In e926 they recently removed the Questionable and Explicit tags.
I guess I will be forced to go on e621 now.

thatbluejaygirl said:
In e926 they recently removed the Questionable and Explicit tags.
I guess I will be forced to go on e621 now.

That's not recent. The entire point of the said sister site, from day one, was to be safe images only.

This is an intended change, the site previously was not correctly applying the safe filter to the pages, and I got around to fixing the bug. e926 is the "bleached" version of e621, so it only displays safe content.

Hello,

On the e926 site, I can currently see the "NOX" ad (with two dildoes) on a post. I was under the impression that the ads are supposed to be SFW there as well as the content.

Also, is e926 supposed to have the "Over 18?" popup? That started appearing recently.

I regularly post e926 links to SFW forums, and my workplace Web filter allows the site (quite a feat when LGBTQ advocacy sites tend to be flagged as porn), so I'm anxious to ensure it stays spic-and-span...

butdoesitrunlinux said:
Hello,

On the e926 site, I can currently see the "NOX" ad (with two dildoes) on a post. I was under the impression that the ads are supposed to be SFW there as well as the content.

Also, is e926 supposed to have the "Over 18?" popup? That started appearing recently.

I regularly post e926 links to SFW forums, and my workplace Web filter allows the site (quite a feat when LGBTQ advocacy sites tend to be flagged as porn), so I'm anxious to ensure it stays spic-and-span...

Ads are exactly the same as they are in here and because the site is technically the same as this, same rules apply which includes requirement of being 18 years old.

mairo said:
Ads are exactly the same as they are in here and because the site is technically the same as this, same rules apply which includes requirement of being 18 years old.

Kind of defeats the purpose of a "bleached" site. Sadly if someone was trying to use e6 safely through that site, they would need to adblock it to not get such nonsense

There used to be ads specific to the e9 site, but I need to double check what is going on with them. I'm not sure if anything is currently in rotation, or if the mobile ads are using a different rotation from the desktop ads. The 18+ warning still applies because despite images, the site does contain content that makes reference adult topics.

kiranoot said:
There used to be ads specific to the e9 site, but I need to double check what is going on with them. I'm not sure if anything is currently in rotation, or if the mobile ads are using a different rotation from the desktop ads. The 18+ warning still applies because despite images, the site does contain content that makes reference adult topics.

FWIW, I've been admonished in the past by other users for making lewd comments on safe-rated posts. That's not an official rule, but I thought it was a good convention to follow, for the sake of keeping e926 safe for general audiences.

Now, however, the 18+ warning kills the use case of e926 as a lightweight, polished site to link to from SFW forums (e.g. videogame forums on Reddit). Is it the user-comment text that is the potentially adult-topic-referencing content, thus making the warning necessary?

Also, one other thing: There really needs to be an official page in the site's documentation describing exactly what e926 is, and isn't, in relation to e621. I once had an issue with mods in a Reddit forum who were hiding posts I made with e926 links, stating that I was linking to NSFW content. I was able to convince them that e926 is in fact SFW (an impression that now appears to be mistaken). But one thing I looked for in support of that, but could not find, was an official page that made any mention of e926, at all. There were forum mentions of it, for sure, but nothing definitive. So the most I had to go on was my own experience of the site, which made it seem that the e621 team went to quite a bit of effort to make a SFW subset of the site that would be usable to general audiences. (The mods probably checked out my links, and confirmed that e926 appeared consistent with that view.)

butdoesitrunlinux said:
FWIW, I've been admonished in the past by other users for making lewd comments on safe-rated posts. That's not an official rule, but I thought it was a good convention to follow, for the sake of keeping e926 safe for general audiences.

Now, however, the 18+ warning kills the use case of e926 as a lightweight, polished site to link to from SFW forums (e.g. videogame forums on Reddit). Is it the user-comment text that is the potentially adult-topic-referencing content, thus making the warning necessary?

I mean, e926 is at the end of the day a mirror site which gets the same content to e621, which is an adult site. I recall it originally simply having rating:s as a locked search item though I don't know if that's the still the case. So it being an adult site wouldn't change due to a URL change. There has been numerous occasions of poorly rated and tagged content making it into the e926 when it's quite literally porn due to the OP adding rating:s

The mirror is more or less of those who aren't interested in the lewd content e6 archives, or something that is quite literal to the term, Safe for work.

versperus said:
I mean, e926 is at the end of the day a mirror site which gets the same content to e621, which is an adult site. I recall it originally simply having rating:s as a locked search item though I don't know if that's the still the case. So it being an adult site wouldn't change due to a URL change. There has been numerous occasions of poorly rated and tagged content making it into the e926 when it's quite literally porn due to the OP adding rating:s

The mirror is more or less of those who aren't interested in the lewd content e6 archives, or something that is quite literal to the term, Safe for work.

Rating explicit content as Safe is a pretty serious violation of the rules here. And I'll bet most instances of it aren't even intentional, e.g. the "oh, wait, the cute kitty has a butthole... Explicit" scenario.

It does seem like e926 is basically just a shortcut for a "rating:s" filter (along with filtering the userpics, and maybe the ads). While that is certainly e621's prerogative, it is much less ambitious, and useful, than what I had previously understood it to be.

Now, I don't even get why it's served from a different domain, especially if getting around Web filters was not intended. If you just wanted an easily-accessible Safe filter, including for non-logged-in users, a checkbox in the corner of the page (that sets a cookie flag) would have sufficed. Why go to the trouble of making everything work with two different base URLs?

butdoesitrunlinux said:
Rating explicit content as Safe is a pretty serious violation of the rules here. And I'll bet most instances of it aren't even intentional, e.g. the "oh, wait, the cute kitty has a butthole... Explicit" scenario.

It does seem like e926 is basically just a shortcut for a "rating:s" filter (along with filtering the userpics, and maybe the ads). While that is certainly e621's prerogative, it is much less ambitious, and useful, than what I had previously understood it to be.

Now, I don't even get why it's served from a different domain, especially if getting around Web filters was not intended. If you just wanted an easily-accessible Safe filter, including for non-logged-in users, a checkbox in the corner of the page (that sets a cookie flag) would have sufficed. Why go to the trouble of making everything work with two different base URLs?

If I recall correctly, e926 also functions as a testing grounds for site development