So, I save bookmarks for tags I like, and one of them was dangling_doggystyle. The search didn't result in anything, which happens from time to time with certain tags.
Wanting to find out how I can search for posts that included this tag, I scoured the alias and BUR listings, but couldn't find anything. Initially I thought something went wrong or that it might have been an oversight of some sort or something.

But apparently a user by the name of Bloodreaver01(user #70978) decided to just change any and all posts with this tag by hand, which just seems crazy tbh. Ain't there tools for that?
And I know that I basically answered my own question here, but I'm not sure what tags to use now, to find the same sets of posts that dangling_doggystyle would apply to.

Normally there'd be like a discussion about it somewhere, and you could check on how you would go about it after a big change like that.
But since that didn't happen, and there is no real documentation about this anywhere, I just can't help but feel a little dissatisfied about all this.

Wish I could do more than just mope about it, and I don't want to pillory anyone here, but I suppose I should still post this, just to try and bring some attention to it, in case it helps.
Should I just be making an issue out of nothing here, then please excuse my incessant rambling and sorry for wasting your time.

Thanks for reading,
Have a splendid day

Edit: Changed title name from What happened to the dangling_doggystyle tag? to current one

seems like user Bloodreaver01 has manually depopulated the tag without discussion, alone removing 310 instances of the tag from posts.

looking through the tag edits the user seems to have a penchant for doing this with quite a few tags, rather than the proper thing of requesting an alias and discussing it on the forums.

dba_afish said:
seems like user Bloodreaver01 has manually depopulated the tag without discussion, alone removing 310 instances of the tag from posts.

looking through the tag edits the user seems to have a penchant for doing this with quite a few tags, rather than the proper thing of requesting an alias and discussing it on the forums.

would automated repopulation be desirable? it probably wouldn't take me too long to whip up a script to do that, just undo all of those untaggings.

tokwas said:
would automated repopulation be desirable? it probably wouldn't take me too long to whip up a script to do that, just undo all of those untaggings.

actions like this should probably be handled by report, a single user manually reversing the edits could just lead to the being removed again. if someone wants to make the report for that themselves now, go ahead but I want to take a glance through all of the edits for the past few months to see if there are any instances other than the one mentioned in this thread.

wow, that's a lot of tag removals, big_female_small_male was manually removed from the site too or even tags like lots_of_eyes, alt_version and open_butt

casmin7~ said:
wow, that's a lot of tag removals, big_female_small_male was manually removed from the site too or even tags like lots_of_eyes, alt_version and open_butt

should be removed as we're trying to avoid combination tags like that, since expanding them to all combination of sexes (and forms) would be an excessive number of tags, while existing individual tags like larger_female + smaller_male would give mostly the same results. alt_version also isn't a good tag, since it's not TWYS (it depends on other images that may or may not be here, and may or may not still be available) and what's considered an "alt" vs a sequence/continuation can be subjective. lots_of_eyes is also subjective (how many is "lots"?) though could probably have been aliased multi_eye (but we are trying to avoid aliases with mismatched starting letters too, to avoid cluttering the autocomplete suggestions with undesirable results). open_butt sounds like something that could've been disambiguated, for spread_butt, spread_anus, or gaping_anus.

watsit said:
big_female_small_male should be removed as we're trying to avoid combination tags like that, since expanding them to all combination of sexes (and forms) would be an excessive number of tags, while existing individual tags like larger_female + smaller_male would give mostly the same results. alt_version also isn't a good tag, since it's not TWYS (it depends on other images that may or may not be here, and may or may not still be available) and what's considered an "alt" vs a sequence/continuation can be subjective. lots_of_eyes is also subjective (how many is "lots"?) though could probably have been aliased multi_eye (but we are trying to avoid aliases with mismatched starting letters too, to avoid cluttering the autocomplete suggestions with undesirable results). open_butt sounds like something that could've been disambiguated, for spread_butt, spread_anus, or gaping_anus.

the problem wasn't that the tags were valid, it's that they were removed manually when they should be aliased or at least have an alias discussed. a few of these tags had only a handful of posts; manually correcting a tag that's been used only like a dozen times is fine, but once you get into the 24, 32+ range, and certainly once you start hitting the 75 per hour tag edit limit while emptying out a tag, it's no longer a job for a single user. big_female_small_male had a population of 128, open_pussy had 132, and neither have active alias or burs. and, as mentioned above, dangling_diggystyle had 310.

dba_afish said:
once you start hitting the 75 per hour tag edit limit

It's a rolling limit of 150 with each hit falling off after an hour

donovan_dmc said:
It's a rolling limit of 150 with each hit falling off after an hour

oh right, it's two pages, not one page.

watsit said:
big_female_small_male should be removed as we're trying to avoid combination tags like that, since expanding them to all combination of sexes (and forms) would be an excessive number of tags, while existing individual tags like larger_female + smaller_male would give mostly the same results. alt_version also isn't a good tag, since it's not TWYS (it depends on other images that may or may not be here, and may or may not still be available) and what's considered an "alt" vs a sequence/continuation can be subjective. lots_of_eyes is also subjective (how many is "lots"?) though could probably have been aliased multi_eye (but we are trying to avoid aliases with mismatched starting letters too, to avoid cluttering the autocomplete suggestions with undesirable results). open_butt sounds like something that could've been disambiguated, for spread_butt, spread_anus, or gaping_anus.

That's really the point, usually this stuff gets forum evidence as to why its happened in all the approved/rejected posts, Like I'd understand if it was discussed and then acted upon. The first step was skipped. What if all users suddenly decide a tag shouldn't exist? What's the precedent being set here to follow.

casmin7~ said:
That's really the point, usually this stuff gets forum evidence as to why its happened in all the approved/rejected posts, Like I'd understand if it was discussed and then acted upon. The first step was skipped. What if all users suddenly decide a tag shouldn't exist? What's the precedent being set here to follow.

I agree that open_butt and probably lots_of_eyes should have been discussed or had alias requests made. But tags like big_female_small_male have been discussed (in the general sense of sex or form combo tags being strongly discouraged beyond <sex>_penetrating_<sex>), so making alias requests would likely be slow to apply while also polluting the autocomplete suggestions. And tags like alt_version, sketch_version, colored_version, etc, have also come up a couple times with some resistance to them, in part because there's uncertainty in how they'd be applied, so I think there should be a discussion to come to a consensus before making them in that case rather than the other way around, especially as there's nothing they could be aliased to to get rid of them (aside from invalid_tag; users can't make BURs with the nuke command to simply delete it from posts without an alias).

casmin7~ said:
That's really the point, usually this stuff gets forum evidence as to why its happened in all the approved/rejected posts, Like I'd understand if it was discussed and then acted upon. The first step was skipped. What if all users suddenly decide a tag shouldn't exist? What's the precedent being set here to follow.

That's what I was hoping could get discussed more in this post.
Though I fear the lack of a proper title reflecting this exact issue, might not really end up giving this the attention it might potentially deserve.
Guess I/someone could just make a new discussion with a more fitting title regarding this subject, in case this thread dies. I just realized I can just edit the title.

While I must admit that I feel a bit silly even continuing to talk about this, considering that in the end it's just a, already ambiguous, wiki-less, unvalidated tag, that probably no one (besides me ;_;) is gonna miss, the way Bloodreaver01 went about this, doesn't feel in tune with how things on this site seem to be usually handled. But I also haven't really found any rules or similar, stating how it should actually be done, or that how they did it is a welcome/unwelcome thing to do.
Well, technically there is, but it really depends on whether dangling_doggystyle is/was considered a valid tag or not and when a tag even is considered valid, for which I didn't find any specific rulings.
Only for invalid tags and how they are handled, but I'm not sure that automatically means any tag not marked as invalid, is also valid. Especially for those uncommon lower count tags.

beatifichound said:
That's what I was hoping could get discussed more in this post.
Though I fear the lack of a proper title reflecting this exact issue, might not really end up giving this the attention it might potentially deserve.
Guess I/someone could just make a new discussion with a more fitting title regarding this subject, in case this thread dies. I just realized I can just edit the title.

While I must admit that I feel a bit silly even continuing to talk about this, considering that in the end it's just a, already ambiguous, wiki-less, unvalidated tag, that probably no one (besides me ;_;) is gonna miss, the way Bloodreaver01 went about this, doesn't feel in tune with how things on this site seem to be usually handled. But I also haven't really found any rules or similar, stating how it should actually be done, or that how they did it is a welcome/unwelcome thing to do.
Well, technically there is, but it really depends on whether dangling_doggystyle is/was considered a valid tag or not and when a tag even is considered valid, for which I didn't find any specific rulings.
Only for invalid tags and how they are handled, but I'm not sure that automatically means any tag not marked as invalid, is also valid. Especially for those uncommon lower count tags.

To be honest it seems like a perfectly valid tag that should be added to all instances it is applicable to. Having a look through a Dangling_legs with standing_doggystyle search you still get images where the character are holding themselves up. There is a carrying_partner tag but that was not added to the images that originally had dangling_doggystle, but carrying_partner is not fully implying both dangling and doggstyle. (and in some images, the partner is still not dangling regardless)

If anything it needed to be added to more images that fit it, so when someone searches danging_doggstyle they get exactly that.

Or all images where that is happening need all three tags? Just seems like the simplest option would be the use the dangling_doggystle tag

donovan_dmc said:
It's a rolling limit of 150 with each hit falling off after an hour

Off-topic question : Are there any consequence with hitting that limit ?
When using tagme.dev I hit the limit once (very easy classification of a series of picture) and I was afraid that my requests stopped being excepted because I would have been temporary blocked for spamming. So I have stopped making lots (in speed) of small changes.

Also, it that the limit of the number of sending of a new list of tag ? Or is it the limit of how many tags can be changed ?

mikael_the_d said:
Also, it that the limit of the number of sending of a new list of tag ? Or is it the limit of how many tags can be changed ?

It's post edits, has nothing to do with tags specifically
rating changes, description changes, etc. and even uploading count against the same limit

mikael_the_d said:
Off-topic question : Are there any consequence with hitting that limit ?

You can't edit any posts or upload until one of the hits falls off

The limits are very naive and do not have any extra checks behind them
The only limit you can hit that will cause problems is exceeding the 2 requests/second limit, you might find problems if you exceed that for an extended period of time

There's also a lesser known burst limit (this used to be shown on profiles but AFAIK is not shown anywhere anymore), this is a rolling 60/1 minute (90/1 minute for Privileged, 120/1 minute for Former Staff+) of any update action, this limit is VERY hard to hit legitimately, I have only hit it myself a few times in the last 7 years (usually very high volume automated tagging projecte)

donovan_dmc said:
It's post edits, has nothing to do with tags specifically
rating changes, description changes, etc. and even uploading count against the same limit

You can't edit any posts or upload until one of the hits falls off

The limits are very naive and do not have any extra checks behind them
The only limit you can hit that will cause problems is exceeding the 2 requests/second limit, you might find problems if you exceed that for an extended period of time

There's also a lesser known burst limit (this used to be shown on profiles but AFAIK is not shown anywhere anymore), this is a rolling 60/1 minute (90/1 minute for Privileged, 120/1 minute for Former Staff+) of any update action, this limit is VERY hard to hit legitimately, I have only hit it myself a few times in the last 7 years (usually very high volume automated tagging projecte)

Thank you for your response. I have been worried for nothing.

This is almost never the right way to handle renaming or removing a tag. Is there a better name for it? Alias. Is there no consistent use? Invalidate it. Is it a typo that has gathered 300 uses? Alias it.

If there's a commonly used invalid tag just nuking it isn't going to fix it. Even if it's one guy's 'should've been a set' tag you might be, at best, needing to continuously clean it up, and at worst instigating a tag war.

This seems like a familiar username for some reason... strongly advocating for nuking tags. Yeah, I can see why the OP is complaining.

Considering that just about anyone is agreeing that this tag is completely valid and that the user seems to have a penchant for removing tags, I feel like this should need some admin intervention/rule change NGL

"Tag removals should be discussed in the forum and not done manually; users caught doing that will be punished for it." Alongside reverting the bad change should be a start, BeatificHound caught this one user and tag because he cared about it, who know how many other tags and users are getting away with it but not getting caught

devourer_ita said:
Considering that just about anyone is agreeing that this tag is completely valid and that the user seems to have a penchant for removing tags, I feel like this should need some admin intervention/rule change NGL

"Tag removals should be discussed in the forum and not done manually; users caught doing that will be punished for it." Alongside reverting the bad change should be a start, BeatificHound caught this one user and tag because he cared about it, who know how many other tags and users are getting away with it but not getting caught

Generally, you are allowed to remove tags that are obviously invalid and replace them with the appropriate tag without the need for discussions.
However, manually nuking tags with a large amount of posts, especially those that have seen use by multiple users, is very much frowned upon.
The appropriate course of action to take (for nuking tags) is to submit an alias request for it to be invalidated or be moved to the closest established alternative, where they can be discussed and voted upon.

If you believe that a user is removing large numbers of valid tags by themselves, you can report them for Tagging Abuse.

beatifichound said:
That's what I was hoping could get discussed more in this post.
Though I fear the lack of a proper title reflecting this exact issue, might not really end up giving this the attention it might potentially deserve.
Guess I/someone could just make a new discussion with a more fitting title regarding this subject, in case this thread dies. I just realized I can just edit the title.

While I must admit that I feel a bit silly even continuing to talk about this, considering that in the end it's just a, already ambiguous, wiki-less, unvalidated tag, that probably no one (besides me ;_;) is gonna miss, the way Bloodreaver01 went about this, doesn't feel in tune with how things on this site seem to be usually handled. But I also haven't really found any rules or similar, stating how it should actually be done, or that how they did it is a welcome/unwelcome thing to do.
Well, technically there is, but it really depends on whether dangling_doggystyle is/was considered a valid tag or not and when a tag even is considered valid, for which I didn't find any specific rulings.
Only for invalid tags and how they are handled, but I'm not sure that automatically means any tag not marked as invalid, is also valid. Especially for those uncommon lower count tags.

I checked the post changes and it seems like a lot of removals were done because the posts weren't doggystyle. The tag has no wiki, so I can't easily tell what it was supposed to mean, but suspension_doggystyle might be the tag that you are looking for?

Edit: Apparently dangling_doggystyle was made and mostly populated(about 250 posts) by a single user who added it to a bunch of posts that didn't even contain any doggystyle, which sure makes for a very confusing tag.