The IFDB Tagging System

On IFDB, you can give a game a tag indicating something about its content. When searching, you can filter for games with specific tags or filter specific tags out. I’ve spent a lot of time adding tags to games on IFDB. It’s a nice way to fill time.

But now I have questions. Why not discuss, I figured. (You don’t have to answer all of these.)

What is your opinion on tags?

Tags are a great way to discover new stories, IMO. I use them often to look for games I’m interested in. I don’t filter stuff out because there’s nothing particular I hate, and most games have spotty tags anyway, so filtering stuff out doesn’t catch them all.

Unfortunately, most of the more obscure games aren’t tagged, or are tagged with the competition they’re in and nothing else. Plenty of games from the Neo Twiny Jam, for instance. Even some IFComp 2023 games as of my writing this.

Is it annoying when a game has a lot of tags? Is there such a thing as too many tags?

Authors can add a bunch of tags to their own games to essentially self-advertise, but as long as they’re relevant tags, I don’t mind. Games with a wall of tags don’t bother me. It does make it harder to see what a game’s “about” at a glance, but you can read reviews for that anyway.

I do think overtagging can lead to the creation of tags that probably don’t need to exist. E.g. if your game features a World Cup victory afterparty and there isn’t an established “world cup victory afterparty” tag, you probably don’t need to tag it “world cup victory afterparty”, since the chance people will be looking that up are quite low. (Not a specific example. I made that up on the spot.) But having it on your game anyway can’t hurt much, I guess.

IFDB could add a limit to prevent a game from having too many tags, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Until the day someone pulls up with a thousand-tag game, the current system works fine.

(Now that I think about it, maybe there is a limit and I just haven’t run up against it. I wouldn’t know!)

How much should authors tag their own games?

Of course, there’s a lot of authors without IFDB accounts who might not even know it’s there. But what if you have an account? I feel weird adding tags to my own game, breaking the sacred author-reader veil of neutrality and so on. Adding a few relevant tags is the most I feel fine with. (Which might change if I ever make something heftier.)

That’s just me, though. The answer to this one is probably “each to their own”.

Should IFDB add a better system for removing tags?

Right now, only moderators and the person who adds a tag to a game can remove it. If two or more people have added a tag to a game, all of them need to remove it for the tag to disappear. I don’t know how much effort it would take to let more people remove tags, or what the system would even look like. But hey, it could be useful for inaccurate or malicious tags. I haven’t seen any malicious tags–either they’re removed quickly or most IFDB users are goodwilled–but sometimes I see tags that don’t quite fit their game.

Body Bargain by Amanda Lange, for example, is tagged “utopia”. I’ve gotten three endings to this game, and I’m pretty sure the setting is not a utopia. Actually, it might be the opposite.

This is a comparatively small problem, since almost all the tags I see fit pretty well.

Opinions on tags that cover the same bases as genre/medium/etc? Especially genre tags.

This is more a complaint than a question. Whoops.

You’ll notice this if you spend enough time on IFDB. Genre is the biggest example: you can give a game listing a genre on IFDB, or edit the genre of an existing listing. There’s a standard list of genres to use that includes stuff like “Horror”, “Historical”, “Slice of Life” etc. but a lot of authors will go give their games their own genres, or even use the genre field as a place to put a little subtitle. For example, DEVOTIONALIA has genre “Ritual” instead of “Fantasy” or “Horror”, Animalia has genre “Wacky” instead of “Comedy”, robotsexpartymurder has genre “Dystopian Erotic Murder Mystery Dating Sim” instead of “Science Fiction”. (I feel like there used to be more games with interesting genres, but the IFDB Awards, which required a game to be listed under a specific genre to get votes in that genre’s category, meant a lot of the custom genres went away.)

There are also plenty of popular games that don’t even have a genre listed, like Cactus Blue Motel or Junior Arithmancer.

As a result of the inconsistent genre listing, there are tags that are the exact same as genres, but often distributed differently. The “science fiction” tag, for example, has ~500 results, while the “Science Fiction” genre has ~900. But look at the top rated games in the results for each and you’ll see a lot of games that appear in one and don’t appear in the other. My inner categorization obsessive thinks this is a tragedy!

Should we remove tags that are the same as genres and only allow editing of genres? Seems like a bad idea to me, since a game can have a whole lot of genres and adding too many gets unwieldy. (It is possible to have multiple genres in an IFDB listing, just not intuitive–you have to separate them with a comma or the word “and”. But each will display in the same large font and there’s no way to collapse them.)

Should we replace genres with tags, letting authors give their games custom bylines, while maintaining the ease of categorization that comes with having a whole list of games tagged “science fiction” you can filter through? I’m a fan of this idea, honestly. Ideally you’d get a script to give every game with genre “X” the tag “X”, and then you could rename the “genre” property of a listing on IFDB to “subtitle” or something. Maybe other people are more attached to genres than I am, though, and there might be value in separating games tagged “science fiction” with games that are in the “Science Fiction” genre–though I personally think it’s just confusing. Also, the IFDB Awards will have to find another way to determine a game’s genre if this happens, but it’s not like there’s a shortage of options.

Oh yeah, all that doesn’t even cover tags for medium and other stuff (e.g. searching “tag: twine” vs “system: twine”), but the same stuff that applies for genre applies there.

Opinions on redundant tags/multiple tags covering the exact same thing?

Some tags are the exact same as another more popular tag and are only used because people don’t know the more popular tag exists. I don’t know what could be done about it besides some system to link tags together, which I imagine would rapidly get very complicated.

Here’s an example. Along with the “Science Fiction” genre (covered in the previous question), there is both a “science fiction” tag and a “sci-fi” tag. As you might expect, the games assigned to these three categories are different. Ignoring the genre stuff for now (that’s for the previous question): “science fiction” and “sci-fi” really should be the same tag, or one of them just shouldn’t exist. I’d kick out “sci-fi” if I could, since it has only ~100 games to “science fiction”'s ~500 games (notwithstanding the part where the “Science Fiction” genre has more than both tags combined), but the problem would be tagging all the games that have “sci-fi” but not “science fiction”. Maybe a script could do it, but you also have the issue of preventing people from just making a “sci-fi” tag and adding it to a bunch of games again.

This fanfiction site called AO3 (don’t ask me how I know about it, cough cough) has a system for automatically classifying tags and grouping redundant tags together as “synonyms”, so they essentially become the same tag. AO3 also has a neat system for sub-tags, so that if you search up e.g. “nonhuman protagonist” it also covers everything under “bird protagonist”, “AI protagonist”, etc. Subtags can get fractal; maybe “parrot protagonist” is a subtag of “bird protagonist”? Currently on IFDB, you’d have to tag “bird protagonist”, “parrot protagonist”, and “nonhuman protagonist” separately. (Random example pulled from thin air. I don’t know if “parrot protagonist” is actually a tag.) AO3 accomplishes this by having “tag wranglers”, dedicated volunteers who spend time categorizing new tags and marking redundant ones. I don’t know if IFDB could manage the same level of enthusiasm. Plus you’d have to code in a system for all that in the first place. It’d be amazing if something like that was added in, though.

(There’s a decent article about AO3’s tagging system from Wired.)

When should new tags be added?

Sometimes I create new tags. Sometimes I see a tag that I like and think “More games should be tagged with this”, so I go around adding that tag to various games that it fits. Sometimes they’re games I’ve played that have the relevant content, sometimes I just look through lists of related tags and add the new tag to all the games I find applicable. It’s not a perfect process, since I can’t play every game and often I end up going by description or reviews. But it’s better than nothing, right? Agree? Disagree?

Are there any tags you like and wish more games were appropriately labeled with?

There are some interesting obscure tags where I feel like there’s gotta be more games that fit, but just can’t think of any. For some of these, I went through and added games myself, but the list still feels too small.

mushrooms: I am biased because I love mushrooms. If there’s a game about mushrooms out there without the mushroom tag, tell me so I can add it for all the mushroom fanatics out there. Please.

ninja: Ninjas are cool. There’s only one page of games tagged “ninja” on IFDB. There is no way that only 9 IF games featuring ninjas have ever been created. Where are the ninjas?

asian protagonist: A relatively obscure tag I went and added more relevant games to. Not entirely sure about my decision, but I thought it might be useful. I didn’t distinguish between Asian protagonists in Asia and Asian protagonists in e.g. America who are children of immigrants. You could make another tag for that, but I didn’t think there were enough games to warrant it. I’m not sure about some of the categorization choices I made here, so I’m very sorry if I screwed something up.

disabled protagonist: This one has some games, but I feel like there should be more out there. Probably they just haven’t been tagged.

random combat: A tag for games with random combat of some kind! Overlaps a lot with RPG (which is both a tag and a genre) - though not all RPGs have random combat, and not all games with random combat are RPGs. The RPG tag is more popular by far.

roguelike: This tag could be a genre, but it’s not. The potential for IF roguelikes is great, though. There’s only a few listed on IFDB right now. (Tragic.)

random generation/procedural generation: Another tag that comes with really interesting mechanics and less traditional uses of IF, but seems underused. There’s several versions of this tag, which can’t help. “procedural generation”, “procedural text generation”, “procgen”, “randomized”… “randomized” is the most common right now. You’d probably be better off searching “tag:random”, which also includes any game with a tag that contains the word “random”. Or “tag:generation”.

lovecraft: There’s a horror tag and genre, but use of the lovecraft/lovecraftian tags is spottier. Give me more gibbering delusions from beyond reality, dangit.

Tags I created myself:

toxic relationship: Thought it might be useful, then couldn’t think of games to assign it to. Originally it was gonna be “abusive relationship”, but I figured that was too narrow, so I went with “toxic relationship” instead. Vague, I know. Should this tag even exist? There is an “abuse” tag, but looking that up also brings in “child abuse” and “drug abuse”, and some others, which aren’t exactly the same thing.

divorce: I thought this might be useful for people interested in IF games about divorce. It’s a hefty topic, after all. But I couldn’t think of many games about divorce.

parenting: I added this tag because of nine months out. Parenting is a pretty important part of life and culture and all that, but I could find barely any games about it. There has to be more, right? See also the “motherhood” tag, which is even more neglected. Maybe there’s a more-used tag out there I missed.

breakup: Another mainstay of life that is, according to the tagging system, not really covered by IF. I’m sure there are more games about breakups out there, they just haven’t been tagged.

art gallery: Could be my nostalgia for Ib, that indie RPG about an art gallery full of sentient paintings that want to kill you (very fun). But art galleries are cool. There should be more games about art galleries.

Line between a poll and a tag?

People on IFDB use polls to look for games that fall under specific categories, e.g. “Games that take place completely in museums”, to name a recent poll. A lot of polls could be used to create new tags or add to existing ones. I think I went through the results of the museum poll to tag the games listed as “museum”.

Not all polls work this way. Some are hyper-specific or based on categories too general to be tagged. But what are people’s thoughts on using polls to find games for newly created tags, or creating tags from polls that would be a good basis for them?

Opinions on tags that are used more as categories than for specific components of a game?

By this I mean tags like “second person pov”/“first person pov”/“third person pov”, “gender neutral protagonist”/“female protagonist”/“male protagonist”, “one ending”/“multiple endings”, and so on. You could pick the appropriate tag from each set and tag every single game on IFDB. Statistically, most games haven’t been tagged this way. I guess people just don’t see the need in it, or something.

Do you think these tags should be given to every possible game, or only when it’s a particularly relevant part of the story, or something? I personally wouldn’t mind if they were given to every possible game, for categorization purposes, though for other people I think it might count as extraneous tagging.

Spoilers in tags?

Sometimes I find a game that fits a tag perfectly, but adding that tag would spoil anyone who scrolls down the IFDB page to check out a game before playing it. In those cases I usually don’t add it, as much as I want to. If IFDB had some mechanic for spoilering tags, that’d be helpful. At the basic level, maybe an option to hide tags by default? Or does that already exist?

Well, that’s all. I spent too much time on this.

Disclaimer: IFDB is still great. I don’t mean to come off as some entitled user demanding these tiny flaws be FIXED IMMEDIATELY or I will NEVER USE IFDB AGAIN HOW DARE YOU HAVE THESE IMPERFECTIONS ON YOUR SITE. Although that would be funny.

TLDR: What do you think about the IFDB tagging system? Any favorite or underrated tags? Any major pet peeves you want to gripe about?


Here are the issues with the tagging system that I logged on September 12, 2017:

  • I can tag every game as “IF Comp 2099”
  • “friends” and “friendship” are two different tags
  • “investigation of human mind” is a tag

I think this was apropos of someone asking “what improvements could be made to IFDB?” In the following years, the IFDB team made many very impressive improvements to the site, but I don’t think they did anything about tags. All my complaints above still seem to be in play.

What is my complaint about the “investigation of human mind” tag? I would say that the tag doesn’t convey anything meaningful. It represents one person’s attempt to describe one entry—in terms that really belong in a story blurb, not in a categorization scheme. But because there’s no oversight on the system, there are hundreds of these one-off unhelpful tags.

And so the list of all tags, which a naive user might expect to be a somewhat orderly, somewhat comprehensible map of the interactive fiction universe, is instead a free-association word cloud where you may or may not be able to find the idea you’re interested in, maybe not phrased in the way you thought to search for, or maybe phrased in five different ways.

The way tags get added is kind of discouraging to me as an author. Taco Fiction is tagged as “male protagonist,” which is either incorrect or a matter of opinion. It’s tagged with “slice of life,” which I am pretty sure is false. And it’s tagged with “animals,” which is either stretching the idea of “animals” very thin, or spoiling an easter egg.

All these tags end up forming a picture of the game for a prospective player. That picture is much more straightforward and easy to digest than anybody’s review or my own blurb! But unlike a review or blurb, it doesn’t represent anybody’s intentional effort to characterize the game—it represents a decade of people adding tags at their whim, sometimes thoughtfully, sometimes not. So this easy-to-digest snapshot of the game is distorted and inaccurate and frustrating.

It would be cool if IFDB had a StackExchange-like system of oversight where some trustworthy people had to decide what tags should exist, review suggestions for new tags, consider requests to remove tags. I am trying to imagine what it would be like to convert the world of tags as they currently exist into that imaginary paradigm.

No. It is untenable. It is impossible.

That’s okay; IFDB isn’t going to sink or swim based on how tags work. But given the way they do work, I don’t think it’s wise to take them very seriously.


As you say, I was surprised to see “cheese” as a tag for the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.


While I don’t work back-end on IFDB, I can only assume it’s similar here. Any user can create a tag. On this board if you start to type you get a drop down of existing tags, so hopefully most people will choose one of those. I myself have inconsistencies and had to go back and and fix if-comp vs ifcomp. This forum also provides tools to remove unused tags and merge tags by basically “feeding” one to the other instead of having to track down every message with a stray tag.

IFDB has been around a long time so it may not be as easy to manage tags on the Admin side. It does fun things I do kind of love, like the display where popular tags are displayed in a larger font size:


There a whole page about this on IFWiki – Cheese-friendly Game Directory - IFWiki – on which Hitchhiker’s is rated a Chèvre.


On the whole, despite the substantial shortcomings that people have pointed out, I tend to think that the system as-is is a net positive for the site as a whole and for people whose use case for IFDB is primarily finding games or looking up information about a specific game. That’s just my personal opinion, and it’s not to say that it doesn’t have meaningful shortcomings, nor that there’s no possibility for improvement; it’s just to say that I tend to think that the existing system is a net positive for a large number of users on the site.

I think that “anybody can add any tag” is a good thing: it allows for someone to correct gaps in existing data simply by adding the missing data. It’s an “if you see a problem, go ahead and fix it” approach that works quite well in some communities where there is a baseline expectation that everyone operates in good faith. I take it that that is what the IF community largely is, at least so far as I can observe it. Yes, there is always the possibility of vandalism or bad-faith data entry, and maybe there’s more of that than I can see as someone who has no administrative responsibilities for the site. I also admit that I don’t know how much work cleanup and moderation are currently requiring from the people doing it, and perhaps I’m undervaluing or underestimating that amount by default; but from the outside, it seems to be working well. (The one example of defacement of an IFDB article that I ever saw involved altering a game’s name and description to insult the authors; and by the time I’d finished typing an email to describe the problem, a quick page refresh showed it had already been solved by [presumably] reverting the relevant article to a previous version.)

I think that being able to add any tag is a good thing because it allows interested people to indicate what meets those interests to like-minded other people: maybe there should be a tag for the (possibly many? I don’t know) games concerned with World Cup victory afterparties. If that’s one person’s specific interest, there’s a decent chance that its the specific interest of other people, too. Maybe there’s a whole slew of them that the stuffy ivory-tower categorizers have simply never noticed, or are prudishly suppressing out of a sense of disapproval, or are trying to bury because of a Plot to Suppress the Truth, or … . Doesn’t mean that we pleebs shouldn’t make it easier for us to find and enjoy other World Cup victory afterparty stories to interact with. It would be depressing to have to get the blessing of some grizzled committee of stuffy gatekeepers to have to tag the game so other World Cup victory afterparty game fans can find it.

That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be more of an effort to develop a standard ontology of common tags and encourage people to use them: I’ve been occasionally frustrated by finding incorrect or insufficiently specific tags on IFDB. (To pick one tiny example: I’d like to see more tags for very old games indicating which systems a downloadable file is playable on, because I want to have some idea of what emulator I’ll need to run the game in. I recently downloaded an old game thinking I could run it in one kind of TRS-80 emulator only to discover that the game was actually for an entirely different and incompatible line of TRS-80 computers. Yes, this is partly Radio Shack’s fault for slapping that label on every machine they ever sold, including at least one calculator, without any regard for the compatibility of underlying architecture or software; but it would still be nice if our own tagging had tags that distinguished between TRS-80 Models I/III/IV, the TRS-80 Color Computer line, and the calculator, if any games were ever released for it. It would be nice to have those tags reorganized.) And on that note, it would be nice to have a process to rename and combine tags, and to remove tags that are malicious or simply incorrect. But it’s nice to see an emergent descriptive system where people can simply indicate that yes, they played this game, and it is a Lovecraftian horror piece, with a female protagonist, and very puzzly, and has thematic interests in cheese and in World Cup victory afterparties.

I would like to see efforts be made to tag more games, and to tag games more comprehensively, and I suspect there are probably comparatively lightweight ways to do this. One way might be to prominently encourage people to add game-related tags (and not just review-related tags) as part of the process of entering a review, or have a non-obtrusive popover when a game entry is displayed that says something like “Know this game? Want to tag it? Want to write a review?”


Take a look at the tag cloud. The first ten entries have double quotes around them. What’s that supposed to mean? Of these, there are two entries for “adventure” and three entries for “historical”. Huh? Mouse over and you see that there’s really only five tags, but three of them have multiple words for the same tag and none of these have any corresponding games. The single-word “adventure” and “historical” tags are actually the same as the equivalent tags without double quotes, so all these double-qoted tags should be removed, as they don’t do anything.

The thing that really bugs me is the lack of consistency. Let’s take IF Comp for example. There’s IF Comp xxxx, IF Competition xxxx, IFComp xxxx, ifcomp xx, IFComp Game and so on. Why do we need any of these tags at all when there’s a category for competitions?

There’s also IFComp Winner, Spring Thing Winner, Winner of a Comp and a few minor winners. Surely, we only need one tag for comp winners.

Another example is source code. I counted 40 variations of source code available. There is even a tag to say source code NOT available. What the?

And why do we have so many tags for the programming language or authoring system? There’s a Development System field for that.

I could go on, but I think you get the message.


I absolutely love tagging systems. I want to create weird stuff, but I also want to kinda fly below the radar. With the help of tags, I can trust that people who are looking for what my game contains will be able to find it. I might not get many players, but those who do play will very likely find what they are looking for.

Meanwhile, I’m not launching my name everywhere and bouncing off of the majority of people by attempting a marketing campaign.


Right now, I think the only way to hide tags is by using one of the custom stylesheets in the style gallery. (Settings → Display Preferences → Custom Stylesheet → Stylesheet Gallery → Hidden Tags)

It would be good if there were another way to deal with spoilers in tags, like being able to hide ones that had been marked as spoilers.


I don’t have a clear idea of how it is used, or if it is currently helping people find what they want to find.

If I were to assess it, I would assess it based on its utility.

In practice, I don’t mind anyone adding anything if it is useful, but I’m not sure we can ever determine that. So how would we police it? Nobody has given my game a tag that I disagree with. Depending on the tag, I might just be happy for the engagement.

I think the breathless, event-focused nature of things makes it hard to observe people in the wild just finding a game that interests them, then talking about it. The news splash and news page of IFDB seem to bear this out.


The one benefit that tags have over competition pages for tags like ‘ifcomp game’ is that you can sort everything that has a certain tag, but you can’t sort competitions. I tagged almost everything with ‘ifcomp game’ many years ago just so I could find the highest rated ifcomp game of all time. If there is (or if we got) a way to search games by competition, then the tags wouldn’t be necessary.


Has anybody looked at the Archive of Our Own tag wrangling system? I feel like something similar to that would be a helpful addition to IFDB.


I definitely prefer AO3’s system, though in fairness I think they’ve put a ton of work into making and planning it. Still, it would be great to have something like it. Or something informed by it.


Maybe when someone types a tag name that is similar to an existing tag, suggestions of similar tags could pop up?

Or provide an easy way for someone to look at the existing tags on the same screen where they are entering the tag? (Maybe especially if someone enters a tag that has not been used before.)


Part of this is IFDB has been around forever, and people have been entering tags for that long. Many are probably considering tags as informational only instead of something to filter for searches, which is where you get problems with IFComp, ifcomp, IF-Comp entry, Interactive Fiction Competition Entry, which could be multiply applied. I can appreciate the humor of an ironic tag like “cheese”.

One advantage on the forum is tags are not allowed to have spaces nor capitals and if you start typing a tag you see suggestions.
Screen Shot 2023-11-17 at 1.13.00 PM

Screen Shot 2023-11-17 at 1.15.23 PM

I can see we also have a bunch of weird tags that are superfluous and single-use, but again sometimes a purely informational tag can be appropriate. Like catchphrase seems weird, but as I click it, I can see in the message that Catchphrase is the name of a custom parser.

IFDB is older (possibly a legacy custom web page?) that was predates Web 2.0 conventions we all kind of expect now. I don’t know if it’s helpful to grouse or blame anyone for the misuse of tags as it’s been going on historically, but I agree the tag jumble makes searching by tags less useful.

That’s part of the disadvantage of legacy software. I know when I have tagged my own IFDB games I want to apply the most popular tag and I have used the “biggest font wins” methodology. That cloud is a bit hard to find, but it’s a link from individual pages below where the tag is. It doesn’t require people to check for a tag prior to using them, nor does it suggest similar tags. The tag dialog allows you to type a tag and ‘add’ it, whether it exists or not.

(Sorry my chosen IFDB theme has black on black in places, so I had to highlight the text to see it.

There have been calls to update IFDB to a more modern database display type thing, but sunk-cost labor may be too great to do that now.

(Now I’ve got to tear myself away from obsessively mass editing tags here…this is why I don’t go in there often!)


I find it useful to be able to distinguish between IFComp Winner, Spring Thing Winner, etc. The comps all have different personalities, and their audiences value different sorts of games. Lumping them together wouldn’t be helpful if you’re trying to search IFDB for specifically IFComp winners, for example, which I have done before!

Maybe if IFDB had a better way to search games by such criteria, then you wouldn’t need the tags. But the tags are currently more convenient than anything else. Without the tags, you’d have to visit the competition pages individually, which gets cumbersome.


This was what I was thinking too. I know it relies on volunteer labor, but IFDB is much lower-traffic than AO3 and I don’t think it would require nearly as large of a time commitment from nearly as many people. Honestly, I would sign up to help with it.

If the volunteer thing seems like too much to ask of people, there’s also the way LibraryThing handles it, which is to let people propose tags to merge and then have users vote on whether they should be merged or not.

But I think the bigger question is whether IFDB’s software even supports having one tag redirect to another that way.


I’ve only used IFDB a little bit, but from my understanding, tags are the way everything is categorized.

Much like what we have here on intfiction with forum sections, I would have categories for games that are in the IFDB system. These would be genres, competitions, IF engines, accessibly-friendly options and anything else that is objectively useful. Then I’d have tags that are user-defined that can be anything; keywords, basically, and limit it to 5 or so.

The categories would be on the administrative side, while the tags are open to the public as, I assume, they currently are. This way, ECTOCOMP 2023 is a category (possibly with other categories, such as horror, comedy, parser, tads 3, reader-friendly, etc.) and if the game submitter wants to waste precious, limited tags on every variation of that Ectocomp keyword, they can do so… or they could use it intelligently to describe what their game actually offers and sets it apart from the categories it falls within.

This creates a separation of keywords and categories. This would be relatively straightforward for a database programmer to do with the current IFDB site to assign existing games to relevant categories and dispose of needless, redundant tags.

My two cents.


I love organization and categorization and discussions thereof, and thus I love this thread. It’d be great to see the IFDB tag system get cleaned up (eliminating redundancies, editing for consistency, etc.), and I would definitely join a volunteer effort to do so.

I like tagging my own games, in the hopes that it’ll help them be discovered by more people. So far I’ve made sure to only use tags that already exist, since I figure those are the most helpful for game categorization/searching purposes. I think until today I’d only tagged my own games, actually; I’ve voted for other people’s games in polls that they fit, but I guess it never occurred to me to add tags.

FYI, the links under this section aren’t actually going to the searches for those tags when I open them! I’m getting just searches for those words, I think.

There is an existing tag called “breaking up”, but it’s only been applied to five games.


Yeah, links to IFDB searches get wonky on this forum because Discourse converts symbols/punctuation into their URL-encoded equivalents and that messes things up. I remember this coming up during the IFDB Awards, but I don’t remember if anyone ever figured out a way around it.