Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, we have been arguing a little about this in the DCM section for a bit, and I think the idea has been assayed sufficiently that it is worth bringing here.

Problem: The thread search function is really awkward and requires a great deal of work to find what you want. For instance if you want to see WHFB armies for inspiration, or read how people deal with ranking issues, you bang on the text search, then maybe go to the gallery when you are frustrated, look for pictures of what you might want to see, then try and track down that users blog. The result is likely that you give up when you can't find what you want after 10-15 minutes. The other side is the fact that many blogs hardly ever get seen, and we have threads of the "Seriously, throw this guy some love, he deserves it" type in the DCM forum.

Affected Parties: Blog owners, whose blogs are difficult to find and do not get the eyeballs and responses they probably deserve. Blogs about anything but 40k, such has WHFB, Warmachine and Hordes are particularly affected. Blog Readers, who can not find the content they want.

Proposed Solution: Searchable tags for blogs, like we have for pictures in the gallery. Not in the blog/thread title like in the swap shop, but a new field like we have for pictures in the gallery where tags can be added. Options on the idea would be free tags that are open for all users to add or for the OP only to add, or set tags that are free for all or OP only. Have a separate search for blogs where you can search for say "WHFB, Beastmen" and the tagged threads will pop up based on tags on the thread, and possibly pictures contained therein. This way the threads don't have to have every topic contained in them mentioned in the title or text directly, and instead of having a sea of unsorted blogs to sift through users can find the blogs they want to see and comment on easily.

Perhaps even they could adopt the most common tags the images have.

While I'd usually respond with the same thing I've said in the past - that people simply dont tag threads properly, integrating a tagging interface is a pain, etc., I think that not_u has had a moment of genius that would actually work very well. I'm reworking the gallery and gallery tagging at the moment, but I will start thinking about integrating tagging into the modelling section using that logic. Ultimately, we'll always lean towards an interface which requires a bit of searching so that you see stuff you might otherwise not be seeking out, but I might be able to do something with that. Pat on the back for not_u!

Yea, I think that is a great idea. We could even set something up where people would submit tags they would like to see. Start with 5-6 games or genres, then take the best of the new ones and add them every month or week or whatever. That way they are spelled correctly and relevant.
Would it be possible to tie the tags from the gallery to the blogs? Making the pictures within pop up when related tags are searched in the blog system?

Also, I would volunteer for Tag Lord if you needed someone to deal with requests. I would really like to see this happen, since for me at least, I do a lot less searching since it feels more frustrating than useful, and I know I don't see a lot of good blogs as a result.

Since we're opening this up here, I just want to repeat my challenge: what kind of tags would lead me to a plog about scratch building a conversion beamer?

Manchu wrote:Since we're opening this up here, I just want to repeat my challenge: what kind of tags would lead me to a plog about scratch building a conversion beamer?

Scratch Build, Space Marine, Conversion Beamer?

[Scratch Built] + [Space Marine] = every space marine thread out there that has anything scratch-built in it, which doesn't get me to my conversion beamer any more quickly than the currently available text search could (maybe more slowly). [Conversion Beamer] would definitely do the job but under the current idea of how a set of pre-determined tags (remember, the suggestion is not to employ user-created ones as in the gallery) a [Conversion Beamer] tag would not likely be a choice.

The reason why I'm using "scratch-built conversion beamer" as an example is that it shows what is actually wrong with the search function. It's not hard to find plogs along the lines of what would be a tag under Wehrkind's proposal: I can easily find plenty of Space Marine plogs, including ones with conversions. But what is actually frustrating is to try to find something more specific, like a scratch-built conversion beamer. The point is that the tag-based search doesn't really solve the problem.

Not being better in your very specific instance doesn't mean it wouldn't be better for the other 80% of all searches. Even just being able to search by game system or army would be a big bonus.

[Techmarine] and/or [Master of the Forge] should be in there if you're searching for a Space Marine with a Conversion Beamer.

Conversion beamers are on a specific character, and to simply have [Space Marine] [Conversion] or [Scratchbuild] is being slightly disingenuous in my opinion.

Wehrkind wrote:Not being better in your very specific instance doesn't mean it wouldn't be better for the other 80% of all searches. Even just being able to search by game system or army would be a big bonus.

I can already search by army or game system. That's my point: tags as you are currently envisioning them don't add anything.

Kanluwen wrote:[Techmarine] and/or [Master of the Forge] should be in there if you're searching for a Space Marine with a Conversion Beamer.

Conversion beamers are on a specific character, and to simply have [Space Marine] [Conversion] or [Scratchbuild] is being slightly disingenuous in my opinion.

First of all, [scratchbuild] is not disingenuous at all. I get your point about [conversion beamer] but the same problem that applies to [conversion beamer] also applies to [techmarine] and [Master of the Forge] -- these aren't generalized enough to be tags in the proposed system (unless, of course, they some how fall into not_u's suggestion of using the most popular tags from the gallery). Kanluwen, you are demonstrating my point exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wehrkind, let me clarify that I'm not trying to bust your balls or claim that there is no problem with the search engine as-is. I just think we need to look at the problem more closely and come up with a more tailored solution. This is a good discussion to have and I am not trying to cut it off. I just want to refine it.

Manchu wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Not being better in your very specific instance doesn't mean it wouldn't be better for the other 80% of all searches. Even just being able to search by game system or army would be a big bonus.

I can already search by army or game system. That's my point: tags as you are currently envisioning them don't add anything.

Kanluwen wrote:[Techmarine] and/or [Master of the Forge] should be in there if you're searching for a Space Marine with a Conversion Beamer.

Conversion beamers are on a specific character, and to simply have [Space Marine] [Conversion] or [Scratchbuild] is being slightly disingenuous in my opinion.

First of all, [scratchbuild] is not disingenuous at all.

I wasn't meaning just [scratchbuild] is disingenuous. I was meaning that having the proposed tags only being generalized enough that character titles(especially a popular scratchbuild like a Master of the Forge) are inapplicable is slightly disingenuous. I understand it would be more work for Lego, and that he has a lot of things going on and that we'd need another mod, etc. But if you're going to do a "refined tag system"--where's the harm in including some specificity? Tags like "HQ/Hero/Lord" or "Elite/Special/Rare/Troops/Fast Attack/Heavy Support" to further categorize a piece and make it easier to search for couldn't really hurt too much, now could they?

I get your point about [conversion beamer] but the same problem that applies to [conversion beamer] also applies to [techmarine] and [Master of the Forge] -- these aren't generalized enough to be tags in the proposed system (unless, of course, they some how fall into not_u's suggestion of using the most popular tags from the gallery). Kanluwen, you are demonstrating my point exactly.

I think you're focusing a tad too much on making it as "generalized" as possible. That's not a bad thing, but I think Wehrkind's whole idea is predicated upon the idea of adding some specificity to a system that is already generalized enough. Tags like "Space Marine" "Conversion" and "Scratchbuild" really are no different than the system we already have, which works fine...if you know the basics of what you're looking for and people have tagged their photos.

Wehrkind, let me clarify that I'm not trying to bust your balls or claim that there is no problem with the search engine as-is. I just think we need to look at the problem more closely and come up with a more tailored solution. This is a good discussion to have and I am not trying to cut it off. I just want to refine it.

That's why I decided to say something. I get the jist of what Wehrkind's trying to say, but I think he might need some help refining the idea to a point where everyone can be happy.

But Kan what is the point of tags if they don't generalize? If tags don't actually do some of the work of categorizing things then we're better off with the specificity of text-based searching. This is the problem I see with tags: they bring back clumps of generalized results and we can already get clumps of generalized results. They can't do specific very well, or at least any better than text-based searches.

Who says they can't do specific very well?

As an example, we'll use your Master of the Forge.

General Tags: [Conversion][Scratchbuild][Space Marines]

Specific Tags: [HQ] [Conversion Beamer] [Master of the Forge]

The "general" tags give you a generalized result, the specific tags further whittle down those results. Considering that Master of the Forge is a popular scratchbuild or constantly asked question, I'd think it would work.

Another example I'll use is Belial.
General Tags: [Conversion][Scratchbuild][Space Marines][Terminator Armor]
Specific: [HQ][Dark Angels][Deathwing][Belial]

Again, the general tags help bring back the "clump" and then the other tags further refine it.

I like the idea of tiered tags. Although unit- and gear-specific tags may be a bit too much -- think of how long a tag list could get -- we're right back to text-level specificity. But let's move forward for the sake of argument: who does it, at what point, and how? The tiered tag system tips the scale in favor of the plog-owner, IMO, since he can now tag very specifically and sine the nature of plogging means that tags will need updating.

Manchu wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Not being better in your very specific instance doesn't mean it wouldn't be better for the other 80% of all searches. Even just being able to search by game system or army would be a big bonus.

I can already search by army or game system. That's my point: tags as you are currently envisioning them don't add anything.

You might be able to search pictures by army or game system (sort of) but you can't search the blogs that way, which is the problem I want to fix. If I decide I want to see what P&M folks have to say about starting a Tomb King army, for example, my best bet is to go into the picture gallery, search for tomb king models then see if their poster has a blog. Not impossible, but not nearly so good as just being able to search directly for what I want in the first place: blogs about Tomb Kings. While I can just type in "Tomb Kings" if the poster didn't have that in the name of the thread or reference it a few times in the blog (very easy to avoid since most people here know what you are talking about or use abbreviations) it would be very easy to miss very useful blogs because the author named it "Lords of the Sands Blog!".

Ideally I see a system that allows for phrase searches (like we have now) and one that offers tags, possibly of fixed nature. So instead of getting a result from "Tomb Kings" that includes every blog where someone mentions "How do you think your Skaven army will fare against Tomb Kings?" I can get only blogs about Tomb Kings, or at least ones tagged as being about Tomb Kings.

The trouble with open text seems to be that it can key off just about anything. Pulling off tags, whether attached to the thread as an object or the pictures contained therein, allows the added specificity of only getting what the blog is actually about. In other words, tags allow for essentially a field marked "What is this thread about? ______________" and you can fill in the blank, so when people want to look for things about X, the system can find things marked About X, instead of just "Well, someone mentioned X in here, so maybe it is good?"

When you are searching for hay in a haystack, you can afford to be really general. When you are searching for a needle though, you need to be able to clearly articulate what a needle is beyond "straw like". Likewise, when you are searching for a Skorne thread in a stack of Space Marine blogs, you need to be able to specify that containing the words "Skorne" does not necessary make the blog about Hordes, even if someone says "Those shoulder pads are as silly as Skorne ones!"

If that doesn't answer your point, I perhaps don't understand what you expect it to add other than "more efficient search functionality."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I like the idea of tiered tags. Although unit- and gear-specific tags may be a bit too much -- think of how long a tag list could get -- we're right back to text-level specificity. But let's move forward for the sake of argument: who does it, at what point, and how? The tiered tag system tips the scale in favor of the plog-owner, IMO, since he can now tag very specifically and sine the nature of plogging means that tags will need updating.

I am a fan of letting the plog owner do it. If they don't keep it up they will get many fewer views, which seems like good incentive to keep their tags up to date. Plus, as they add content they can easily add tags, and don't have to worry about other people messing it up.

On the other hand, other users might be useful to put in things about the blog they like, such as "NMM Tutorial". I think though that it would be too open ended, and that the best return for the effort is on the Game System/Army tag level. Maybe more tiered tags could be added over time, but for starters those two sets would probably do the trick.

Wehrkind wrote:You might be able to search pictures by army or game system (sort of) but you can't search the blogs that way, which is the problem I want to fix.

Sure you can. Here are the results for a search of the plogs for "Tomb Kings." But I get it: you're real problem is with the hiccups caused by users.

... it would be very easy to miss very useful blogs because the author named it "Lords of the Sands Blog!"

That's where I see gallery hunting being important. Yeah, I eventually want plogs but -- let's face it -- I don't necessarily want plogs by people who have the same level of skill as me (low). When I shop by pic, I get to pick and choose based on visual data, which is a pretty important factor considering the goal here. True, I may just want to see some sprues or something -- but in that case, gallery searching is hands-down better.

You used a great euphemism to describe this: searching for hay in a haystack. When you're looking for Tomb Kings in the plog section of a miniatures wargaming forum ... well, that's searching for hay in a haystack. We can already do that. You can get to every single blog that mentions TK and you can find every single pic that someone has tagged as TK and you can find ever plog thread entitled "something something Tomb Kings something." So, once again, I don't see tags really helping on this issue. Now the scratch-built conversion beamer -- that is the needle.

If that doesn't answer your point, I perhaps don't understand what you expect it to add other than "more efficient search functionality."

I think it does answer my point, indirectly. What you are really saying is that you want a search engine that will take you directly to what you want without further effort. Your point about "any plog about Skorne" rather than "any plog mentioning Skorne" is a good one: currently, it's super easy to filter out the latter kind of result in a search but it's something that you do with your brain rather than having the programming do it for you. As I understand it, the expectation of the search engine is that it will take you to -- or rather past things that you are not necessarily looking for because most searches are not necessarily for one exact, unique result. For example: I don't want the Necron army that so-and-so built for Adepticon in 2005; no, I want to see all the Necron plogs. I agree that the tag system would bring those Necron plogs to me slightly more quickly, if we assume a lot of things (like users actually using tags and using them correctly). I guess I just don't see that "slightly more quickly" being as big an incentive for deploying plog tags. Because there are already so many ways to find all the Necron plogs.

Manchu wrote:IMaybe more tiered tags could be added over time, but for starters those two sets would probably do the trick.

Which two? Game and faction?

See, here's your problem with understanding here Manchu, you know what you see, and ignore what you can't. You have a link with a list of blogs with "Tomb Kings" in the name, and while it is mostly the same blog over and over and over, you see "Hey, there is a big list of Tomb King blogs!" What you don't consider though is how many Tomb Kings blogs might be on the site that your search doesn't bring up. How many blogs are about Tomb Kings that your search missed because it was named something else?

Even with what is seen, how many blogs get missed because the first 2 pages of results are copies of the same 3 blogs? Unfortunately searching for phrases in threads can return many, many hits, instead of unique results based on tags on threads.
Imagine an internet search engine that returns a few pages of copies of the same 3 pages when you search for something. Would that be good? Of course not, you would expect the computer to do the tedious labor of sorting unique hits for you.

And no, sorting between "Is about" and "Happens to mention" is not super easy. How do I know from your list given that Skorne are not just mentioned in the first few pages, but actually become the focus later? Oops, I don't; I hope I read the whole thing and possibly wasted a lot of time on it.

And it does seem strange that someone who constantly bashes user tags offers going to the gallery as the best way to find blogs, based on using the tags there to search. If it is supposed to be helpful there, why not in blogs?

You also missed the point of the "hay in haystack" euphemism as well. Searching for Tomb Kings (or any non-40k) blogs here IS looking for a needle in a haystack. There are piles and piles of 40k blogs, mostly marines, fewer WHFB blogs, and even fewer still off game blogs. The idea behind "needle in a haystack", in case you are unfamiliar, is that there is a LOT of stuff you don't really care about (the hay) and only a little bit of stuff you do care about (the needle). The trouble is that the needle has a lot of the same attributes as the hay in a general sense, and so is very difficult to sort out compared to say a soccer ball in a haystack. In my example, all the say 40k blogs you don't care about are the hay, and the few WHFB blogs are the thing you want that are very similar. Thing is, you don't just want one or two, you would like as many as possible.

So since you missed it the first time, let me restate what I am saying:

I want a search feature for P&M Blogs that will find blogs that are not titled "Yet Another Marine Blog" without having to spend more time searching than is spent reading them. The blogs section is now big enough that it probably needs a filter to make using it functional. The current search feature isn't up to it.

Want an example you can try at home? Search for Blogs about "Lost and the Damned." I did. I got 6 results, 4 of which were duplicates. So 3 results. Funny thing is, it didn't catch my blog, which has "Lost and the Damned" in the second sentence. It didn't pick up the other 2-3 I remember seeing a year or two ago when I started mine. What sort of benefit is that?

So, what are you saying?
That it is too much work to do? That's for Lego to decide.
That if we only spent 2-3 hours searching in many different ways we could get what we want? Only if we are as cool as you obviously are.
That we should just use the gallery tags to get a start, then go search through a user's posted threads just in case they have a blog? Doesn't that rely on those user generated tags you dislike so much? Not to mention making someone jump through a lot of hoops they shouldn't need to?

So yea. Sorry if the tone gets a little argumentative there, but honestly man, you say you are not trying to bust balls, but it seems like you are working awfully hard to not understand what I am talking about. Maybe it is just old man style "When I was your age, we used a card catalogue! It took us hours to find all the books we wanted, and we liked it!" (Actually, I think I could still rock the DDS faster than the search here...) From here though, it just sounds like you are resistant to change not because it would be bad, but because it would be change, mixed in with willful ignorance of what others are saying.


And yea, I said Game System/Army tag level would probably have the most bang for the buck.

How many blogs are about Tomb Kings that your search missed because it was named something else?

Er, read my post again, where I say "But I get it ..."

Even with what is seen, how many blogs get missed because the first 2 pages of results are copies of the same 3 blogs?

So now the fact that some users won't look at more than one page of search results is a problem with search functionality? Also, I already addressed this point in the DCM thread when I said:

Manchu wrote:So far the only item I can see that needs consideration is whether we should have a "return OP only" option for searches.

Moving right along:

Wehrkind wrote:How do I know from your list given that Skorne are not just mentioned in the first few pages, but actually become the focus later?

This all depends on how the user titles (and updates the title of) her or his thread. Which is also a problem with your proposed system: users will be tagging (and updating the tagging) of their own thread. If they don't do a good job, their thread will not be a search result. Just like now. So this is just one more way that the tag system is not an improvement (i.e., needs to be rethought to be an actual improvement).

And it does seem strange that someone who constantly bashes user tags offers going to the gallery as the best way to find blogs, based on using the tags there to search. If it is supposed to be helpful there, why not in blogs?

Tag-based and text-based searches do different things -- not because one is better than the other but because they have different applications. A text-based search is better at bringing back very specific results. If you want specific results you should used text-based searching. But you can't run a text-based search over images -- hence the tags. We don't use tags in the gallery because tags are superior -- rather we use them because we cannot use text-based searches. Text-based searches can do the generality of tag-based searches just as well as tag-based searches PLUS they do specificity better. So the real question, that I have been asking again and again, is why do we want an inferior search system (with regard to wanting specific search results) applied to plogs? Now with regard to wanting general search results, the tag-system is marginally better although it doesn't solve a lot of problems that a few tweaks (like a "return OP only" option) to what we currently have couldn't also solve.

Searching for Tomb Kings (or any non-40k) blogs here IS looking for a needle in a haystack.

I didn't miss the point of the euphemism; I was trying to use it more accurately than you were. When my desired result is "Tomb Kings plogs" I'm not talking about a specific result. We're not talking about relative quantities of information. When you search for Tomb Kings, you're not going to get much on Space Marines. An example of a specific result is "scratchbuilt conversion beamer" not an entire faction of a popular game, regardless of how many more Space Marine plogs there are than Tomb King ones.

Want an example you can try at home? Search for Blogs about "Lost and the Damned." I did. I got 6 results, 4 of which were duplicates. So 3 results. Funny thing is, it didn't catch my blog, which has "Lost and the Damned" in the second sentence.

Because you titled it poorly. So, to use this example in a truly analgous manner with respect to your proposal, you would have made a Lost and the Damned blog but never put a [Lost and the Damned] tag on it. User failure is user failure whether we're searching text or tags. OKAY -- I get why you don't have "Lost and the Damned" in the title and instead use a play on that phrase but the point about users not tagging or updating tags stands. And, again, I also see the point you are trying to make: the search was not for thread titles but rather for text. This does show that there are faults with the search engine, which I have never disputed. In this case, my guess is that the search engine either has trouble with multi-word searches (I found your plog when I searched for "lost" and "orky" and "damned" by themselves). So the fix, as far as I can tell, is not to create an entirely new tag-based search system but rather to improve the text-based system (since it can give results that are more precise than tagging as well as giving general results just about as well as a tag-based system) so that it can handle exact-phrase searches.

but it seems like you are working awfully hard to not understand what I am talking about

I feel exactly the same way about your posts. How many times have you brought up a point that I have already addressed as if I was "willfully ignorant" of it? I already pointed out two examples above. I think you'll find on closer inspection that I am not adverse to any change whatsoever. I'm just adverse to change that would not actually improve things. If you just want me to post "Great idea, Wehrkind!" and go on my way while in reality ignoring your suggestion, I'm perfectly willing to do so. It's my impression, however, that you want to solve a real problem. From the get-go, I have argued that tags are not the best way to address the problem you pointed out rather than saying there is no problem.

Manchu wrote: Because you titled it poorly.

Yet, if we had the option of searching by tags, we could find it. The current search doesn't even pull up a result when the second sentence in the blog is "This is what you searched for."

You really are not being constructive. You don't need to agree that my solution is the best, but you seem to refuse to accept that there is even a problem. In fact, you seem to suggest that the way it is now works perfectly, and when it doesn't it is the user's fault. That is sometimes the case, but generally is a bad assumption to start from. Chances are pretty good that a system that is supposed to be utilized by users, yet users find very problematic to use, has its own problems.

So are you debating whether there is even a problem, something that is testable by perhaps a poll of users? Or are we to the point of kicking around ideas for solutions, because I haven't seen any suggestions from you about that.

Wehrkind wrote:You don't need to agree that my solution is the best, but you seem to refuse to accept that there is even a problem. In fact, you seem to suggest that the way it is now works perfectly, and when it doesn't it is the user's fault.

See:

Manchu wrote:And, again, I also see the point you are trying to make: the search was not for thread titles but rather for text. This does show that there are faults with the search engine, which I have never disputed.

Manchu wrote: From the get-go, I have argued that tags are not the best way to address the problem you pointed out rather than saying there is no problem.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for:

Wehrkind wrote:Or are we to the point of kicking around ideas for solutions, because I haven't seen any suggestions from you about that.

See:

Manchu wrote:So far the only item I can see that needs consideration is whether we should have a "return OP only" option for searches.

Manchu wrote:In this case, my guess is that the search engine either has trouble with multi-word searches ... So the fix, as far as I can tell, is ... to improve the text-based system ... so that it can handle exact-phrase searches.

You don't see how your own post there is contradictory?

Manchu wrote:
....
So far the only item I can see that needs consideration is whether we should have a "return OP only" option for searches.

....
And, again, I also see the point you are trying to make: the search was not for thread titles but rather for text. This does show that there are faults with the search engine, which I have never disputed.
....
From the get-go, I have argued that tags are not the best way to address the problem you pointed out rather than saying there is no problem.

So in your opinion... is the only problem with the current search that it doesn't have the option to return only the OP? Or are there other issues?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It occurs to me that one thing we might be talking past each other on is the level of specificity. From where I am standing, finding individual blogs isn't impossible since you can always search for titles or authors in particular. In other words, specificity is pretty well set.
On the other hand, finding whole (or large parts of) categories of blogs is pretty hard. A list of every TK blog is, as you have shown, a matter of having TK in the title. If someone didn't think naming it as such was worth while, for aesthetic reasons say, they don't get to see it. However, sometimes you just want to see the options for a range of things.
For instance, if you are buying cars, and want a pick up, you don't want to have to search by VIN number, nor do you want to have to dig through 150 returns, 80 of which are duplicates and 30 of which are SUVs, while missing 30 pick ups. You want to see as many pick ups as possible with as little chaff as possible, whether that chaff is the wrong type or duplicates. Narrow it down by other tags and what not and you are set.

legoburner wrote:While I'd usually respond with the same thing I've said in the past - that people simply dont tag threads properly, integrating a tagging interface is a pain, etc., I think that not_u has had a moment of genius that would actually work very well. I'm reworking the gallery and gallery tagging at the moment, but I will start thinking about integrating tagging into the modelling section using that logic. Ultimately, we'll always lean towards an interface which requires a bit of searching so that you see stuff you might otherwise not be seeking out, but I might be able to do something with that. Pat on the back for not_u!

(skipping the back and forth after this)

Is it possible (ie, not server intensive) to do like google and auto-fill
based on existing tags? So I start typing "Warma" and it offers to
auto-fill the tag with "Warmachine", there's much less of a chance of
mis-tagging items.

Yeah that is planned for addition malfred. When we first added it, there were no tags and we were not sure how it would all work, but now there is a pretty comprehensive list and it can be built more effectively.