Viewing last 25 versions of post by Sonata Dusk in topic Shipping Reorganization (suggestion)

There's a whole bunch of shipping tags, such as "sonadow":/tags/sonadow, on our site. This isn't directly a problem, yet. However, going forwards, I can see this being an issue because there is no one single way to name a ship pair. It would nice to have a way to have a good idea what a tag "ought" to be even if you don't know if anyone has ever beedrawn in it.

My suggestion is to change all ship tags to the form:

@A x B@

where A and B are the accepted short names here on AMS, A is the name that comes first alphabetically, and B is the name that follows alphabetically.

Thus, if you wanted to see if a really rare ship existed, say Sally and Espio, you wouldn't be in the dark guessing @Salespio@? @Salspio@? @Espally@? @Espially@?" or searching @sally acorn, esipo, shipping@ and hoping for results, you could just type in @espio x sally@ and see if results existed right away.

Thoughts? Downsides?

There's a whole bunch of shipping tags, such as "sonadow":/tags/sonadow, on our site. This isn't directly a problem, yet. However, going forwards, I can see this being an issue because there is no one single way to name a ship pair. It would nice to have a way to have a good idea what a tag "ought" to be even if you don't know whif anyone ihas ever been in it.

My suggestion is to change all ship tags to the form:

@A x B@

where A and B are the accepted short names here on AMS, A is the name that comes first alphabetically, and B is the name that follows alphabetically.

Thus, if you wanted to see if a really rare ship existed, say Sally and Espio, you wouldn't be in the dark guessing @Salespio@? @Salspio@? @Espally@? @Espially@?" or searching @sally acorn, esipo, shipping@ and hoping for results, you could just type in @espio x sally@ and see if results existed right away.

Thoughts? Downsides?