# Make a separate species selection



## Gattsu (Mar 16, 2013)

Yo guys,

I was recently searching through the "Horse" selection in the "Species" drop down menu and found quite a lot of pony art and pictures there, specifically that of the My little pony TV show. Lets get one thing straight I don't mind if other people like that show but it aggravates my pedantic mind when all the pony art is put into the Horse category when they are not horses, even though they are from the same family they are not the same. Its like putting cats and Lions together.

So I was wondering if anyone else gets aggravated by it and if there is anyway to get a separate species for Ponies so not to fill the horses section with tons of images of Ponies.

Edit: The poll is anonymous so no one will know what you chose, unless you state it.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Mar 16, 2013)

I do think the species list should be revamped, as most bovines are lumped together in one category, and I do agree that ponies should have their own species on the list. (not saying I hate them though) certain categories are extremely vague and need more species listed to achieve more accuracy.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

I don't get why the species marker is a drop down menu...surely users can be trusted to type the species without a spelling mistake, much like the tags? 

In fact tags rather render the species profiling a little redundant.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't get why the species marker is a drop down menu...surely users can be trusted to type the species without a spelling mistake, much like the tags?
> 
> In fact tags rather render the species profiling a little redundant.



1 - Historical reasons.  It's older than the tag system by _years_.
2 - No, you can't really.
3 - But tags don't actually DO anything (how exactly are they supposed to work again?)


----------



## Avlenna (Mar 16, 2013)

Technically, horses and ponies are both equine, but they are separate animals all together.  They should be separated.  Also, in discussion of the species list, it needs revamped because some of the animals listed as certain species are incorrect and some species aren't listed at all.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2013)

Stratadrake said:


> 1 - Historical reasons.  It's older than the tag system by _years_.
> 2 - No, you can't really.
> 3 - But tags don't actually DO anything (how exactly are they supposed to work again?)



When you perform a search the tags heavily influence the relevancy of the results. 
I cannot yet see how you perform a search that is exclusive to a species, apart from using the browse function.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 17, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> When you perform a search the tags heavily influence the relevancy of the results.


Is that all?  You cannot input a tag name and search by that (only title/description/keywords), the Browse page doesn't use tags, the submission page itself doesn't show tags, heck, _you can't even edit tags after the initial submit_.

The dropdown listbox may be severely limited but it's the tag system that's wholly broken.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2013)

Stratadrake said:


> Is that all?  You cannot input a tag name and search by that (only title/description/keywords), the Browse page doesn't use tags, the submission page itself doesn't show tags, heck, _you can't even edit tags after the initial submit_.
> 
> The dropdown listbox may be severely limited but it's the tag system that's wholly broken.



I'm sure you can edit tags, can't you? I thought it was part of the information editting.


----------



## Taralack (Mar 17, 2013)

Stratadrake said:


> Is that all?  You cannot input a tag name and search by that (only title/description/keywords), the Browse page doesn't use tags, the submission page itself doesn't show tags, heck, _you can't even edit tags after the initial submit_.
> 
> The dropdown listbox may be severely limited but it's the tag system that's wholly broken.



I'm pretty sure you can. It's under Change info, and the keywords box is underneath the info box. (assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "tags")


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 17, 2013)

Toraneko said:


> (assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "tags")


Not unless there's another detail about the system I'm missing.  Let me check . . . .

...Okay, I take it back.  The "tags" system I was thinking of doesn't actually exist anymore, just keywords.


----------



## MicheleFancy (Mar 17, 2013)

How specific do we need to get, though?  When is the line drawn?

For example, lumping things together in equine makes sense for me personally, but I think once we start listing categories such as "European Swallow" and "African Swallow" because they are different species it gets to be a bit much.  I think listing by Family or even the Genus (which might be pushing it a bit, but could be used for more clarity) makes more sense in the long run, while tags/keywords can be used to mark specific species.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 18, 2013)

....
.....
I keep on swearing every single time such a thing is talked about something in the back of my mind goes
"Isnt FA going to Get rid of the Species selection area, isnt that why they been pushing for folks to use keywords/tags on their submission more than the species list?"

So far its back and forth where they did do an update with it but they pretty much stopped cause people was getting to specific


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 18, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> "Isnt FA going to Get rid of the Species selection area, isnt that why they been pushing for folks to use keywords/tags on their submission more than the species list?"



You can't get rid of a dropdown box on the Browse page, period.  People like having it there.  You _could_ have a dropdown list of keyword filters (which admittedly blurs the line between Browse and Search) but then you also need a dictionary-based approach to ensure that keywords are being input in the same way they are being retrieved (or vice versa).

For example, "griffin" vs "griffon" vs "gryphon" return three completely different search results (and their plurals return separate results still) _why?_


----------



## Tigercougar (Mar 18, 2013)

Welp, if there're sections for Pokemon and Digimon, why not Ponies? Looks like that's gonna be the next big anthro-centric fandom.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 18, 2013)

Tigercougar said:


> Welp, if there're sections for Pokemon and Digimon, why not Ponies? Looks like that's gonna be the next big anthro-centric fandom.


Pokemon and Digimon are interesting examples because they have entries under _two_ listboxes ("type" and "species"), which means you can Browse interesting combinations of either but is otherwise a little redundant.

From a 'species' standpoint, there is _no_ reason to separate ponies from horses in general.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 18, 2013)

They need to bring back apple!


----------



## DragonTalon (Mar 27, 2013)

I just wish we could select more than one species.  When you upload a picture with two species, what do you select?  Makes the search MUCH less useful when probably half the characters in the database can't even be searched for.  I know a lot of artists leave them blank because why bother picking one when you have five species in a picture.

A hierarchy would be neat too.  Then you could select Equine and further refine to Horse or Pony and people who want them all can search on Equine and people who want horses can pick Horse.  Unlukely to happen but still, would be nice.


----------



## kontonakuma (Mar 27, 2013)

Why stop at ponies? As the person above me stated, being able to select more than one species would be nice.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 27, 2013)

Stratadrake said:


> You can't get rid of a dropdown box on the Browse page, period.  People like having it there.  You _could_ have a dropdown list of keyword filters (which admittedly blurs the line between Browse and Search) but then you also need a dictionary-based approach to ensure that keywords are being input in the same way they are being retrieved (or vice versa).
> 
> For example, "griffin" vs "griffon" vs "gryphon" return three completely different search results (and their plurals return separate results still) _why?_


sites like IB and SF have solved this problem by having a system in place of when you tag it will suggest what you are typing meaning they would see Gryphon being the official tag.

Problem is SoFurry uses a very very generalized browse feature while Inkbunny does away with it (you can see all art uploaded but you cant specify) due to it would be more of a search feature (which they have).

SoFurry though did away with species as if you are looking for a specific species then you should be using the search feature instead of browsing (which if you stop to think about it browse is probably a more generalized search anyway)


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 27, 2013)

My pony senses are tingling that I missed a thread mentioning it.

Personally I think it should be under the type section; like how there is digimon, pokemon and such.


----------



## Willow (Mar 27, 2013)

I don't see how this is such a huge issue really. It's like all wolves are lumped together but there are different species of wolves. After that it just seems like people are being picky. 

And you can't really compare ponies to Digimon/Pokemon because those two really are their own separate entities unlike ponies where they're more like miniature horses.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 28, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> My pony senses are tingling that I missed a thread mentioning it.
> 
> Personally I think it should be under the type section; like how there is digimon, pokemon and such.


heres the the thing....
As my friend would have said "There is a difference of a pony and My Little Pony, every time someone confuses the two I will pray that a small kitten is drowning somewhere"

Ponies would be under Equines as its nothing more than a smaller horse, but MLP is something different.

So again:
Ponies is Equines
MLP is the same as Sonic the hedgehog.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 28, 2013)

No, here's the thing ... it's like saying that "werewolf" and "wolf" should be separate species entries because they're slightly different.  Or like asking "anthro" to be split from "feral", or Simba and Aslan not be given the same label.

Again.  From a SPECIES standpoint there is nothing "misleading" or "inaccurate" about classifying MLP as ponies/equines - they *are* ponies.  Heavily stylized, anthropomorphized ones - but ponies just the same.

Now giving MLP a separate option in the Type/Genre listbox (like we already have for Pokemon, Digimon, and Sonic) would be the better option.


----------



## Mewtwolover (Mar 28, 2013)

Pony = horse so no separate option for ponies in species section. I agree with Stratadrake that giving MLP a separate option in the Type/Genre listbox would be better option.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Mar 29, 2013)

What's the deal with Bovid? We only have bovines, antelope, gazelle, goat, and other. I think there should be separate selection for cows, bulls, and sheep. I'm sure there's plenty to account for each.

And what's with "GSD (German Shepherd Dog)"? It's the only breed to get its own category. And shouldn't Huskies be under Dogs or Wolves? Most "Vulpines" are foxes in the first place. "Cervine" is rather vague and I assume may confuse users. Squirrels are Rodents, but they're listed separately. 

Just a few of my pet peeves of the species list.

As for ponies, they are basically small horses and share the same scientific name Equus ferus caballus so I suppose they shouldn't be separated, but we could add a separate MLP category. I could see that being equally beneficial for both lovers and haters of the show alike.


----------

