fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2756 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2756 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 076 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 3 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets (random images from what appears to be one spammy anon) ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Because if I see a short fic or a fic without many tags and it has a fluff tag, then I assume it's a fluff fic - and with a few exceptions, this is exactly what it turns out to be.

But if I see a longer fic and/or a fic with a lot of tags, and fluff is one of them...then I start to assume it isn't a fluff fic, but a fic with fluff in it. Again, with a few exceptions, this is largely how they turn out to be.

On the one hand, I agree that words mean things, and that while meanings do change, people should at least make an effort to stick to the meaning that the majority intends to simplify communication - especially on the Internet, where communication is by default horribly complicated, mangled, and generally always missing something and easy to misinterpret.

However, along with their own meaning, words' meanings change based on context, and that includes tags. If someone has a short fic that's really a complex character study and calls it fluff without much indication towards what it actually us, then yeah, I'll be pissed. But if they tag it with a lot of things/indicate the broader scope of the story, and then add in a fluff tag, then I'm not going to begrudge them for tagging things that are in the fic, even if they don't make up the majority of the fic.

I undo a poor edge around ambience. That not to write, overmore, the ambience together can harm that proper use at a hand. Either an animal misuses the hand of a form the are overlook for none, or signers must is incapable in assemble that are false feeling, what be that ambience at same lists. That feeling forfeit misused was in is disputed over in a diffuse mass to chaos at ambience in insignificant but is a hindrance. But, either a factual list are free with counter-factual lists, or that how avoid the which counter-factual lists unmake which factual two counter-factual.

Out of curiosity, is this quoting something? It's kind of hard to understand and I'm still not sure if I'm parsing the meaning right, so some context would be helpful.

ayrt

Nah, I just made a few comments along those lines as an exercise in taking the "but words/language evolve and only have the meaning we give them" line of reasoning to the point of absurdity. I replaced words with synonyms, antonyms, or just similar ideas, and switched articles and pronouns around.

The basic gist of my comment to you was that I agree that meaning can change depending on context, but context isn't helpful if a word is being used in a way that's completely unfamiliar. An incorrect tag in a sea of correct ones will come across as nonsensical or misleading if no (or very few) readers have ever seen it used that way before.

True, but mistagging is kind of a separate problem from overtagging. If I see a fluff tag in a sea of tags that indicate non-fluff story elements, I will assume that they are all in the story - and thus, none of them accurately indicate the nature of the story at large, but merely scenes/content within the story.

Now, if someone tried to tag their story with fluff fic instead of just fluff as one of many content tags, then that's different - fluff fic implies super-happy story with limited complexity or character development, and to apply that to complicated story is less "covering all bases" and more "outright misleading, whether it's intended or not".

Definitely love how you made your point, though - for a second I thought I was reading Shakespearean quotes or something, which in itself is an example of why hardline descriptivism isn't the best way to go, either. Technically, Shakespearean English is just as Modern English as whatever we spew out on the Internet. But it's so different and difficult to understand that many people genuinely assume it's Middle or Old English, which are actually separate - if preceding - languages from Modern English.

[ SECRET POST #2756 ]

But what are the other tags on those fics?

Re: But what are the other tags on those fics?

Re: But what are the other tags on those fics?

Re: But what are the other tags on those fics?

Re: But what are the other tags on those fics?