Only thing I can think of that might be okay to tag is the classic magician's wand (straight black stick with a white tip) since it's a specific design, but I don't think it'd get used much.


SnowWolf said:
*snip*
Examples

I came up with way too much to say, again:

▼ my thoughts

abstract_background animal_humanoid bag boots brown_eyes clothed clothing dav-19 dress female fluffy fluffy_tail footwear fox_humanoid fox_tail front_view fully_clothed hair happy humanoid leaves leggings legwear mammal multiple_poses orange_hair patricia_(dav-19) poncho pose shirt smile solo standing

Rating: Safe
Score: 9
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 10, 2018 multiple_poses solo
Characters look indistinguishable to me.
abstract_background age_progression alternate_species animal_humanoid armor bangage belt boots breasts charizard charmander charmeleon clothed clothing crouching dav-19 female flaming_tail footwear front_view fully_clothed gauntlets gloves green_eyes hair holding_object holding_weapon hood humanoid jumping leather leather_armor legwear loincloth looking_at_viewer melee_weapon membranous_wings multiple_poses nintendo orange_theme pauldron pokemon_humanoid pokéball pokémon pokémon_(species) pose red_hair solo spiked_armor spread_wings standing sword tights tunic unconvincing_armor video_games weapon wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 7
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 09, 2018 multiple_poses age_progression alternate_species solo
armor belt black_hair black_scales cape chinese_text clothing dress fangs feathering female feral feral_to_human fur grey_hair grin hair hair_bun hand_on_hip helmet hi_res holding_object holding_weapon horn human juanmao1997 kirin mammal melee_weapon multiple_images multiple_poses polearm pose red_eyes red_scales red_sclera robe scales sheathed_weapon smile solo spear sword taur text transformation translation_request weapon yellow_eyes

Rating: Safe
Score: 4
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 04, 2018 multiple_poses transformation feral_to_human solo
I considered multiple_images for the last two, but that tag's wiki specifies "unrelated images", which generally implies different characters. That, and if we wanted redundant use between multiple_images and either of multiple_poses and multiple_positions, then the latter two would implicate the former. Anyway, I feel the characters in those posts are directly related although not interacting whatsoever. multiple_poses isn't a great fit because the characters have different forms, which would seem to fall outside the wiki definition, but it gets the right idea across.

The second post could also be evolution, but that's a small mess to be defined and emptied. I don't know the lore to third post, if there is any, which might better inform some tagging. I chose feral_to_human over human_to_feral because, in any media I've seen where a character has both a dragon and human form, they are always "actually" a dragon who can transform into a human. That's a consistent and understood power of dragons across many fantasy universes.
___

When describing difficult posts with tags, I first decide what makes the most sense for a post and then look for tags to match that. If one interpretation makes more sense than any other or tells a clearer story, that's what I will choose. I don't think it's worth sweating the small stuff (i.e., asking what if I'm wrong?), and I think the worst decision is not tagging a tricky concept because of the small stuff. Odds are that only one "good tagger" per year, if that, will see the post if it's not high profile, so I would rather take my best stab at these than pass the buck to someone who may never come. I would rather commit a small, technical mistag if it allows me to organize like things into small piles. Greater good, IMO. My impression is that I'm alone in that philosophy, which gives me all the more reason to be that way.

... as for statues and sexdolls, *I'd* say count them as a duo and solo respectively--they might not be a PERSON, but they're clearly the focus of the image and meant to be appreciated as such.

But tha'ts just my opinion. ... which does raise the wuestion of how one woudl tag someone making use of a sex doll.. hm.. I dunno.

I don't disagree with that approach. That was my first choice, but I wasn't sure how to resolve its implications:

▼ I changed my mind, but don't want to delete this

No longer what I'll do for this issue

1. Does that mean all statues, sex dolls, and similar in any post count as a character when counting characters? Even the ones in the background, of small importance and receiving less artistic effort? If so, well, I don't like that.

2. If not, where do we draw the line? Which recalls old discussions about determining what is and isn't "in the background". My takeaway from those was that it's not always possible, so taggers should just count every living creature toward character count. solo_focus and duo_focus help filter out the noise of that "absolute" character count.

Until those concerns are dispelled, I've left both of those posts zero_pictured for the time being. That's a small pile of like things. At least, in the future, we can point to these and say, "hey, this is something that needs work, so let's make a new tag/rule/wiki update", as opposed to never organizing these posts and letting these issues slide endlessly.

I decided I will count these non-living objects that are clearly the focus of their posts. If a living character occupies the focus too, then I will also tag solo/duo_focus for only living characters, as if the statue/doll/object were a faceless_[character]. If such objects are not the primary focus, then I won't count them at all. That separates background from foreground most of the time. It will work. I can already envision some potential exceptions, but I'll cross those bridges when they appear before me.

regsmutt said:

▼ Click to collapse

Here's another tricky one- internal vore shots where one character is literally the background/environment.

- I think this one and stuff like it could be comfortably tagged as 'solo'
- This... is a bit less clear.

Do what is done for tentacles, I guess. That's already been thought of. If you aren't given an outside view of the eater, then don't count them.

However, I did see a post tagged tentacles solo solo_focus, and the idea intrigued me. In a tentacles_everywhere solo situation, also saying solo_focus doesn't seem wrong, even though it's redundant. That's a way of acknowledging "split" focus for uncountable characters when they are nonetheless a significant part of the post, although the tag police won't like such rabble-rousing.

_________________________________________________________

I want ironclad rules for our most basic tags and tagging logic. I will expend much effort puzzling out gaps in the tagging system until tag logic is solved, but I need the discussions to happen. It's why I've been poking the bear.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
11 days ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 19
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

abadbird said:
I came up with way too much to say, again:

You're in luck, hun. I am way too sick to have strong opinions and am pretty sure I agree with you basically 95% of this post, this time. ;)

Jesus, yeah I'm way too sick. I just spent a solid minute going "how do I... quote... section?" I figured it out, but I"m not gonna. I will tell you all, I had a very snappy vulcan mind meld joke to 'reply' to the 'my thoughts' section header. .... which means it was probably a terrible joke. So you're lucky.

▼ I don't think I"m going to contribute much to this conversation, but I want to reply anyway.

I'm replying because I like what you wrote abadbird, and the best way I know to acknowledge you is to reply. I know I feel happy when people acknowledge what I say and indicate that they've read and given me thought. They don't even have to agree. Man, cold medicine makes me really introspective. Sorry.
Anyway.

I think your way of tagging those pictures was really neat. I hadn't thought about the dragon/kirin picture as a transformation but y'know it's not wrong.

multiple_images ... multiple_poses ... multiple_positions

Geeze, I didn't even know about those other tags. *sighs, gazes off into the distance*

multiple_poses and multiple_positions seems rather redundant .. though I can see the different uses.. montages of one person going around their day occasionally interacting with people" versus "two people on a date" for example. Though multiple_positions basically makes me think that it's 100% sex, when it isn't. It seems really squishy though.

Maybe that's my brain.

The second post could also be evolution, but that's a small mess to be defined and emptied. I don't know the lore to third post, if there is any, which might better inform some tagging. I chose feral_to_human over human_to_feral because, in any media I've seen where a character has both a dragon and human form, they are always "actually" a dragon who can transform into a human. That's a consistent and understood power of dragons across many fantasy universes.

That is some super neat logic :) I like it :) (man... maybe my next book will be about a human who discovers they can turn into a dragon. It'll be full of awkward flapping and breaking of furniture and "oh god, I shredded the bedsheets! Mom's gonna kill me!")

As for lore, the artist posted another image that I didn't upload that had a lot of text, but I don't read Chinese, and didn't upload it.

When describing difficult posts with tags, I first decide what makes the most sense for a post and then look for tags to match that. If one interpretation makes more sense than any other or tells a clearer story, that's what I will choose. I don't think it's worth sweating the small stuff (i.e., asking what if I'm wrong?), and I think the worst decision is not tagging a tricky concept because of the small stuff. Odds are that only one "good tagger" per year, if that, will see the post if it's not high profile, so I would rather take my best stab at these than pass the buck to someone who may never come. I would rather commit a small, technical mistag if it allows me to organize like things into small piles. Greater good, IMO. My impression is that I'm alone in that philosophy, which gives me all the more reason to be that way.

Man, preach it, brother. Nah, I'm with you. I try to be complete, but accurate, but I can only hold so many tags in my little brain. But my rule has always been "tags are there to help people find posts. Tag to help find posts."

I changed my mind, but don't want to delete this

That is literally the story of my life on these longer posts. Srsly good points, too.

I decided I will count these non-living objects that are clearly the focus of their posts. If a living character occupies the focus too, then I will also tag solo/duo_focus for only living characters, as if the statue/doll/object were a faceless_[character]. If such objects are not the primary focus, then I won't count them at all. That separates background from foreground most of the time. It will work. I can already envision some potential exceptions, but I'll cross those bridges when they appear before me.

I once saw a picture with a character who was strapped to a large teddybear, with dildos and bondage gear and stuff. I was gonna say something about considering it a focus, but it was really only an object. Maybe there should be something line inanimate_focus or inanimate_partner or something. IDK. brb, coughing up another lung.

I want ironclad rules for our most basic tags and tagging logic. I will expend much effort puzzling out gaps in the tagging system until tag logic is solved, but I need the discussions to happen. It's why I've been poking the bear.

Me too. I've got a list of question that honestly I can't find answers to, but I'm a bit embarrassed to ask about.

There's a bit of a failure in the wiki--I"m sure that many tags have wikipages, but what they don't have is interconnectivity. If we pick a new tag like, I dunno. "Sliding_into_heaven_position" that should be put onto every wiki page related to sex positions that there is. If sliding_into_heaven_position is close to "plowing_the_spring_earth_position", then there should probably be links to the other on each page as well as explanations of how they're different.

We could have tables!

Glorious tables!stretching from horizonto horizon!
Tending the Earthamazing_background ambiguous_gender basket clothing cloud day detailed_background farm farmer farming feline fumiko gloves_(marking) green_eyes lion mammal markings rice_field rice_hat shirt shorts sky smile socks_(marking) solo tattoo tenma

Rating: Safe
Score: 10
User: SnowWolf
Date: December 14, 2017 Involves farming. Seed implied to be planted by characters.
Plucking the Ripe Berries16:9 ambiguous_gender avian beak bear berry brown_feathers climbing cute detailed_background dragon's_crown eating eyes_closed family feathers feral food forest fruit group hi_res hybrid mammal nature outside owlbear parent shadow size_difference sunlight tree unknown_artist unknown_species white_feathers yellow_eyes young

Rating: Safe
Score: 11
User: furrypickle
Date: August 14, 2014 May be farmed or wild, and probably snacked on.
Risking Much for Great Sweetnessambiguous_gender avian beehive bone_crest capcom claws detailed_background dragon eating eyes_closed featureless_crotch food frill good_parenting happy honey jungle kosagi_rie membranous_wings monster monster_hunter nature outside plant scalie video_games wings wyvern yian_kut-ku young

Rating: Safe
Score: 13
User: AnacondaRifle
Date: February 25, 2012 There are bees. This is pretty self explanatory.

I mean, only with sex positions, and not agriculture.

There should be grand lists of reference for "how do I tag this thing?'

I was laying on the couch earlier in a fever dream trying to design an HTML interface for a choose-your-own-adventure-styled tag helper for e621, .... I don't do coding, so it was going terribly, then the computer started to melt and there were bees.... .... Am I hungry? When did I last eat?

I love everyone here. Forgive me if I sound high. I am. Nyquil is my friend.

I think concrete rules are good. I wish there were more people willing to help with wide scale tagging. There are so many things that are good ideas, jsut need blunt manpower to go hoping through the fields and tagging things. don't seem to have much of that, these days :/ poor lil bunnies.

Okay bye.


bedroom_eyes

My question is simple although the answer may not be:

Should bedroom_eyes include (penetrative) sex?

I feel as though its wiki describes an expression that occurs before sex. Also, it implicates seductive which I don't feel is an appropriate tag for a character having sex or looking_pleasured. I feel bedroom_eyes should strictly be an invitation for an inactive partner, although not necessarily blatant enough for inviting. Unfortunately, about 1/7 of bedroom_eyes posts are also tagged sex.

I also want to add that a majority, roughly 1/2, of bedroom_eyes posts are tagged looking_at_viewer, and very many posts under bedroom_eyes -looking_at_viewer simply lack the looking_at_viewer tag. That should be the primary identity of the tag, IMO: a solo/solo_focus character looking_at_viewer or looking_at_partner seductively. That very strong theme is probably why the tag exists.

I want to update bedroom_eyes's wiki to make its use more clear, whatever the answer to my question may be. I'm aware its definition has evolved over time.


Strippers and Prostitution

If the tag stripper is involved, should the tag prostitution also be added since it's something sexual brought on by money? Possibly only when money is visible in the image, or otherwise?


SarahColley said:

Strippers and Prostitution

If the tag stripper is involved, should the tag prostitution also be added since it's something sexual brought on by money? Possibly only when money is visible in the image, or otherwise?

No. "Sexual activity" in the wiki refers directly to sex, not everything that might give someone a boner.


regsmutt said:
No. "Sexual activity" in the wiki refers directly to sex, not everything that might give someone a boner.

Fair enough. Thanks.~
Just wanted to make sure.