[ SECRET POST #2317 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2317 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 048 secrets from Secret Submission Post #331.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Can we just agree on this?

[(Anonymous)]

I'll agree with this, anyway. Tag all the background stuff, don't claim anything's canon when it isn't, and we'll all be good.

Though ... it's one thing I do prefer about the LJ/DW header system compared to the AO3 tagging system: you can specifically label pairings as 'background' in a header, while you don't seem to be able to in pairings tags on AO3. I agree with what some other people have said, it's also annoying to search for a pairing, click on stories, and find out that your pairing is only a background thing that's barely mentioned.

Surprising pairings out of nowhere are annoying. Searchable pairings that turn out to be only background are also annoying. I'd tend to err on the side of tagging things, but it does mean a lot of disappointment for people searching for some pairs.

Re: Can we just agree on this?

[silverr]

Maybe the thing to do is to use the tags for the major relationships in the story, and save the minor ones for the summary?

e.g. "Also contains mention of Scruffy/Wash Bucket."

Re: Can we just agree on this?

[iggy]

For A03 I've always just stuck a short author's note at the beginning of the fic so people know if said ship is major or minor.

Re: Can we just agree on this?

[belleweather]

UGH, YES.

I hate it when people tag minor and background pairings because as someone who reads a lot of rare pairs and has a lot of OTPs that are often considered default background pairings, then I CAN'T filter them out. If I'm reading something that is tagged for my pairing, I want to actually read a story about that pairing, not something that's actually about someone totally different and they're window-dressing in it. (And given that some people tag in order of major pairing -> minor pairing and some people tag from first chronological pairing in the story!verse -> current/ending pairing there is no real way to tell from the tags.)

Maybe the only thing we can all really agree on is that man, the tagging system on AO3 *really sucks* for easily and accurately finding the fic you want to read?

Re: Can we just agree on this?

[(Anonymous)]

You can enter your own tags on AO3. Type "Clint/Coulson (background)" in the pairings, and they accept it. :)