KinkyGlutamate said:
Wrong analogy. e621 isn't exactly your personal house, there're other visitors who matter.

Imagine a party. A group of people go to a separate room to relax from the loud music and play cards. A content based downvoter would be a man who barges into that room, spills water on cards and, when asked to go out and enjoy the party the way he likes with people he likes, tells that he has the right to tell how to party correctly and that playing cards sucks, so keeps being annoying by telling cards in hands to opponents.

I've been mostly on the same position as you up to here. You're being told not tell people what the rules are when you don't make the rules. If that's not what you're trying to do, maybe try rephrasing stuff so it's more clear. In any case, you kinda just need to chill. It's annoying, but it's not like, a big deal.

And that's a bad analogy. It's more akin to leaving a one-star review on a sushi restaurant because you hate sushi. Sure, you can do that, it's not technically abuse of the review system, but it's unhelpful to people looking for good sushi.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
3 months 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: 23
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

KinkyGlutamate said:
Wrong analogy. e621 isn't exactly your personal house, there're other visitors who matter.

Imagine a party. A group of people go to a separate room to relax from the loud music and play cards. A content based downvoter would be a man who barges into that room, spills water on cards and, when asked to go out and enjoy the party the way he likes with people he likes, tells that he has the right to tell how to party correctly and that playing cards sucks, so keeps being annoying by telling cards in hands to opponents.

*deep breath*

Nope. See, you're--actually no. No more silly analogies.

NotMeNotYou is the lead administrator. He's the boss. He has been for several years. He is the boss here because he is trusted to know the way the site works, and to have the site's best interests in mind. That doesn't mean he's infallible. It means he's familiar with the rules and how they works. He's familiar with what the *spirit* of the rules is. Not the letter, but the spirit. He makes the rules. He understands what abuse of the rules is.

He's not perfect. But neither are you. And you have 107 forum posts. 40 of them have been in the last month. The last posts before that? over 3 years ago. You are not a regular participant in conversations.

To go back to your analogy. you're the guy who shows up every couple months to the regular every-friday party. That's fine, you're welcome here. But you're bitching about the music, and you're telling the host that she made her cupcakes wrong.

It doesn't matter what the guy with the water is doing.

What matters if that you're REALLY LOUDLY complaining about that ASSHOLE OVER THERE and the host is asking you to please not curse because her kids are in the next room watching The Lion King, and you jsut keep going on about what a JERK that guy is and how he's TOTALLY ruining your party experience, and WHY WON"T anyone DO something about THAT FUCKER?

Yeah, I get that it's annoying. I get that you don't like it. but stop assuming that you understand how the system works better than everyone else does. Stop telling the admin that he's wrong. Stop telling 'me' that 'I' don't know what's good art if I like something. You're not being polite. You're not being considerate. you're not presenting any of your arguements in a way that will make anyone WANT to listen to you. You're being frustrating and you're not going to win anyone over to your side unless you lay off a bit and be more accessible.

There are WORLDS of difference between politely presenting an opinion and *telling the lead admin* that he's wrong and doesn't understand how *his rules* work. o_o


I imagine that art is downvoted for the same reason why non-offensive comments are downvoted. It all comes down to one's preference, I suppose. But I rarely downvote anything.


KinkyGlutamate said:
If you support downvoting based on content, you morally support bad users who don't use the blacklist.

Bender said it best.

I very much morally support the freedom of users to use the voting system as they please, as long as they don't negatively target specific users or artists.
People can search for their own votes and use that power for themselves as they see fit. If you want a measurement that's objective and can't be "abused" by other people then sort by number of favorites.

All of that is simply because voting systems are volatile by nature, as everyone has different expectations for them. This has the result that they're quite bad at being objective. We also won't be able to change that as long as it's a binary voting system. Any sort of attempt to make it work objectively would require a more finely grained system like quality tags or 5 star voting systems.

SnowWolf said:
Not the letter, but the spirit. He makes the rules. He understands what abuse of the rules is.

Technically also the letter because helped Dave write them since their inception.


Reading the comments so far, it seems to me that there's very little agreement on the purpose or usage of the voting system. I'm okay with that and prefer it that way.

For my own part, I vote based on my art education because that gives me a relatively objective baseline. Obviously, I can't require other users to go out and get an art education, and in turn, I expect other users not to impose their voting criteria on me.

Probably the one behavior that irks me more than any other on this site is when some (certainly well-meaning) user notices things being downvoted and happily starts upvoting for no other reason than to cancel the downvotes. To me, canceling out someone else's perspective just for the sake of canceling it out is about the rudest thing you can do with that system.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
3 months 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: 23
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

NotMeNotYou said:
Technically also the letter because helped Dave write them since their inception.

Ah, I didn't mean "He isn't familiar with the letter of the rules" but intended to emphasize the idea that the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter--known too many peopel who will split hairs over exact phrasing. :)

But that's neat trivia to know :3

All of that is simply because voting systems are volatile by nature, as everyone has different expectations for them. This has the result that they're quite bad at being objective. We also won't be able to change that as long as it's a binary voting system. Any sort of attempt to make it work objectively would require a more finely grained system like quality tags or 5 star voting systems.

A star-based voting system would be pretty neat actually!

I also wonder: Maybe there would be benefit in giving to option to hide score (or, maybe even just display number of upvotes, instead of a total score)... also, potentially counter-intuitively, it'd be nice if the voting buttons were easier to see--highlighted like the favorite button, or next to the edit buttons, etc. *shrugs* I think people are more motivated to express displeasure--so making it 'easier' might attract more upvotes. Who knows :D


regsmutt said:
I've been mostly on the same position as you up to here. You're being told not tell people what the rules are when you don't make the rules. If that's not what you're trying to do, maybe try rephrasing stuff so it's more clear. In any case, you kinda just need to chill. It's annoying, but it's not like, a big deal.

I'm not inventing "rules", I'm explaining how behavior of users affects experience of other users. Being considerate and caring about others can't be put into rules, of course.

And that's a bad analogy. It's more akin to leaving a one-star review on a sushi restaurant because you hate sushi. Sure, you can do that, it's not technically abuse of the review system, but it's unhelpful to people looking for good sushi.

It isn't analogy at this point, it's exactly the same thing. ๐Ÿ˜€

SnowWolf said:
Nope. See, you're--actually no. No more silly analogies.
(...)
To go back to your analogy. you're the guy who shows up (...)

You failed at following your own suggestion. ๐Ÿ˜›

Stop telling 'me' that 'I' don't know what's good art if I like something.

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc?t=2m31s

There are WORLDS of difference between politely presenting an opinion and *telling the lead admin* that he's wrong and doesn't understand how *his rules* work. o_o

You failed at understanding my point. Several times.

OK, last try. All I want is for users to understand the consequences of their actions and be considerate about experience of other users, if they desire to do so. I'm not proposing new rules, not reinterpreting existing rules, not forcing anyone to do anything or anything of that sort. I just want people to be nice to each other, but it's merely my silly wish. All users are still allowed to be jerks, it's still within the rules and will always be.

A star-based voting system would be pretty neat actually!

The problem is, it never works. Literally never. Remember YouTube having star-based voting? Well, turned out that Five Stars Dominate Ratings. Even when people are forced to give meaningful scores (by splitting into subscores, by requiring comments), they still only use 1 star or 5 stars.

NotMeNotYou said:
If you want a measurement that's objective and can't be "abused" by other people then sort by number of favorites.

Considering how well hidden and useless voting is, number of favorites is more precise too, which is kinda funny, as on most websites voting is used more often than adding to favorites.

Just looked at the lists of top posts both by score and favcount. Except for rare outliers, favcount is consistently 3x-5x bigger than score.

You know, you convinced me. I'll just hide the stupid score completely. I made a checkbox in my userscript for this after all, finally found a use for it. ๐Ÿ˜

SnowWolf
Former Staff
3 months 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: 23
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

KinkyGlutamate said:
You failed at following your own suggestion. ๏˜›

For fuck's sake. Please scroll back up and observe the part where I very bluntly said things before, as you so astutely observed, noted going back to the silly analogy.

Also, good job ignoring all of that text in favor of sniping at my details.

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc?t=2m31s

and apparent grammar! Awesome.

Okay, so now I will explain, since apparently all uses of quotation marks are not understood here...

You said "Users don't know." You did not say "SnowWolf doesn't know." You did not, personally and specifically, target me. So I put quotations marks around I and me to indicate that it was the metaphorical non-specific me/I. Y'know, people like me, not me specific. Because I figured most people would understand, and not need to me to explain in full, but I guess not.

You failed at understanding my point. Several times.

If I am failing, repeatedly, to understand your point, maybe you're doing a poor job of explaining it.

OK, last try. All I want is for users to understand the consequences of their actions and be considerate about experience of other users, if they desire to do so. I'm not proposing new rules, not reinterpreting existing rules, not forcing anyone to do anything or anything of that sort. I just want people to be nice to each other, but it's merely my silly wish. All users are still allowed to be jerks, it's still within the rules and will always be.

And this is a great idea. The problem is, you are assuming that users don't understand the consequences of their actions. Further, you are assuming that there *are* these long, deep consequences involved with a downvote. It's a popularity score. This is not facebook where we hide posts because they've been downvoted too much. You've got to go through gymnastics to even sort by score, and most people never bother. Most people don't blacklist, or search by score. Except the people who don't want to see inspecifically 'weird' or 'gross' things, at which point, score is working as intended.

That said, you *are* reinterpreting rules.

I mean, seriously:

KinkyGlutamate said: Downvoting based on content, not quality, is abuse of the voting system
NotMeNotYou Said: [Citation needed] ← clearly implying that this is not an aspect that he, the writer and enforcer of the rules, considers to be a part of the rules.
KinkyGlutamate said: (long post about why you believe downvoting based on content is abuse of the voting system, an offense that can, does, and has, as recently as 9 days ago, gotten people in trouble.

The problem is, it never works. Literally never. Remember YouTube having star-based voting? Well, turned out that Five Stars Dominate Ratings. Even when people are forced to give meaningful scores (by splitting into subscores, by requiring comments), they still only use 1 star or 5 stars.

Hm, fair point. Now that I think about it, there are 2 'types' of star rating systems-- one is the system that takes all votes and compiles them into a score, while the other does the same, but also displays the numbers of individual star ratings. In the case of the second, we could easily assume that 1 star ratings are people who simply don't like the content. But all that said, it wouldn't, ultimatly, be all that different. However, as I said, it could be interesting, as a difference.

... On an aside, I wonder how voting on a scale ranging from -5 to 5 would be different than voting on a 1-10 scale. Hm. I mean, not specifically for us here but in a generalized human-psychological sense, since we seem to have trouble 'remembering' that a 3 star rating is supposed to be an 'average, whatever, It's okay' rating. Anyway.


... Just a random comment passing by this loud conversation of yours ...

I'm actually quite new here and not as long into furries as you guys are, but I have to say that I don't really look at the upvotes in the first place. I always look at the favcount. The fav counter always tells me something like: x people liked this artwork. And I feel this is the right way to approach an artwork. Even if some art got more than 100 downvotes, there is always someone who likes that particular art!

For example: I just recently stumbled across the artwork of Todex

I don't know if the voting system was here all the time, but sometimes I got the feeling it has been added later as the site was already in use.

For example: here is an (7 year old) artwork which got more than 40 favs but not a single upvote.

So I've learned to not look at the upvotes in the first place. I favorite artwork I personally like and not because "it got many upvotes and I should like it too then".


Rotoxy said:
For example: I just recently stumbled across the artwork of Todex

I don't know if the voting system was here all the time, but sometimes I got the feeling it has been added later as the site was already in use.

Todex was DNP artist. What this means their artwork was deleted and thus favoriting and voting did not work with those posts. Now the artwork has been restored, so the posts work and can be accessed.


KinkyGlutamate said:
...I don't even know what part to quote ._.

So you are not asking for a change in the rules, just saying that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a destructive idiot. K, got it.


1. People can only care about content they care about. You can't force people to like content they feel nothing toward or actively dislike because most people are ruled by irrational, incorrigible things like emotions and morality. However, exceptional execution of content can appeal to a broader audience than less inspired execution of that content. (That's probably backwards, though: content garnering appeal outside its normal demographic proves exceptional execution, not the other way around.)

2. Let's say every vote required users to also answer a one-question survey; that this requirement discouraged no one's votes; and that voters understood the question, answers, and were honest. Simply, "why did you [upvote/downvote] this post?" with answers like "I liked the content" and an optional "More Info" text field. Okay, so conceivably everyone can see how and why users vote. What would we see?

(pause to think of answers)

I strongly suspect a majority of our downvotes and upvotes are for content, then specific content with above average quality, not quality regardless content. We already know most people aren't here looking for just anything of quality, and they're especially not upvoting every quality post they see. Exhibit A: all those safe-rated posts with obvious skillful execution yet relatively low scores invariably bandied about whenever this topic comes up. Even if the survey allowed multiple answers, doesn't everyone fully expect to see more โ˜‘ Content โ˜ Quality and โ˜‘ Content โ˜‘ Quality answers than โ˜ Content โ˜‘ Quality?

Let's say artists and other "concerned parties" cheerfully ignore content-based downvotes. Fine, but that's the problem. This whole "don't downvote based on content" sentiment feels like such a crock of self-deception and bad faith when what's left unsaid is "(but it's okay to upvote based on content)". Echo chamber, much? The height of irony would be seeing realized this counterfactual "vote for quality only" system with the current userbase where, surprise surprise, voting is down 50-90% across the board but popufur art still leads score by insurmountable margins. Job well done.

3. We aren't grading art. This isn't a school or museum; it's an archive. We're not trained art educators or curators. Not our profession, not why we're here, not something "we" even credibly know how to do. I can't even. Get your heads on straight.

The notion that laypeople should or even can separate "quality" from "content" when assessing "content quality"/"quality content" is delusional. "Quality" is literally a modifier of "content", proof of quality depends upon the existence of content, quality is secondary to content by every possible construct. You can't have "good art" without the "art".

2004 anger_vein angry anthro black_fur black_nose blue_eyes clothed clothing comic_sans crossed_arms dialogue duo english_text eyewear female fire fur gasoline glasses hunter hunter_(artist) hunter_(character) lagomorph mammal maxine_blackbunny onomatopoeia sound_effects speech_bubble text

Rating: Safe
Score: -5
User: Tigra_Watanabe
Date: October 06, 2012


Well this has been a fun mess to read through.


abadbird said:
Let's say every vote required users to also answer a one-question survey; that this requirement discouraged no one's votes; and that voters understood the question, answers, and were honest. Simply, "why did you [upvote/downvote] this post?" with answers like "I liked the content" and an optional "More Info" text field. Okay, so conceivably everyone can see how and why users vote. What would we see?

First, won't happen. Second, 80% of comments will be "it's awesome", 15% will be "it's crap" and 5% something else. This is the reason for the first point.

Exhibit A: all those safe-rated posts with obvious skillful execution yet relatively low scores invariably bandied about whenever this topic comes up.

Before you draw any conclusions: the primary reason for SFW art having low scores, views, upvotes etc. compared to NSFW is that people fap way more often than enjoy art aesthetically.

The notion that laypeople should or even can separate "quality" from "content" when assessing "content quality"/"quality content" is delusional. "Quality" is literally a modifier of "content", proof of quality depends upon the existence of content, quality is secondary to content by every possible construct. You can't have "good art" without the "art".

You have a point. Finally somebody has a point other than "stop teaching me how to live". Learn, people.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
So you are not asking for a change in the rules, just saying that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a destructive idiot. K, got it.

Yup, you got it.

SnowWolf said:
I mean, seriously:

Seriously, abusing a feature isn't disallowed by rules. (In general; there're specific cases.)

For example, people tag colors of assholes and other nonsense nobody in the right state of mind would ever search for or filter with. It's silly, it's useless, it's never complete, makes people laugh about e621's tagging, so it's misuse of the tagging system, but it exists because it doesn't break the rules. Creating an ultra-specific tag which is used on one post is misuse within the rules too.

Even if the current main admin, for whatever reason, considers voting for content within the spirit of the feature (not the spirit of the rules) and laughs in the face of anyone who doesn't, it's fully within my rights to disagree with his opinion. It's not like the website has been created from scratch and fully maintained by one person. Now, if the inventor of the voting feature in the original booru engine tells me I'm an idiot, I may reconsider. And even then, the voting systems existed for ages, in many forms, for different reasons, so it's perfectly fine to have opinions which differ from opinions of people who own a website with a voting feature.


KinkyGlutamate said:

You have a point. Finally somebody has a point other than "stop teaching me how to live". Learn, people.

Everybody else has made a variation of his point so far. You're the only person to insist the voting system was designed and created to give an objective measurement of quality instead of just being "I like/dislike this". The feature is ambiguous, or volatile as I called it earlier, because nothing ever specified anything beyond liking or disliking something. And as you have realized in an earlier thread people are much more likely to have opinions on content than on quality.

I am very firm on my point that your assertion of the purpose of the voting function is wrong. All of this doesn't even touch on the required manpower to manage a quality based voting function. We don't have enough volunteers to sift through and process votes to ensure that voting would only be done for quality and not for personal preferences.

KinkyGlutamate said:
Seriously, abusing a feature isn't disallowed by rules. (In general; there're specific cases.)

▼ Abuse of Site Tools

This category includes:

  • Using any of the site tools, such as Flag for Deletion, ticket reporting system, takedowns, notes, or any other site tool in a fashion that can be construed as disruptive, spamming, or defamatory

[Code of Conduct - Abuse of Site Tools]

We did a pretty good job to have this in place for all site features. Your example with too specific tags falls flat because the existence of those tags is arguably not disruptive to the search function. Having those tags, or any other specific tags, doesn't mean that other searches no longer work, thus it's not abuse. It is arguably pointless, I'll give you that, but that's a completely discussion.

KinkyGlutamate said:

Even if the current main admin, for whatever reason, considers voting for content within the spirit of the feature (not the spirit of the rules) and laughs in the face of anyone who doesn't, it's fully within my rights to disagree with his opinion. It's not like the website has been created from scratch and fully maintained by one person. Now, if the inventor of the voting feature in the original booru engine tells me I'm an idiot, I may reconsider. And even then, the voting systems existed for ages, in many forms, for different reasons, so it's perfectly fine to have opinions which differ from opinions of people who own a website with a voting feature.

Just for the record, I didn't laugh at your opinion that it would be nice to have an objective metric for quality, I laughed at your insinuation that supporting subjective voting is equivalent to supporting not blacklisting.
In fact, I do support that people don't blacklist things they dislike, as long as they don't complain in public about them. Blacklisting is only made mandatory for users who explicitly can't or won't stop being disruptive in public. If they aren't disruptive it doesn't matter if they blacklist or not.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
3 months 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: 23
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

KinkyGlutamate said:
You have a point. Finally somebody has a point other than "stop teaching me how to live". Learn, people.

Y'know, this one sentence. It's not "stop telling me how to live".. it's not "stop telling me what to do." or even "stop telling me what to feel or think"... but "stop teaching me how to live".

It certainly says a lot of things. I understand now. Alright.

For example, people tag colors of assholes and other nonsense nobody in the right state of mind would ever search for or filter with. It's silly, it's useless, it's never complete, makes people laugh about e621's tagging,

You seem to have this idea that just because you do not use these tags that, ahem no one in "the right state of mind" would ever used them. That's rather entertainingly shortsighted. While *I* use these tags to help find specific images after the fact (aka "I know it was a white wolf with blue eyes..."), I know for a fact that some people specifically search for things like blue_nipples because they LIKE blue nipples. Looking at blue nipples reveals a very large number of characters who are blue or otherwise 'cool toned'. If that's an aesthetic you enjoy, then blue nipples is a very effective search. It also will help you find images where nipples are revealed.

A blue_anus post is going to be a picture focused on the rear in some respect, while also having "compatible with blue" color schemes.

so it's misuse of the tagging system, but it exists because it doesn't break the rules. Creating an ultra-specific tag which is used on one post is misuse within the rules too.

Blue_anus is not ultra specific.

Ultra specific tags are unlikely to be used by many, if any additional posts. Pink_shoes_with_black_socks is ultra specific. Red_cat_clock is ultra specific. Silver_crescent_moon_pendant_necklace is ultra specific. Stone_jade_rabbit_statue. Dancing_in_the_rain_while_holding_an_umbrella. black_fur_with_blue_and_gold_markings. Those are ultra specific. Blue_anus is not ultra specific.


NotMeNotYou said:
We did a pretty good job to have this in place for all site features. Your example with too specific tags falls flat because the existence of those tags is arguably not disruptive to the search function. Having those tags, or any other specific tags, doesn't mean that other searches no longer work, thus it's not abuse. It is arguably pointless, I'll give you that, but that's a completely discussion.

It's pure terminology issue. We both consider "pointless" tags "not disruptive" and "within rules", yet you include only "disruptive, spamming, defamatory" in "misuse", but I include "pointless" and "not for intended purpose" in "misuse" too. So with your terminology, "misuse" is equivalent to "not within rules", but not so with mine, I use "misuse" as a wider concept. Overall, I don't think this is worth arguing about.

("Misuse" also isn't inherently "bad". Having *_warning tags in the artist category is misuse of the feature, but it's the best way given the lack of functionality to display post-specific warnings.)

SnowWolf said:
I know for a fact that some people specifically search for things like blue_nipples because they LIKE blue nipples.

I would totally love statistics from admins which show which tags are used in search, how often, by how many users, maybe even with distribution and other details. Otherwise we're doomed to make up theories which aren't connected to the real world.

Also, unless there're enough users who tag every single post with colors of anus, most pictures will have untagged anuses. I can reasonably expect most uploaders to think about tagging sex positions and animal genitals, but it requires several dedicated taggers to get a tag like blue_anus going.

Blue_anus is not ultra specific.

I should have put that part into a separate paragraph, it was a separate point.


KinkyGlutamate said:
For example, people tag colors of assholes and other nonsense nobody in the right state of mind would ever search for or filter with. It's silly, it's useless, it's never complete, makes people laugh about e621's tagging, so it's misuse of the tagging system, but it exists because it doesn't break the rules.

i dont think that you really understand the use of those tags. tags like these are not that much intended for general browsing or blacklisting, but more for categorizing and narrowing down search results when you are looking for specific image

i mean imagine that you saw an amazing drawing years ago and you want to see it again, but only thing you can remember that it had male anthro fox with blue anus.
male anthro fox brings metric fuckton of results and doesnt really help with finding this specific piece. but male anthro fox blue_anus brings notably less results and its a lot easier to find this specific image.

and also after spending years on this site, i have seen ton of people bitching about too many characters having blue genitals and assholes, so yes, its useful for blacklisting too.

also just because its not perfectly tagged on every image doesnt mean that its bad tag that should be get rid of.
like just take a look at all the images that are missing gender tags completely:
-male -female -intersex -zero_pictured -ambiguous_gender

SnowWolf
Former Staff
3 months 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: 23
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

KinkyGlutamate said:
I would totally love statistics from admins which show which tags are used in search, how often, by how many users, maybe even with distribution and other details.

That would be a rather gross violation of people's privacy. It would be interesting though, but I would expect that the information's not stored.

Otherwise we're doomed to make up theories which aren't connected to the real world.

So. Hi. I'm SnowWolf. I've been a member of this website for 8 years and was an active member of the administration team for a few years. My 'domain' was tags. I spent numerous hours each day in the forums, was a part of many discussions about tags and their uses. At that point in time, there were a couple dozen people who were happily participating in regular conversation about tags, and were wiling to devote their time to retagging posts.

So, please assume that I am speaking from a position of experience and knowledge and familiarity when I say to you, firmly: People like and use those tags. People argued for those tags to continue to exist when we discussed the question "should these tags still exist?" People, personally, said "I like these tags" when other people said "Does anyone even use these tags?"

I don't know if I can be any clearer on that. My experience is based on the real, tangible world.

Also, unless there're enough users who tag every single post with colors of anus, most pictures will have untagged anuses. I can reasonably expect most uploaders to think about tagging sex positions and animal genitals, but it requires several dedicated taggers to get a tag like blue_anus going.

People not using the tags they *should* use is not a shortcoming of the tags themselves.


Mario69 said:
Todex was DNP artist. What this means their artwork was deleted and thus favoriting and voting did not work with those posts. Now the artwork has been restored, so the posts work and can be accessed.

Oh, that explains the mystery. Thanks for that!


If it doesnโ€™t fit into site rules or if they just donโ€™t like the content... Iโ€™d down vote posts that include things I donโ€™t like, such as weird posts that donโ€™t look like theyโ€™ll arouse me at ALL.


SnowWolf said:
That would be a rather gross violation of people's privacy.

Only if you put usernames with it. Making public that "tag t was searced for x times between date a and b" doesn't violate anyones privaxy. Then again you are probably roght in that the information is not stored. Still, would be interesting.


Commander_Eggplant said:
i dont think that you really understand the use of those tags. tags like these are not that much intended for general browsing or blacklisting, but more for categorizing and narrowing down search results when you are looking for specific image

If most posts are tagged with the color of anus, then it can be used for narrowing down search. Something (like the search anus ~blue_fur ~blue_skin -blue_anus) tells me it's not the case.

and also after spending years on this site, i have seen ton of people bitching about too many characters having blue genitals and assholes, so yes, its useful for blacklisting too.

They may bitch all the time, but no way in hell they'll actually blacklist it.

You know, blacklist statistics have been posted some time ago, if I remember correctly, so that hypothesis can actually be checked. I would laugh my ass off if blue_anus is in fact frequently blacklisted. ๐Ÿ˜†

also just because its not perfectly tagged on every image doesnt mean that its bad tag that should be get rid of.
like just take a look at all the images that are missing gender tags completely:
-male -female -intersex -zero_pictured -ambiguous_gender

If you skip the first pages, the vast majority of posts are rating:safe, so can be tagged nobody_gives_a_fuck_about_gender. ๐Ÿ˜

SnowWolf said:
People argued for those tags to continue to exist when we discussed the question "should these tags still exist?" People, personally, said "I like these tags" when other people said "Does anyone even use these tags?"

These people could be a loud minority. I believe only data.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
3 months 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: 23
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

KinkyGlutamate said:
These people could be a loud minority. I believe only data.

Yet, tagging blue_anus hurts no one, so even if it is a minority, it doesn't matter.

The whole point of this was you said no one uses those tags. Even a "loud minority" is, in fact, someone.


It's not my intention to stifle conversation, but @KinkyGlutamate, have you considered the possibility that there may be more informed opinions that differ from yours? It kind of sounds like you just want someone to tell you you're right.

If you don't like the tags, don't use them. Or, as you advocate so zealously for everyone else to do, blacklist them.


KinkyGlutamate said:
If most posts are tagged with the color of anus, then it can be used for narrowing down search. Something (like the search anus ~blue_fur ~blue_skin -blue_anus) tells me it's not the case.

They may bitch all the time, but no way in hell they'll actually blacklist it.

You know, blacklist statistics have been posted some time ago, if I remember correctly, so that hypothesis can actually be checked. I would laugh my ass off if blue_anus is in fact frequently blacklisted. ๏˜†

If you skip the first pages, the vast majority of posts are rating:safe, so can be tagged nobody_gives_a_fuck_about_gender. ๏˜

...yahhh im not gonna waste any more time on this thread because this is about as fruitful as arguing with a wall. bye.


CCoyote said:
It's not my intention to stifle conversation, but @KinkyGlutamate, have you considered the possibility that there may be more informed opinions that differ from yours? It kind of sounds like you just want someone to tell you you're right.

If you don't like the tags, don't use them. Or, as you advocate so zealously for everyone else to do, blacklist them.

He's using the Tags as a standin for his real argument which is about the arbitrary voting system and how he feels that it should only be used to upvote/downvote on the quality of the content and not how people feel about it.


RenaDyne said:
He's using the Tags as a standin for his real argument which is about the arbitrary voting system and how he feels that it should only be used to upvote/downvote on the quality of the content and not how people feel about it.

Well, unless he's willing to pay for everyone here to take art appreciation and design classes, I don't see how that's ever going to happen.

Also, while expressing one's opinion is what forums are for, one also needs to listen.


KinkyGlutamate said:
These people could be a loud minority. I believe only data.

You believe in how you perceive the limited data you get, and appear to think that if everyone else does not strictly adhere to the way you've analyzed your inherently faulty system, they're unquestionably and undeniably wrong.

No one of any value has ever said the voting system has any obligations in its usage. It isn't for ascertaining quality. It isn't for determining popularity. Its sole purpose is allowing a user to express how they feel about something, which they are permitted to do in any way they see fit, insofar as they do so without being demonstrably malicious in a way that violates the rules.