People have been constantly forgetting to add the girly tags to posts that have male characters with feminine features (not genitalia). Am I allowed to report users who do this on a regular basis?

And might I add that the girly tag is not subjective. If the artist was going for the girly look, then they would have made that very clear in the way that they produced the piece.

And no, this is not a discussion. I don't care why you think I'm wrong for wanting to tag girly. If anything, this is a question for the mods/janitors/admins.

I believe that I have asked this multiple times, for equivalent reasons, and the answer I received was no each time. Unless it is mistags that are consistent or bring it under the 4tag minimum (implied still excluded), it is not punishable by the literal wording of the rules. Might be admin's decision, though, so I can't say for sure.

If at least four tags are being provided upon upload, and those tags are valid and applicable, there is no rule being broken. We cannot enforce very specific tags be added when uploading, for better or for worse.

Ratte gave the official answer, but as an end-user while I understand the reasoning it does get kind of annoying at times, especially when it's obvious stuff like eye color (particularly in more cartoonish character designs with big eyes), or clothed/nude.

4 tags is okay; it's the minimum, but you're going to piss people off by excluding important tags (genders/species/fetishes/artists), as well as tags in general. It doesn't take long to add more than 4 tags, so do always try to add as many tags as you can/are comfortable with when uploading.

Also, uploading a post with 4 tags and then editing it to add more tags is also not uncommon, especially not with big uploaders or users who want to upload a specific post fast to have it under their name.

how to:tag

This page has a useful part:

Please tag cub and young images for legal reasons.

A general rule of thumb is to mark at least 4 basic tags on an image, some examples are:

• Artist
• Gender
• Character
• Fetishes
• Species
• Position
• Sexual positions/acts
• Location
• Objects in the image

So when you want to tag the bare minimum, don't add tags like these:

Rather add tags like these instead:

Do always try to add an artist, too.

_{This reply got a bit longer and off the point than intended, but the more you know...}

Hudson said:
4 tags is okay; it's the minimum, but you're going to piss people off by excluding important tags (genders/species/fetishes/artists), as well as tags in general. It doesn't take long to add more than 4 tags, so do always try to add as many tags as you can/are comfortable with when uploading.

Also, uploading a post with 4 tags and then editing it to add more tags is also not uncommon, especially not with big uploaders or users who want to upload a specific post fast to have it under their name.

how to:tag

This page has a useful part:

So when you want to tag the bare minimum, don't add tags like these:

grey_tailblue_eyesaliasingabsurd_res

Rather add tags like these instead:
female
tiger
fellatio
penis

Do always try to add an artist, too.

_{This reply got a bit longer and off the point than intended, but the more you know...}

No, I understand why you branched off a bit. You were very thorough in your answer that way.

Thanks for the help everyone!

There are a ton of tags, and outside of a few key tags, many of them are of varying importance to different people.

For instance, you consider girly to be an important tag, but I rarely tag girly because the tag is worthless to me. I can't think of any circumstance in which I'd search it, and I never feel confident in it's usage.

On the other hand, looking through your uploads, I noticed that you rarely tag [species]_[genitals] (example: canine_penis), which, I think those tags are very important indeed.

Wouldn't it be awful if you got punished for excluding those tags? I think it would be. Tagging is a group effort, and I think we're better off encouraging people to participate, than we are punishing people for not being perfect from the start.

What would be nice is increasing the tag minimum to something less arbitrary, especially since implications exist. People often rely on these to fill in tags for them without actually making any real attempt at tagging.

There is simply no way to enforce the adding of specific tags, so we rely on people to at least abide by a tag minimum. We can only enforce a mistagging rule (as in, the addition of invalid/inapplicable tags), and so we do.

Ratte said:
What would be nice is increasing the tag minimum to something less arbitrary, especially since implications exist. People often rely on these to fill in tags for them without actually making any real attempt at tagging.

There is simply no way to enforce the adding of specific tags, so we rely on people to at least abide by a tag minimum. We can only enforce a mistagging rule (as in, the addition of invalid/inapplicable tags), and so we do.

How about a minimum of one artist tag, one species tag, and two general?

Unknown_artist and unknown_species count, or no species for zero_pictured.

Lance_Armstrong said:
How about a minimum of one artist tag, one species tag, and two general?

Unknown_artist and unknown_species count, or no species for zero_pictured.

I wouldn't mind this but I would want more general tags if so. My ideal would be either ten tags in total or, with your proposal, five general tags. We could make an exception for "gap pages" in things like comics where there just isn't much to show for, because those are really obvious. Implications have made it too easy for lazy people to get by with the bare minimum.

That would require a revamp of the uploading page to make it easier to see and pick valid tags. If we were to have something like that I'd be all for it.

Hurray, the end of lazy tagging is at hand.

How do tagging scripts work, and are they (mostly) without flaw. It may be a good idea to have such in place, maybe in a limited use. I'd say 50 times per day, not unlike using SAUCENAO's 200 times a day(?) method, or some other very low amount.

Siral_Exan said:
How do tagging scripts work, and are they (mostly) without flaw. It may be a good idea to have such in place, maybe in a limited use. I'd say 50 times per day, not unlike using SAUCENAO's 200 times a day(?) method, or some other very low amount.

instead of having to open images to edit the tags, you can apply specific tag edit to image by clicking thumbnail which makes job easier and faster if you want to do same tag changes for multiple images. and i'd say that giving it for regular users would be bad idea because you really have to know what you are doing and still double check everything or you will probably fuck up and make huge mess. also it could be easily used to cause enormous amount of damage and very fast. like even if its limited.

Mutisija said:
instead of having to open images to edit the tags, you can apply specific tag edit to image by clicking thumbnail which makes job easier and faster if you want to do same tag changes for multiple images. and i'd say that giving it for regular users would be bad idea because you really have to know what you are doing and still double check everything or you will probably fuck up and make huge mess. also it could be easily used to cause enormous amount of damage and very fast. like even if its limited.

Then I was under the impression that it was something different. What about something that scans an image, and suggests tags from it, with a limited use (like, imagine a helpme! button on an image).

Siral_Exan said:
Then I was under the impression that it was something different. What about something that scans an image, and suggests tags from it, with a limited use (like, imagine a helpme! button on an image).

ohh no, its definitely not that. you type in tag script edit box something cat -dog and when you next time click on a thumbnail, it adds cat and removes dog
or at lest thats what the tag scripts are on e621.

Siral_Exan said:
Then I was under the impression that it was something different. What about something that scans an image, and suggests tags from it, with a limited use (like, imagine a helpme! button on an image).

There is currently no properly working neural network capable of adequately interpreting art. Give it 10 years until it becomes stable, and until the computing requirements aren't ridiculous anymore.

NotMeNotYou said:
There is currently no properly working neural network capable of adequately interpreting art. Give it 10 years until it becomes stable, and until the computing requirements aren't ridiculous anymore.

I'm just waiting for the day when we have computers sophisticated enough that they can tag images for us, but not so advanced that they don't just add inferior_fleshy_meat-bag and extermination_request to each image.

Clawdragons said:
I'm just waiting for the day when we have computers sophisticated enough that they can tag images for us, but not so advanced that they don't just add inferior_fleshy_meat-bag and extermination_request to each image.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qBlPa-9v_M

Clawdragons said:
I'm just waiting for the day when we have computers sophisticated enough that they can tag images for us, but not so advanced that they don't just add inferior_fleshy_meat-bag and extermination_request to each image.

Or, they can be advanced enough to do that but also advanced enough in the right fields that they choose not to and instead adore us. Like pets. And know how to properly give us our space.

Actually, who's to say we aren't already something's pets, and they just know to give us space the way you're supposed to give foxes and raccoons space and independence? I mean, the world is so well suited for us, despite us being very much the black sheep of the Animal Kingdom.

Furrin_Gok said:
Or, they can be advanced enough to do that but also advanced enough in the right fields that they choose not to and instead adore us. Like pets.

That seems like an oxymoron. I mean, humans aren't particularly human-friendly -- why would a human-friendly AI actually like humans?

Furrin_Gok said:
Actually, who's to say we aren't already something's pets, and they just know to give us space the way you're supposed to give foxes and raccoons space and independence? I mean, the world is so well suited for us, despite us being very much the black sheep of the Animal Kingdom.

The world isn't suited for us, we're suited for the world.
That is kind of the point of unmerciful evolution where 99% of all existing species have gone extinct because they couldn't keep up.