the fact that images without gender tags can be posted and approved without those tags added is something I find quite idiotic, as the lack of gender tags breaks the blacklist. when a post is "pending moderator approval" ensure that the image has gender tagged correctly.

-1, because zero_pictured has something to say about required gender tags.

-1 We don't want the approval process to take longer than it already does.

We could force uploaders to tag gender, but then we would have people tagging gender when they don't know how to and get it wrong. So that's also a bad idea.

A warning message when attempting to upload without a gender tag is perhaps viable. However, it might also encourage people to tag gender when they don't know what they're doing.

Siral_Exan said:
-1, because zero_pictured has something to say about required gender tags.

Classifying zero_pictured as a gender tag would get around that issue.

regsmutt said:
Classifying zero_pictured as a gender tag would get around that issue.

Yes, because no character pictured is totally a gender...

I don't know your train of thought on that was, but forcing people to tag only makes things worse, especially when the tag(s) do not belong.

Gender tags are no more deserving of a special requirement than any of the other common tags.

Siral_Exan said:
Yes, because no character pictured is totally a gender...

Technically it isn't, but for all intents and purposes it is. That is to say, zero_pictured is one of the key tags that all posts should have at least one of:

But, forcing people to tag (other than the 3 tags minimum to upload rule) is indeed a bad idea.

CrocoGator said:
(other than the 3 tags minimum to upload rule)

the minimum is 4, not 3.

This is already happening, see forum #256093

However tagging gender still isn't requirement, but it will remind you of all possibilities, including ambiguous and zero_pictured and will still check if there's 4 tags in total before letting upload.

I feel like we do need to find a way to encourage uploaders to tag some of the more important tags like gender and form, but requiring people to tag stuff like this is probably just going to add more work in the long run because of the potential mistags or tagging the genders of only one of the characters in a duo or group image _{(which is kind of a nightmare since finding posts with no gender tags is real easy, finding posts with incomplete gender tags is much harder)}.

Siral_Exan said:
Yes, because no character pictured is totally a gender...

I don't know your train of thought on that was, but forcing people to tag only makes things worse, especially when the tag(s) do not belong.

If a script checked for male/female/intersex/ambiguous having zero_pictured satisfy the gender tag requirement solves the problem. I don't see what's hard to follow with that. Forcing a tag might not be the right answer, but giving a warning/prompt that a gender tag is missing or else giving it a tag along the lines of a gender-specific tagme might work.

I hope a gender tag can be a must-have when uploading, I'm tired of adding all female-related tags to blacklist in order to block them 😅, for example, one post may only have a breast but no female tag when a female is presented (and yes I add female tag to posts when I saw them contains female character and without one)

watchdog22 said:
I hope a gender tag can be a must-have when uploading, I'm tired of adding all female-related tags to blacklist in order to block them 😅, for example, one post may only have a breast but no female tag when a female is presented (and yes I add female tag to posts when I saw them contains female character and without one)

... Not sure what it adds after 5 years, but meh:
How hard is it to just add the few terms that slip through? You'd need all of about 10-20 to get 99% coverage. A lot of those are not tagged female because it's ambiguous.

alphamule said:
... Not sure what it adds after 5 years, but meh:
How hard is it to just add the few terms that slip through? You'd need all of about 10-20 to get 99% coverage. A lot of those are not tagged female because it's ambiguous.

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured has ~71,500 results and growing so that's a clear sign that something is wrong here, and that's no small feat to undertake.

faucet said:
-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured has ~71,500 results and growing so that's a clear sign that something is wrong here, and that's no small feat to undertake.

Hmmmmmm...

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:2DUK (20 pages)

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:GetAGrip (8 pages)

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:arli (6 pages)

Perhaps we've found out how some of our power users get their upload counts so high.

EDIT: And of course, who could forget:

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:Millcore (144 pages!)

And also from the top of the upload ranks:

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:mapachito (80 pages)

I'm not sure if it would be an improvement (solve more issues than it generates), but the system could, instead of technically requiring, have a red warning text for features, such as gender, stating for the uploader that "are you sure there are no characters in the picture? tag gender or the post may not be accepted" and then, the same notifications for the approver user interface, so if there reads "no gender tags" and there are characters in the picture, the moderator could quickly judge and reject the post.

After this: When uploading, keep an eye on the red warning lights for tags. When approving postings, check the warning lights and reject clear violations and accept cases that are even the least bit unclear.

This would cause:

• More causes for the uploaders to complain about their posts being rejected.
• Quite a bit of user interface development work.

urielfrys said:
I'm not sure if it would be an improvement (solve more issues than it generates), but the system could, instead of technically requiring, have a red warning text for features, such as gender, stating for the uploader that "are you sure there are no characters in the picture? tag gender or the post may not be accepted" and then, the same notifications for the approver user interface, so if there reads "no gender tags" and there are characters in the picture, the moderator could quickly judge and reject the post.

Is it that time of year again? topic #34241

(Note the irony of who posted that topic.)

The rest of the hall of shame (all users with at least 10 pages of untagged posts):

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:WeedWizard (55 pages)

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:Alien_Fluff (39 pages)

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:laranja (18 pages)

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:Rysaerio-Misoery (15 pages)

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:theultra (15 pages)

Though I did notice that, when adding -rating:s to all of those searches, the number of results decreases dramatically. mapachito, Millcore, 2DUK and GetAGrip still manage at least 4 pages each though.

The base search -male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured -rating:s has 165 pages of results (versus result limit when including safe posts). Hmm, let me just make a slight tweak to my script and get back...

(Just for transparency, -male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:wat8548 had 3 posts, all of which I fixed just now.)

As I suspected, the non-safe untagged posts are dominated by low-volume uploaders. Excluding all of the top 30 users who have uploaded the most non-safe posts without gender tags only reduced the results to 118 pages. The only new name in the top 5 is Demonlord23, who is permabanned.

We really do need that tag sanity checker like yesterday.

wat8548 said:
Hmmmmmm...

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:2DUK (20 pages)

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:GetAGrip (8 pages)

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:arli (6 pages)

Perhaps we've found out how some of our power users get their upload counts so high.

EDIT: And of course, who could forget:

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:Millcore (144 pages!)

And also from the top of the upload ranks:

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured user:mapachito (80 pages)

https://e621.net/posts/4392507?q=-male+-female+-intersex+-ambiguous_gender+-zero_pictured+user%3Agetagrip Bah, pages and pages of results like that. :(

There's no need to call people out here, that isn't helping solve the problem. If you want those posts fixed, fix them. Else stop bring it up. it's impossible to upload tens of thousands of posts without missing a single tag, shit happens.

donovan_dmc said:
There's no need to call people out here, that isn't helping solve the problem. If you want those posts fixed, fix them. Else stop bring it up. it's impossible to upload tens of thousands of posts without missing a single tag, shit happens.

Sorry if it sounded like an attack. Was just kind of laughing at how post #3328434 has had many many edits and no one noticed the obvious attributes. I was actually in the process of at least weeding through the ones easier to filter through.

Like: solo images to start with, same with "rating:safe", and so on.

Make me wonder is it possible to block all
Post without a gender tag, seems make sense to me if the must-have gender requirements is not gonna happen

watchdog22 said:
Make me wonder is it possible to block all
Post without a gender tag, seems make sense to me if the must-have gender requirements is not gonna happen

Just add
-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured
to your blacklist, and if you want to blacklist zero pictured too, just add it onto another line

donovan_dmc said:
it's impossible to upload tens of thousands of posts without missing a single tag, shit happens.

At least one of those users has uploaded over 10,000 posts which were all missing gender tags. When friggin Numeroth (14 posts total) has a better tagging track record than you, it's time to consider whether you may be going a little too fast.

wat8548 said:
At least one of those users has uploaded over 10,000 posts which were all missing gender tags. When friggin Numeroth (14 posts total) has a better tagging track record than you, it's time to consider whether you may be going a little too fast.

Report them if it's a recurring and still ongoing issue, or fix it yourself rather than trying to publicly flame them. This is just needless drama. There's no reason to call out anyone here.

One I looked at it was 2 pages, not 8. I think that's because I set my settings to do 250 at a time? Anyways, guess I'll get started on some more. Yeah, TBF, better spending this energy just fixing it since it's not like there's 100s of pages of them like I first was thinking. It's actually not that hard to do the thumbnails for the obvious ones, then move to opening in temporary tab/s for the others. My only worry is accidentally missing some disqualifier for say, female. The edge cases are... going far slower. Meh, taking time for those rarer ones isn't that burdensome.

honestly, I think I'd perfer users to forego adding gender tags entirely rather than tag gender incorrectly. it's relatively pretty easy to find and deal posts that lack gender tags, finding and correcting posts whose gender tags are wrong or lacking is a lot harder.

Hmm, you also forgot null and nullo and featureless crotch tags. Rare but it does reduce it a bit.

alphamule said:
Hmm, you also forgot null and nullo and featureless crotch tags. Rare but it does reduce it a bit.

nulls and the like will still fall under female or male if they exhibit secondary sexual characteristics or ambiguous_gender if they don't.

juansanchez said:
nulls and the like will still fall under female or male if they exhibit secondary sexual characteristics or ambiguous_gender if they don't.

... Oh hell. :(

post #3882671 What about this one? There are 3 different versions of the same character.

post #4311297 I'm trying to figure out how this should be tagged. It doesn't look "imminent" at all. It looks like it's finished. I guess it was supposed to be imminent_penetration? Not sure that applies, either.

alphamule said:
post #4311297 I'm trying to figure out how this should be tagged. It doesn't look "imminent" at all. It looks like it's finished. I guess it was supposed to be imminent_penetration? Not sure that applies, either.

Looks like someone copy-pasted tags from the previous posts in the sequence. It's certainly not imminent_sex/imminent_oral given it's also tagged sex and after_oral. (I'm also finding a fair number of posts lately tagged fucked_silly just because they're looking_pleasured, and are far from having a "silly" expression.)

alphamule said:
post #3882671 What about this one? There are 3 different versions of the same character.

the build looks mostly masculine, so male + andromorph.
I'm not sure if I'd say this should be considered null, since that tag usually needs some context that implies the lack of visible genitals is a diegetic feature rather than an aesthetic choice, and that doesn't seem to be the case with this character. there's been some discussion on changing null to null_(lore) because of how it's tagged at topic #38913 as well as a few other scattered forum posts.

post #3274998 If a penis is part of the tail instead of in the usual location, it's still male, right? This is tagged 'genderless' but maybe the tagger intended null/nullo?

juansanchez said:
the build looks mostly masculine, so male + andromorph.
I'm not sure if I'd say this should be considered null, since that tag usually needs some context that implies the lack of visible genitals is a diegetic feature rather than an aesthetic choice, and that doesn't seem to be the case with this character. there's been some discussion on changing null to null_(lore) because of how it's tagged at topic #38913 as well as a few other scattered forum posts.

*looks at tagging history* Ugh, yeah, not male-frigging-herm. Andromorph is correct, yes. For some reason I got confused on that image. I'm going to go search for others I tagged about that time with maleherm. 99% sure it's only one I messed up on. Nope, fixed , though.

alphamule said:
post #3274998 If a penis is part of the tail instead of in the usual location, it's still male, right? This is tagged 'genderless' but maybe the tagger intended null/nullo?

if a character has a penis, regardless of where it appears they're necessarily male or gynomorph (or maleherm/herm if they also have a pussy somewhere).

I think part of the problem is that there might be users with a bit of confusion on what is and isn't considered a penis. usually if it's shaped like a penis or it's positioned where a penis would go or sometimes if it's being used like a penis it's considered a penis for purposes of gender tagging... but there's the exception of the pseudo-penis, the real-life anatomical feature of female hyenas, and I think that's the only exception to this. so like, if a character has tentacles or an ovipositor or whatever that functions similarly to a penis it's probably going to be considered a penis when tagging gender.

alphamule said:
Nope, fixed , though.

well actually, gender tagging on some feral chatacters (read:"My Little Pony characters"*) is a bit uhh... skewed.

the facial shape is considered a secondary sexual feature, in the same tier as breasts, so a feral pony with a penis and a short, rounded muzzle is considered gynomorph and a feral pony with a pussy and a longer flat/squared muzzle would be considered andromorph.

_{*this isn't technically an MLP-only thing, there are some very rare cases where a penis-having feral pokémon has enough feminine vibes (cleft_tail dosn't count) to be counted as gynomorph but like, it's effectively MLP-only.}

juansanchez said:
well actually, gender tagging on some feral chatacters (read:"My Little Pony characters"*) is a bit uhh... skewed.

the facial shape is considered a secondary sexual feature, in the same tier as breasts, so a feral pony with a penis and a short, rounded muzzle is considered gynomorph and a feral pony with a pussy and a longer flat/squared muzzle would be considered andromorph.

_{*this isn't technically an MLP-only thing, there are some very rare cases where a penis-having feral pokémon has enough feminine vibes (cleft_tail dosn't count) to be counted as gynomorph but like, it's effectively MLP-only.}

Argh!
.
.
.
.
.
.
LOL, OK, TWYS except when face is feminine on a pony is going to be... not obvious. Oh well, that's why we have many eyes.

alphamule said:
LOL, OK, TWYS except when face is feminine on a pony is going to be... not obvious. Oh well, that's why we have many eyes.

yeah, tag definitions are built on standards/president, so they can be a bit malleable, especially for the big important ones like gender. it's still TWYS, it's just that the wiki definition is not always a fully comprehensive descriptor of how a tag is used. it can be a bit confusing, but that malleability is what makes tags useful sometimes.

when in doubt you can always look at other images with similar tags and try to decern what the tagging standard is, maybe see if you're lucky enough to find a similar post with tag locks. if you want to save the posts for later you can put them in a set or bookmark the page, there's no harm in just moving on to other stuff and coming back, or letting someone else handle it, or for the big edge cases asking for input from some third parties.

_{also, I just want to say, somewhat related to this, if you run into a character with udders, I have no fucking idea. like, in my eyes it's obviously a secondary sexual characteristic leaning towards feminine, identical to breasts, but like, fuckken-- it never seems to be tagged with the same standards as breasts when on an anthro/humanoid character but sometimes it is, maybe? I kinda get it for taurs but for the rest... and there's never been any tag locks , and there's no consensus, and also there's a male_udder tag and... the whole thing just makes my soul hurt, dude.}

juansanchez said:
_{also, I just want to say, somewhat related to this, if you run into a character with udders, I have no fucking idea. like, in my eyes it's obviously a secondary sexual characteristic leaning towards feminine, identical to breasts, but like, fuckken-- it never seems to be tagged with the same standards as breasts when on an anthro/humanoid character but sometimes it is, maybe? I kinda get it for taurs but for the rest... and there's never been any tag locks , and there's no consensus, and also there's a male_udder tag and... the whole thing just makes my soul hurt, dude.}

Otis moment

post #1813673

pleaseletmein said:
Otis moment

post #1813673

in my opinion that character (and similar characters) should be tagged with something like female male_(lore) since it's a character clearly depicted as a female animal that is treated as/identifies as male, but I just really don't want to deal with all the inevitable tag wars trying to make those changes would cause.

juansanchez said:
in my opinion that character (and similar characters) should be tagged with something like female male_(lore) since it's a character clearly depicted as a female animal that is treated as/identifies as male, but I just really don't want to deal with all the inevitable tag wars trying to make those changes would cause.

No... It is correct. If canon character is male but had GD udders. Still tagged what you see. That should not be tagged anything but female/gynomorph/(fem)herm. The lore tags are for the canon part. Of course, the funny bit is it can be canon to a specific post. If the FA or whatever source has "male" in description, then it doesn't actually matter if the TV show had him male or not.

post #3980243 Female or andromorph? No visible breasts, teats, or whatever where they would be expected on either belly or chest.
post #2315450 Another I can't figure out.
post #4202964 The mid-transformation ones are sometimes hard... It looks like female would be valid but top half still looks male.
post #3428432 Intersex, right?
post #1172433 It's not clear which is male and female.

-male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured -clitoris -breasts -penis -teats Oooooooooh. Curiouser and curiouser. Apparently the vast majority of the posts fall under that search. That explains the results of tagging it 'in parts', i.e. using negative tags to constrain it to make it less frustrating. Binary combinations of those tags would actually have a very small number of results, which if this stuff was largely tagged, then it should have been no where near as short of results. The rest are going to likely need sexual characteristics tagged before getting much further with this approach.

:edit: 20231118
Been working on these results: -male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured -null -nullo -featureless_crotch penis -breasts -teats -crotch_tits There are not nearly as many results if you add the null and nullo and featureless_crotch tags. I do specific combinations of various anatomical features to stay sane/improve morale. ;)