Tags/Categories on Dinosaur Toy Blog

[Sim]

The Carcharodontosaurus is by Haolonggood too.  Also, should "uncategorised" be removed from Gwangi's Ouranosaurus review now that it has the "Haolonggood" tag?

[BlueKrono]

This has been mentioned elsewhere, but I concur that we should add a new brand category for Haolonggood - and probably MuSee (Mu See? Mu-See?) as well, for accuracy's sake.

According to Lana Time Shop the correct name is MuSee Studio. Looking at the logo I am assuming Mu See is a Chinese name? Interestingly, it is spelled Mu Sée.
https://lanatime-shop.com/products/tyrannosaurus-rex-baby-scene?_pos=1&_sid=609653f82&_ss=r

[Gwangi]

The Carcharodontosaurus is by Haolonggood too.  Also, should "uncategorised" be removed from Gwangi's Ouranosaurus review now that it has the "Haolonggood" tag?

I went ahead and fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out @Sim .

[ceratopsian]

Certainly a transcription of a Chinese name. When the Studio first was mentioned on the forum a few years back,  it was written MuXi. It quickly changed to MuSee (though I'm not sure about the capitalisation). I remember the forum's then Chinese contact, acro-man, explaining the change was made as it was thought the new version was a better transcription.

This has been mentioned elsewhere, but I concur that we should add a new brand category for Haolonggood - and probably MuSee (Mu See? Mu-See?) as well, for accuracy's sake.

According to Lana Time Shop the correct name is MuSee Studio. Looking at the logo I am assuming Mu See is a Chinese name? Interestingly, it is spelled Mu Sée.
https://lanatime-shop.com/products/tyrannosaurus-rex-baby-scene?_pos=1&_sid=609653f82&_ss=r

[Sim]

@DinoToyForum, there's a Carcharodontosaurus review that needs the Haolonggood tag too.

[Fembrogon]

The Quetzalcoatlus review I did is also Haolonggood; in fact, that one might not be a GR Toys release at all. I may need to update that review with more accurate brand info if I can confirm it.

[DinoToyForum]

@DinoToyForum, there's a Carcharodontosaurus review that needs the Haolonggood tag too.

Ah, found it. There was a typo in the name Haolonggood so it didn't appear in my search. Updated.

[DinoToyForum]

The Quetzalcoatlus review I did is also Haolonggood; in fact, that one might not be a GR Toys release at all. I may need to update that review with more accurate brand info if I can confirm it.

Ah, another with a different spelling of Haolongood. Can you edit this and allocate it to the new category?

[Gwangi]

@DinoToyForum would you be interested in creating tags/categories for different geological time periods? It would be really cool if we could scroll through all the figures representing Permian or Triassic animals, for example. Just an idea. Let me know what you think.

[Halichoeres]

I love that idea. I'm also curious what percentage would be tagged "Cretaceous," I'm thinking somewhere around 80 or 85.

[Gwangi]

I love that idea. I'm also curious what percentage would be tagged "Cretaceous," I'm thinking somewhere around 80 or 85.

That thought occurred to me too, and your percentage sounds about right.

[DinoToyForum]

Yeah, I've considered a stratigraphy/age/period category. I agree it would be interesting to see the tallies, but I'm not sure how useful it would be otherwise. I suppose, just seeing the category would be informative to readers, even if they don't use the category to navigate. It's possible to break it down more finely into stages, or even formations, which would benefit diorama builders, but there's not always a one to one relationship between species and formations, and there's also geography to consider, so that could get messy and put a burden on reviewers. So, I could start with broad Period categories (and Epochs for the Cenozoic) and see how that goes...

[Gwangi]

Yeah, I've considered a stratigraphy/age/period category. I agree it would be interesting to see the tallies, but I'm not sure how useful it would be otherwise. I suppose, just seeing the category would be informative to readers, even if they don't use the category to navigate. It's possible to break it down more finely into stages, or even formations, which would benefit diorama builders, but there's not always a one to one relationship between species and formations, and there's also geography to consider, so that could get messy and put a burden on reviewers. So, I could start with broad Period categories (and Epochs for the Cenozoic) and see how that goes...

Well, I would use them. But I'm not sure all of that is worth the effort for one person. I have to think I'm not alone though. If it helps I could categorize my own reviews at least, and save you the trouble. I think broad period categories are sufficient.

[DinoToyForum]

Yeah, I've considered a stratigraphy/age/period category. I agree it would be interesting to see the tallies, but I'm not sure how useful it would be otherwise. I suppose, just seeing the category would be informative to readers, even if they don't use the category to navigate. It's possible to break it down more finely into stages, or even formations, which would benefit diorama builders, but there's not always a one to one relationship between species and formations, and there's also geography to consider, so that could get messy and put a burden on reviewers. So, I could start with broad Period categories (and Epochs for the Cenozoic) and see how that goes...

Well, I would use them. But I'm not sure all of that is worth the effort for one person. I have to think I'm not alone though. If it helps I could categorize my own reviews at least, and save you the trouble. I think broad period categories are sufficient.

It's no major bother to set it up and allocate reviews in bulk. But I'm curious, how exactly would you use them? Let's say there's a 'Jurassic' category, with 500 reviews under it, spread across dozens of pages. What use is that?

[Gwangi]

Yeah, I've considered a stratigraphy/age/period category. I agree it would be interesting to see the tallies, but I'm not sure how useful it would be otherwise. I suppose, just seeing the category would be informative to readers, even if they don't use the category to navigate. It's possible to break it down more finely into stages, or even formations, which would benefit diorama builders, but there's not always a one to one relationship between species and formations, and there's also geography to consider, so that could get messy and put a burden on reviewers. So, I could start with broad Period categories (and Epochs for the Cenozoic) and see how that goes...

Well, I would use them. But I'm not sure all of that is worth the effort for one person. I have to think I'm not alone though. If it helps I could categorize my own reviews at least, and save you the trouble. I think broad period categories are sufficient.

It's no major bother to set it up and allocate reviews in bulk. But I'm curious, how exactly would you use them? Let's say there's a 'Jurassic' category, with 500 reviews under it, spread across dozens of pages. What use is that?

I dunno @DinoToyForum , what use is 18 pages of tyrannosaur reviews or 17 pages of ceratopsian reviews? What about 99 pages of "figurine" reviews? Who's scrolling through all of that? Having categories for time periods just seems like another way in which users can interact with the blog. For whatever reason. And no, I'm not terribly interested in scrolling through the Jurassic and Cretaceous but seeing what's out there for the various periods of the Paleozoic or the Triassic sounds like fun.

I don't expect this to be done on my account alone. If there's no demand for it and you figure it to be a worthless endeavor then that's perfectly fine. I won't take offense. Like I originally said, it's just a thought. 

[Fembrogon]

I like the idea of time period categories. Even if it's a broad selection, it's another way to search and browse the Blog, and might prove useful, informative, or even just amusing for visitors who want to see what the Blog has to offer.

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, I don't anticipate anyone will scroll through everything tagged 'Cretaceous,' but considering multiple filters are available, it could narrow things down for someone who is looking for diorama ideas, for example. And it would be pretty helpful for people interested in any Paleozoic or Cenozoic period, or the Triassic, any of which a hyperfocused or bored person could get through in an afternoon.

[Gwangi]

I see that there are period tags now! 

Just scrolled through 5 pages of Permian reviews (mostly Dimetrodon, of course). Cretaceous has 84, Jurassic has 32, Triassic has 5. 

[DinoToyForum]

I see that there are period tags now! 

Just scrolled through 5 pages of Permian reviews (mostly Dimetrodon, of course). Cretaceous has 84, Jurassic has 32, Triassic has 5. 

Ha, well spotted! I just finished allocating all the reviews to the new categories.

I've also added the Age filter to the sidebar, that gives the full tallies. I knew Cretaceous would have the most reviews but I'm surprised just how far ahead it is! 1,262 Cretaceous reviews, compared to 481 Jurassic!

[Gwangi]

I see that there are period tags now! 

Just scrolled through 5 pages of Permian reviews (mostly Dimetrodon, of course). Cretaceous has 84, Jurassic has 32, Triassic has 5. 

Ha, well spotted! I just finished allocating all the reviews to the new categories.

I've also added the Age filter to the sidebar, that gives the full tallies. I knew Cretaceous would have the most reviews but I'm surprised just how far ahead it is! 1,262 Cretaceous reviews, compared to 481 Jurassic!

I am also surprised by the gap between Jurassic and Cretaceous. I blame T. rex for a lot of that.