Requested feature overview description.
Tags could have ratings associated with them.
penis would be associated with "explicit".
breasts would be associated with "questionable".
These associations would be set by admins.
The rating of a post would be that of its "unsafest" tag.

Why would it be useful?
It would reduce the number of mis-rated posts.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
Uploading and changing tags.

I believe I went over this before, but sometimes the mistag is the normal tag, just like how people don't realize that certain implications exist... but people don't realize that the tag is there and keep trying to change it.

Instead, I would like a bloody error message saying "hey! The (rating/tag) was not changed because of (tag).

This is the exact opposite of what you'd want. Its only gonna cause problems.

Say some word that's innocuous gets added to the explicit list and now you have a bunch of safe things tagged as explicit.

Tagging vandalism, adding in a specific tag to a bunch of things that are safe to set their status to explicit. Now you have to undo not only the tags but the rating and its just that tiny bit more work.

Its a neat idea but has shortcomings.

Either way. I still think that you should be forced to click one of them yourself on upload rather than having it default to questionable.

It might be a useful feature for privileged+ users tho.

Solely commenting on the breast thing, one can have "breasts" listed on an upload rated "safe". featureless_breasts implies breasts, for starters, and can be used on an otherwise "safe" rated post without affecting the rating.

All in all, I'm skeptical that it's really a practical thing, but I'm uncertain enough that I'm not outright saying "-1" to the OP suggestion.

I think that clearly explicit tags (like penis) put it to Explicit, but I would apply this only during the upload process to slightly speed that up.

This is definitely an issue worth solving, but I think this solution would introduce more complicated issues, for example a misused penis tag that incorrectly changes the post's rating. How about we just clear out -rating:e ~penis ~pussy ~sex every so often?

Also imagoober correctly points out that breasts aren't questionable. breasts should be tagged if a character has breasts, even when they're fully clothed.

leomole said:
Also imagoober correctly points out that breasts aren't questionable. breasts should be tagged if a character has breasts, even when they're fully clothed.

But what if one wants to see not fully nude characters with breasts? There has to be a new tag for that then (something along the lines of clothed_breasts or clothed_cleavage).

leomole said:
This is definitely an issue worth solving, but I think this solution would introduce more complicated issues, for example a misused penis tag that incorrectly changes the post's rating. How about we just clear out -rating:e ~penis ~pussy ~sex every so often?

Also imagoober correctly points out that breasts aren't questionable. breasts should be tagged if a character has breasts, even when they're fully clothed.

You're implying we make extra work for something that's already a very simple issue comparatively and could be more easily solved by simply making it so that people have to physically intentionally set things instead of just tagging everything as questionable.

GDelscribe said:
You're implying we make extra work

I'm trying to reduce the total amount of work to be done. I just think creating tag -> rating implications would create more work than it eliminates.

GDelscribe said:
making it so that people have to physically intentionally set things instead of just tagging everything as questionable

I like this point about making uploaders set the rating manually though. Maybe we should remove the default setting of questionable? Forcing uploaders to choose one will make them think about which is correct.

Hudson said:
But what if one wants to see not fully nude characters with breasts?

Something like -nude breasts or clothed breasts or cleavage or breasts -nipples -featureless_breasts should work, though you might have to add solo.

Apologies I think I may have misread your post a little bit. I agree with you actually. My bad. And yeah I honestly think if people just slowed down the site would be better. We already have people mass upload stuff with 0 tags and as questionable. If we forced people to pyscally click the field we would at least cut down on flash uploads like that and maybe get people to actually take a moment to properly tag things. Even a little.

We already have a system in place that tells you how many tags are in the box. Why not make it check so that if less than 11 tags are added it won't accept it? It would also stop people from vandalizing by blanking as the system would literally not allow for it.

GDelscribe said:
Why not make it check so that if less than 11 tags are added it won't accept it? It would also stop people from vandalizing by blanking as the system would literally not allow for it.

I think they would naturally move to vandalizing by pasting in nonsense tags to replace the correct tags (ie copy, select all in tags box, paste) . Still, I suppose that's slightly more inconvenience for them.

leomole said:

Something like -nude breasts or clothed breasts or cleavage or breasts -nipples -featureless_breasts should work, though you might have to add solo.

That's the problem, you cannot accurately search for clothed breasts because:

• there can be multiple characters in an image, some nude and others clothed
• a character can just be partially clothed

savageorange said:
I think they would naturally move to vandalizing by pasting in nonsense tags to replace the correct tags (ie copy, select all in tags box, paste) . Still, I suppose that's slightly more inconvenience for them.

Maybe but a deterrent is a deterrent

GDelscribe said:
We already have people mass upload stuff with 0 tags and as questionable. If we forced people to pyscally click the field we would at least cut down on flash uploads like that and maybe get people to actually take a moment to properly tag things. Even a little.

We already have a system in place that tells you how many tags are in the box. Why not make it check so that if less than 11 tags are added it won't accept it? It would also stop people from vandalizing by blanking as the system would literally not allow for it.

I agree. I mean, I believe somewhere something states that you need at least 5 or 10 tags minimum, including species, gender, (from a TWYS viewpoint, not TWYK) number of characters and information about the artwork as a few examples.

Hudson said:
That's the problem, you cannot accurately search for clothed breasts

I agree, there's no good way to search for a clothed character with breasts, but I don't really see the problem. There's no good way to search for a character with heterochromia and a blue_eye either, that's just how the tag system currently works. It's post-specific, not character-specific. I don't think we need a clothed_breasts or blue_heterochromia tag.

leomole said:
I agree, there's no good way to search for a clothed character with breasts, but I don't really see the problem. There's no good way to search for a character with heterochromia and a blue_eye either, that's just how the tag system currently works. It's post-specific, not character-specific. I don't think we need a clothed_breasts or blue_heterochromia tag.

Got nothing to chip in, but would heterochromia *_eyes -_(color wanted)_eyes work with your blacklist? Search with your blacklist having that combo, and it should return with your color and at least another.

*edit* it could work, but I'm willing to say heterochromia requires a tagging overhaul.

Siral_Exan said:
would heterochromia *_eyes -_(color wanted)_eyes work with your blacklist?

Yes unless the post has more than one character. Then you get stuff like post #968422 where the character with blue_eyes is not the one with heterochromia. This is the problem Hudson points out.

Siral_Exan said:
I'm willing to say heterochromia requires a tagging overhaul.

That's not really the point I'm trying to make. It's not that the breasts or eye color tag categories need updates to achieve specificity like clothed_breasts or blue_and_orange_heterochromia, it's that the tag system just isn't designed to handle requests like that. Tags apply to an entire post, not a single character within it. So the difficulty in searching for covered breasts isn't a symptom of a missing tag, it's a consequence of the tagging system.

Anyway -1 to the clothed_breasts tag, and +1 to a character-specific tagging system.

leomole said:
...and +1 to a character-specific tagging system.

Care to define that?

Everyone knows what a character-based tagging system is.

It's a tagging system where tags on a post are added/grouped for each depicted character separately. It's a system where you specify which character a certain tag belongs to.

Since this way you're inputting more information into the system, it allows system to use this information to filter posts more precisely. So the search can (optionally) work in a way where the search string is applied to each character, rather than a whole image.

For instance, you have an image with 2 characters - a male rainbow_dash, and a female fluttershy. Using a search string female rainbow_dash would not return this post because the tags female and rainbow_dash don't appear on the same character.

Delian said:
Everyone knows what a character-based tagging system is.

It's a tagging system where tags are added/grouped for each character depicted. It's a system where you specify which character a certain tag belongs to.

Since this way you're inputting more information into the system, it allows system to use this information to filter posts more precisely. So the search can (optionally) work in a way where the search string is applied to each character, rather than a whole image.

For instance, you have an image with 2 characters - a male rainbow_dash, and a female fluttershy. Using a search string female rainbow_dash would not return this post because the tags female and rainbow_dash don't appear on the same character.

Ok, your initial statement sounded very close to the TWYK system where you tag the off-site information, like a character that implies their specific tags, no matter what. A character that always gets tags, if you would. Or, further shortened into character tags. This, on the other hand, does not sound like that.

So you can cross out that "everyone", since I didn't know your "character tagging" system; you shouldn't have to use an absolute to get a point across.

Delian said:
Everyone knows what a character-based tagging system is.

Blanket claims like this tend overwhelmingly to be both absurd and wrong.

It's a tagging system where tags on a post are added/grouped for each depicted character separately. It's a system where you specify which character a certain tag belongs to.

Since this way you're inputting more information into the system, it allows system to use this information to filter posts more precisely. So the search can (optionally) work in a way where the search string is applied to each character, rather than a whole image.

For instance, you have an image with 2 characters - a male rainbow_dash, and a female fluttershy. Using a search string female rainbow_dash would not return this post because the tags female and rainbow_dash don't appear on the same character.

This is a slight variant on previous propositions - in which 'female rainbow_dash' would search all the tags on the image (so: a female, and rainbow dash, but the rainbow dash doesn't have to be female. Like current un-grouped search), and '[ female rainbow_dash ]' would search for a group that contains both female and rainbow_dash.

I don't think there's anyone particularly opposed to this idea, but at least a few admins by now have stated that implementing it would result in quite a lot of technical complication. IOW: chances are that if it happens at all, it's not gonna be any time soon. Resolution of existing technical debt probably needs to happen first.

savageorange said:
Blanket claims like this tend overwhelmingly to be both absurd and wrong.

I was being sarcastic but I meant no offense.

savageorange said:
This is a slight variant on previous propositions

Nope. I simply chose not to go into details. See how I used the word optionally? The exact notation (who says it has to be square brackets?) and implementation details of how this option is provided are not necessary to explain the concept in general.

Anyway, we're off topic here.