children of 'costume/cosplay', so let's not change it by adding a mid-level tag in between." Your post above added another good reason why it might not be a good idea to use mid-level tags to group together fictional characters: the possible arguments about how they should be grouped together.
And then I added option (2) because it's another potential option I could imagine doing. However, Chainer's explanation doesn't explicitly mention if the new system supports one having two or more different direct parent tags, so maybe there's a good reason not to do that? (e.g. maybe giving a child tag two different parents is bad for site performance, or something?)
Add children of glasses: sunglasses
Add children of hat: beach hat, bucket hat, baseball cap, helmet
Done. Except for helmet, which is its own thing. And baseball cap is now a child of cap.
Add children of animal: cat, pets
Done.
Add children of body hair: hairy armpits, hairy arms, hairy legs
Done.
Add children of pool: poolside, swimming pool, infinity pool
Done, with pool merged into swimming pool.
Add children of costume/cosplay: street fighter cosplay
Done.
- "street fighter cosplay" has the child tags "chun-li cosplay", "cammy cosplay", "juri han cosplay", "sakura cosplay", "marisa cosplay"
- Then "costume/cosplay" has "street fighter cosplay" as a child tag.
This is done as listed above. Not every genre of cosplay will need an intermediate category (parent) designation. In this case, it works because of the volume of street fighter stuff.
This might overlap with several parent tags, but what about "twerking"? It could fall under the parent tags "dancing" or "glutes".
There is already "glutes bouncing/flexing", but it doesn't distinguish videos that show someone just flexing and holding their glutes just once (especially with them being striated), from those that show someone's glutes bouncing and shaking in a rhythmic fashion, or with active dancing. I feel adding the tag "twerking" under either one of those parent tags could help differentiate such videos.
Add children of handstand: handstand pushup, handstand walk, one arm handstand, handstand split
Add children of balance: handstand
Add children of handstand: handstand pushup, handstand walk, one arm handstand, handstand split
Add children of balance: handstand
Done. Handstand is also a child of "calisthenics".
Set up “headwear” (or similar term) as the parent of “cap”, “hat”, and “helmet”.
Probably no.
This is not an exercise in who can finish a complete taxonomy of tag topics. There needs to be a general demand for query.
Tags that are needlessly specific or “boutique” are at risk of being merged.
Add child of photoshoot: industrial
Industrial settings are not exclusive to formal photoshoots.
Chainer★:
Definitely mistagged.
It doesn't mean you have a small waist.
My understanding is (and I might be wrong) is that it means they're trying to attain a smaller waist. They might start with a larger waist.... Actually I should add, I believe it's also meant to give them a flatter stomach, particularly the lower abdomen area where often due to loss of muscle tone in deeper muscles begins to develop a "pooch" area. This is what I mean by a lower abdomen pooch:
This is what an actual ab vacuum looks like:
As I stated above, I'm no expert on the ab vacuum. I don't want to tell you the wrong thing. Instead I'm telling you that someone else with greater expertise should tell you. Among my various body type preferences, I like the tiny ones and itty-bitty waists so I inevitably see lots of vacuum content in videos I click on. Ironically, I don't like watching them.