# Search abuse.



## JamesTheRaccoon (Mar 1, 2009)

Is there (should there) be a rule against abusing the search system for more views and comments? ( Example: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2035825/ ) Dumping every possible keyword into a submission seems pretty low... Thoughts?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 1, 2009)

They do the same thing for YouTube videos.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm sorry...everywhere else does that...soooo I dont see it as bad if everywhere else does that


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2009)

Yeah, figured it wouldn't take long for this to come up. One the one hand people aren't likely to click something if it's obviously not what they were searching for but on the other hand I really don't want to see completely unrelated shit forcing me to sift through all of it to find something relevant to my search. It's why I don't use Google to search for images much anymore (that and the frequency with which the one GOOD pic I find will be a dead or otherwise inaccessible link - so why the fuck HAVE IT THERE?)


----------



## Eevee (Mar 1, 2009)

Already seen this happen.

imo someone who regularly keyword-scums despite warnings should just be blocked from search results.


----------



## krisCrash (Mar 1, 2009)

Maybe one day keywords can be interactive, meaning users can add and remove keywords to an artist's post (and a system will group and compare keywords to eliminate typos and synonyms), maybe then it will be self reliant.

As for the example, no amount of programming or rule-writing prevents stupidity - just lots and lots of moderation :/


----------



## DigitalMan (Mar 1, 2009)

Eevee said:


> imo someone who regularly keyword-scums despite warnings should just be blocked from search results.



I like this idea.

I would also suggest that "improper keywords" be an option when reporting an image, to speed up the process, but it looks like FA doesn't even _have_ an option to report an image...



krisCrash said:


> Maybe one day keywords can be interactive, meaning users can add and remove keywords to an artist's post (and a system will group and compare keywords to eliminate typos and synonyms), maybe then it will be self reliant.
> 
> As for the example, no amount of programming or rule-writing prevents stupidity - just lots and lots of moderation :/



You mean, sort of like Wikipedia? That could work - but would take a massive amount of programming to get the system in place.


----------



## JamestheDoc (Mar 1, 2009)

I just post as many truly relevant words I can think of.  

Such as the species in the picture, characters in the picture, any kind of fetish or theme of the picture, and anything the picture references to (i.e. fanart of Resident Evil would beckon me to use Resident Evil as a keyword).  Prominent images in the picture I also put.  If it's a picture that draws a lot of attention to say, the butt, I'd consider throwing the word butt or ass into the keyword thingy.


----------



## krisCrash (Mar 1, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> You mean, sort of like Wikipedia? That could work - but would take a massive amount of programming to get the system in place.



Yes, and some image sharing sites, like e621.net thought there is a big debacle of whether keywords are actually related, because to some that is opinionated and to others it's about facts.

Is Hyper an Anatomy_mistake?
Do Herms relate to Female?
Is Poser 3d_modelling?

Clearly not.

It can also get far-fetched if people try to slap every possible keyword on, that while relevant are not very important.

Maybe just vote for keywords, hope the "SEX" put on pics without sex will be voted out.


----------



## Eevee (Mar 1, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Maybe one day keywords can be interactive, meaning users can add and remove keywords to an artist's post (and a system will group and compare keywords to eliminate typos and synonyms), maybe then it will be self reliant.


I want to do this, but it is *very* difficult to keep people from (easily) being dickholes.


----------



## krisCrash (Mar 1, 2009)

more like impossible.

Users can be such idiots sometimes :/

Man have I removed a lot of "gay" tags from solo pictures and "loli" tags from big breasted women over at another site.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 1, 2009)

What about keyword allotment?  Like allowing a max of five or ten keywords per submission?


----------



## Kesteh (Mar 1, 2009)

What really annoys me most, i search for... let's throw an example... Linux.
Suddenly the results are porn, bread, selling gold for cash, and toyota cars.
None of them are related to Linux until i get to page 54.
Unlike this arrogant ass in the submission above, these people don't rub it in your face and go "LOL SUCKER"

Nobody fucking wants this. 
There was a website (may it rest in peace) that stored TV shows so you could watch online, and had a user-voting tag system. If the author added a tag that wasn't related, it would be removed after so many negative votes.
If the user persisted to maliciously add unrelated tags, they would be omitted from all results, past present and future. This also set the user's title to "misleader" to kind of shun them. It was also their 'last warning' before a ban and removal of all videos.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Mar 1, 2009)

There should be something about the keywords that should be posted on ToS


----------



## Phillip C (Mar 1, 2009)

Look, I'm sorry for making people angry and all, but I gotta say, unless I hear from a real moderator I don't want nasty comments like this:




"If I could rate this I would give it a 0/5 and then write angry letters to myself about how bad it was before bringing it up at the dinner table with my loved ones and we would all agree on how bad it is. Which is very bad.
It is very bad."




REAL MATURE! Good way to get what you want, huh folks? I ain't fishing for praise, I do want people to see my art cause I would like to improve and hear the thoughts and opinions about it so that I can change accordingly. This however as quoted above is not helpful, and if you're not a moderator of FA you should not talk like this, it pisses me off and makes me NOT want to change anything and keep doing it cause if people are going to say this to me, I'm gonna want to see how many people flip out.

Treat me with respect however and I WILL LISTEN TO YOU (I'm not saying that you should kiss my rear end, but at least be nice... I haven't been having a good week). Don't go onto my part of the site with that crap, I don't appreciate it at all.

I'd like to hear from a forum Moderator about this and get an official ruling so that I can change this myself, anybody else who tries to pin me to a cross will be met with hostility.


----------



## DigitalMan (Mar 1, 2009)

Well then, by all means, let the hostility be aimed at someone who can take it.

What you quoted wasn't his first comment. His first comment was pointing out that your keywords were inaccurate, in a perfectly acceptable manner - "Where is the yiff, or the sex? New keywords plox". This was met with, and I quote, "There is no yiff or sex, but there is a sucker. And no I ain't changing anything, ain't my fault you found my awesomeness!"

I think he had every right in the world to react in the way he did. He reacted with mild immaturity, to your immaturity, blatant ass-hattery, and outright refusal to _stop_ being an ass for anyone. In short, no, you will _not_ listen to anyone who will treat you with respect. You had that chance, you forfeited it, and I don't think any of us are inclined to believe that you'll be changing your mind any time soon.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 1, 2009)

I sent the user a warning.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 1, 2009)

Phillip C said:


> Treat me with respect however and I WILL LISTEN TO YOU (I'm not saying that you should kiss my rear end, but at least be nice... I haven't been having a good week). Don't go onto my part of the site with that crap, I don't appreciate it at all.


The first step to obtaining respect is not to abuse the resources you're given and THEN demand respect.



Phillip C said:


> I'd like to hear from a forum Moderator about this and get an official ruling so that I can change this myself, anybody else who tries to pin me to a cross will be met with hostility.


I have sent you a note on FA. Check your notes.


----------



## Rossyfox (Mar 2, 2009)

Phillip C said:


> Don't go onto my part of the site with that crap, I don't appreciate it at all.



There is no such thing as your part of the site.

You don't own the site.

The owners of the site kindly let you upload and create content on their servers without charging you personally for the bandwidth.

You don't have a right to be here. You have a privilege that you have been granted.


----------



## Torin_Darkflight (Mar 2, 2009)

I will confess, I too am guilty of tagging my art with a novel's worth of keywords.

!!!HOWEVER!!!

Even though most of my submissions are often tagged with upwards of 30 or more keywords, all of them...ALL OF THEM...are 100% relevant and related to the submissions on which they are posted. I do this because I want to be as thorough and detailed as possible with my keywording, thereby helping anyone searching for "those particular subject matters" to find my art easier.

Summed up, I post so many keywords because I want to be thorough. I DON'T post false keywords to "trick" anyone into looking at my art. That's been one of my biggest pet peeves on YouTube.


----------



## Eevee (Mar 2, 2009)

PhilipC said:
			
		

> I've mislabeled a picture with too many keywords and anybody looking for porn is going to be sorely disappointed and they're going to demand my blood because they can't fap to something I drew. Seriously, take it with a grain of salt kid and don't be dragging your drama BS onto my page. I ain't changing anything, the mods can change whatever they want, I ain't hurting anybody, why you're getting so anal about this is a mystery to me.


This inflated sense of entitlement bewilders me.  I don't understand why you are snapping at people who are annoyed that you lied to them for attention.  How is anyone "dragging their drama BS to your page" when you went to great lengths to _attract_ it?

Get over yourself, jeez.


----------



## Kesteh (Mar 2, 2009)

Torin_Darkflight said:


> I will confess, I too am guilty of tagging my art with a novel's worth of keywords
> Summed up, I post so many keywords because I want to be thorough. I DON'T post false keywords to "trick" anyone into looking at my art. That's been one of my biggest pet peeves on YouTube.




That is fine, as long as they are relevant. People don't want to search for Cats and get "Landscape Concepts" as a result.


----------



## DigitalMan (Mar 2, 2009)

Hey Eevee! You're just a programmer, what people do on this site is of no concern to you! Grrr >=(

Kudos to Dragoneer for stepping in on this matter. Especially so quickly. Though now I wonder what "hostility" he had in store


----------



## Xaerun (Mar 2, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> Hey Eevee! You're just a programmer, what people do on this site is of no concern to you! Grrr >=(
> 
> Kudos to Dragoneer for stepping in on this matter. Especially so quickly. Though now I wonder what "hostility" he had in store


*palmface*
Digital, don't be such a douche. I think you'll find Eevee's work will significantly improve the site.


----------



## krisCrash (Mar 2, 2009)

xXxKirai_KainashixXx said:


> What about keyword allotment?  Like allowing a max of five or ten keywords per submission?



it's perfectly possible to have a picture where more than 10 are relevant, though. Subject/theme, medium/method, character portrayed, species, age. Easy example is a picture with more characters on.



Kesteh said:


> There was a website (may it rest in peace) that stored TV shows so you could watch online, and had a user-voting tag system. If the author added a tag that wasn't related, it would be removed after so many negative votes.



Do want.


----------



## Eevee (Mar 2, 2009)

Xaerun said:


> *palmface*
> Digital, don't be such a douche. I think you'll find Eevee's work will significantly improve the site.


Pretty sure he was mocking PhilipC's reaction to me.  8)


----------



## TehSean (Mar 2, 2009)

How does the search engine work? If it only picks up on single word keywords instead of taking into account synonyms of that word (say, like http://e621.net/ 's search funct, which is user-built for the most part to define which keywords will automatically trigger other keywords in order to eventually cut down on the work required for users to tag submissions with.. ) Then why are you punishing someone for increasing the odds that the search engine will function?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about http://www.e621.net/tag_implication

There are suggestions for tag implications, so one tag can mean many things and instead of having the userbase be forced to use multiple tags that mean the same thing, can simply have one tag sit in a pool of synonyms when the userbase decides that all those words deserve to mean the same thing.

FA doesn't do that as far as I know and it wasn't explained exactly how it functions, but the jist was that it'll only pick up on the word you searched for by checking category, description, tags, and title and whether or not it checks comments for those hits is unknown, but it doesn't do implications? The keyword system doesn't allow for phrases either right?

So right now because the system could be described as primitive, I don't know see how this is search abuse. Maybe I came in REALLY LATE and the changes in the targeted user already happened.

What I was expecting was that people were tagging the image with words that were completely irrelevant to the image.


----------



## JamesTheRaccoon (Mar 2, 2009)

I like most of the replies to this thread. Way to go above and beyond what I thought the replies would be. o_o; (With the exception of the "EVERYONE ELSE DOES IT SO I CAN DO IT TO" type replies.)

I should hang out in the forums more often. :3


----------



## DigitalMan (Mar 2, 2009)

Yay, Eevee got it, that's the only person that matters 



TehSean said:


> What I was expecting was that people were tagging the image with words that were completely irrelevant to the image.



And that is exactly what happened. That image had more sexual keywords than most outright porn images. Dragoneer made the guy change it.


----------



## Eevee (Mar 2, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Then why are you punishing someone for increasing the odds that the search engine will function?


Nobody is.  The submission in question originally had keywords like "macro", "micro", "paws", "naruto", "manga", "onepiece", and some dozen more that had nothing to do with the image.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Mar 2, 2009)

Could always just program in a system that does the following:
A) Allows users to vote on individual keywords. Lower a score below a certain vote percentage threshold? Keyword isn't deleted, but loses all Search relevance for that image until the percentage shifts back to that threshold.
B) Links all of a user's votes together invisibly.
C) Allows Admins to blacklist abusive users from voting on keywords, nullifying all of their previous votes(that were linked together invisibly for ease) and disabling their ability to vote for a time determined by the admins.
D) Only allows for one vote per keyword per submission.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 2, 2009)

Eevee said:


> Nobody is.  The submission in question originally had keywords like "macro", "micro", "paws", "naruto", "manga", "onepiece", and some dozen more that had nothing to do with the image.



Ohhhhhh! Haha. Well thanks for clearing that up. )


----------



## Tatsuyoujo (Mar 2, 2009)

I was confused at first ,but now i know what you're talking about. I think anything can be done about that ,but it's not really hurting anything. It's just alil annoying.


----------



## Aden (Mar 2, 2009)

Uhm.

Keyword quantity limit, guys. Do it.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 2, 2009)

There's already a character limit :^)


----------



## Alex Cross (Mar 2, 2009)

You can't really stop people from adding irrelevant keywords. Too much micromanagement.


----------



## Aden (Mar 2, 2009)

TehSean said:


> There's already a character limit :^)



Then what's the problem? Just make the limit smaller if you need.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 2, 2009)

Aden said:


> Then what's the problem? Just make the limit smaller if you need.



There is no problem! That's why it hasn't been changed.


----------



## Aden (Mar 2, 2009)

TehSean said:


> There is no problem! That's why it hasn't been changed.



Sweet. Thread closed. :V


----------



## WebsterLeone (Mar 2, 2009)

Perhaps keyword relevance could be weighted? The more keywords you have per submission the less importance they have in the search results. I believe CafePress does this. You put in your top five to ten keywords, and if you really want to include more, you can. However, if you do put in more, while your item will appear in more types of searches, it won't appear as high on the list. This lets you make a trade off between how often it'll be seen for each individual keyword searched, and how many keywords it'll show up under.


----------



## DigitalMan (Mar 2, 2009)

You can't outright limit keyword number. Let's see... The example that comes to mind is an image that one would swear started as an "Aristocrats" joke. You know the type - just a whole lot of disturbing things going on at once. You take each of the fetishes involved - let's say, 10, including synonyms - then the species (we'll go with three), and potentially the medium, and setting... 15 keywords. 15 fully relevant keywords, which I think is more than that guy had.

I think the easiest way to stop keyword-scumming would be to allow flaming/harrassment of such people


----------



## Firehazard (Mar 3, 2009)

Alex Cross said:


> You can't really stop people from adding irrelevant keywords. Too much micromanagement.



Sure you can.  AFAIK like most of the problems on this site it's not hugely widespread; just making it easy to report the obvious offenses should take care of the few instances that exist so far.


----------



## xansteel (Mar 7, 2009)

I can understand the abuse factor in this. I'll be honest with reading the beginning of this thread, it seemed to me no body understood what keywording meant. Until I read farther in, then it became obvious that the ones making the stink did, and that the image in question was in fact wrong for doing so.

I myself use keywording of my images with things that are relevant to the image itself (Meaning what is in the image). I'm going to post a VERY simple guide line that I myself follow from this PROFESSIONAL stock photography (where hobbies and Professionals sell Stock Photo's) website. Mind you this is a simplified Guideline version.

1. Subjects Only: Only include whats in the image. Colors, objects, people/furries, What are they doing/who are they doing, how are they doing it, the background (only loosely, if you have a main subject), species, if your using a real photo background, who it's from (FA icon, if possible), Subject.

2. Landscapes: Colors, objects, people/furries, What are they doing/who are they doing, how are they doing it, the background (only loosely, if you have a main subject), species, City (only if the City is seen even a part of it), State (goes with City since some States have the same named City), Convention (if at one), Subject of the Landscape.

This should be used as a guideline for artists, and photographers alike.

Now I'm going to show you one of my photos for my account even if it gives me grief from others.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2021014

Now every keyword listed is indeed related to the photo. The subject is the Landscape I'm shooting, where I'm shooting it, the colors, and the objects (also looking back at the image myself I did miss a few keywords, but they where to small to see, so I'm not adding them). Now some have mention that some keywords are not important enough to be there. But if your selling work, then every keyword is important as long as it belongs to the picture/image. Yes even colors. Because the Poster does not know the Searcher's mind to be able to guess what they are looking for. So I use common sense, and simplicity when adding keywords. I didn't add people or relaxing, because there isn't any people relaxing in the picture. I added where it's at Altamonte ((Springs) forgot that), and the place Uptown. Because there isn't another area like this. (Also forgot to add Florida).

Also to Dragoneer, I would like to suggest that keywords be separated by (,) instead of a space, this way we can take two keywords down to one like this (Altamonte Springs, New York, New Mexico, blow job, etc etc.) This way we have 5 keywords, instead of ten.

All in all I find this guideline to be very helpful when adding keywords.

Xan Steel


----------



## Aurali (Mar 7, 2009)

Hey, Yak.. if your reading this.. maybe you can set a limit to ten key words using the parser no? Would make people actually think before just typing random BS...



Alex Cross said:


> You can't really stop people from adding irrelevant keywords. Too much micromanagement.



A good system will not require micromanagement.. Besides.. I like this system better than the site you help manage..


----------



## krisCrash (Mar 9, 2009)

xansteel said:


> Now I'm going to show you one of my photos for my account even if it gives me grief from others.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2021014



that's not even too exhaustive, it would be quite relevant to list the medium too, "photography" if those tags later disappear, "outdoor" and "palm" too. Same for drawn arts, "pencil, markers" if you can follow, if someone wishes to search for traditional marker drawings they can now do so.


----------



## Mogu (Mar 11, 2009)

Like previous posters said, Everyone's Doing It.  So it must be okay!


Now let's go kill people.  Hey, everyone's doing it!


----------



## Nanakisan (Mar 11, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> Hey Eevee! You're just a programmer, what people do on this site is of no concern to you! Grrr >=(
> 
> Kudos to Dragoneer for stepping in on this matter. Especially so quickly. Though now I wonder what "hostility" he had in store



If i remember correctly Eevee is still a staff member of FA and you do not have the right to attack him like that. that said.

now back to point.
I think it should be pointed out that a submission should only be given a maximum of 5-10 keywords. i mean good god who needs 30 to 100 or heck 1000 keywords for one image. its a waste of space and it hogs the search engines abilities. also perhaps a required master keyword should be in place like the subject it was posted in or something like that.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 11, 2009)

I tagged my desktop screen with 'computer.'
Should I change it to 'desktop screen?'


----------



## Aurali (Mar 11, 2009)

Nanakisan said:


> If i remember correctly Eevee is still a staff member of FA and you do not have the right to attack him like that. that said.



Sarcasm is not your friend


----------



## whoadamn (Mar 11, 2009)

should be allowed, just the random would have to type it out themselves


----------

