Okay, So.. We fucked up. All of us. Extremely so.

Users and mods a like got to robotic,

Assumptions were made, Assumptions became law.

And everyone is an idiot in the end.

and finally. I will be blunt.

TWYS is destroying the search.

Not the concept, the concept is fine. The implimentation, is damaged and is draining the life out of images. Okay, so let me explain.

First off, I'm not against your cult status rule, I'm here to save my search engine. And let me start with some basic thoughts.

First, You guys assume that certain tags are static. But they aren't. Character names, species, and genders are all fuzzy. Meaning the logic behind them differs between person to person. Things don't HAVE to fit perfect for something to fall under a category, if you see a guy with a beard on the street, you wouldn't call him a Eunic just cause he has pants on. Fuzzy tags are based entirely on assumptions, We can't be 100% sure of them at all. in a perfect form of tag what you see, a machine would not even include gender, as it's an assumption made based on the body parts. Same with character, species, and a few other items, like locations and symbols.

Tags like Penis, Tail, Claw, Vagina. Are static tags, no matter how you look at them, they will be that. A machine can obviously find them and never change their mind on the out come.

Now that being said, Our search uses additive logic to get results for both fuzzy and static tags, It really doesn't know the difference, it can't think critically like we do, only logically. And for searchers, we need to think for the machine. This being said, if we really want to KEEP fuzzy tags, we need to be more open to other peoples interpretations of a tag, Someone's expectations for herm when searching is gonna be different between you and me.

Let's go on with some examples, we got a character, it has both a penis, and breasts, vagina is invisible, but someone searching would herm would assume it would be there. In terms of the search, it would fall under a herm tag, since using fuzzy logic, we assume to assume that the person is looking for a combination of a man and a woman, not specifically penis+vagina+boobs. This isn't definable further then that, since not everyone (especially our outnumerous guests) will be swayed by the websites personal definitions.

If people want absolutely defined genders, then it becomes a bit harder. how do we define a dickgirl? is it a girl with a dick? is it a guy with boobs? is it a very feminine thing with both a penis and a boobs? does it have a vagina?

The answer is none of the above. We can not define it. We cannot define male or female as such either, as defining it leaves some obvious plot holes. What do we do if we don't know what's going on? the answer is assume, or everyone's a Eunuch til proven otherwise. And the accepted answer seems to be, always assume.

And now we are back to having fuzzy tags, and no ground was gained.

So what are we gonna do about this problem. A simple flip of the switch is necessary. Fuzzy tags should be cumulative. instead of subtractive. If someone can reasonably see that tag fitting in, then it's a valid tag. . . which is the essence of the tag what you see rule. .. it is a blue fox, "okay that's fine", "it has krystal's markings, looks like krystal" fine it gets the krystal tag.".. "I think it's mario" .. how? no that's dumb..

and let's not get out of hand with some things now.. like if there is no way anyone could see renamon being pikachu. let's not tag renamon being pikachu.

but this is basically the only way the search will work with fuzzy tags. if we continue to become more critical, we won't have a place for fuzzy tags anymore. and there really is no way to host them on this server as is with examinative logic.

Something needs to change.
Thank you.

Yes, finally.

Soon enough, though, someone will come very close to derailing this thread.

I don't see how tagging stuff that isn't in an image helps searches at all.

Pyke said:
I don't see how tagging stuff that isn't in an image helps searches at all.

Fuzzy tags aren't in the image at all, their only real purpose is to group traits identifiable characteristics up into one tag. It's a leap of faith that many people take for granted

Let's go on with some examples, we got a character, it has both a penis, and breasts, vagina is invisible, but someone searching would herm would assume it would be there. In terms of the search, it would fall under a herm tag, since using fuzzy logic, we assume to assume that the person is looking for a combination of a man and a woman, not specifically penis+vagina+boobs.

I really fail to see a problem here. If someone want to see combination of man and a woman then xe should type ~dickgirl ~herm ~cuntboy, or something like that.

If someone can reasonably see that tag fitting in, then it's a valid tag. . .

Depending on people being reasonable... And who exactly is going to judge what is reasonable, and what is not? Are we going to have rules based on what someone feels it should be? Like you feel pikachu is not renamon? What if someone feels otherwise? Would we transform from Tag What You See to Tag What Admins See? I don't want this place to be like rule34 where this is tagged as Cassie.
Sorry but to me this all are empty words.

And the fact that rules limit search possibilities? Duh. Every rule would limit it in some way. Every rule would have some drawbacks, and I personally think that we don't need any revolution, but evolution. We don't need change in rules, but rather have to resolve some unclear cases, and make more complex search options available (like possibility to use negative, and alternative metatags more freely.)

My main issue is that fuzzy tags are, well, fuzzy. What looks like renamon to someone may not look like it to others, especially given some artists styles.

Assumptions can be dangerous both ways

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Depending on people being reasonable... And who exactly is going to judge what is reasonable, and what is not? Are we going to have rules based on what someone feels it should be? Like you feel pikachu is not renamon? What if someone feels otherwise? Would we transform from Tag What You See to Tag What Admins See? I don't want this place to be like rule34 where this is tagged as Cassie.
Sorry but to me this all are empty words.

And gilda, we are already at the point where admins have to pick, people can't decide that both are valid, people think gender is black and white, and the world has no shade. the problem is the lack of fuzzy in fuzzy definitions. and that's scary. machines can only decipher so much gilda, and our system is by some accounts too complex as is. and I haven't even implimented the group tagging scheme yet. the point is. even after we get even more complex, there is a point that we will still be debating on the definitions of fuzzy terms, and this won't go away with the absolute reliance of static definitions.

CamKitty said:
My main issue is that fuzzy tags are, well, fuzzy. What looks like renamon to someone may not look like it to others, especially given some artists styles.

Assumptions can be dangerous both ways

exactly. our search is additive, not subtractive. If someone wants to look up renamon, they should get an additive result. if it looks like renamon to some, the definition of renamon is fuzzy. based on appearance, why would they not add that tag in?

Are you saying that we should just scrap the system that we have, one that is much better than shit like rule34, because there's a few fuzzy tags that people get all fussed about?

Pyke said:
Are you saying that we should just scrap the system that we have, one that is much better than shit like rule34, because there's a few fuzzy tags that people get all fussed about?

Never underestimate the power of butthurt.

If I search for dickgirls, I get dickgirls. If I search for herm, or cuntboy, or even male and female, that's what I see. I can even refinance r the search with things like girly, and I get what I want to see. How is that a broken system?

If I search for dickgirls, I get dickgirls. If I search for herm, or cuntboy, or even male and female, that's what I see.

I guess that's the main problem. I don't have much problems with dickgirl myself, but if I search for cuntboy...I get tons of results that are obviously either male or female. And very few that I'd myself classify as cuntboy. Seems like most overused tag on the site. And clearly I'm not the only one who has occasional troubles identifying the genders.

Just look at this tagging: #226603

Such back and forth is waste of everyone's time. Some kind of solution would be nice.

Aurali said:
And gilda, we are already at the point where admins have to pick, people can't decide that both are valid, people think gender is black and white, and the world has no shade. the problem is the lack of fuzzy in fuzzy definitions

First of all, despite the name of ambiguous_gender tag I think that it is clear that current tags are more for sex than gender.

While I agree that it is problem in determining whether give character tag, then I don't think it is problem in tagging genders, and all tag system all together. While when tagging characters admins decision were often like "close enough", "looks like X to me", then on character sex tags it wasn't fuzzy at all. It was more like "no pussy - no herm".
I can agree that tagging characters rules can be more fuzzy. (Though I would like to know how would this make people not to tag picture with purple butt, with tags of all purple characters they know.)
I can live with additional fuzzy sex/gender tags, like looks_like_female. Nobody is going to use them, and they'll die naturally.
But I'm against removing not really fuzzy tags like herm, or dickgirl, or changing them so they would be fuzzy.

Genjar said:
I guess that's the main problem. I don't have much problems with dickgirl myself, but if I search for cuntboy...I get tons of results that are obviously either male or female.

If I understand correctly what Aurali said then with new system you would get even more results like this.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
First of all, despite the name of ambiguous_gender tag I think that it is clear that current tags are for sex not gender.

While I agree that it is problem in determining whether give character tag, then I don't think it is problem in tagging genders, and all tag system all together. While when tagging characters admins decision were often like "close enough", "looks like X to me", then on character sex tags it wasn't fuzzy at all. It was more like "no pussy - no herm".
I can agree that tagging characters rules can be more fuzzy. (Though I would like to know how would this make people not to tag picture with purple butt, with tags of all purple characters they know.)
I can live with additional fuzzy sex/gender tags, like looks_like_female. Nobody is going to use them, and they'll die naturally.
But I'm against removing not really fuzzy tags like herm, or dickgirl, or changing them so they would be fuzzy.

If I understand correctly what Aurali said then with new system you would get even more results like this.

the problem is you guys are seeing the system as perfect, it's not. I am proposing the removal of all non-perfect fuzzy tags in favor of a system that doesn't use them. We could have the system really easily make assumptions for gender if entered in the search system, something that can be adjustable on the user level. and having gender in the tags isn't twys anyway.

Rocket_Corgi said:
Never underestimate the power of butthurt.

If I search for dickgirls, I get dickgirls. If I search for herm, or cuntboy, or even male and female, that's what I see. I can even refinance r the search with things like girly, and I get what I want to see. How is that a broken system?

Pyke said:
Are you saying that we should just scrap the system that we have, one that is much better than shit like rule34, because there's a few fuzzy tags that people get all fussed about?

both you get the same response:

you get absolutes, anything that could be a herm should also be included in the search. no one's gonna bitch because they can't tell if someone has a vagina or not. The search loses it's accuracy (MY concern) because the genders are now static. Gender isn't static! it's fuzzy. And it's hurting the search result to even include these results

Rocket_Corgi said:
Never underestimate the power of butthurt.

If I search for dickgirls, I get dickgirls. If I search for herm, or cuntboy, or even male and female, that's what I see. I can even refinance r the search with things like girly, and I get what I want to see. How is that a broken system?

You mean you want to find exactly what you want with the minimum word search ?

If I understand correctly what Aurali said then with new system you would get even more results like this.

I think I might prefer it that way.
Using cuntboy as an example: it is not relevant to my interests, but I still check the tag from time to time because I know that there are a lot of pics under it that I don't consider cuntboys.

But with the system that Aurali proposed, those images would likely already show up in my regular searches. I wouldn't have any reason to go looking under that tag. Seems like it'd save some time.

I'm not seeing this system as perfect. I think it's counterintuitive in many ways, can piss off artists, and so on, and so on...
The point is that I don't really see a better option, and you certainly didn't convinced me that there is such an option. To say more when I hear things like "I am proposing the removal of all non-perfect fuzzy tags in favor of a system that doesn't use them" I'm not positive about change, and I'm rather scared. Maybe I don't get it, but to me it sounds like average politician before election day - It's going to be great! It's going to be fantastic! We can do this! Details? What details?

How much thought were placed into this? I would really like hear other admins thoughts on that solution. And I want to have clear view how exactly rules are going to be changed. Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but I can't really get clear view of how it is going to work from posts here. I'm mainly seeing many assurances that it will somehow work, and complains about how TWYS is bad. Yes, I know, it is bad, but I think that it is the best solution.

I would really like to get some more examples. And by examples I mean something like this:
post #xxxx
now it is tagged yyyy
after change it will be tagged zzzz
<optional additional explanations>

TWYS is only bad to people who aren't exclusively viewers. In terms of searching and finding what I want, TWYS is damn good. The only reason I see it not being good is the fact that artists LOVE to get butthurt over their character not being tagged certain ways. I don't see a reason here to re-work the system, we just need to have more strict definitions for things like cuntboy, dickgirl, herm, etc. and if people aren't willing to tag accordingly, then they shouldn't be here. They can go back to fchan for all I care.

Many people don't understand that this is an archiving site, not their pesonal dropbox. That's the main reason of gender mistagging and takedowns. Artists and character owners want posts tagged as if this was their own site (it's my art, tell me what are you looking for and I'll show it to you. BUT DON'T FUCKING TOUCH IT!!!)

Sure, we may know artists and their characters, but noobs don't. That's the purpose of this system, to help the new users.

Yeah, while I know I'm focusing on OC's, same thing applies to well-known characters as well.

I'd say, that if the character is well-known (Renamon, Krystal, Rainbow Dash, etc.) we should tag its canon gender by default if we can't determine it from the image itself.

Aurali said:
Now that being said, Our search uses additive logic to get results for both fuzzy and static tags, It really doesn't know the difference, it can't think critically like we do, only logically. And for searchers, we need to think for the machine. This being said, if we really want to KEEP fuzzy tags, we need to be more open to other peoples interpretations of a tag, Someone's expectations for herm when searching is gonna be different between you and me.

Let's go on with some examples, we got a character, it has both a penis, and breasts, vagina is invisible, but someone searching would herm would assume it would be there. In terms of the search, it would fall under a herm tag, since using fuzzy logic, we assume to assume that the person is looking for a combination of a man and a woman, not specifically penis+vagina+boobs. This isn't definable further then that, since not everyone (especially our outnumerous guests) will be swayed by the websites personal definitions.

If I understand this part correctly, and I don't think I fully understand it, you wish to either get rid of fuzzy tags (as in, everything build up of traits [gender build up by genitals+bodyshape, species by traits like build and furpatter,...] and similar things) or to allow a broader usage of those tags.

If this is what you meant, how would you like to implement either?

If you allow broader fuzzy terms, do mean tagging things as herm and shemale/dickgirl if the vulva is not visible in the image?

If you would like to strip those fuzzy terms, how would this expand the search if you can only search for genitalia and not for a specific set of those on a single character?

How about for fuzzy, uncompromisable tags, you put both in, then people who are looking for the image can see it no matter what?
unless someone really likes herms, and has a hateboner for dickgirls...
but that just seems kinda odd...

It's stupid but it would take two kind of tags:
Regular tags that will be included in a search.
Secondary tags said "informative tags" which would be ignored by the search.

A bit like on SoFurry, regular tags (reflecting TWYS rule) in a first column, and other tags said "informative" in a second column.
There would be two toolbox when posting a picture...

But the simplest would acepter the double labeling (taging)

Or when on a dispute, make a voting: all users start tagging what they see on the image as they normally do, then all submitted changes will be merged and the common tags of each submission will be the result.

More results is not better results.

You do not improve searches by adding images that may not be relevant, but could be depending on how you look at it.

Aurali said:

Let's go on with some examples, we got a character, it has both a penis, and breasts, vagina is invisible, but someone searching would herm would assume it would be there. In terms of the search, it would fall under a herm tag, since using fuzzy logic, we assume to assume that the person is looking for a combination of a man and a woman, not specifically penis+vagina+boobs. This isn't definable further then that, since not everyone (especially our outnumerous guests) will be swayed by the websites personal definitions.

If people want absolutely defined genders, then it becomes a bit harder. how do we define a dickgirl? is it a girl with a dick? is it a guy with boobs? is it a very feminine thing with both a penis and a boobs? does it have a vagina?

The answer is none of the above. We can not define it. We cannot define male or female as such either, as defining it leaves some obvious plot holes.

If you visit a website you should respect its rules, not expect its rules to change around you. It's a relatively simple process of finding out that dickigrl and herm are two different things here. The people that complain about such are just simply not open to the matter-of-fact way we tag here, which for an image board is GOOD.

Now, furthermore we CAN define it. We can define words we make up because if we coin them for our own use we must have a definition. In this case a dickgirl is a female figure with a dick. It does not say that there will be a vagina, anyone looking for what we have defined as a dickgirl and getting things with vaginas would be VERY annoyed and having to search for very specific things such as +penis +breasts -pussy would also be annoyed. In this way a single term such as dickgirl which means +penis +breasts -pussy all in one is a good thing. This is NOT fuzzy in any as long as it keeps this definition. Same with herm - +penis +breasts +pussy. If either of the "equivalents" of these terms are searched for in the search box you're likely to get straight porn as well as what you're looking for. By searching penis breasts -pussy the first thing that shows up is a female giving fellatio and a titjob to a guy.

Well gee, that isn't dickgirl, is it? That isn't what the person was searching for. No, "fuzzy" terms like this are NECESSARY. They are defining tags. There's nothing "fuzzy" about the definition of these tags either, the only "fuzzy" thing is the cooperation of those who come in from elsewhere thinking their way is the only way and are unable to learn the rules of this website.

Xch3l said:
Many people don't understand that this is an archiving site, not their pesonal dropbox. That's the main reason of gender mistagging and takedowns. Artists and character owners want posts tagged as if this was their own site (it's my art, tell me what are you looking for and I'll show it to you. BUT DON'T FUCKING TOUCH IT!!!)

Sure, we may know artists and their characters, but noobs don't. That's the purpose of this system, to help the new users.

Yeah, while I know I'm focusing on OC's, same thing applies to well-known characters as well.

I'd say, that if the character is well-known (Renamon, Krystal, Rainbow Dash, etc.) we should tag its canon gender by default if we can't determine it from the image itself.

Exactly. You know what? I didn't know who Purgy was before this, I had never even heard of Artica(Sp?) Sparle, or most of the other characters around here. Yet I KNEW what I wanted to see, it was only a nice coincidence that those characters were what I wanted to see. Now if they had been tagged something that I didn't want to see then I'd have never found them. Heck, if the tagging system was without these "fuzzy" tags I'd have quickly stopped using the website at all. Yet that's just my personal story.

AnotherDay said:
If you visit a website you should respect its rules, not expect its rules to change around you.

You forget ambiguous situations, example:
post #325216
Is a dickgirl or a girly male?
For me it does not really look like a woman, not really breasts, this is a girly male, for others it is a dickgirl.
With TWYS rule pushed to the extreme, dickgirl is incompatible with male, girly and crossdressing...

Those are clearly breasts, or are you saying that small breasts aren't really breasts?

Hammie said:
Those are clearly breasts, or are you saying that small breasts aren't really breasts?

I say I do not care about your opinion, it is not you that I was asked. :P

My opinion is valid.
The image was decided to be a dickgirl, because it has breasts, by a mod.
Ignoring people's opinions simply because they disagree with you is a bad way to go through life.

Seems like an obvious male to me. Probably because I've met some guys in RL who look like that. Minus the fur, of course. :P

(The nipples are too far off the side to be feminine. Must be manboobs. At least that's how it looks to me.)

Hammie said:
My opinion is valid.
The image was decided to be a dickgirl, because it has breasts, by a mod.
Ignoring people's opinions simply because they disagree with you is a bad way to go through life.

Okay, enough! I did not ask here that we decided if it is a dickgirl or a male or an alien.
I chose this example to show an ambiguous position
An obtuse person as you see only dickgirl.
I see a huge difference between this
post #325216

and this
post #329300

Sure there's a huge difference there, but that doesn't mean they aren't both dickgirls.
The way the tags are currently used, breasts+penis without a vagina = dickgirl.
Both images have breasts, and penises, but no vagina therefor, dickgirl.

In my country men have breasts...

Hammie said:
Sure there's a huge difference there, but that doesn't mean they aren't both dickgirls.
The way the tags are currently used, breasts+penis without a vagina = dickgirl.
Both images have breasts, and penises, but no vagina therefor, dickgirl.

It is precisely this kind of problem trying to solve this issue. You did not understand? It does not matter...
The best is to ignore you.

Tauxiera said:
It is precisely this kind of problem trying to solve this issue. You did not understand? It does not matter...
The best is to ignore you.

So you're another one of those.. people.. that think their opinion is the only valid one? I'll admit, that thing is not flat chested, it has subtle little breasts and is therefore a dickgirl. I was wrong in trying to tag it otherwise when I did.

For example.. one female has virtually no breasts, the other has massive breasts. By your logic one would not be a female while the other would be. No, that isn't how things work. Go elsewhere if you want to spout that "I'm right, and you're wrong, period!" stuff.

AnotherDay said:

For example.. one female has virtually no breasts,

She has a dick your female?
.....
Huu ?
allo ??

What is certain is that we really go anywhere with people like you (who changed his mind just to piss others) (and who understand only that they want to understand... dedication for hamie)

AnotherDay said:
I'll admit, that thing is not flat chested, it has subtle little breasts and is therefore a dickgirl. I was wrong in trying to tag it otherwise when I did.

Breasts are not exclusively female. If you Google search for male breasts, you'll find tens of thousands of images, varying from saggy to perky.

As far as I can see, the breasts in Tauxiera's image are masculine. They're the wrong shape for a female, so I can only assume that the artist either drew them wrong or intended the character to be male. Dunno which, but I'm almost certain just by looking that the artist didn't intend it to be a dickgirl.

I just don't see any point in tagging such images with 'dickgirl' when a 'girly' male would be more accurate.

Genjar said:
Breasts are not exclusively female. If you Google search for male breasts, you'll find tens of thousands of images, varying from saggy to perky.

As far as I can see, the breasts in Tauxiera's image are masculine. They're the wrong shape for a female, so I can only assume that the artist either drew them wrong or intended the character to be male. Dunno which, but I'm almost certain just by looking that the artist didn't intend it to be a dickgirl.

I just don't see any point in tagging such images with 'dickgirl' when a 'girly' male would be more accurate.

Tagging standards say breasts+penis-vagina=dickgirl
So unless the point of contention is whether or not small breasts actually count as breasts, it's a dickgirl.

Hammie said:
Tagging standards say breasts+penis-vagina=dickgirl

If that's really the case, then the wiki description should be updated. Because it currently says: "a dickgirl is a character who is entirely female in appearance but has a penis instead of female genitalia. "

That example pic wasn't entirely female in appearance. Not even close. So not a dickgirl by the wiki standard.

So unless the point of contention is whether or not small breasts actually count as breasts,

I wouldn't contest that. Heck, it's been the carrying theme of various cancer awareness programs for the past few years: everyone has breasts.

Genjar said:
If that's really the case, then the wiki description should be updated. Because it currently says: "a dickgirl is a character who is entirely female in appearance but has a penis instead of female genitalia. "

That example pic wasn't entirely female in appearance. Not even close. So not a dickgirl by the wiki standard.

I wouldn't contest that. Heck, it's been the carrying theme of various cancer awareness programs for the past few years: everyone has breasts.

The sticky gender tagging thread:
http://e621.net/forum/show/39607

Hammie said:
The sticky gender tagging thread:
http://e621.net/forum/show/39607

Like the wiki entry says, those are guidelines. Not absolutes. For instance, in cases of cuntboy, the flowchart doesn't work well for species that usually don't have breasts at all. Such as reptiles and avians, especially ferals.

And even if you strictly follow the flowchart, that example pic would've been male:
Genitals: masculine -> Breasts: unknown/ambiguous -> body type: unknown/ambiguous ===> Male

Sure, there are some situations where there's ambiguity, but in the above case there are clearly breasts, clearly a penis, and no visible vagina which is tagged as dickgirl.
Is it possible for a male to look like that? Sure.
But that's not how we tag.
The only time it comes down to judgement calls is if there is ambiguity as to what is in the image, or when there's nothing obvious in an image.

Edit: and as for the flowchart, those breasts are not unknown or ambiguous, they're breasts, just small breasts.

Hammie said:
The only time it comes down to judgement calls is if there is ambiguity as to what is in the image, or when there's nothing obvious in an image.

Edit: and as for the flowchart, those breasts are not unknown or ambiguous, they're breasts, just small breasts.

If they weren't ambiguous, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
They seem like female breasts to you, but male breasts to me. Ambiguous.

Or are you saying that absolutely everything with a penis and breasts (no matter how small and masculine) should be tagged as dickgirl, such as these?: #274372 #241061 #328650 #227460

Aurali said:
Fuzzy tags aren't in the image at all, their only real purpose is to group traits identifiable characteristics up into one tag. It's a leap of faith that many people take for granted

The only fuzzy tags I see is lol_comments which isnt even related to the image or the TWYS rule

Seriously guys? This is the third thread today that's devolved into a "TWYS is stupid" argument while everyone else argues "is this X or Y?" and it turns into a talking point for anyone that wants to get rid of TWYS altogether.

I've already seen two journals on FA with people citing these very threads and saying "this is why TWYS is stupid, and this is why I'm applying for DNP".

Stop the madness.

Aurali said:
If people want absolutely defined genders, then it becomes a bit harder. how do we define a dickgirl? is it a girl with a dick? is it a guy with boobs? is it a very feminine thing with both a penis and a boobs? does it have a vagina?

The answer is none of the above. We can not define it. We cannot define male or female as such either, as defining it leaves some obvious plot holes.

Uh, no, we already did several years ago. That definition is pretty clear. If it's a guy with boobs, it's dickgirl. If it's a girl with a dick, it's dickgirl. Neither have visible vaginas.

Genjar said:
If they weren't ambiguous, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
They seem like female breasts to you, but male breasts to me. Ambiguous.

Or are you saying that absolutely everything with a penis and breasts (no matter how small and masculine) should be tagged as dickgirl, such as these?: #274372 #241061 #328650 #227460

The first 3 are clearly pectorals, not breasts.
The 4th, personally I would probably tag as a dickgirl.
Looks like breasts to me.

Snowmew said:
Stop the madness.

Madness? You say this is MADNESS!? This is SPAR-E621!!!

Snowmew said:
Seriously guys? This is the third thread today that's devolved into a "TWYS is stupid" argument where Aurali proposes we just arbitrarily remove gender tags because they can be misused, while other admins pledge that as long as they're admins, gender tags won't be removed. Meanwhile, everyone else argues "is this X or Y?" and it turns into a talking point for anyone that wants to get rid of TWYS altogether.

Two pages and nothing is solved… Also this "fuzzy/static" thing is a bit confusing :/
By "fuzzy" I understand that it can be changed. And "static" is "this won't move from here"

Snowmew said:
I've already seen two journals on FA with people citing these very threads and saying "this is why TWYS is stupid, and this is why I'm applying for DNP".

wait… what?

Xch3l said:
wait… what?

This is the problem with bending TWYS:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4652300/

There are several people in the comments (including the original poster) who assumed that the recent massively-publicized "character names are OK" rule change meant that everything was now taggable based on outside information, which is dead wrong. There were so many arguments based on this false information here on the site, plus all of the misconceptions outside of the site, that bending TWYS is a very, very bad idea.

Here's the ultimate choices.

• Get rid of TWYS, lose a bunch of taggers (tagging on external information makes tagging a massive chore), but gain rep in the outside community.
• Or, leave TWYS as all-encompassing, keep your taggers, but have a bunch of butthurt herm character owners still be mad at the current policy.

Those are the two options. Anything in between will just piss off both crowds because it's overly complex and doesn't really solve any problems.

And then you read the comments and it's 80% people who like it here/don't mind TWYS, 15% people misunderstanding what's going on, and 5% people who hate TWYS because they think you're telling people what their character is/isn't which probably should just fit in the misunderstanding category.

Snowmew, you may want to read that journal again. Some rational person informed him politely why it exists and he sort of understands why it is TWYS. Education for people who don't get it, imagine that!

CamKitty said:
Snowmew, you may want to read that journal again. Some rational person informed him politely why it exists and he sort of understands why it is TWYS. Education for people who don't get it, imagine that!

Oh, you mean Nelly? Er, rather, me? You'll notice I gave up explaining it after two or three comments saying how dumb it is.

Or Char? The lead admin of the site (at least until a few hours ago)? Is it really his job to go around explaining TWYS like that to people?

Get over it, or get rid of it.

Hammie said:
And then you read the comments and it's 80% people who like it here/don't mind TWYS, 15% people misunderstanding what's going on, and 5% people who hate TWYS because they think you're telling people what their character is/isn't which probably should just fit in the misunderstanding category.

The people who actually appreciated TWYS were outnumbered around 10 to 1... I don't condone removing it, but still.

Snowmew said:
a bunch of butthurt herm character owners

This kind of attitude toward herms bugs me a lot. Herms have just as much right as anyone else of whatever sex or sexual orientation to have their opinions heard. What about all of the girly faggot characters who pitch a fit when they can't be tagged as gay? Or the pony drama of many flavors? People are passionate about these sorts of issues because they're very personal to them.

The larger the site becomes, the more frequently these issues will pop up as a simple matter of statistics. The right way forward is not "fuck you I'm right get over it". Eventually some manner of compromise is going to have to be reached.

Azazial said:
This kind of attitude toward herms bugs me a lot. Herms have just as much right as anyone else of whatever sex or sexual orientation to have their opinions heard. What about all of the girly faggot characters who pitch a fit when they can't be tagged as gay? Or the pony drama of many flavors? People are passionate about these sorts of issues because they're very personal to them.

The larger the site becomes, the more frequently these issues will pop up as a simple matter of statistics. The right way forward is not "fuck you I'm right get over it". Eventually some manner of compromise is going to have to be reached.

The compromise is that they realize we aren't trying to tag characters, but images, and we don't get mad at them tagging wrong.
Fair all around.

Any complaint against TWYS along the lines of "But that's not what my character is" is a silly argument because that's not what we're tagging.

I did think up a new take on the issue, which is to have a source: tag prefix that acts much like other tag prefixes. Source tags could be applied only where source information differs from the visible qualities itself. It would still cause confusion, but at least it would give artists/owners their "correct tags" while retaining the searching integrity of TWYS.

Azazial said:
This kind of attitude toward herms bugs me a lot. Herms have just as much right as anyone else of whatever sex or sexual orientation to have their opinions heard.

People who complain about TWYS gender tagging are almost always herm owners (or at least trans owners) because the tagging rules inherently "discriminate" against them by defaulting to dickgirl or female.

Tauxiera said:
What is certain is that we really go anywhere with people like you (who changed his mind just to piss others) (and who understand only that they want to understand... dedication for hamie)

I have to pick that sentence apart for a second, you realize your english is pretty broken at best, right?
You have to expect people not understanding you if they, well, can't understand you.
So instead of bashing others how about honing your skills to avoid misunderstandings in the first place?

The rest of you, carry on with your discussion.

Azazial said:
This kind of attitude toward herms bugs me a lot. Herms have just as much right as anyone else of whatever sex or sexual orientation to have their opinions heard. What about all of the girly faggot characters who pitch a fit when they can't be tagged as gay? Or the pony drama of many flavors? People are passionate about these sorts of issues because they're very personal to them.

The larger the site becomes, the more frequently these issues will pop up as a simple matter of statistics. The right way forward is not "fuck you I'm right get over it". Eventually some manner of compromise is going to have to be reached.

I think that good compromise is that they can say that character is herm/gay in
a) Character's wiki page
b) Comments under picture

Let's leave tags for other things than that. Changing those tags, unlike character tags, will disrupt search for other people.

There are also people passionate about being able to search things here, their voice also counts.

Snowmew said:
This is the problem with bending TWYS:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4652300/

There are several people in the comments (including the original poster) who assumed that the recent massively-publicized "character names are OK" rule change meant that everything was now taggable based on outside information, which is dead wrong. There were so many arguments based on this false information here on the site, plus all of the misconceptions outside of the site, that bending TWYS is a very, very bad idea.

Here's the ultimate choices.

• Get rid of TWYS, lose a bunch of taggers (tagging on external information makes tagging a massive chore), but gain rep in the outside community.
• Or, leave TWYS as all-encompassing, keep your taggers, but have a bunch of butthurt herm character owners still be mad at the current policy.

Those are the two options. Anything in between will just piss off both crowds because it's overly complex and doesn't really solve any problems.

I see what you mean.

*writing as I read the journal entry*

But this crosses what I've been saying all the time (like a crazy, 'cuz 95% of the time my comments fly through the window):

people are looking for art of Eddie only, and want to know her actual gender, I would prefer them to know what I have deemed her as, and not the wrong gender simply because a certain part isn't in view.

I said:
Many people don't understand that this is an archiving site, not their pesonal dropbox. That's the main reason of gender mistagging and takedowns. Artists and character owners want posts tagged as if this was their own site (it's my art, tell me what are you looking for and I'll show it to you. BUT DON'T FUCKING TOUCH IT!!!)

Sure, we may know artists and their characters, but noobs don't. That's the purpose of this system, to help the new users.

Adding to that: a new user would cross that certain character and probably say "hey! this is a neat character" and easily click on the wiki entry if they want a backstory, a bio or more information about its creator for it. What artists don't know is that they can fill the wiki with relevant information if it's not already there and tags are for achiving purposes. Heck, I guess 80% of all users don't even know we have a wiki which is totally editable (except some posts, I haven't found any but there must be at least 1 or 2).

But this is where it gets confusing. Due to the tag-what-you-see rule, me tagging her as a herm was wrong. Simply because a part of her wasn't showing (vagoo). So, I was told that I was WRONG, in giving my character the correct gender tag. I have NO qualms with the term dickgirl, before anyone asks. And I don't mind people adding tags to my characters or work, or commissions even. But it bothered me that I was told that I was wrong, on something that i know best, aka my character(s).

Dude, this is not your database!! As I said earlier, tags are to help new users find everyone's art, not a specific artist's art. If that's the case we would be searching exactly for the artis's name (try chalo, razorfox, kloutmutt, atryl, king-cheetah, oze… you name it!)

Right now there's a bit of a rage-war going on over on the forums regarding this issue. An admin did help me out and added the correct tag, but something has obviously gone horribly wrong and the tag was removed again, and that admin has seemingly been demoted because of it (possibly?)

"Rage-war"? I'd say it's more a boiled discussion.

What I don't understand is how, although that site heavily relies on furry artists for its mass postage every day, they don't respect us enough to be able to add the correct tags to our OWN artwork and characters. And there are many tags on my art on that site I don't approve of, but the second I remove them, days later they're added again. For example there are many images tagged 'obese' in my gallery on that site, when they're just clearly not obese (whether this was just something someone was doing out of spite I don't know, or clearly they just think someone with a bit of meat on them means they're obese).

That's an implication mistake, and an umbrella tag (wrongly applied imo)

Don't get me wrong. Its a great site, and I check it out on a regular basis because I am a gigantic perv, but I don't feel respected as an artist over there, and I don't feel like my art is respected either. Many just see that place as a gigantic porn-hub (which it basically is), but I guess I saw it more as an archiving site for furry art, both clean and adult alike.

The dude recognizes that this is an archiving site yet he wants stuff done his way…

*end of reading*

In my honestest opinion (more honest than it could be, I know the word does not exist, it's to give you an idea), it's mainly for the butthurt of stuff not done the artist's way and they think this site is like any other art hub where they have accounts and upload their own work. Also, I agree with you:

Plus, let's be honest, the only reason e621 is so popular is because people go there to fap. FA is for semantics and character descriptions, e621 is where you get your rocks off with no regard for such formalities. Tagging things as they appear avoids "what the fuck I wanted to fap to herms, I don't see a penis here" and other things.

*waiting response, report agains me, or threadlock. Whatever comes first*

Snowmew said:
I did think up a new take on the issue, which is to have a source: tag prefix that acts much like other tag prefixes. Source tags could be applied only where source information differs from the visible qualities itself. It would still cause confusion, but at least it would give artists/owners their "correct tags" while retaining the searching integrity of TWYS.

Has been proposed before and shot down before. Maybe it'll happen this time if Aurali is frustrated enough.

Snowmew said:
People who complain about TWYS gender tagging are almost always herm owners (or at least trans owners) because the tagging rules inherently "discriminate" against them by defaulting to dickgirl or female.

Perhaps instead I should have just said, "Hey making sweeping generalizations is not cool and kinda offensive". 'cause, you know, people who complain about herms are almost always sperging gay niggers. Not saying that you are but it's often the case! :V

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I think that good compromise is that they can say that character is herm/gay in
a) Character's wiki page
b) Comments under picture

I employed this myself a while ago on the wiki page about me and in the comments of several pictures featuring me. It can also be enhanced by good sourcing of pictures to FA pages or other places they come from which can provide more information and other source material relating to the characters in question.

I am in favor of TWYS, but I don't think it's really in our best interests to blindly follow it and not consider that things could possibly be done better. That's why we have these discussions. I find myself disappointed in some cases where things are brought up which violate the TWYS rule and everyone is just kinda okay with it, but in other cases everyone rabidly defends TWYS to the letter of the law. There are things which enhance the searchability of images or are things which are looked for by those who search but are not TWYS. See forum #69548 for some examples.

I don't think that one simple rule can handle the complexity of this subject.

If half of the crowd is sure that something is male and the other half is sure that it's a dickgirl, then why not just settle for ambiguous_gender?

Currently, the whole gender system seems a bit useless to me. For many pics, the tags change with the moon phases. One day female, next cuntboy, then male or herm... Everyone tagging what they see, but seeing different things.

Ambiguous_gender means can't determine gender, not can't agree on gender.

When it's a 50/50 dispute that's when you request a ruling from a Mod.

Genjar said:
Currently, the whole gender system seems a bit useless to me. For many pics, the tags change with the moon phases. One day female, next cuntboy, then male or herm... Everyone tagging what they see, but seeing different things.

And how many examples of such pictures you have? And how does it compare to pictures that are tagged without any troubles? Is it worth to destroy rather useful system, just because there are few cases where it's not working that well?

I think that some people are blowing things out of proportion.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
And how many examples of such pictures you have? And how does it compare to pictures that are tagged without any troubles?

No idea. But the topic certainly seems common enough, since it comes up just about every time that I browse the site.

Such as this that I just ran across while randomly browsing: #303132

Maybe I simply should stop reading image comments..

Genjar said:
No idea. But the topic certainly seems common enough, since it comes up just about every time that I browse the site.

Such as this that I just ran across while randomly browsing: #303132

Maybe I simply should stop reading image comments..

I would say that they came out no more commonly than, for example, cub drama, or people that want mlp gone from the site.
No matter what rules will be there would be people complaining about them - we're in furry fandom.

Tauxiera said:
She has a dick your female?
.....
Huu ?
allo ??

What is certain is that we really go anywhere with people like you (who changed his mind just to piss others) (and who understand only that they want to understand... dedication for hamie)

I made a completely different example there, or are you really so slow you couldn't follow? I mean that is why I said "for example." As for the picture I changed my mind on that when the admin popped in. I just sorta accepted that those were indeed breasts. Seriously, stop being an obstinate sillynanny and grow up, will you? I get so tired of people like you that ALWAYS think that their way is the right way.

First of all, this proposal needs clearer and likely more thorough explanation before it gains productive traction. I believe the proposal does have merit and engages a legitimate issue, but the original post is somewhat sporadic. I present my analysis below (because I felt like it).

Xch3l said:
Also this "fuzzy/static" thing is a bit confusing :/
By "fuzzy" I understand that it can be changed. And "static" is "this won't move from here"

Fuzzy should imply that an attribute (read: tag) is open to interpretation whereas a static attribute adheres to a universally accepted definition. Perhaps a static tag can be thought of as a component whereas a fuzzy tag represents a conceptual arrangement of those components. What components should return a human, scalie, or herm in a search?

Anyways, I take away the following from the original post:
1. Fuzzy tags are currently treated the same as static tags. This causes fundamental disagreements over the qualifying parameters of fuzzy tags.
2. e621's search logic likewise does not distinguish between fuzzy and static search terms. Assuming all posts are tagged consistently, this requires users of the search feature to conform to e621's methodologies and rationales for handling fuzzy tags. History has shown that many guests are unable or unwilling to accept these rationales. This calls into question the intuitiveness of the current system.
3. Fuzzy tags cannot be explicitly defined. If they could, then they would be static. A fundamental incompatibility.
4. The two dimensional nature of still images generally results in incomplete information, unless a single picture contains multiple angles and perspectives of a scene. Certain artistic representations will lack key information present in other renditions of the same subject. Thus, the TWYS rule ignores or conflicts with attributes that are strongly implied but not explicitly illustrated. (This point was, I believe, intentionally redundant/circular to illustrate the flaw of TWYS.)
5. The proposal: Fuzzy tags/search results should be cumulative rather than subtractive. Currently, a user might search for one fuzzy tag and additional static tags to filter search results. I believe this is subtractive logic. In contrast, cumulative logic would check an image for the presence of certain static tags to determine the probability that the image contains a fuzzy tag. Now, I initially interpreted that this proposal was intended for programming behavior, but perhaps it was intended for user-defined tags.

Aurali also attempted to draw attention toward another flaw in TWYS's current implementation. I perceive the flaw in abstract terms... How do people handle complex issues? They break them down into smaller parts. Complex pictures and tagging schemes are often subdivided into smaller, specific tags. Likewise, controversial tags are often discussed from multiple constrained perspectives to attempt to identify and reconcile their controversies.

This strategy is scientifically proven effective when people work in groups (teams, really), but when people are left to their own devices? An individual's quality is often inferior to the group's effort. Users at all privileges struggle to interpret the recorded results of previous tagging discussions, invariably making subjective errors. e621's handling of fuzzy tags, specifically, is too bulky and nuanced to avoid these errors. Despite best efforts and intentions, strict adherence to TWYS rules is, in effect, unmanageable because even conscientious individuals fall victim to their own fallible subjectivity.

Aurali said:
Something needs to change.
Thank you.

If a char has breasts and a pussy = female

If a char has breasts, a pussy, and a dick = herm

If the char has breasts and a dick = dickgirl

If the char has no breasts and a pussy = cuntboy

if the char has a penis, and no breasts, or pussy = male

------------

Not that hard to figure out, the TWYS rule works

Conker said:
If a char has breasts and a pussy = female

If a char has breasts, a pussy, and a dick = herm

If the char has breasts and a dick = dickgirl

If the char has no breasts and a pussy = cuntboy

------------

Not that hard to figure out, the TWYS rule works

and no term for dick, no boobs? hmm.. using the examples above, I'm sure that dickboy is the only real term for this strange unheard of phenomenon. :p and what's a female? that term doesn't really fit now that we have the other examples. I propose cuntgirl, and for herm.. dickcuntgirl. and I was talking about more then gender hun. anything that is defined in what other tags there are seems.. pointless

Conker said:
If the char has no breasts and a pussy = cuntboy

Should all breastless female scalies and reptiles, avians, insects, amphibians and fish be tagged as cuntboy? Currently they're arbitrarily divided between female and cuntboy.

For instance, most of the breastless kobolds (which is almost all of them) are under the female tag but there's a few tagged as cuntboy.

Aurali said:
and no term for dick, no boobs? hmm.. using the examples above, I'm sure that dickboy is the only real term for this strange unheard of phenomenon. :p and what's a female? that term doesn't really fit now that we have the other examples. I propose cuntgirl, and for herm.. dickcuntgirl. and I was talking about more then gender hun. anything that is defined in what other tags there are seems.. pointless

You heard of secondary sex characteristics, right? That's how, for example, cuntboy is distinguished from female here.
Dick, no boobs, or unknown? Either male, or dickgirl (or equivalent of maleherm for dickgirl, but AFAIK we don't have such a tag.) depending on other sex characteristics.

It's more or less this part of flowchart, from forum #39607:

Genitals? 
├ mas ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [dickgirl]
│                ├ n ─ [male]
│                └ u ─ Body type?┬ mas ─ [male]
│                                ├ fem ─ [dickgirl]
│                                └ unk ─ [male]

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
You heard of secondary sex characteristics, right? That's how, for example, cuntboy is distinguished from female here.
Dick, no boobs, or unknown? Either male, or dickgirl (or equivalent of maleherm for dickgirl, but AFAIK we don't have such a tag.) depending on other sex characteristics.

It's more or less this part of flowchart, from forum #39607:

Genitals? 
├ mas ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [dickgirl]
│                ├ n ─ [male]
│                └ u ─ Body type?┬ mas ─ [male]
│                                ├ fem ─ [dickgirl]
│                                └ unk ─ [male]

yeah I know of secondary sex characteristics if you recall, I was the one who told people they were dumb for being so genitalia based in the first place XD

I was just teasing Conker for his dickboy based gendering system

Peekaboo said:
This seems awfully similar to the thread yesterday that dealt with pretty much the exact same problem, and since that got shut down, I take it this is just a way to keep the discussion going. And most of yesterdays thread was pretty much only a stream of "I don't like TWYS" - "Doesn't matter, TWYS is good" - "Okay, but I don't like TWYS" etc.

And that's exactly what this thread is.

TWYS SUCKS 2 - ELECTRIC BOOGALOO

I spent just to tell you, I'll let you turn in round to wade through your crap.
I do not even have the courage to translate all these messages where each demonstrated the largest narrow-mindedness.
It does not surprise me that Char have expressed a deep fed (of a politically correct way)

Admins: Do not waste your time at asking the general opinion, it is not this handful of kids who can give you constructive help. Decide for yourself.
It will not matter if a few decide to leave, compared to the hundreds of new daily registrations.
More than 99% of active members did not even participate in the forum.

Snowmew said:
TWYS SUCKS 2 - ELECTRIC BOOGALOO

Peekaboo said:
This seems awfully similar to the thread yesterday that dealt with pretty

but this was the original thread.

Tauxiera said:

More than 99% of active members did not even participate in the forum.

90% of our users don't even register, It's true! Which makes me wanna know what they think more than anything. My dumb tail actually thought this would actual garner more opinions other then "TWYS is flawless", well, because it's not. It's why we have the few exceptions we do.

also.. this person

abadbird said:
<snip>

is a genius.