abadbird said:
Let's say every vote required users to also answer a one-question survey; that this requirement discouraged no one's votes; and that voters understood the question, answers, and were honest. Simply, "why did you [upvote/downvote] this post?" with answers like "I liked the content" and an optional "More Info" text field. Okay, so conceivably everyone can see how and why users vote. What would we see?

First, won't happen. Second, 80% of comments will be "it's awesome", 15% will be "it's crap" and 5% something else. This is the reason for the first point.

Exhibit A: all those safe-rated posts with obvious skillful execution yet relatively low scores invariably bandied about whenever this topic comes up.

Before you draw any conclusions: the primary reason for SFW art having low scores, views, upvotes etc. compared to NSFW is that people fap way more often than enjoy art aesthetically.

The notion that laypeople should or even can separate "quality" from "content" when assessing "content quality"/"quality content" is delusional. "Quality" is literally a modifier of "content", proof of quality depends upon the existence of content, quality is secondary to content by every possible construct. You can't have "good art" without the "art".

You have a point. Finally somebody has a point other than "stop teaching me how to live". Learn, people.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
So you are not asking for a change in the rules, just saying that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a destructive idiot. K, got it.

Yup, you got it.

SnowWolf said:
I mean, seriously:

Seriously, abusing a feature isn't disallowed by rules. (In general; there're specific cases.)

For example, people tag colors of assholes and other nonsense nobody in the right state of mind would ever search for or filter with. It's silly, it's useless, it's never complete, makes people laugh about e621's tagging, so it's misuse of the tagging system, but it exists because it doesn't break the rules. Creating an ultra-specific tag which is used on one post is misuse within the rules too.

Even if the current main admin, for whatever reason, considers voting for content within the spirit of the feature (not the spirit of the rules) and laughs in the face of anyone who doesn't, it's fully within my rights to disagree with his opinion. It's not like the website has been created from scratch and fully maintained by one person. Now, if the inventor of the voting feature in the original booru engine tells me I'm an idiot, I may reconsider. And even then, the voting systems existed for ages, in many forms, for different reasons, so it's perfectly fine to have opinions which differ from opinions of people who own a website with a voting feature.

KinkyGlutamate said:

You have a point. Finally somebody has a point other than "stop teaching me how to live". Learn, people.

Everybody else has made a variation of his point so far. You're the only person to insist the voting system was designed and created to give an objective measurement of quality instead of just being "I like/dislike this". The feature is ambiguous, or volatile as I called it earlier, because nothing ever specified anything beyond liking or disliking something. And as you have realized in an earlier thread people are much more likely to have opinions on content than on quality.

I am very firm on my point that your assertion of the purpose of the voting function is wrong. All of this doesn't even touch on the required manpower to manage a quality based voting function. We don't have enough volunteers to sift through and process votes to ensure that voting would only be done for quality and not for personal preferences.

KinkyGlutamate said:
Seriously, abusing a feature isn't disallowed by rules. (In general; there're specific cases.)

We did a pretty good job to have this in place for all site features. Your example with too specific tags falls flat because the existence of those tags is arguably not disruptive to the search function. Having those tags, or any other specific tags, doesn't mean that other searches no longer work, thus it's not abuse. It is arguably pointless, I'll give you that, but that's a completely discussion.

KinkyGlutamate said:

Even if the current main admin, for whatever reason, considers voting for content within the spirit of the feature (not the spirit of the rules) and laughs in the face of anyone who doesn't, it's fully within my rights to disagree with his opinion. It's not like the website has been created from scratch and fully maintained by one person. Now, if the inventor of the voting feature in the original booru engine tells me I'm an idiot, I may reconsider. And even then, the voting systems existed for ages, in many forms, for different reasons, so it's perfectly fine to have opinions which differ from opinions of people who own a website with a voting feature.

Just for the record, I didn't laugh at your opinion that it would be nice to have an objective metric for quality, I laughed at your insinuation that supporting subjective voting is equivalent to supporting not blacklisting.
In fact, I do support that people don't blacklist things they dislike, as long as they don't complain in public about them. Blacklisting is only made mandatory for users who explicitly can't or won't stop being disruptive in public. If they aren't disruptive it doesn't matter if they blacklist or not.

KinkyGlutamate said:
You have a point. Finally somebody has a point other than "stop teaching me how to live". Learn, people.

Y'know, this one sentence. It's not "stop telling me how to live".. it's not "stop telling me what to do." or even "stop telling me what to feel or think"... but "stop teaching me how to live".

It certainly says a lot of things. I understand now. Alright.

For example, people tag colors of assholes and other nonsense nobody in the right state of mind would ever search for or filter with. It's silly, it's useless, it's never complete, makes people laugh about e621's tagging,

You seem to have this idea that just because you do not use these tags that, ahem no one in "the right state of mind" would ever used them. That's rather entertainingly shortsighted. While *I* use these tags to help find specific images after the fact (aka "I know it was a white wolf with blue eyes..."), I know for a fact that some people specifically search for things like blue_nipples because they LIKE blue nipples. Looking at blue nipples reveals a very large number of characters who are blue or otherwise 'cool toned'. If that's an aesthetic you enjoy, then blue nipples is a very effective search. It also will help you find images where nipples are revealed.

A blue_anus post is going to be a picture focused on the rear in some respect, while also having "compatible with blue" color schemes.

so it's misuse of the tagging system, but it exists because it doesn't break the rules. Creating an ultra-specific tag which is used on one post is misuse within the rules too.

Blue_anus is not ultra specific.

Ultra specific tags are unlikely to be used by many, if any additional posts. Pink_shoes_with_black_socks is ultra specific. Red_cat_clock is ultra specific. Silver_crescent_moon_pendant_necklace is ultra specific. Stone_jade_rabbit_statue. Dancing_in_the_rain_while_holding_an_umbrella. black_fur_with_blue_and_gold_markings. Those are ultra specific. Blue_anus is not ultra specific.

NotMeNotYou said:
We did a pretty good job to have this in place for all site features. Your example with too specific tags falls flat because the existence of those tags is arguably not disruptive to the search function. Having those tags, or any other specific tags, doesn't mean that other searches no longer work, thus it's not abuse. It is arguably pointless, I'll give you that, but that's a completely discussion.

It's pure terminology issue. We both consider "pointless" tags "not disruptive" and "within rules", yet you include only "disruptive, spamming, defamatory" in "misuse", but I include "pointless" and "not for intended purpose" in "misuse" too. So with your terminology, "misuse" is equivalent to "not within rules", but not so with mine, I use "misuse" as a wider concept. Overall, I don't think this is worth arguing about.

("Misuse" also isn't inherently "bad". Having *_warning tags in the artist category is misuse of the feature, but it's the best way given the lack of functionality to display post-specific warnings.)

SnowWolf said:
I know for a fact that some people specifically search for things like blue_nipples because they LIKE blue nipples.

I would totally love statistics from admins which show which tags are used in search, how often, by how many users, maybe even with distribution and other details. Otherwise we're doomed to make up theories which aren't connected to the real world.

Also, unless there're enough users who tag every single post with colors of anus, most pictures will have untagged anuses. I can reasonably expect most uploaders to think about tagging sex positions and animal genitals, but it requires several dedicated taggers to get a tag like blue_anus going.

Blue_anus is not ultra specific.

I should have put that part into a separate paragraph, it was a separate point.

KinkyGlutamate said:
For example, people tag colors of assholes and other nonsense nobody in the right state of mind would ever search for or filter with. It's silly, it's useless, it's never complete, makes people laugh about e621's tagging, so it's misuse of the tagging system, but it exists because it doesn't break the rules.

i dont think that you really understand the use of those tags. tags like these are not that much intended for general browsing or blacklisting, but more for categorizing and narrowing down search results when you are looking for specific image

i mean imagine that you saw an amazing drawing years ago and you want to see it again, but only thing you can remember that it had male anthro fox with blue anus.
male anthro fox brings metric fuckton of results and doesnt really help with finding this specific piece. but male anthro fox blue_anus brings notably less results and its a lot easier to find this specific image.

and also after spending years on this site, i have seen ton of people bitching about too many characters having blue genitals and assholes, so yes, its useful for blacklisting too.

also just because its not perfectly tagged on every image doesnt mean that its bad tag that should be get rid of.
like just take a look at all the images that are missing gender tags completely:
-male -female -intersex -zero_pictured -ambiguous_gender

KinkyGlutamate said:
I would totally love statistics from admins which show which tags are used in search, how often, by how many users, maybe even with distribution and other details.

That would be a rather gross violation of people's privacy. It would be interesting though, but I would expect that the information's not stored.

Otherwise we're doomed to make up theories which aren't connected to the real world.

So. Hi. I'm SnowWolf. I've been a member of this website for 8 years and was an active member of the administration team for a few years. My 'domain' was tags. I spent numerous hours each day in the forums, was a part of many discussions about tags and their uses. At that point in time, there were a couple dozen people who were happily participating in regular conversation about tags, and were wiling to devote their time to retagging posts.

So, please assume that I am speaking from a position of experience and knowledge and familiarity when I say to you, firmly: People like and use those tags. People argued for those tags to continue to exist when we discussed the question "should these tags still exist?" People, personally, said "I like these tags" when other people said "Does anyone even use these tags?"

I don't know if I can be any clearer on that. My experience is based on the real, tangible world.

Also, unless there're enough users who tag every single post with colors of anus, most pictures will have untagged anuses. I can reasonably expect most uploaders to think about tagging sex positions and animal genitals, but it requires several dedicated taggers to get a tag like blue_anus going.

People not using the tags they *should* use is not a shortcoming of the tags themselves.

Mario69 said:
Todex was DNP artist. What this means their artwork was deleted and thus favoriting and voting did not work with those posts. Now the artwork has been restored, so the posts work and can be accessed.

Oh, that explains the mystery. Thanks for that!

If it doesn’t fit into site rules or if they just don’t like the content... I’d down vote posts that include things I don’t like, such as weird posts that don’t look like they’ll arouse me at ALL.

SnowWolf said:
That would be a rather gross violation of people's privacy.

Only if you put usernames with it. Making public that "tag t was searced for x times between date a and b" doesn't violate anyones privaxy. Then again you are probably roght in that the information is not stored. Still, would be interesting.

Commander_Eggplant said:
i dont think that you really understand the use of those tags. tags like these are not that much intended for general browsing or blacklisting, but more for categorizing and narrowing down search results when you are looking for specific image

If most posts are tagged with the color of anus, then it can be used for narrowing down search. Something (like the search anus ~blue_fur ~blue_skin -blue_anus) tells me it's not the case.

and also after spending years on this site, i have seen ton of people bitching about too many characters having blue genitals and assholes, so yes, its useful for blacklisting too.

They may bitch all the time, but no way in hell they'll actually blacklist it.

You know, blacklist statistics have been posted some time ago, if I remember correctly, so that hypothesis can actually be checked. I would laugh my ass off if blue_anus is in fact frequently blacklisted. 😆

also just because its not perfectly tagged on every image doesnt mean that its bad tag that should be get rid of.
like just take a look at all the images that are missing gender tags completely:
-male -female -intersex -zero_pictured -ambiguous_gender

If you skip the first pages, the vast majority of posts are rating:safe, so can be tagged nobody_gives_a_fuck_about_gender. 😁

SnowWolf said:
People argued for those tags to continue to exist when we discussed the question "should these tags still exist?" People, personally, said "I like these tags" when other people said "Does anyone even use these tags?"

These people could be a loud minority. I believe only data.

KinkyGlutamate said:
These people could be a loud minority. I believe only data.

Yet, tagging blue_anus hurts no one, so even if it is a minority, it doesn't matter.

The whole point of this was you said no one uses those tags. Even a "loud minority" is, in fact, someone.

KinkyGlutamate said:
If most posts are tagged with the color of anus, then it can be used for narrowing down search. Something (like the search anus ~blue_fur ~blue_skin -blue_anus) tells me it's not the case.

They may bitch all the time, but no way in hell they'll actually blacklist it.

You know, blacklist statistics have been posted some time ago, if I remember correctly, so that hypothesis can actually be checked. I would laugh my ass off if blue_anus is in fact frequently blacklisted. 

If you skip the first pages, the vast majority of posts are rating:safe, so can be tagged nobody_gives_a_fuck_about_gender. 

...yahhh im not gonna waste any more time on this thread because this is about as fruitful as arguing with a wall. bye.

CCoyote said:
It's not my intention to stifle conversation, but @KinkyGlutamate, have you considered the possibility that there may be more informed opinions that differ from yours? It kind of sounds like you just want someone to tell you you're right.

If you don't like the tags, don't use them. Or, as you advocate so zealously for everyone else to do, blacklist them.

He's using the Tags as a standin for his real argument which is about the arbitrary voting system and how he feels that it should only be used to upvote/downvote on the quality of the content and not how people feel about it.

KinkyGlutamate said:
These people could be a loud minority. I believe only data.

You believe in how you perceive the limited data you get, and appear to think that if everyone else does not strictly adhere to the way you've analyzed your inherently faulty system, they're unquestionably and undeniably wrong.

No one of any value has ever said the voting system has any obligations in its usage. It isn't for ascertaining quality. It isn't for determining popularity. Its sole purpose is allowing a user to express how they feel about something, which they are permitted to do in any way they see fit, insofar as they do so without being demonstrably malicious in a way that violates the rules.

I for one do search the site for new art based on score. If something filtered by my blacklist doesn't gain a score of at least 10, I'll never see it. This filters out a lot of what I consider low quality art. As for downvoting, I rarely do it, but when I do I just vote and do not explain myself. Doing so is usually futile because the white knight types just downvote that sort of comment out of view anyway. I don't see any reason to expend the effort. I cast my vote and move on.