why does human only get removed

In category: General

i mean yeah its not furry, but i see entries get deleted for that reason yet theres a metric fuckton of solo human stuff already on the site anyway


The posts you are seeing are likely old posts which were grandfathered.
As for why not allow it, there's plentiful other sites that allow human art.


likely grandfatherd in, the rules now are more stringent then they used to be. plus due to the large amount of uploads daily a few might still make it through accidentally.

edit: darn it, by the time I hit post someone always answers before me.


Grandfathered posts can either be old posts from before the change, or updated posts, where the original was from before the change; they'll be allowed that way too.

Additionally, if a pool is non-human based, but has a few pages that are human only, those are allowed to keep the full pool.


Most of the human_only stuff is, as has been said, grandfathered in.

There are some exceptions! For example, if a picture is PENDING APPROVAL, then that means it hasn't been approved yet. Be patient, we'll delete it soon.

Likewise, some posts are part of a sequence of images. A human transforming into a wolf, for example, usually has a picture of a regular human in it. If there's a comic and there's a page or two where there's only a human character, we allow that too.

if you think there's a mistake feel free to ask one of the staff about it. we're not perfect, we make mistakes :)


Furrin_Gok said:
Grandfathered posts can either be old posts from before the change, or updated posts, where the original was from before the change; they'll be allowed that way too.

Oh yeah! That too! <3

Dogenzaka
Privileged
3 days ago
2017 anthro big_breasts black_nose blue_eyes breasts bust_portrait chiropteran cleavage clothed clothing eyelashes eyeshadow female hair half-closed_eyes huge_breasts makeup mammal nitro portrait rouge_the_bat simple_background smile solo sonic_(series) suntan tan_line white_hair

Rating: Questionable
Score: 114
User: ultragamer89
Date: March 13, 2017

Are recently approved humanoid posts subject to deletion if a mod feels like? I uploaded a higher-quality version of a recently approved image and it was deleted for being human only, even though Maleficent is apparently humanoid with at least 2 other existing images of her in her horned human form still up from this year.


Dogenzaka said:
Are recently approved humanoid posts subject to deletion if a mod feels like? I uploaded a higher-quality version of a recently approved image and it was deleted for being human only, even though Maleficent is apparently humanoid with at least 2 other existing images of her in her horned human form still up from this year.

Mmm.

Essentially... How to explain this... ... I see a picture of Link. I know he's an elf. Link is an elf, unless he's a wolf. Easy. Pictures of Link are allowed. This picture has Link in it, therefor, it's allowed.

Except that isn't always true! This artist drew Link with human ears. This artist drew Link from an angle where his ears are not on screen. This artist has Link's ears obscured by some scenery.

I "know" this is Link, and I "know" Link is an elf, but I see no proof that Link is an elf.

And Link HAS to prove that he is an elf to count.

And us staff members? we're human. we make mistakes sometimes. Especially when dealing with over 1000 posts a day!

Maleficent is a tricky one. She has big horns. Or is that the shape of her hat?

armor black_hair bracelet cleavage_cutout clothed clothing crossed_arms crossgender demon disney front_view grey_skin hair half_portrait horn humanoid jewelry looking_at_viewer male maleficent membranous_wings open_mouth plate_armor pointy_ears sakimichan short_hair solo spiked_bracelet spikes wings yellow_eyes

Rating: Safe
Score: 8
User: BlueDingo
Date: December 14, 2018 - you can see, he's not wearing a hat or any headwear, the horns are coming out of his skull, AND he has pointy ears and fangs. Definitely not human.
breasts cum cum_on_face cumshot disney duo ejaculation fellatio female humanoid kingjaguar magic_user male male/female maleficent mature_female not_furry oral orgasm penis piercing sex solo_focus thick_thighs witch

Rating: Explicit
Score: 4
User: King_Jaguar
Date: January 23, 2019 - Honestly, this one should be deleted. She's wearing a hat. There's no way to tell if those are horns or not. (I'll delete it a bit later!)

And... all of the others from the last year usually involve her dragon form, or someone else in the image who is not human. Also, what I said before about pending approvals and grandfathered reposts. :)


SnowWolf said:
Likewise, some posts are part of a sequence of images. A human transforming into a wolf, for example, usually has a picture of a regular human in it. If there's a comic and there's a page or two where there's only a human character, we allow that too.

if you think there's a mistake feel free to ask one of the staff about it. we're not perfect, we make mistakes :)

The first image in pool #13358 probably should be restored in that case.
I guess this happens when the first page of a transformation comic is evaluated before it is added to the pool with the rest of them.

Mairo
Janitor
3 days ago
2019 angry anthro bearphones blue_background brown_bear brown_fur conditional_dnp front_view fur grizzly_bear headphones male mammal nude orange_eyes ratte signature simple_background solo ursid ursine

Rating: Safe
Score: 32
User: Mairo
Date: February 02, 2019

deagaw said:
i mean yeah its not furry...

Welp, you just answered yourself.

Gelbooru deletes stuff that's not japanese (unless you get very special permissions and admins like you) and Paheal deletes stuff that's not pornographic and not rule34 (aka character that's well known by mainstream).

So if our aim is to archive furry artwork, what's the point of expanding into non-furry territory when we are already having severe issues with furry content alone almost daily and the volume of uploads keep rising?

Humanoids are accepted, but not in our focus. If you are uploading humanoids, then be aware of the guidelines and content that's on the line is always subject to deletion.

Dogenzaka said:
Are recently approved humanoid posts subject to deletion if a mod feels like? I uploaded a higher-quality version of a recently approved image and it was deleted for being human only, even though Maleficent is apparently humanoid with at least 2 other existing images of her in her horned human form still up from this year.

If the inferior post is not grandfathered, the decision can be more easily overruled, which I did.
I cannot see any humanoid features in post #1751659 as horns are clearly part of costume which is clearly not directly attached to character as you can see the shadow below it - and the post was 2 months old.

Generally speaking accidental approvals do not justify new uploads. If you feel like post has been mistakenly approved poke approver or head admin about the issue. I usually delete a bunch of stuff once I get dmail of "why was my upload specifically deleted when these five uploads from last year has been approved" and suddenly those five uploads get deleted.


Dogenzaka said:
Are recently approved humanoid posts subject to deletion if a mod feels like? I uploaded a higher-quality version of a recently approved image and it was deleted for being human only, even though Maleficent is apparently humanoid with at least 2 other existing images of her in her horned human form still up from this year.

Staff can easily disagree on things. Sometimes what looks human to one member might look humanoid to another. Something like the Dark Fairy Malefecant's horns, for example: In her Disney form, those horns usually look like some kind of hood, as SnowWolf said. Sometimes one staff member will say it looks like actual horns, while other staff members may think it looks like part of the head.


Chaser said:
The posts you are seeing are likely old posts which were grandfathered.
As for why not allow it, there's plentiful other sites that allow human art.

But there aren't plentiful other sites that have such a comprehensive and well thought out tagging standard, or just standards of operation in general.

Frankly, the excuse that this is "furry centrist" and "there are plenty of other sites that also have non-furry content" really doesn't work when those other sites aren't even half as well run, put together, and objective as this website. Even more so when many of them are host to malvertising.

Yet, there's also the fact that this website includes pretty much everything *except* humans for some reason. If it's human but has pointy ears, hey! That's an elf. It gets included. How about tiny lower tusks jutting from under the lower lip and slightly green skin tone? An orc! That's totally relevant to the website!

We're pretty much just one tiny step away from allowing human content and anyone that's taken a good look around can see that it fits right in just fine from the grandfathered stuff and would continue to do so if we'd simply allow for such.

I'll never understand why this site is so adversarial to human only content. It often seems like the only reason human content isn't allowed is because "this is how it was always meant to be and so this is how we're always going to do it!" It could be so much more and so much better if it weren't the tiny bit discriminatory in this specific manner that it is.

This website has nearly everything for every occasion, whether safe or erotic, and its standards and tagging system is the best in the industry. The only thing it's missing and will forever continue to miss is content with only humans or content with things that look too much like a human.

Finally, and this is the biggest part, by finally allowing human only content there'd be no more contradictory calls, you wouldn't have members calling for staff to create and adhere to strict standards of what is and isn't relevant because, suddenly, everything that isn't illegal or real would be relevant.

It'd speed up approvals because you'd no longer have people making judgement calls, having to consult with other staff, or just outright ignore a piece and hope someone else gets to it because they just don't know.

The only things that'd really have to manually be reviewed are "Is this IRL porn, is this illegal, and is the artist on DNP," and if a majority of uploaders did their job and included the artist name that last one wouldn't be much of a problem at all.

So, yeah. Overall, it seems like removing the "human filter" would make processing faster and save staff time not only in judgements but also in defending their positions on questionable calls as those three things are pretty cut and dry unlike the system of "well, it depends on who gets to it first" that we currently have now which bogs down the otherwise smoothly running well oiled machine.


AnotherDay said:
But there aren't plentiful other sites that have such a comprehensive and well thought out tagging standard, or just standards of operation in general.

Frankly, the excuse that this is "furry centrist" and "there are plenty of other sites that also have non-furry content" really doesn't work when those other sites aren't even half as well run, put together, and objective as this website. Even more so when many of them are host to malvertising.

Yet, there's also the fact that this website includes pretty much everything *except* humans for some reason. If it's human but has pointy ears, hey! That's an elf. It gets included. How about tiny lower tusks jutting from under the lower lip and slightly green skin tone? An orc! That's totally relevant to the website!

We're pretty much just one tiny step away from allowing human content and anyone that's taken a good look around can see that it fits right in just fine from the grandfathered stuff and would continue to do so if we'd simply allow for such.

I'll never understand why this site is so adversarial to human only content. It often seems like the only reason human content isn't allowed is because "this is how it was always meant to be and so this is how we're always going to do it!" It could be so much more and so much better if it weren't the tiny bit discriminatory in this specific manner that it is.

This website has nearly everything for every occasion, whether safe or erotic, and its standards and tagging system is the best in the industry. The only thing it's missing and will forever continue to miss is content with only humans or content with things that look too much like a human.

Finally, and this is the biggest part, by finally allowing human only content there'd be no more contradictory calls, you wouldn't have members calling for staff to create and adhere to strict standards of what is and isn't relevant because, suddenly, everything that isn't illegal or real would be relevant.

It'd speed up approvals because you'd no longer have people making judgement calls, having to consult with other staff, or just outright ignore a piece and hope someone else gets to it because they just don't know.

The only things that'd really have to manually be reviewed are "Is this IRL porn, is this illegal, and is the artist on DNP," and if a majority of uploaders did their job and included the artist name that last one wouldn't be much of a problem at all.

So, yeah. Overall, it seems like removing the "human filter" would make processing faster and save staff time not only in judgements but also in defending their positions on questionable calls as those three things are pretty cut and dry unlike the system of "well, it depends on who gets to it first" that we currently have now which bogs down the otherwise smoothly running well oiled machine.

To be blunt, your convenience isn't the sites problem. e621 is a non-human site. Saying it's using "other sites exist" as an excuse to not host human content is wrong. It just plainly wont host human only content, Other sites being run like shit has nothing to do with e621. If you don't like that, it's your problem.


Versperus said:
To be blunt, your convenience isn't the sites problem. e621 is a non-human site. Saying it's using "other sites exist" as an excuse to not host human content is wrong. It just plainly wont host human only content, Other sites being run like shit has nothing to do with e621. If you don't like that, it's your problem.

Isn't it, though? If the website isn't here for the convenience of viewing different art all in one archive that uses a strict standard for ease of viewing then what is it here for? Especially when, as noted, it already includes things which are near-human but.. just.. not explicitly so.

Frankly, there's no real good reason for e6 to be furry only in this day and age. It provides absolutely no benefit and, quite the opposite, deters and alienates.

And other sites being run like shit has everything to do with e6 when the staff constantly make excuses similar to there being "plentiful other sites that allow human art."


AnotherDay said:
Isn't it, though? If the website isn't here for the convenience of viewing different art all in one archive that uses a strict standard for ease of viewing then what is it here for? Especially when, as noted, it already includes things which are near-human but.. just.. not explicitly so.

Frankly, there's no real good reason for e6 to be furry only in this day and age. It provides absolutely no benefit and, quite the opposite, deters and alienates.

And other sites being run like shit has everything to do with e6 when the staff constantly make excuses similar to there being "plentiful other sites that allow human art."

being told "Plentiful other sites" isn't an excuse, it's telling you that they wont change and to look elsewhere. e621 for non-human related images. One of few places on the internet which caters to that very specific criteria. Hell, maybe they'll go in the opposite direction and tighten the allowed content to exclude humans and humanoids all together.


Versperus said:
being told "Plentiful other sites" isn't an excuse, it's telling you that they wont change and to look elsewhere. e621 for non-human related images. One of few places on the internet which caters to that very specific criteria. Hell, maybe they'll go in the opposite direction and tighten the allowed content to exclude humans and humanoids all together.

No, it is an excuse. As I already covered, being told to look elsewhere when there is no "elsewhere" that offers the same high standards is an excuse, especially when there's no absolute reason other than "Because we said so" to keep this as furry centrist when there's already just so much content that isn't really furry in the slightest.

It'd make things easier on everyone if this went from being a "furry archive site" to just an "archive site."

As for going in the other direction or anything else, there's no point in speculating just like there's no point in not showing that, even after all these years, there's still interest in allowing human only content on e6.

I've learned from experience that just because the staff generally stick to their guns on things doesn't mean that they won't ever change their minds, no matter what they may say to the contrary. So, to this extent, I'll continue to be befuddled by the absolute abhorrence to human only content and continue to point out, whenever others bring up a related topic, that there's still an interest to include, and good reasons to include, human only content on top of the everything other than that which is already allowed.


AnotherDay said:
No, it is an excuse. As I already covered, being told to look elsewhere when there is no "elsewhere" that offers the same high standards is an excuse, especially when there's no absolute reason other than "Because we said so" to keep this as furry centrist when there's already just so much content that isn't really furry in the slightest.

It'd make things easier on everyone if this went from being a "furry archive site" to just an "archive site."

As for going in the other direction or anything else, there's no point in speculating just like there's no point in not showing that, even after all these years, there's still interest in allowing human only content on e6.

I've learned from experience that just because the staff generally stick to their guns on things doesn't mean that they won't ever change their minds, no matter what they may say to the contrary. So, to this extent, I'll continue to be befuddled by the absolute abhorrence to human only content and continue to point out, whenever others bring up a related topic, that there's still an interest to include, and good reasons to include, human only content on top of the everything other than that which is already allowed.

I bet you also call ford not making camaros an excuse because GM makes camaros, so ford should to. talking to you is redundant, and continuing this conversation will garnish me nothing.


Versperus said:
I bet you also call ford not making camaros an excuse because GM makes camaros, so ford should to. You're belligerent and continuing this conversation will garnish me nothing.

That comparison wasn't apt at all. If e6 were producing furry art, sure, that'd be one thing. However, it's collecting art for the convenience of its users. It would just be even more convenient if its users and its staff didn't have to filter out a specific type of art on top of things like artist DNP requests, illegal stuff, and IRL art.

Finally, you can't just say that I'm belligerent as I haven't shown any sign of being remotely hostile. You're welcome to excuse yourself from the conversation at any time, of course. Even welcome to do so unannounced, that's perfectly fine. However, attempting to attack my character in such a way when I've been nothing other than civil, yet steadfast, in my opinions and ideas is wholly inappropriate.

If you have nothing else to say, that's fine, yet it doesn't do you any credit to pile clearly false accusations upon someone as a final retort to me not being swayed by your argument.


AnotherDay said:

Finally, you can't just say that I'm belligerent

Only coming back to admit I used the wrong word and edited it after I posted it, And before you posted your rebuddle.


We are a furry art archival, and want predominantly furry art. We also accept things that don't have fur when they're fantastical enough to still be somewhat relevant.
We don't accept pure human art because it would absolutely eclipse the furry art we actually want. Furry is a niche, gelbooru has 4.3 million posts, we are still sitting well below 2 million.

It would definitely not be convenient to us to suddenly have even more things that need to be curated and maintained. Even if something has been accepted the work doesn't end there.

Clawdragons
Privileged
2 days ago
4_fingers all_fours ambiguous_gender claws dragon feral gemskull green_eyes horn lying nude open_mouth sandwing scales scalie sharp_teeth simple_background smile solo sunny_(wof) teeth western_dragon wings wings_of_fire yellow_scales

Rating: Safe
Score: 54
User: Rigma
Date: December 19, 2017

Honestly, complaining that e621 doesn't host human-only content is like going to an auto-parts store and complaining that they don't stock milk.

You can complain all you want about how you don't like other stores and how the auto-parts store has such an awesome store layout and great employees and is so convenient to get to... But they're still not going to start stocking milk for you.

And just because their checkout isle has some nuts and jerky, doesn't mean they have to allow all food items to be consistent or whatever.

Personally, I would be happy if the uploading guidelines were made more strict, and excluded basically-human content like elves and such. I find that possibility to be far more realistic than them suddenly allowing humans.

I'm fully willing to admit that I have a bias here. I like e621 and don't want to see it ruined. And I fully believe that if it were to allow human-only content, it would be ruined. There is so much content of that type that it would totally overwhelm the type of content that I actually like.

To me, your argument basically boils down to "you can't have nice things because I have lots of nice things but I want more, and specifically I want this nice thing that you have."


Ah, it's 4am, I have plans tomorrow, but I'll just look in the forums real quick...

fuck.

AnotherDay said:
But there aren't plentiful other sites that have such a comprehensive and well thought out tagging standard, or just standards of operation in general.

That is not our fault. we do not control others. Also, generally speaking, several of the other websites DO have comprehensive standards. They're jsut different than ours.

Frankly, the excuse that this is "furry centrist" and "there are plenty of other sites that also have non-furry content" really doesn't work when those other sites aren't even half as well run, put together, and objective as this website.

Thank you very much.

But, yes it does. We don't control those other websites. If you want an all-inclusive website, feel free to make one yourself. Go start your own place.

We don't WANT the non-furry content though. If I want cutesy boo humans, I can go to danbooru. I don't LIKE human art though, most of the time.

Even more so when many of them are host to malvertising.

That is a very unfortunate problem :c I hate it and I'm sorry.

It often seems like the only reason human content isn't allowed is because "this is how it was always meant to be and so this is how we're always going to do it!" It could be so much more and so much better if it weren't the tiny bit discriminatory in this specific manner that it is.

We did allow humans for much of the site's life, you know? We also allowed all sorts of other things. My early upload history invovles several impact-font memes, and a series of photographs of women with their hair styled to look like animals.

Most of that is shit content and I'm glad it's not allowed anymore. We're a better site for it. That whole "well run, put together, comprehensive, well thoguht out, standard of operations" thing? is because we enforce our rules.

This website has nearly everything for every occasion, whether safe or erotic, and its standards and tagging system is the best in the industry.

Again, thank you.

The only thing it's missing and will forever continue to miss is content with only humans or content with things that look too much like a human.

Things need to have non-human traits. it's not that hard. cat ears, a tail, pointy ears, 3 eyes, wings, a mouth full of shark teeth, any of those are a shoo in.

Basically, if it just has blue skin, it's not good enough. if it just has yellow eyes, it's not good enough. I can do that with some body paint and contacts. Seriously.

Furry is a niche community. e621 is OUR place. we are great because we have a limited scope.

Finally, and this is the biggest part, by finally allowing human only content there'd be no more contradictory calls,

Ha! By and large, most of the messages we get are people confused as to why their art was deleted for not being good enough. Or asking why we said that their comment was creepy. All this would do is remove ONE aspect of our work here.

you wouldn't have members calling for staff to create and adhere to strict standards of what is and isn't relevant because, suddenly, everything that isn't illegal or real would be relevant.

Unless it doesn't meet our quality standards, which is why about 90% of images get deleted.

(last 100 deletions:
3 too small
51 Inferior version/duplicate
8 Does not meet minimum quality standards (Artistic)
8 human only
1 Real like Pornography
2 Uploader requested removal (better version coming! oops, it's broken, wrong file!)
6 Official takedown request
1 previously deleted
1 DNP/paysite
5 shitpost
14 Automatic deletion

So, your proposal would save 8 posts. (7, actually because one was gross)

Those 51 inferior/duplicate posts would still need to be gone through. we'd still ned to make judgemetn calls there and STILL have to deal with peopel complaining about their post being deleted.

It'd speed up approvals because you'd no longer have people making judgement calls, having to consult with other staff, or just outright ignore a piece and hope someone else gets to it because they just don't know.

You talk about 'human only' as if it's some mystical confusing idea instead of "does it look like a human with makeup?"

Likewise, you talk about human only as if it is the sole reason the queue occasionally gets clogged up.

or just outright ignore a piece and hope someone else gets to it because they just don't know.

This doesn't happen. Humans are really fucking easy to spot.The pictures that get left behind are basically the pictures that are low quality. Seriously.

You're telling us that we have a problem that we really don't have. You're giving us a solution to a problem that we don't have.

The only things that'd really have to manually be reviewed are "Is this IRL porn, is this illegal, and is the artist on DNP,"

And quality. aka "that thing that we have to manually review on everything no matter what"... aka "that thing that makes us good."

and if a majority of uploaders did their job and included the artist name that last one wouldn't be much of a problem at all.

Yeah, if we could get people to listen to the rules, that would be nice. Especially the long standing rules that have been here for years and that we've indicated are not changing.

So, yeah. Overall, it seems like removing the "human filter" would make processing faster and save staff time not only in judgements but also in defending their positions on questionable calls as those three things are pretty cut and dry unlike the system of "well, it depends on who gets to it first" that we currently have now which bogs down the otherwise smoothly running well oiled machine.

Except that's not a problem we have.

for fuck's sake.

date:2019-03-09 status:pending

That's what gets "lost" at the end of the queue.

The problem is that we have 1000 posts a day that all have to be manually approved--the tiem consuming part of which is looking at each picture and determining if it's high quality, well sourced, not DNP, etc.

Frankly, there's no real good reason for e6 to be furry only in this day and age. It provides absolutely no benefit and, quite the opposite, deters and alienates

you don't understand what a niche is, do you?

This is not mcdonalds. we do not have something for everyone.

It'd make things easier on everyone if this went from being a "furry archive site" to just an "archive site."

It really wouldn't. And if someone gets the bright idea to upload danbooru's 4 million posts over here, I'll quit.

As for going in the other direction or anything else, there's no point in speculating just like there's no point in not showing that, even after all these years, there's still interest in allowing human only content on e6.

Yes, I know. This is not the first time you've brought this up. but mostly, peoepl are happy coming here for non-human art.

I've learned from experience that just because the staff generally stick to their guns on things doesn't mean that they won't ever change their minds, no matter what they may say to the contrary.

We are probably way more likely to ban the near-human things.

So, to this extent, I'll continue to be befuddled by the absolute abhorrence to human only content and continue to point out, whenever others bring up a related topic, that there's still an interest to include, and good reasons to include, human only content on top of the everything other than that which is already allowed.

Absolute abhorrance?

well. there's your answer.

We don't like it.

we're a niche.

you go to a chinese restaurant for chinese food, not to order a pizza.
You go to a book store to buy books, not golf clubs. we can get you a book ABOUT golfing, about golf clubs.... but not gold clubs.

We specialize in non-humans, especially furries. that's what we sell here. Foxes and naga and elves and squirrels and angels. Not humans.

There is.... TONS of human porn out there.

SO MUCH human porn.

this little corner of the internet is for non-human porn.

we don't want it here.

A few do. And sure, I'll admit, it'd be nice to have a place that focused on western art and pornography in a humany sort of way. but we're furries.

we like furries.

and if we start accepting humans here, we're going to attract people who want to look at humans. people who start insulting our users because they're into that furry shit.

Wouldn't happen you say? look at how people react whenever cub is brought up. "should this be allowed? isn't it breaking rules? it's disgusting!"

We don't want that. this is OUR place. this is where WE go. If people come here, it's because they WANT to be here.


SnowWolf said:
Ah, it's 4am, I have plans tomorrow, but I'll just look in the forums real quick...

Most people: NOPE

SnowWolf: Shakespeare hold my beer.


It's a safeguard against normies. Only normies and normie-sympathizers would ever take issue with it.

ikdind
Member
1 day ago
2009 akreon ambiguous_gender black_markings blaze_(marking) canid canine canis claws countershading dipstick_tail distracting_watermark facial_markings feral front_view full-length_portrait fur gloves_(marking) graphite_(artwork) grey_claws grey_fur mammal markings mixed_media multicolored_tail painting_(artwork) paws pencil_(artwork) portrait quadruped simple_background sitting socks_(marking) solo three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) two_tone_tail watercolor_(artwork) watermark white_background white_countershading white_fur wolf yellow_eyes

Rating: Safe
Score: 54
User: diamondwolf6
Date: December 30, 2011

Clawdragons said:
Personally, I would be happy if the uploading guidelines were made more strict, and excluded basically-human content like elves and such. I find that possibility to be far more realistic than them suddenly allowing humans.

+1, for whatever that's worth.

And it's not that I don't like humans. I visit human sites too. But e621 is a place for the kind of art that gets bashed and downvoted and its fans harassed until they're driven away.

Seriously, I would challenge anyone to start putting score:>50 tagcount:>30 on any other human-tolerant archive site (provided it allows furry), and see how long it takes before you're banned, and how many of the posts end up downvoted, and gauge the general toxicity of the comments section.

Actually, I kinda don't want anyone to do that, because the furry community does enough to drive its own artists away, we don't need help from anthrophobes.

But if someone really wants to make a point, that's an option. It doesn't even require you to make your own booru.

leomole
Privileged
1 day ago
2014 anthro bottle bottomless brown_fur brown_nose brown_tail chair clothed clothing computer desk domestic_cat eyebrows eyelashes felid feline felis fur girly hair headphones hoodie inside jailbird leaning leaning_back legwear liam looking_at_viewer looking_back male mammal multicolored_fur multicolored_tail office_chair reclining short_hair sitting slim smile snout socks solo tan_fur tan_hair tan_tail two_tone_fur two_tone_tail

Rating: Safe
Score: 146
User: Onii-chan
Date: May 09, 2014

AnotherDay said:
the excuse that this is "furry centrist" and "there are plenty of other sites that also have non-furry content" really doesn't work

That's not an excuse, it's just a fact. e6 is an archive for furry art.

AnotherDay said:
If it's human but has pointy ears, hey! That's an elf. It gets included. That's totally relevant to the website!

Clawdragons said:
Personally, I would be happy if the uploading guidelines were made more strict, and excluded basically-human content like elves and such.

ikdind said:
+1, for whatever that's worth.

Yes the uploading guidelines could use some tightening up.

AnotherDay said:
Allowing human only content would speed up approvals because you'd no longer have people making judgement calls. Overall, it seems like removing the "human filter" would make processing faster and save staff time

It might speed up individual approvals in one respect, but it definitely would not save time overall. The number of posts that need to be reviewed for quality, duplication and DNP status would increase dramatically. And that's already a difficult and thankless job as it is.

AnotherDay said:
Those other sites aren't even half as well run, put together, and objective as this website. This website's standards and tagging system is the best in the industry.

The reason this site is so good is because it has a specific focus. This attracts dedicated users and staff who volunteer their free time to make it great. To echo what SnowWolf said, if e6 started accepting human only art then I would leave.


MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Most people: NOPE

SnowWolf: Shakespeare hold my beer.

Thank you, you've made my fucking day and I had to explain to three people what I was laughing so hard about XD


simple question, simole answer

this website is furry only
(mostly if you count human looking monstergirls but also that got removed sometimes, i got my zombie girl removed cuz was human soooo yeah)

BlueDingo
Privileged
22 hours ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canid canine canis claws collarbone dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 46
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

HenkeiUsagi said:
i got my zombie girl removed cuz was human soooo yeah)

An undead human is as much a human as an undead dog is a dog. The undead part doesn't negate the human part.