Given projects such as Skier’s AI models and my Stash Marker Studio, it is easier than before to provide higher quality markers. Unfortunately we are missing a place to share those markers which is both community driven and moderated.
timestamp.trade by Tweeticoats is one option but it works on the principle of first one to submit the markers gets their data saved and if there are issues or additions, you need to contact Tweeticoats.
ThePornDB also contains marker support but that doesn’t provide community moderation either.
There have been discussions here and there about adding marker support to stash-box itself but those are a bit all over the place so maybe let’s try again in this thread to discuss the options.
As there seem to be many opinions how additional tags on markers should be treated, my proposal on stash-box side would be to just support markers with a primary tag which is a StashDB tag, start time and end time. In the web view it would look something like:
Anyone could provide changes to these markers either adding, modifying or deleting those.
Would this be an approach that would be suitable for the community? If yes, what would it take to implement it? Are there any missing functionality on Stashapp side before this could be tackled?
This is one of my most wanted features as well. There are two things I’d like to add:
In my opinion it would be a mistake to knowingly and willingly further the divide between stashapp and stashbox. Hence, either stashbox should support secondary tags or stashapp should get rid of them. Performer attributions are another thing to keep in mind, but that should be easier to add after the fact. This is the corresponding stashapp issue.
Is there a need to tie markers to a duration (or maybe even a specific hash)? Should stashbox allow different markers for different durations or should this prevented by design?
Just to address one concern that’s certain to come up:
Markers would be impossible to review by others in the edit queue beyond some basic plausibility checks (that frankly could be automated). As such, you’d probably need a special editor role and rely on an honor system of sorts.
If secondary tags would be supported, we should come up with guidelines what should be set as a secondary tag on a marker. Do you have a suggestion for this? I myself only use secondary tags as a kind of metadata such as “Marker Source: Skier AI” or “Marker Status: Confirmed”. I have tried using other approaches such as Cumshot being a primary tag and Facial a secondary tag but that never quite felt right and would probably better be handled via tag hierarchies.
That’s a good point about the durations or the phashes. I think durations would be the better option as there are minor changes between the phashes but if the duration is roughly equal, the markers should line up nicely anyway.
Regarding performer attributions: I have thought about those as well but I think it might end up really complicated where the users would end up feeling overwhelmed with the amount of data needed to fully provide a marker data. Also most of the scenes at least in my Stash are solo or twosome scenes where most of the markers are anyway clear e.g. for a straight twosome scene there is little benefit adding performer attributions to blowjobs or pussy lickings.
Especially with more complex scenarios like Standing DP the marker would require three slots: receiver, anal giver and vaginal giver. Airtights and others would be even more complicated. Of course these should be optional but still I’m hesitant about overwhelming the user.
While I agree with that, I think it is not that much different than the current review process. How many edit queue reviewers will check if scene really contains e.g. Pussy Licking or Ball Licking? At least the users using those markers in their Stashapp could publish an edit which provides a place of discussion for the community.
Unfortunately I don’t have a hard and fast rule ready. If the primary tag is an action, I would imagine the secondary tags could be used to describe position, location, attire etc., but even that sort of clashes with the already highly specific tags on StashDB which at times combine actions with positions and such.
Yeah, I agree that hashes would be overkill. As for duration, I’m less decided. In theory, stashbox has a dedicated duration field which could be used as the canonical duration, but in practice it has been shown again and again that people will submit versions of the same scene with slightly differing durations. One thing that will be essential in stashapp will be the ability to offset markers. I’ve already built a somewhat brittle extension for that purpose for personal use but I’m sure something a little bit more robust could be added to the main app.
I think it would be fine if performer data (just like secondary tags) would be empty in the vast majority of cases and only be used when there is informational value in doing so (like in scenes with many performers or cameo appearances). Of course, one of the most interesting applications of performer markers would be finding all instances of “Peformer X doing action Y” and that really only works if all markers are correctly attributed.
Assigning roles between different performers within a tag is truly overkill, though, even for me.
While I agree with that, I think it is not that much different than the current review process. How many edit queue reviewers will check if scene really contains e.g. Pussy Licking or Ball Licking? At least the users using those markers in their Stashapp could publish an edit which provides a place of discussion for the community.
You’re right. For a moment I had forgotten about custom tags as opposed to tags from primary source metadata.
I’ll just note that removing secondary tags from stashapp is a non-starter for me. I use them quite extensively and would hate to see that feature removed.
They shouldn’t be removed, they should be promoted so all tags are primary tags. There’s usually no reason why one tag is primary or not.
Also, the philosophy of stash boxes tagging needs a bit of a rework.
Some things are just true like who is in something, or a production date etc. But when it gets to tags and especially markers there needs to be a way to filter out by the source of the data. Having markers you’ve acquired be somewhat of a searchable local draft is ideal. Because there’s no hard and fast rule for what is true when you also have to give a start and possibly end time. They’re messy. Maybe one source is AI, one is hand curated and one is things you’ve verified yourself. They should all be able to live alongside each other in stash without being an unfiltered mess that means you can’t find the more certain data.
Maybe for one rare tag you want to search all possible markers, maybe for a common one you want just the ones you’ve verified.
The same is true for tags for a whole scene. Especially where stashdb’s tag merges destroy the original intent by no longer showing what the original tag was.
Other systems do it better where the ‘review’ of the relevance of a tag is done by the consumers of that data. Eg, you vote on tags/markers after they’ve been added. Then you can filter a search based on how many votes or what ratio it has, or the absence of downvotes etc. That needs to be in both - stashapp (kept up to date from stashdb).
We’re doing it a bit backwards with the whole draft voting system. That only works when voters can verify things, it falls apart for tags and markers. And even somewhat for other data.
