I know there was another thread on this already, I made it after all, but can a tag be implicated to a spesific rating? Spesificly rating:s

I'm tired of seeing,
post #423338
As cute

Same with Sex, mainly blowjob pictures. Sucking cock ain't cute.

Can we at least have someone add to the wiki saying what not to be tagged as cute, pleeease!
So far people tag things cute are:
Fat
Blowjobs
Cumshots
Sex
Gay sex
Cub rape/sex

as well as the correct ones
Chibi
Kittens
Ect

I've seen it used when a character has a (somewhat) cute face, such as in your example.

It should be expressed in the wiki that cute should be used when a post is rated as safe (it may still apply to questionable posts too)

Yeah, rating implications are a bad thing.

As long as tony doesn't decide to code a solution in that will simply not work.

Also, post #422574 those cats are fat, are you arguing they can't be cute?

NotMeNotYou said:
Yeah, rating implications are a bad thing.

As long as tony doesn't decide to code a solution in that will simply not work.

Also, post #422574 those cats are fat, are you arguing they can't be cute?

I'm refering to the ones that arnt cute, anthros (not chibi or feral, but morbidly obease furrys) Naked, masturbating, or having sex.

If they have a cute "expression" tagnit as cute_face or cute_expression

Cute?
https://e621.net/post/show/423581
https://e621.net/post/show/421005
https://e621.net/post/show/421817
https://e621.net/post/show/411796/2013-4_toes-5_fingers-absurd_res-anal-anal_penetra

THIS, this is cute:
https://e621.net/post/show/422596/ambiguous_gender-big_eyes-black_eyes-black_nose-br
Basically I'm trying to say its basicly a free for all tag, anything and everything could be considered cute unless you place spesific guidelines aroundnit.

The cute tag shouldn't be only exclusive to safe or questionable images. A lot of explicit images deserve to be tagged as cute.

Examples: post #418394 post #414877 post #408352 post #406806

There's a reason why the wiki says "usually not erotic in nature" and not "always not erotic in nature"

TheHuskyK9 said:
The cute tag shouldn't be only exclusive to safe or questionable images. A lot of explicit images deserve to be tagged as cute.

Examples: post #418394 post #414877 post #408352 post #406806

There's a reason why the wiki says "usually not erotic in nature" and not "always not erotic in nature"

Eeergh...ive always been bad at explaining and getting my points across..ok lets see...
uuhm. What I mean to say is
what if the wiki said say.
"Usually not explicit images.
This tag is meant to describe images that a majority would consider cute, not personal preferences of a single individual."
Or something like that.

Like how anal_masturbation has:
" Images or animations depicting a characterofeithergender masturbating by sexually stimulatingtheirown anus, whether

through fingering or by penetration with a sex toy.

Despitethestigma on thesubject,anal masturbationis not an indicatorthata male character is homosexual; as with all other

masturbationimages, maleanal masturbationimages arenotto betagged with any orientation at all.

Why not follow what danboouru does with their disgustingly adorable pool?

They have this for a description: Pictures that invoke so much adoration that they cause near physical harm to occur.
This is far above the level of just cute or even adorable. Pictures that are HHHNNNGGGGG worthy.

The pool in question

Patchi said:
Why not follow what danboouru does with their disgustingly adorable pool?

They have this for a description: Pictures that invoke so much adoration that they cause near physical harm to occur.
This is far above the level of just cute or even adorable. Pictures that are HHHNNNGGGGG worthy.

The pool in question

see THAT makes sense

Esme_Belles said:
see THAT makes sense

No it doesn't.

Also for people thinking blowjobs are not cute, just search -nude cute ...problem solved;

Conker said:
No it doesn't.

Also for people thinking blowjobs are not cute, just search -nude cute ...problem solved;

How does that not make sense?

Esme_Belles said:
see THAT makes sense

So you're saying we should nuke the cute tag and put all the cute images in a pool?

Patchi said:

How does that not make sense?

Because there can be a cute blowjob pictures that fits with that as well .Also nuking the cute tag and putting them all in one pool....wont solve anything as we would still have this problem of users thinking this isnt cute when it is, or this is cute when it isnt

TheHuskyK9 said:
So you're saying we should nuke the cute tag and put all the cute images in a pool?

Honestly. I think the cute tag should be in a pool. Or at least in a set.

Patchi said:
Why not follow what danboouru does with their disgustingly adorable pool?

They have this for a description: Pictures that invoke so much adoration that they cause near physical harm to occur.

That's a good idea, but how about just changing our definition of cute to something similar? It's currently too subjective to be useful, and often simply use it as a synonym for pretty, etc. If it were strictly for nauseatingly cute images, it'd be easier to clean up.

Genjar said:
That's a good idea, but how about just changing our definition of cute to something similar? It's currently too subjective to be useful, and often simply use it as a synonym for pretty, etc. If it were strictly for nauseatingly cute images, it'd be easier to clean up.

Cute is both objective and subjective at the same time because some people use it as an adjective completely synonymous with pretty or handsome or beautiful rather than the dainty or delicate aspect of those terms that it has evolved to mean on its own (cute is derived from the word acute after all), which includes images drawn specifically and obviously to evoke such a feeling, as the last image example I give below is.

https://e621.net/post/show/423581 has cute eyes; while I don't particularily care for the rest of the image (reminds me of a blue Tony the Tiger, which is just wrong on so many levels) his eyes have that soft and delicate style to them that is classified as 'cute'.

https://e621.net/post/show/421817 same here as above, minus the Tony the Tiger reference. Additionally, plush and cuddly style to the artwork in general means the body could be classified as "cute", since if you take out the genitals and cum you'd have a big ol' teddy bear that some kid would be hugging and dragging around everywhere.

https://e621.net/post/show/411796 is not cute, though the two of them do make a sexy pair. We can thank Toh for this one.

https://e621.net/post/show/422574 is just fucking adorable. Anyone who doesn't think so can GTFO >:E (joking, but seriously, it's cute as all hell)

https://e621.net/post/show/423338 is the same as 421817 above.

https://e621.net/post/show/422596/ambiguous_gender-big_eyes-black_eyes-black_nose-br is cute too.

It's not too subjective to be useful, it's just people trying to narrow it down to an over-specified format when the word used for the tag means more than what they want it to mean. :/

If we broke it up into cute_eyes and cute_cheeks and plush or huggable (or some other derivative for being big and cuddly looking, like a teddy bear) and other similar tags so that we can define the exact component of the image that is cute rather than just saying that something in the image is cute, then that would ensue that those traits that are cute are tagged right, while also having a separate catagory for those entirely-cute images.

I'm also just a little bit annoyed that when I made a similar suggestion (give the disgustingly cute images their own tag, over and above 'cute') that it recieved a resounding 'NO'. :P

TheHuskyK9 said:
So you're saying we should nuke the cute tag and put all the cute images in a pool?

No I mean the description. Add the description. No nuking, already know that's never going to happen.

I'm totes in favor for nuking the tag.

The tag is 100% opinion based. I personally may think that this is fucking adorable, but this is butt fugly.

It's like having a sexy tag. Who's job is it to determine what is or is not sexy/cute?

Why not make a "Cute" set? It's a great way for people to "dawwwww" at cute pictures while avoiding tag disputes.

SirAntagonist said:
The tag is 100% opinion based. I personally may think that this is fucking adorable, but this is butt fugly.

But it's not really. The objective aspect of cuteness is how you knew to use those examples: that contains very neotenous elements, and that contains none.

Danbooru tried hard to make it work, but in the end they were forced to invalidate the tag. Because nobody could agree on a good definition. I kind of expect the same to happen here.

Genjar said:
Danbooru tried hard to make it work, but in the end they were forced to invalidate the tag. Because nobody could agree on a good definition. I kind of expect the same to happen here.

It's like trying to explain color.

I'd say invalidate it.

Xch3l said:
It's like trying to explain color.

I'd say invalidate it.

Except we can explain colour to anyone who can see. If you meant explain it to someone who is blind, then that's a fallacious argument because there is no basis for comparison. Assuming you didn't mean the latter, then it's quite easy to look at how it has been shown traditionally, and we can see a lot of childish elements involved in things that are cute (this is part of why Anime is called "cutesy" a lot; eyes too big for the head is but one of the factors, however). Heads too big for the bodies, excessive amounts of fluff, pudgy and stubby bodies with short limbs (as per the cats above) and the like. While we may not want to sit down and hash out absolutely all the variations, it's not so subjective that it cannot be done. We just need to educate people on usage, and, as I noted in my previous post, consider breaking it down a little more for images that have some aspect of it that is cute but the remainder of it isn't. (God, there's one hentai I remember reading where a girl is forced to dress in a super-skimpy swimsuit and wash cars, customer comes in with a car that's actually a rental, passes himself off as a wrestler, tells her to make sure his car is washed good by the time he returns. Antics ensue, he returns to a damaged car, and strongarms her into having sex with him. His sunglasses get taken off by the old bat who runs the car wash, girl sees the eyes that are cute (disturbingly so), falls in love, then quits and takes off with him. It was weird, why it sticks to my memory. >.o)

DrHorse said:
But it's not really. The objective aspect of cuteness is how you knew to use those examples: that contains very neotenous elements, and that contains none.

Neotenous is not synonymous with cute. Something can be void of child-like features and still be considered cute.

And if what you're saying was true, than 90% of pictures with the young tag would be tagged as cute. It's an entirely subjective tag, no matter how you look at it.

SirAntagonist said:
And if what you're saying was true, than 90% of pictures with the young tag would be tagged as cute. It's an entirely subjective tag, no matter how you look at it.

Except the cute tag is about the emphasis of youthful/diminutive features, not just their presence.

A judgement needs to be made, same as with rape, food, gender, happy (sex), etc tags, but that doesn't mean it's entirely subjective.

I think if we can make a good enough description and standard then we don't have to nuke it. It is fairly obvious that it's something people know how to identify for the most part and I'm sure they are wanting to be able to search for it, but I think more information is needed

I agree with 123easy in that we should break it up into categories, but I am unsure what categories exactly. The tag will always be a bit subjective, but that doesn't mean it is totally useless

After speaking with the admins at length, we decided that the cute tag is clearly popular and widely used, so nuking it is not something we will be going forward on.

However, we do hear your points and they are valid, so, as RD said, we could look into implicating cute into other types, such as disgustingly_cute, adorable, and kawaii. What we call them is still up for debate, just an idea.

What does everyone think about that?

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
After speaking with the admins at length, we decided that the cute tag is clearly popular and widely used, so nuking it is not something we will be going forward on.

However, we do hear your points and they are valid, so, as RD said, we could look into implicating cute into other types, such as disgustingly_cute, adorable, and kawaii. What we call them is still up for debate, just an idea.

What does everyone think about that?

As long as said types have a definition to follow I think it's fine :P cause for example, I don't see any difference in those ideas you named (between kawaii, disgustingly_cute, etc...) >.<

Butterscotch said:
As long as said types have a definition to follow I think it's fine :P cause for example, I don't see any difference in those ideas you named (between kawaii, disgustingly_cute, etc...) >.<

In agreement, but understandably it was used as an example without merit as written, so it's obviously meant to be taken with a touch of salt. ;)

123easy said:
In agreement, but understandably it was used as an example without merit as written, so it's obviously meant to be taken with a touch of salt. ;)

If you read my post correctly, you'll notice that I said that as an example too ;)

Butterscotch said:
If you read my post correctly, you'll notice that I said that as an example too ;)

yup, worded it that way for people who'll follow along and not quite read a full post and just skim posts. Maybe with a second "it's just an example" they'll actually catch it. XD

Would cute be the umbrella tag to which disgustingly_cute, adorable, etc. would be implicated?

edidaf said:
Would cute be the umbrella tag to which disgustingly_cute, adorable, etc. would be implicated?

"implicating cute into other types" seems to be.