The tag alias #75501 i_can't_believe_it's_not_feces -> invalid_tag is pending approval.

Reason: This tag is subjective, has a bad name, and doesn't seem all that useful.

Unless there's some way to disambiguate it. It seems to be a mix of misleading_thumbnail, or containing substances like mud or chocolate that could be subjectively inferred as feces (even at full size) without extra knowledge.

No need to disambiguate it, as the tag is fully defined in the wiki. Hilarious tag, definitely keep.

kyiiel said:
No need to disambiguate it, as the tag is fully defined in the wiki. Hilarious tag, definitely keep.

Heavily mistagged, going by the wiki definition.

This tag is for submissions which contain substances, such as food, which one would assume to be feces if not for being indicated otherwise within the artwork.

Many posts clearly aren't feces when you look at it and are more akin to misleading_thumbnail, where it only appears to possibly be feces in the shrunken version but clearly isn't when viewed normally:
post #4855826 post #4920784 post #4989317 post #4791330 post #4547680

These aren't cases where they would be considered/tagged feces were it not for something else in the image indicating otherwise.

Mhh, I dunno, a generalised "adjacent/probably trips the same parts of the brain" tag for this might be wise to keep around, even if mistagged often, if for no other reason than blacklisting for folks who REALLY don't want to take a chance.

votp said:
Mhh, I dunno, a generalised "adjacent/probably trips the same parts of the brain" tag for this might be wise to keep around, even if mistagged often, if for no other reason than blacklisting for folks who REALLY don't want to take a chance.

I think it needs to be more heavily moderated, in that case. A number of cases I don't think even misleading_thumbnail would apply, so if people are going to blacklist based on the presence of the tag, it should be restricted to posts that really could confuse a number of viewers at normal size. Otherwise, I don't think it's a good idea to hide posts they would find perfectly fine were it not for someone thinking it looks a little off, or cause more people to see something as feces when it's not intended to. For instance, I didn't think
post #4791330
was feces, until it was pointed out and now I can't unsee it. Giving more exposure to people thinking it's something it's clearly not is going to spread the misconception more than necessary. Some artists may also not appreciate their art essentially being tagged "that looks like feces/scatplay!" when they made no attempt to give that impression, or viewers who would like/fav the image think it's implying they'd be into feces since it's tagged as looking like it.

It'd be akin to tagging something like "i_can't_believe_it's_not_bestiality" for adult images of characters that are clearly anthro but some people may think one looks feral in the thumbnail.

The problem I can see is that if you don't want to see something that could be mistaken for it, it might be best to have that be the case at any resolution. Somebody that squeamish probably isn't going to want to click on each image to verify. Granted, maybe I'm just a little twitchy after whatever change went through that made my effort at avoiding scat on my end invalidated and I had to reconfigure my blacklist.

The problem I see with trying to moderate it is this is inherently going to be something that's heavily opinion based, as well... logic would say to err on the most liberal and cautious application possible, in it's intended use case. As we've seen with young tagging, I don't think "don't piss off the artist" really factors in too much, if it looks like something it looks like something, perhaps it could be worded differently, as much as I find joy in silly and self-descriptive tag names? Make it a warning tag like sound_warning "coprophobia_warning"?

Do we have a system for marking a tag as only being able to be applied by staff, not by normal users? Might be the way to handle that, given this sort of thing (and any future or other not-known-to-me tags of this variety) probably aren't going to come up super-often regardless.
The only other option that immediately comes to mind to make this sort of thing work would be some sort of secondary tag layer for tags that "need review" after being applied, kinda like IB does tag suggestions. That'd be a coding nightmare, though.

votp said:

Do we have a system for marking a tag as only being able to be applied by staff, not by normal users? Might be the way to handle that, given this sort of thing (and any future or other not-known-to-me tags of this variety) probably aren't going to come up super-often regardless.
The only other option that immediately comes to mind to make this sort of thing work would be some sort of secondary tag layer for tags that "need review" after being applied, kinda like IB does tag suggestions. That'd be a coding nightmare, though.

No, and the staff are more focused on handling approvals/moderating the ticket queue, so adding a staff only tag is not a very wise idea. Handling of tags is usually entrusted over to the power users.

votp said:
Do we have a system for marking a tag as only being able to be applied by staff, not by normal users? Might be the way to handle that, given this sort of thing (and any future or other not-known-to-me tags of this variety) probably aren't going to come up super-often regardless.
The only other option that immediately comes to mind to make this sort of thing work would be some sort of secondary tag layer for tags that "need review" after being applied, kinda like IB does tag suggestions. That'd be a coding nightmare, though.

No, and that really goes against the idea of a booru
Tag dispute tickets are an absolute slog, I'm sure the staff don't want anything else similar to that
especially when as of now the majority of tagging disputes end up requiring admins, of which there aren't always many handling the ticket queue