As an example, there's an artist, lucas mist, whose signature includes a guillotine:

post #4377363

should this be tagged with guillotine or would that only serve to clog things up?

Generally if a thing is visible in the image, it should be tagged. If someone doesn't want to see guillotines and blacklists guillotine, they shouldn't still be subjected to them because it happens to be part of someone's signature.

watsit said:
Generally if a thing is visible in the image, it should be tagged. If someone doesn't want to see guillotines and blacklists guillotine, they shouldn't still be subjected to them because it happens to be part of someone's signature.

I could've sworn there was a past forum thread that came to the opposite conclusion, but now I can't find it. Maybe I'm misremembering

cloudpie said:
I could've sworn there was a past forum thread that came to the opposite conclusion, but now I can't find it. Maybe I'm misremembering

There is disagreement on exactly how to deal with it. Sometimes elements of someone's signature can seem too trivial to tag, other times they can seem relevant to tag. But generally the site's rule for tagging is "If something's visible, it can be tagged". Not everyone will know or remember of some element is part of the signature or not, and sometimes the signature contains elements that must be tagged and factor into the post's rating (e.g. genitals on an otherwise safe image, cub stuff, fetish stuff, etc).

'it should be tagged' makes sense to me on the basis that if someone wants to search 'X, but not counting signatures' or 'not X, but not counting signatures', there are few enough artists that have objects in their signature that making such a search or blacklist-rule wouldn't be difficult.

It would be nice to be able to distinguish tags applied due to 'annotation' content (such as signatures) from tags applied due to 'primary' content, but that is probably beyond the scope of the discussion.

I would say that would fall under the artist_logo tag more than whatever the logo is or contains. including whatever the logo is in the tags can perceive to be a problem. Lets say there were over 100 posts of Lucas Mist's art all with the guillotine logo. over a third of those images are now just irrelevant pics except for a guillotine logo in the corner.

watsit said:
Generally if a thing is visible in the image, it should be tagged. If someone doesn't want to see guillotines and blacklists guillotine, they shouldn't still be subjected to them because it happens to be part of someone's signature.

I would say it would be more jarring to be looking for pictures with guillotines in it and see a unrelated post in there. If someone blacklists guillotine it's most likely to avoid seeing them in use or about to be used than them randomly in a image. It is more likely that same someone would like OP's image but misses it because of their filter.

sometimes the signature contains elements that must be tagged and factor into the post's rating (e.g. genitals on an otherwise safe image, cub stuff, fetish stuff, etc).

Has there been an instance where an artist puts a NSFW signature on a Safe image? that seams like a specific situation that has a very minimal possibility which should be treated as an exception not a rule.

bill_furray said:
I would say it would be more jarring to be looking for pictures with guillotines in it and see a unrelated post in there. If someone blacklists guillotine it's most likely to avoid seeing them in use or about to be used than them randomly in a image. It is more likely that same someone would like OP's image but misses it because of their filter.

Blacklist or search guillotine -lucas_mist then.
If somebody doesn't want to see real humans, then it falls to them to make exceptions, not random taggers. If they want to see images where the real humans are a reference image, then they can construct their blacklist that way.