I'm a little unclear on what it means when a post reads "This post is pending approval. It has been reviewed by 1 approver. 1 believe it isn't relevant." when it doesn't explain what the "relevance" is. Like, relevant to what? Obviously the guidelines explain that unaltered photographs and pictures with only humans aren't relevant, but beyond that it doesn't go into what relevance means for the approval process.

For point of reference, these are the images which have been marked that made me ask this question:

post #2569903 post #2569915 post #2569895 post #2569866 post #2569857 post #2569851 post #2569844 post #2569832

Like, they don't seem any less relevant compared to other pics on this website, and some in the same series got approved. Am I missing something here?

Sometimes, it's because the reviewer thinks the picture's quality isn't quite up to snuff, but needs another set of eyes to look at it to be sure.

clawstripe said:
Sometimes, it's because the reviewer thinks the picture's quality isn't quite up to snuff, but needs another set of eyes to look at it to be sure.

That's helpful to know. Would be nice if it was a bit more specific than "not relevant" though.

clawstripe said:
Sometimes, it's because the reviewer thinks the picture's quality isn't quite up to snuff, but needs another set of eyes to look at it to be sure.

These are two different, unrelated things.

It has been reviewed by 1 approver. 1 believe it doesn't meet the quality standards.

It has been reviewed by 1 approver. 1 believe it isn't relevant.

The problem with those images is that suits of any kind aren't exactly relevant to us, and particularly if they appear to just be clothing and fully hide the character below them they drastically go into the area where they might be inanimate objects (meaning irrelevant) or might be a human cosplaying (also irrelevant).

notmenotyou said:
The problem with those images is that suits of any kind aren't exactly relevant to us, and particularly if they appear to just be clothing and fully hide the character below them they drastically go into the area where they might be inanimate objects (meaning irrelevant) or might be a human cosplaying (also irrelevant).

Wouldn't a suit with nothing in it be relevant? I thought animate inanimates were relevant. For instance, look at all the living plane art we get. Also look at all the FNAF stuff. Couldn't you interpret a huge amount of FNAF stuff as furry suits? At least some of these suits certainly seem expressive, even if they don't have faces.

I'll add this one that I recently came across. The character is an anthro butterfly, and even if we discount the non-human skin tones, her wings are clearly visible, yet it's marked irrelevant. In another image her wings AND antenna are visible. Still marked irrelevant. There are 16 images of this character under her own tag, most are not marked irrelevant. It feels like the reviewer just sped past the two images ASAP and just assumed she was an oddly-colored human.

post #2587461

clawdragons said:
Wouldn't a suit with nothing in it be relevant? I thought animate inanimates were relevant. For instance, look at all the living plane art we get. Also look at all the FNAF stuff. Couldn't you interpret a huge amount of FNAF stuff as furry suits? At least some of these suits certainly seem expressive, even if they don't have faces.

Animate inanimates are relevant, but we wouldn't want a drawing of what is literally just a lamp. Animal suits or cosplay sounds like it should be relevant too.

drakkenfyre said:
I'll add this one that I recently came across. The character is an anthro butterfly, and even if we discount the non-human skin tones, her wings are clearly visible, yet it's marked irrelevant. In another image her wings AND antenna are visible. Still marked irrelevant. There are 16 images of this character under her own tag, most are not marked irrelevant. It feels like the reviewer just sped past the two images ASAP and just assumed she was an oddly-colored human.

post #2587461

Skin color is always ignored. Doug had humans with green or blue skin, but they were still human. As for the wings... That looked like an art sculpture when I look at it.

I also saw a lot of posts with robot characters getting marked as not relevant recently. Which is funny because those characters already have tens if not hundreds of posts in their respective tags. I guess whoever the reviewer was just marked anything non-furry as not relevant.

furrin_gok said:
Animate inanimates are relevant, but we wouldn't want a drawing of what is literally just a lamp. Animal suits or cosplay sounds like it should be relevant too.

Yes, which is why I mentioned that at least some of the pictures seem to be expressive - they lack faces, but is that sufficient to declare them inanimate? What are any of the criteria used to determine if something is animate or inanimate? If that sort of stuff is judged not-relevant, I would be perhaps a bit surprised because it seems to fit in well with other accepted content, but I don't really have any stake in the outcome one way or another.

clawdragons said:
Yes, which is why I mentioned that at least some of the pictures seem to be expressive - they lack faces, but is that sufficient to declare them inanimate? What are any of the criteria used to determine if something is animate or inanimate? If that sort of stuff is judged not-relevant, I would be perhaps a bit surprised because it seems to fit in well with other accepted content, but I don't really have any stake in the outcome one way or another.

notmenotyou said:
The problem with those images is that suits of any kind aren't exactly relevant to us, and particularly if they appear to just be clothing and fully hide the character below them they drastically go into the area where they might be inanimate objects (meaning irrelevant) or might be a human cosplaying (also irrelevant).

In this particular case the people, or pokemon, wearing the suits are very clearly alive, and there's lots of characters without defacto faces. Faceless is even a tag already with over 500 entries. I'm pretty sure what clothes a character is wearing or what they're made from isn't really grounds for declaring it irrelevant.

Not that I want to risk a ban by arguing with an admin.

timeswordsman said:
Not that I want to risk a ban by arguing with an admin.

Never heard of anyone getting banned just by arguing with an admin here, as long as (1) they remain civil and generally follow site rules, and (2) stop if told directly to stop. Your contribution seems relevant, I wouldn't worry about it if I were in your position.

And given I'm arguing with an admin right now (well, kind of, more "discussing" really), I guess I am.

notmenotyou said:
The problem with those images is that suits of any kind aren't exactly relevant to us, and particularly if they appear to just be clothing and fully hide the character below them they drastically go into the area where they might be inanimate objects (meaning irrelevant) or might be a human cosplaying (also irrelevant).

Sorry to bring this back but how come these pics got approved while the aforementioned ones didn't? is there a difference I'm not seeing?

post #2569871 post #2569828 post #2569887 post #2574242 post #2569910

Maybe I'm mistaken, but if shit like elves are relevant, surely suits based on animals are at least as, if not more, relevant given one can actually argue a bare minimum of connection to furry subculture whereas the same cannnot be done for elves/humans with funny ears/blue-skinned space babes?

votp said:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but if shit like elves are relevant, surely suits based on animals are at least as, if not more, relevant given one can actually argue a bare minimum of connection to furry subculture whereas the same cannnot be done for elves/humans with funny ears/blue-skinned space babes?

Luckily they got approved. Still concerning it took so much effort.