"Offspring" images

A lot of images tagged as Offspring (OCs that are purported to be children of canon characters) have the OC’s “parents” tagged, as well as the corresponding ship, even if said characters are not in the image at all.
 
For example, >>805061 is tagged with “twilight sparkle, rainbow dash, twidash, shipping”, even though it is only a single OC, with no shipping or canon characters in the image at all.
 
I’m of the opinion that unless a character is explicitly visible in an image, they should not be tagged. The same goes for shipping tags as well, if an image lacks shipping.
 
For example, if I do a search for “Trixie”, that means I want to see pictures like >>1131300 and >>1129651. I have no interest in seeing images such as >>1061072, as that image has absolutely nothing to do with Trixie at all, so why should that image come up in a search for “Trixie”? It makes no sense at all.
 
So should that tags for canon characters/ships be removed from “offspring” images that do not actually feature said characters/ships?

@Background Pony #D6B7  
I think that shipping tags should be added without the character tags in those cases, but even if those are added by themselves the character tags are automatically added.

i’m in favor of keeping them because adding -offspring to your search is so much easier.

@DanielTepesKraus  
but in those cases that would exclude pictures of the offspring with their parents

@SuperSupermario24  
Easier said than done due to tag implications. If you tag an image as TwiDash, then the system automatically tags it as “lesbian, rainbow dash, shipping, twilight sparkle” as well. Plus if there is no TwiDash shipping in the image, I feel it’s not appropriate for that tag to apply.
 
 
@DanielTepesKraus  
I’d have to disagree with this. The entire idea behind tagging is that if you want to see pictures of Minuette, then you should only have to type “Minuette”, and then only see pictures that contain Minuette.
 
I don’t feel that it would be reasonable to tell people “Oh, if you want to only see pictures that contain Twilight, then you have to exclude ~~offspring”. That would set a bad precedent, that can only expand from there.
 
For example, what if someone starts tagging all screencaps of Tara Strong’s Twitter account as Twilight Sparkle, since Tara is arguably Twilight? The same logic applies since it’s related to Twilight, but Twilight isn’t in the picture. And then people wanting to search for pictures that contain Twilight Sparkle would need to search for “twilight sparkle, -offspring, -tara strong, -twitter”. Plus as @SuperSupermario24 said ~~ that will end up hiding images that legit contain Twilight Sparkle.
 
Most importantly though, which is the exception? I would imagine there’s a magnitude of people who are interested in pictures of Pinkie Pie than there are of some made up offspring OC of hers. So why should the majority have to be inconvenienced and start negating tags in their searches?
 
I think an overall better solution would be to use the “Implied <x>” tags. for example, a picture of an OC that the artist purports to be Twilight and Rainbow’s child, but doesn’t feature those characters in there, would be better tagged as “implied twilight sparkle, implied rainbow dash, implied twidash”. That’s contextually a lot more accurate, and doesn’t cause oc-only images to appear in searches that they don’t belong in.

@Joey  

yeah, there’s a good idea.

Disclaimer: I am OP. I anon posted by accident

@Joey  
ONE MILLION YEARS MOON

@DanielTepesKraus  
i agree. posting as anon should be an instant ban.

@Background Pony #CE6F  
what a handsome idea from a handsome man!

Yeah, I like the idea of using “implied <x>” tags.

I’m for this, I even stated long ago how I found it really annoying for when I want to see images of the offspring with their parents I have no way to filter the ones with just the offspring.

I disagree with the proposition unless a better solution is suggested. Otherwise it is just being pedantic, destroying useful functionality for the sake of adhering to another guideline to the letter. The usefulness of being able to search for offprings by parents outweights the “harm” of an oc being included in a character tag search. Tags have very broad use by definition and we define them as we want, so to a question of “when must character be tagged” an answer of “character has to be in the image EXCEPT on offspring etc.” is perfectly normal.
 
Changing every character tag to “implied…” is an acceptable solution.
 
That also takes care of other similar tagging situations where the character must be tagged by relation to the pic but is not physically in the pic.

@Vree  
I’d also suggest the creation of shorthand aliases if this is picked, “implied rd” “implied ry” etc. (aliased to the original “implied rainbow dash” etc.) tags to ease their use (and help their usage spread).

good idea. It’s really not logical to find heaps of OCs when you search for a canon character. I never liked that concept. When i search for Rainbow Dash I want pictures of Rainbow Dash and not this, this or this.
 
But the problem seems to be huge.. I’m not sure how to retag all that.

@Vree  
>destroying useful functionality for the sake of adhering to another guideline to the letter  
>usefulness of being able to search for offprings by parents outweights the “harm” of an oc being included in a character tag search
 
But that is kind of opposite ideas for this topic, the usefulness of the tags is to help find what we want, it harms it to not have a way to filter out the offpring all at once.  
We want to find images of canon ponies with an oc then the only way to filter out offspring is to include ALL tags for ships, or find image of the offspring but with the canon ponies that are the parent we have nothing to help filter out the ones without.
 
>tags have very broad use by definition and we define them as we want  
Only this is about how we tag image without the canon ponies with the tags for them, in that case we define it as the canon pony, so why use it for somthing we do not define it as?  
Sounds like we are using a tag with a far broader use then we define it with.

@Prof.NightJack  
I’m not really seeing what you’re saying that we don’t already know.  
All of this is either in joey’s post or really obvious.  
I declared my stance with those in mind.
 
Tags should not be removed if they serve a purpose because it is a lot more difficult to find all of the included pics again than changing the tags at a later point if a better one is created. This is the point I wanted to stress.
 
Since joey suggested a substitute, this is moot.  
(Only worth stating in case the “implied…” suggestion ends up changed.)

Of course, coming up with the ideas is easy. Actually implementing them is harder.
 
As of right now, a search for “offspring, (ts || rd || ry || aj || fs || pp)” gives 2223 results, and judging by the first 5 pages of a random-ordered search, many (a very rough guesstimate says a little less than half? I didn’t really try to count) of them don’t contain any of the M6. And that’s to say nothing about the other possible ships with all the other characters in the series.

@Vree  
>Tags should not be removed if they serve a purpose
 
Only we have cases where a tag actually should be removed for some reason(maybe a tag is already used for that purpose and fits a lot better so the second tag is then made pointless, even more so then only a few images have the second one) or the tag is actually wrong for what it is trying to be used for and there is one that is the correct one.
 

 
Unless the better tag then make it so some of the tags are then made to be incorrect and incorrect tags need to be fixed so, ya, remove them if it’s needed.
 
You said it would be destroying useful functionality to remove them but at the same time improper tags screw up the functionality as well.  
It makes no sense because they can be opposite to one another in some cases but the same in others.  
Yes tags have a broad use but there is a limit to how broad as at some point it;s not being used correctly, this is the idea of having of having images tagged with a pony not in the image because it in some very shaky way relates to them, like joey said of things about Tara Strong being tagged Twilight even if it has nothing to really do with Twilight.

I love how someone suggested an issue, it was discussed and a good solution was found, and now people are still discussing it.

@Background Pony #8D70  
>a good solution was found  
I good IDEA was put forth, but a solution has not happened yet.  
So people will still discussing it.

@Prof.NightJack  

 
One mod said a bit ago they ‘have a special set of users’. Those guys are probably planning to do it.

@Background Pony #8D70  
honestly I feel like Prof is just arguing with himself about minute technicalities too :/  
(ones nobody even questioned…)  
_{It’s not only whether you’re technically correct that matters, it has to be responding to sg sbody brought up and contribute towards the thread’s goal. None of the above is really relevant.}

@Vree  
>talking about how leaving things in a broken way is a general problem  
>calling it minute technicalities
 
Ya, you have no idea what I’m talking about if you think that is “minute technicalities”.
 
And what does that have to do with what I was telling BP? Until the thing is done with then people with discussing it.

Implied x already has a use for when an image involves an “off screen” character. Implying parents will dilute it, making the tag carry two meanings.
 
Why not use offspring:x instead? What’s the downside?