@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.