Siral_Exan said:
When I asked Ratte to provide you a "source", they replied with this and, at request, translated it to "this is not a pipe". To quote: "Point being, dialogue/text doesn't matter."

It's not a pipe, it's a depiction of a pipe. The text is correct.


BlueDingo said:
It's not a pipe, it's a depiction of a pipe. The text is correct.

But the text isn't referring to the image, it is referring to what's in the image. If you want to go that far, you should easily know when things refer to themselves in comparison to others... "this image is not a pipe" is what you're saying.


Siral_Exan said:
But the text isn't referring to the image, it is referring to what's in the image. If you want to go that far, you should easily know when things refer to themselves in comparison to others... "this image is not a pipe" is what you're saying.

We don't know what "this" is referring to. It could just as easily refer to either the image or the contents of the image, and there's no other text to clarify.

Just like if a tree falls in a forest, it comes down to interpretation.


BlueDingo said:
We don't know what "this" is referring to. It could just as easily refer to either the image or the contents of the image, and there's no other text to clarify.

Just like if a tree falls in a forest, it comes down to interpretation.

But you beat "this" by using the intuitive Occam's Razor, specifically the most intuitive and least abstract is correct. It's easier to refer to something that's not itself with "this", usually including context clues (hint hint), than it is to apply "this" without context clues.


point

your heads

We don't tag what something supposedly is going by text, we tag appearances. I'm not even sure why this is being questioned given the stupid number of tag wars we have over this very rule.


You can run into some eye of the beholder with tags like girly and crossdressing too..

This comic came to mind

By all visual accounts and chart traversals, Rio seems to be female. Tagged otherwise, though, and they talk about him being male in some of the pages. If taggers were totally technically accurate and stuck purely to non-text visual cues, it could be jarring for an unaware viewer.


I really don't feel like arguing the point, but maybe I'm a masochist because I'm going to anyway.

Let's say you have a picture of a dog holding a sewn animal in its mouth, you will recognize that as a stuffed animal. If there is a line coming from the toy, leading to the word "squeak", you will instead recognize the object as a squeaky toy, which is distinct.

If there is an image of someone being punched in the chest, that probably deserves a violence tag, maybe a few others. But if the image also contains a sound effect box with the word "CRACK!" written large and jagged, it's pretty obvious that there is a broken_bone there.

Saying that "words can lie" is kind of meaningless to me, because so can the image itself. A character has a flat chest and a distinctive bulge in their pants - you say that's a male? Well, how do you know it's not a female with a bound chest, packing a dildo in her trousers?

That is a real possibility, but we discount it because there is no evidence of it in the image. To me, this is analogous to the argument that says "well the words could be lying". Yeah. They could. And that earlier example could be a female pretending to be a male. But it seems to me that if we are discounting one of those possibilities, we ought to discount both. The words could be lies, but without any sort of evidence in the image that they are, it seems irrelevant.

The issue with the "this is not a pipe" image is that there is no choice between two possibilities there. It is clearly a pipe, and there is no evidence within the image to suggest that it could be something else besides a pipe. The text is not being served to clear up an ambiguity.

A better example would be an image of some article of clothing lying on the ground, but it's not clear which, but with a line of text underneath that says "this is a shirt".

As always, this comes down to "what would people be looking for when searching?".

I would argue that if someone is searching for, say, duo female -male sex, and they are given images with visually ambiguous characters who are clearly male by the dialogue present in the image, that is not what they are looking for, and the tagging system has failed this person.


Clawdragons said:
If there is an image of someone being punched in the chest, that probably deserves a violence tag, maybe a few others. But if the image also contains a sound effect box with the word "CRACK!" written large and jagged, it's pretty obvious that there is a broken_bone there.

What if the "crack" came from the attacker's knuckles cracking?


BlueDingo said:
What if the "crack" came from the attacker's knuckles cracking?

In that case, the sound effect would not be written, as I stated, "large and jagged".

This is not what someone would use to indicate popping knuckles.


notnobody said:
You can run into some eye of the beholder with tags like girly and crossdressing too..

This comic came to mind

By all visual accounts and chart traversals, Rio seems to be female. Tagged otherwise, though, and they talk about him being male in some of the pages. If taggers were totally technically accurate and stuck purely to non-text visual cues, it could be jarring for an unaware viewer.

That should be tagged as female.

Again, missing the point. We go by how a character appears in the image, not by how they're addressed. If it looks female, you tag it female.

O16
Member
3 months ago
abomasnow alakazam amaura animate_inanimate anthro arcanine avalugg bastiodon beartic bovine canine cranidos eeveelution excadrill feathered_wings feathers feline feral floatzel gengar gogoat hawlucha haxorus heliolisk hi_res insect_wings jellicent kingdra leavanny lillipup lucario lunatone luxray magneton makuhita mammal meowstic milotic miltank mismagius monster nidoking nintendo nosepass onix panpour pansage pansear pidgeotto piloswine pokémon poliwrath raichu rodent roserade scyther slaking sloth solrock starmie steelix swanna sylveon torkoal tyrunt video_games vileplume vivillon watchog weezing whirlipede wings zebstrika かんな_2日目東m02a

Rating: Safe
Score: 47
User: Rad_Dudesman
Date: February 28, 2016

Siral_Exan said:
Thank you for the word. For the life of me I couldn't remember it, so I went more specific.

BlueDingo said:
All names are TYWK as well.

(•_•) ... OK...

I just wanted to state that some sexual dimorphisms are used as a criterion to distinguish genders, when the refered are easily noticiable (deer, peacock, sea devil, rhinoceros beetle etc). However, how far this method should be used?


Ratte said:
That should be tagged as female.

Again, missing the point. We go by how a character appears in the image, not by how they're addressed. If it looks female, you tag it female.

I recognize that this was addressed to notnobody's specific point, not mine, but I just wanted to clarify my own point.

I am not suggesting by any means that an image which would normally be tagged "female" gets tagged "male" because of dialogue. Instead I am discussing images that would otherwise be tagged as ambiguous_gender.


Clawdragons said:
I recognize that this was addressed to notnobody's specific point, not mine, but I just wanted to clarify my own point.

I am not suggesting by any means that an image which would normally be tagged "female" gets tagged "male" because of dialogue. Instead I am discussing images that would otherwise be tagged as ambiguous_gender.

If it looks ambiguous, it's still ambiguous. The specific gender tags don't change how this works.


Ratte said:
If it looks ambiguous, it's still ambiguous. The specific gender tags don't change how this works.

And my point, as I've said before, is that I think that is detrimental to searching. Forcing it to remain as "ambiguous_gender" when there is evidence of the gender within the picture will end up preventing people from seeing the image who might want to, and may show the image to people trying to avoid such content.

It's not just a matter of ambiguous gender, but of any ambiguous situation - again, I refer you to my earlier example of broken bones (I.E., the extent and nature of the damage would otherwise be ambiguous). If I'm disturbed by broken bones, how does it make sense to allow broken bones through my blacklist because, as far as I can tell, "you'd only know there's a broken bone if you are literate"?

What benefit is there of doing it the way you describe? I can see plenty of detriments, but I don't see a benefit.

This isn't even an issue with TWYS vs TWYK. We're talking about elements which are part of the picture.


Clawdragons said:
And my point, as I've said before, is that I think that is detrimental to searching. Forcing it to remain as "ambiguous_gender" when there is evidence of the gender within the picture will end up preventing people from seeing the image who might want to, and may show the image to people trying to avoid such content.

It's not just a matter of ambiguous gender, but of any ambiguous situation - again, I refer you to my earlier example of broken bones (I.E., the extent and nature of the damage would otherwise be ambiguous). If I'm disturbed by broken bones, how does it make sense to allow broken bones through my blacklist because, as far as I can tell, "you'd only know there's a broken bone if you are literate"?

What benefit is there of doing it the way you describe? I can see plenty of detriments, but I don't see a benefit.

This isn't even an issue with TWYS vs TWYK. We're talking about elements which are part of the picture.

That's great but that is still how the rule is upheld. This is a matter of TWYS vs TWYK and we have numerous and counting examples of when text is not used to determine a tag, especially in the case of gender. This is no different and you're making the issue into something more convoluted than it really needs to be.

If referring to a very obviously female character as "he" doesn't mean they get the male tag, then likewise for referring to a very ambiguous character as anything but ambiguous_gender. These things simply do not determine the tag.

For your weirdly-specific example, there still needs to be some visual indication of the broken bone, such as an x-ray, a broken angle, etc. Just having the work "crack" somewhere with nothing to go with it is just text.


Ratte said:
That's great but that is still how the rule is upheld.

I understand that that's the rule.

I'm saying that the rule impedes searching and finding relevant art. That is to say, it is a bad rule.

It's also somewhat inconsistent, since we have tags like dirty_talk, but since inconsistency isn't really that big of a deal in reality, that's not really too important.

This is a matter of TWYS vs TWYK

You say that, but I fail to see how. Until now, the "see" is "tag what you see" has never been literal - "tag what you see" has always been used to say "tag what exists in the image, as opposed to outside information". Dialogue in an image is not outside information, and requires no outside knowledge - outside of basic literacy - to understand or tag.

Literally the only way I can see this being an issue of TWYS vs TWYK is if basic literacy is considered outside information. Which I think can be fairly discounted as a policy considering being able to write and read tags requires at least some level of literacy.

As I said before, honestly, discounting the dialogue in an image seems to me to be closer to TWYK than anything.

But, you know, like I said, I didn't really want to get into this conversation to begin with, because I was pretty sure it would go nowhere. So I am going to drop it.

However, I'm not retracting my complaint that this rule seems like a violation of TWYS and furthermore, seems to be bad for users, bad for searching, and bad for blacklisting.


It is an old holdover from the time when boobs were not tagged unless they were naked or in skintight clothing.


I have to agree with Clawdragons here. As I've said before I think we should be a little flexible with the rules. Text gives insight of what is going on in a image. Some tags are almost dependant on it, such as wrong_hole. Gender can be a difficult subject so we should probably look at individual cases. The ambiguous gender tag could be useful.


implied_male implied_female
?

Ok, I know there has been this thousand-year battle over where twyk should/has to be used to produce the best search results, and the only possible resolution I've ever heard was an old post from NMNY:

NotMeNotYou said:
My personally favorite solution for the TWYS and TWYK debate would be a complete overhaul of the tagging database, and the introduction of a new, unrelated tag database.

The main database would be the TWYS one and stays exactly the same as it currently is, the new database would be for TWYK tags and compliments the main DB.

Which is not technically feasible at the moment.

However... if/when this ever gets implemented, would it not be better to start building up a useable chunk of tag data NOW, (which could later be split to begin forming its own twyk database) instead of waiting and having 100k posts to hunt down and update all at once?


Ijerk said:
implied_male implied_female
?

Ok, I know there has been this thousand-year battle over where twyk should/has to be used to produce the best search results, and the only possible resolution I've ever heard was an old post from NMNY:

Which is not technically feasible at the moment.

However... if/when this ever gets implemented, would it not be better to start building up a useable chunk of tag data NOW, (which could later be split to begin forming its own twyk database) instead of waiting and having 100k posts to hunt down and update all at once?

You're ten times too short on that number. There's a million posts, not a hundred thousand.


Clawdragons said:
And my point, as I've said before, is that I think that is detrimental to searching. Forcing it to remain as "ambiguous_gender" when there is evidence of the gender within the picture will end up preventing people from seeing the image who might want to, and may show the image to people trying to avoid such content.

It's not just a matter of ambiguous gender, but of any ambiguous situation - again, I refer you to my earlier example of broken bones (I.E., the extent and nature of the damage would otherwise be ambiguous). If I'm disturbed by broken bones, how does it make sense to allow broken bones through my blacklist because, as far as I can tell, "you'd only know there's a broken bone if you are literate"?

We tag art, not text. All tags1 are used to describe something directly visible in the image. If a character looks ambiguous they get tagged as such, if a broken bone is visible, we tag that broken bone, if a penis is visible, we tag the penis. Text in the image does not change what is visible in the image, it can only expand on what is visible in the image, but we ignore this expansion of the information in the image itself.

1 - The tags that are an exception are only used for this particular exception, and don't have overlap into tags that are used to describe actually visible content in the image


I hate the way this rule works for more than a few reasons.

One of the problems with gender is that you can't always assume based on appearance. Take long hair, for instance. Many men might have long hair, but that's one feature that's been assumed a woman's trait for many years. Having earrings is another.


Furrin_Gok said:
You're ten times too short on that number. There's a million posts, not a hundred thousand.

I know. There's only around 60k currently tagged ambiguous, though. Plus maybe 10-20k with no gender listed. I'm assuming the vast majority of posts are well-defined enough that they'll never have to be scrutinized... hopefully.

Ledian
Privileged
3 months ago
abstract_background ambiguous_gender black_sclera blue_eyes cloven_hooves demon feral hooves horn kuroblood skull solo spikes teeth

Rating: Safe
Score: 27
User: Ledian
Date: September 25, 2015

PheagleAdler said:
I hate the way this rule works for more than a few reasons.

One of the problems with gender is that you can't always assume based on appearance. Take long hair, for instance. Many men might have long hair, but that's one feature that's been assumed a woman's trait for many years. Having earrings is another.

the gender tags are not really gender tags here. they are "what set of physical traits this character appears to have in this specific image" tags


PheagleAdler said:
I hate the way this rule works for more than a few reasons.

One of the problems with gender is that you can't always assume based on appearance. Take long hair, for instance. Many men might have long hair, but that's one feature that's been assumed a woman's trait for many years. Having earrings is another.

Long hair is not very high on the flowchart, if it's there at all.


Speaking of long hair, if not for the pant bulge I wouldn't think this included a guy.
5_fingers anthro bite black_nose blood blue_eyes blue_skin canine clothed clothing detailed_background duo ewan_(techorb) eyelashes female fish fur girly grey_fur hair hi_res inside iskra long_hair mako_(techorb) male mammal marine open_mouth school_uniform shark standing tongue uniform white_hair white_skin wolf

Rating: Safe
Score: 44
User: Millcore
Date: September 02, 2016