KloH0und said:
Except this is what we were supposed to have been doing THE WHOLE DAMN TIME.

Then why did nobody suggest it before? ._.

Riversyde said:
Then why did nobody suggest it before? ._.

Because that would help solve the issue, and would leave no room for pointless bickering and bad ideas. And that
JUST
WON'T
DO

Riversyde said:
Then why did nobody suggest it before? ._.

The problem is that some people want to be able to find images of herms even if you can't tell by the image alone that the character is a herm.

Char said:
The problem is that some people want to be able to find images of herms even if you can't tell by the image alone that the character is a herm.

I don't think anyone actually comes to the site thinking, "I want to find images of herms that don't look like herms." I think it's more that some people feel like the image is tagged incorrectly when they see a character they "know" is a herm tagged as a female or male.

Char said:
It's funny because I didn't make this rule. This rule has been around since looong before I was here, I'm just reiterating it again because we've been having issues with people tagging stuff that they can't see.

But no, the rule is not here specifically to piss off artists and character owners, although that is a side-effect. I WISH IT WASN'T, but as things are right now, it is. This is why I'm honestly considering the previously mentioned suggestion of having secondary tags for "declared" genders for when they disagree with the "apparent" gender.

I don't know, if this rule was around for so long then I noticed a lot of people readily ignoring it. But I look at a different set of artwork then seems to be the main concern here. I actually almost never look at or deal with intersex characters on this site, but characters of a more genderbent nature, eg. men who look like women and women who look like men. What I noticed there is a lot of people seemed to be able to keep track of what the characters ACTUAL gender was and were tagging based on that.

The truth is, I don't think tagging based purely on what you see is exactly as effective as it's made out to be. I think it's good to start out with, but within reason, why is inferring a few details such a horrible thing? The best example I can think of is: What if I want to look for vampires on this site? Well, what pure visual indications are there for a character being a vampire? Sharp teeth? A person can have sharp teeth without being a vampire so that's not entirely accurate. What then do we have to indicate that any given character is a vampire besides outside sources like backstory and inferred information based on the notion of what a vampire appears to be? Not a whole lot. Yet some how we have 117 tags for 'vampire' out there.

The thing is, people will search based on CONTENT rather than just visual cues. It's not just some miniscule amount of the userbase. And when we have the comment system where we can sit down and go 'this character looks like X here, but they're really Y, here's the proof' just in case there's any confusion, which is what a lot of people have done, it seems to almost over complicate things to step back now and have to take it again from the ground up.

Then again, if what you're saying is true and that this rule has been around all this time, maybe people will just continue to ignore it like they have been? Hard to say at this point.

Whatever the case, I hope you can find some kind of solution. Being as I will probably continue to make content-based searches, and it seems silly to me to completely remove the principle of it from the site.

JustFrame said:
The best example I can think of is: What if I want to look for vampires on this site? Well, what pure visual indications are there for a character being a vampire? Sharp teeth? A person can have sharp teeth without being a vampire so that's not entirely accurate. What then do we have to indicate that any given character is a vampire besides outside sources like backstory and inferred information based on the notion of what a vampire appears to be? Not a whole lot.

Now let's say I kind of really hate vampires and have blacklisted them. Now there's a whole bunch of images that are tagged vampire, and therefore hidden from me, that don't even LOOK like a vampire, and are only tagged that way because the artist went "by the way, he's a vampire, even though he doesn't actually look like one".

That's what we're trying to avoid: needless blacklisting.

I don't know if this has been covered, but what about instances where the 'apparent gender' has shifted in a series of pictures? Speaking in the instance of
http://e621.net/post/show/158996
http://e621.net/post/show/159362
http://e621.net/post/show/159363

I understand the rules you're trying to set down, and don't mean to disrespect them, but breaking up the gender tagging on a series of images seems nonsensical to me.

Captain_Jackal said:
I don't know if this has been covered, but what about instances where the 'apparent gender' has shifted in a series of pictures? Speaking in the instance of
http://e621.net/post/show/158996
http://e621.net/post/show/159362
http://e621.net/post/show/159363

I understand the rules you're trying to set down, and don't mean to disrespect them, but breaking up the gender tagging on a series of images seems nonsensical to me.

Agreed, it is silly and a bit dysfunctional, but if we make exceptions to that, then we'll have to make exceptions to other things too, and before long, the point of having the rule in the first place will be entirely undermined.

tony311 said:
Now let's say I kind of really hate vampires and have blacklisted them. Now there's a whole bunch of images that are tagged vampire, and therefore hidden from me, that don't even LOOK like a vampire, and are only tagged that way because the artist went "by the way, he's a vampire, even though he doesn't actually look like one".

That's what we're trying to avoid: needless blacklisting.

Yet, in the process, don't you sort of make the 'vampire' tag redundant? The blacklist in turn, won't work for the things you hate if images are not tagged with what you don't like.

It's not like I don't get where this is coming from, it provides a certain consistency. But it just seems like there is a much less imperious method of doing this, that won't disassemble the concept of images being tagged by content as well as their raw visual components.

JustFrame said:
Yet, in the process, don't you sort of make the 'vampire' tag redundant? The blacklist in turn, won't work for the things you hate if images are not tagged with what you don't like.

It's not like I don't get where this is coming from, it provides a certain consistency. But it just seems like there is a much less imperious method of doing this, that won't disassemble the concept of images being tagged by content as well as their raw visual components.

The vampire tag gets used exactly like it's designed to be used; on images clearly depicting a vampire.

Char said:
The problem is that some people want to be able to find images of herms even if you can't tell by the image alone that the character is a herm.

We do have a wiki search function, you know.

ippiki_ookami said:
Because that would help solve the issue, and would leave no room for pointless bickering and bad ideas. And that
JUST
WON'T
DO

I guess I missed the point of the thread. Sorry :((((

Hey, what about images that are part of a series? I'd say that if a previous image in the series establishes someone as a dickgirl, they should be tagged as one in images after that in the series, even if it is not obvious when looking at them. I mean, an image series like a comic should be tagged as if you're reading the whole thing. If someone wants to blacklist a particular element that shows up everywhere in that story then they would not be pleased if a few images snuck through.

Shitake said:
Hey, what about images that are part of a series? I'd say that if a previous image in the series establishes someone as a dickgirl, they should be tagged as one in images after that in the series, even if it is not obvious when looking at them. I mean, an image series like a comic should be tagged as if you're reading the whole thing. If someone wants to blacklist a particular element that shows up everywhere in that story then they would not be pleased if a few images snuck through.

Yeah, I could agree with that. Tagging a default gender for a character in a comic if it is shown.
Only in that comic though, nowhere else.

Riversyde said:
Then why did nobody suggest it before? ._.

It was, and discarded by the idiots. They MUST have their tags. -.-

I had a thought.

Perhaps you could use tags like herm_(character) for characters like artica. Where the character in the image is known to be artica, and that character is known to be herm. (For which the image itself indicates neither.)

If it were up to me, given that these are mutually exclusive categories if you can see all the bits, I'd be happiest with a scheme that admits some ambiguity where it exists. Like:

• Is a character conceivably male, by any good argument? Then tag male.
• Is a character conceivably female, by any good argument? Then tag female.
• Is a character conceivably a herm, by any good argument? Then tag herm.
• And so on for any other real or imaginary sex.

This may mean some characters get tagged both ways. That's OK, because people who want to filter out anything that's conceivably female or a herm, say, are catered for. And people who want to filter *in* something that could conceivably be female win out too.

(What does "could conceivably be" mean? I'll admit the wording is fairly open to interpretation, but I wanted concision. To me it means A) that there's some evidence in the pic or elsewhere - like a modelsheet or earlier pics in the sequence - backing it up. B) "it looks like could be", without anyone having to fuck around and squint sideways or deepthroat some political agenda. And C) that there's no direct, obvious evidence of it being one of the other ones in the image itself (and nowhere else).)

Hopefully that's not rocket surgery.

Oh, and if nothing above matched, tag ambiguous sex if a character of that type would normally have a sex.

Riversyde said:
Maybe Furaffinity's search system would better suit your needs.

Maybe if anybody tagged shit on FA.

Anomynous... if we tag genders based on what could conceivably be possible, when tagging a pic that doesn't show under the belt, all this could happen:

• Males would get tagged cuntboy/maleherm/male.

Females would get tagged female/dickgirl/herm.
Characters with ambiguous genders would get tagged all genders, same for girly-boy head shots.

And just below the belt?

• Pictures of just dicks would get tagged male/dickgirl/herm.

Pictures of just vaginas would get tagged herm/female/cuntboy.

...need I continue?
I see my (and whoever suggested it before's) solution as the best solution to this problem.

Riversyde said:
Anomynous... if we tag genders based on what could conceivably be possible, when tagging a pic that doesn't show under the belt, all this could happen:

• Males would get tagged cuntboy/maleherm/male.

Females would get tagged female/dickgirl/herm.
Characters with ambiguous genders would get tagged all genders, same for girly-boy head shots.

Maybe the "conceivably" was too strong. It was qualified with "by any good argument" though.

The tags are mutually exclusive by nature. So it's never a good argument to say that it's all of them if there's no deliberate ambiguity going on. Only then should you admit contradictions ☺

In this case, just by looking at the pics, there's no direct evidence towards your first and second bullet points being Male or Female - or any of the alternatives in the respective lists - so it falls foul of criterion A) too. As to your third bullet point above, you'd need some evidence from somewhere before doing that.

Sounds bleak, doesn't it? Many things you wouldn't expect being tagged ambiguous sex. But you should get to admit external sources and common knowledge as secondary evidence, if you bother to link them. It's what we do for character names, after all: why not for character sex? Secondary evidence like this which can be verified independently should override non-deliberate ambiguity, and even some secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics.

(I try to link to external sources when there's a reference people might not get, to help prevent somebody who doesn't understand the reference from removing the tag.)

And just below the belt?

• Pictures of just dicks would get tagged male/dickgirl/herm.

Pictures of just vaginas would get tagged herm/female/cuntboy.

...need I continue?
I see my (and whoever suggested it before's) solution as the best solution to this problem.

You should tag penis, or vulva (or vagina if spread open enough; an oozing pox upon that infantile "pussy" tag that's crept in). That's what you can do from the evidence of the image alone, and it's probably enough for a lot of people who use filters.

The examples above are "ambiguous sex" too, strictly - unless you have something else to back you up. Fully admit I don't like to say a cock right in your face is an ambiguous thing though. Perhaps not tagging a character's sex when you can't see an entire character is best? Perhaps amend to say that this is one of those times where you can assume one of male/female and also tag (oh, I don't know) "incomplete sex" or "female (assumed)" to make it obvious. It's a free-form tagging system, maybe something will emerge if it's a real problem.

Yeah, but if users just want penis with no extras, they would most likely search male penis.
And it may be a freeform tagging system, but we do have guidelines on these sorts of things.

Is this really that big of a problem? Do we really need all of this complication?

Seriously, learn to pick your battles.

Stated_Female
Stated_Male
Stated_Dickgirl
Stated_Herm
Stated_Cuntboy
Stated_Genderless?
I can't think of any other genders at the moment.

Look. It solves everything. Perfectly. This was brought up pages ago.
People who blacklist "Herm" will still see images of "Stated_Herm"'s that look "Female". No unnecessary blacklisting occurs. For those who care what the artist says, they can search for their preferred "Stated_Gender" and everything is fucking golden. Are we done now?

This shit was solved days ago.

Atani said:
Stated_Female
Stated_Male
Stated_Dickgirl
Stated_Herm
Stated_Cuntboy
Stated_Genderless?
I can't think of any other genders at the moment.

Look. It solves everything. Perfectly. This was brought up pages ago.
People who blacklist "Herm" will still see images of "Stated_Herm"'s that look "Female". No unnecessary blacklisting occurs. For those who care what the artist says, they can search for their preferred "Stated_Gender" and everything is fucking golden. Are we done now?

This shit was solved days ago.

Sounds good to me. The only people who could possibly not like this are the ones who actually look at the tags instead of fapping.

... Now that I've wasted 30 minutes I didn't have reading through this thread to make sure this wasn't already asked/suggested/opined (Which I guess it was, but not in any depth or with evidence/arguments in favor)... I feel that dickgirl being the default for feminine-intersex-when-all-genitals-not-visible is not the best default/policy, at least on E621 (due to this being a primarily furry site).

Put plainly, the commonly-assumed 'regular' sexes in furry stuff tend to be female, herm, and male. If this were video/photo porn or something, then yes, it'd be female, male, and (pick term of choice for partial MtF).However, from what I've seen in furry stuff, 'herm' is the default recognized feminine-looking intersex sex. As an example: you may notice that on FA images of dickgirl-type characters are labeled (and even tagged, too, frequently) as 'herm' on most (if not all, depending on popularity/obscurity) pictures of them that weren't drawn by the character's owner/creator. Also, in my personal experience, of all the people who don't know what they're doing and stumble around E621 mass-mistagging stuff on intersex characters, the majority of them add / change tags to herm. And lastly, the whole bit that (again, to my experience -- I may be wrong, and with how tagging is/has bee done here it's impossible to readily determine using stats from E621) there tend to be a much, much higher number of hermaphrodite characters than dickgirl characters made / drawn in furry stuff.

... So basically, I'm thinking the 'dickgirl if you can't see female bits' assumption doesn't actually work out as being the logical/expectable assumption of a primarily furry audience, given that said audience appears to have a distinct bias towards assuming herm in such situations. So, just throwing out there that I'd personally vouch for the herm/dickgirl tag split being either
(A) Tag appropriately if directly visible, else tag herm, or
(B) Tag appropriately if directly visible, else pick one (1).

[IRRELEVANT EDIT]
Also, comparing sex tags to character and artist tags makes no sense for the simple reason that character, artist, and copyright tags are entirely seperate types of tags. 'General' tags are supposed to adhere to what is visible or readily interpretable from the specific image's visual content. The other three types are specifically meant to contain 'external information' for the purpose of grouping images together.

Pictionary said:
Sounds good to me. The only people who could possibly not like this are the ones who actually look at the tags instead of fapping.

I don't think even they can complain. All they have to do is mentally substitute all "Stated_Gender" tags for actual "Gender" tags and they're golden.

Stated gender tags are stupid. They will still cause problems with the users. Example: "Why does Artica need to have hir gender as stated_herm and not herm in the tags? Shi's obviously ALWAYS a herm as seen in other pics of hir, shi doesn't need a stated gender tag. Removing stated_herm and female and adding herm."
Now, tell me that wouldn't happen.

Just curious...

Wasn't this the same policy people have had before? Tag what you see. Literally what I've nodded towards.

Of course this does tend to affect my character a tad, since he is male herm, yet you can't see his erect dick; I've had to dodge people's stupidity assuming I'M a cuntboy.

What if we just added both the assumed gender tags (from what you see) and if available, you can also tag it's true gender?

Maybe it might be confusing, and ruin blacklists....not sure how to go with this.

CinoxFellpyre said:
What if we just added both the assumed gender tags (from what you see) and if available, you can also tag it's true gender?

Exactly one post prior:

Riversyde said:
Stated gender tags are stupid. They will still cause problems with the users. Example: "Why does Artica need to have hir gender as stated_herm and not herm in the tags? Shi's obviously ALWAYS a herm as seen in other pics of hir, shi doesn't need a stated gender tag. Removing stated_herm and female and adding herm."
Now, tell me that wouldn't happen.

If you're really that peeved then go edit your character's wiki page and fill out all of his pertinent information including typical gender. Then whenever you want you can point people there and explain.

KloH0und said:
Exactly one post prior:

I'm not talking about stated anything.

Just poke the tags in like normal...

CinoxFellpyre said:
I'm not talking about stated anything.

Just poke the tags in like normal...

Except that that breaks the entire gender tagging system. You'd have every other picture featuring an established character tagged with two (or more) gender tags when there is probably only one person in the image. Then when people search for herm, they'll get a bunch of pictures of women with penises and no vaginas, or vaginas and no penises (and the reciprocals for men). Blacklists containing intersex will filter pictures containing only females and males and the fabric of the universe will be torn asunder.

That last part obviously isn't true, but the rest is pretty damn valid. Take post #116450 for instance.

Let's say we took your idea and tagged it both female and herm. That means that if you someone searched for herm, they'd get that picture of what is for all intents and purposes female. If someone doesn't know Artica is usually a herm (or maybe, just doesn't care), then you'll have them complaining "wtf why is this tagged herm thats not what I'm looking for." If someone blacklists herm, they'll get blocked out of that image even though it doesn't actually contain one.

KloH0und said:
Except that that breaks the entire gender tagging system. You'd have every other picture featuring an established character tagged with two (or more) gender tags when there is probably only one person in the image. Then when people search for herm, they'll get a bunch of pictures of women with penises and no vaginas, or vaginas and no penises (and the reciprocals for men). Blacklists containing intersex will filter pictures containing only females and males and the fabric of the universe will be torn asunder.

That last part obviously isn't true, but the rest is pretty damn valid. Take post #116450 for instance.

Let's say we took your idea and tagged it both female and herm. That means that if you someone searched for herm, they'd get that picture of what is for all intents and purposes female. If someone doesn't know Artica is usually a herm (or maybe, just doesn't care), then you'll have them complaining "wtf why is this tagged herm thats not what I'm looking for." If someone blacklists herm, they'll get blocked out of that image even though it doesn't actually contain one.

Figured that'd happen. Nevermind then~

Again, we have a wiki for all of that character fluff. Just edit it yourself to give a bit of information and drop a link to a more thorough description on your FA or DA or whatever.

KloH0und said:
Again, we have a wiki for all of that character fluff. Just edit it yourself to give a bit of information and drop a link to a more thorough description on your FA or DA or whatever.

>.o Since when was this have to do with my character?

And not everyone who browses knows where the wiki is, hell the entire time I've been here I've only actually discovered the wiki recently.

There's a link at the top of every page of the site. There's also a link to every tag's wiki page right next to every tag in every post's tag list.

That's like accidentally blowing your foot off with a shotgun then blaming Mossberg & Sons because you didn't know there was such a thing as a trigger safety.

KloH0und said:
There's a link at the top of every page of the site. There's also a link to every tag's wiki page right next to every tag in every post's tag list.

That's like accidentally blowing your foot off with a shotgun then blaming Mossberg & Sons because you didn't know there was such a thing as a trigger safety.

Think this a bit for a moment.

Do you honestly think that people that just use this to masturbate to two anthropomorphic animals are gonna take the time to look at the top of the page?

Plus I didn't know what the ?s were there for....

KloH0und said:
There's a link at the top of every page of the site. There's also a link to every tag's wiki page right next to every tag in every post's tag list.

That's like accidentally blowing your foot off with a shotgun then blaming Mossberg & Sons because you didn't know there was such a thing as a trigger safety.

I've never visited character or tag wiki's. I didn't know they existed until a few days ago, and I still haven't viewed any.
A more proper analogy would be "That's like not knowing what the "Turbo" button did on my old Win95 machine because a situation has never arisen in which I've needed to use it, as such I never took the time to figure it out"

Riversyde said:
Stated gender tags are stupid. They will still cause problems with the users. Example: "Why does Artica need to have hir gender as stated_herm and not herm in the tags? Shi's obviously ALWAYS a herm as seen in other pics of hir, shi doesn't need a stated gender tag. Removing stated_herm and female and adding herm."
Now, tell me that wouldn't happen.

By your own logic, "Tag What You See" is also stupid, simply because a few people out there might be too dumb to comprehend it. I hope you aren't being one of those people, Riversyde. "Stated_Gender" tagging is a completely viable option for solving this dilemma.

Situation A: Tag What You See, Always.
People who care more about what the artist says than what the image shows are unhappy
Situation B: Tag What The Artist Says.
Blacklists become ineffective due to tags not properly reflecting actual content.
Situation C: Tag What You See, Always. Then, Add Secondary Tags Based On Artist Statements.
Blacklists continue to work like a charm, as does searching in general. Those who care more about what the artist says are happy as well. The only people who bitch are those who don't deserve to be happy.

We all already know you can't please everyone always, but goddammit isn't it obvious that Situation C makes everyone from Situation A equally happy, while simultaneously making everyone, or almost everyone, from situation B happy as well.

It is a bit of a change, but it's one that's easy to apply, and should be easy to adopt. If you disagree Riversyde, please explain without using an example involving a hypothetical user who is mentally incapable of rational thought.

EDIT: In the Stated_Gender scenario, there is still no such thing as default genders for characters (possibly outside of typical fanart such as the Batman scenario that has been brought up a few times). Its always Tag What You See, and then apply Stated_Gender tags if the artist's description differs from what is apparent in the image. For example, post #151312 could be tagged as "Dickgirl" and "Stated_Herm" only if nazuu-m0nster himself stated that Artica_Sparkle was intended to be Herm in that particular image.

Atani said:
By your own logic, "Tag What You See" is also stupid, simply because a few people out there might be too dumb to comprehend it. I hope you aren't being one of those people, Riversyde. "Stated_Gender" tagging is a completely viable option for solving this dilemma.

So is my/our solution, plus it keeps one more retarded tag off the tag list.

Situation A: Tag What You See, Always.
People who care more about what the artist says than what the image shows are unhappy
Situation B: Tag What The Artist Says.
Blacklists become ineffective due to tags not properly reflecting actual content.
Situation C: Tag What You See, Always. Then, Add Secondary Tags Based On Artist Statements.

It is always Situation A, it will always be Situation A. I don't give a fuck what you all think of it, this will always be our philosophy ;)

It is a bit of a change, but it's one that's easy to apply, and should be easy to adopt. If you disagree Riversyde, please explain without using an example involving a hypothetical user who is mentally incapable of rational thought.

Dude. You're talking about furries.

EDIT: In the Stated_Gender scenario.. ..post #151312 could be tagged as "Dickgirl" and "Stated_Herm" only if nazuu-m0nster himself stated that Artica_Sparkle was intended to be Herm in that particular image.

post #77516
post #146240

Riversyde said:
So is my/our solution, plus it keeps one more retarded tag off the tag list.

Only, "your" solution doesn't seem to be going over very well. I'm pushing for a simple solution that could make [almost] everyone happy, but you'd rather just sit and bicker with all the pissy furs in here. Oh, and there's completely no reason to be a dick, Riversyde. In case you haven't been paying attention, I'm on your side. I'm all for "Tag What You See". It's kinda the side I've been taking this entire time. Only difference between you and me is, I'm actually interested in resolving this issue, rather than sitting here egging shit on. You're such a competent administrator. (Oh, and by my count, that's 5+ more useful tags.)

Riversyde said:
It is always Situation A, it will always be Situation A. I don't give a fuck what you all think of it, this will always be our philosophy ;)

Because you'd rather have a rule set in stone that pisses off a bunch of people. I mean sure, you could have a rule set in stone that is met with general approval, but no, that just won't do. Why? What's the problem, Riversyde? Are you trying to be difficult, for the sake of being difficult? You're acting like adding 5 or so tags to the...1233 pages of tags currently in use is going to in any way lessen this site's quality. That's what, 60,000 tags? Add 5? Oh god you're right, that would crush this site.

But hey, I even have a solution to that problem! Delete these five tags:
not_a_horse
anubis.gods.egypt
background_explosion
tail_bondage
smeared
Holy shit there's enough room now for those Stated_Gender tags!
Catastrophe Avoided!

Riversyde said:
Dude. You're talking about furries.

Now, I can be a dick like you and respond with "Well at least you understand some of what I'm trying to say. Good for you!"
Or I could say something like "You're right, what was I thinking? How could I expect any amount of common sense from a group of furs who look up to a stubborn mule like you to set rules and guidelines for us to follow?"

Or I could just ask you to stop for a moment, and actually think before your next post. Do us a favor, k? Consider the situation. Understand that I'm all for "Tag What You See". I'm all for tagging based on content. Understand that not everyone sees things that way. Understand that to some people, there's a bit more depth to an image. Understand that the easiest way to make the most people content...wells it's as simple as adding 5 or so more tags. That's it.

Atani said:
Only difference between you and me is, I'm actually interested in resolving this issue, rather than sitting here egging shit on.

The only difference between us is I disagree with your method of fixing these gender issues.

(Oh, and by my count, that's 5+ more useful tags.)

Correction, 5+ more USELESS tags.

Because you'd rather have a rule set in stone that pisses off a bunch of people.

This was a rule set by the previous administration. I did not make it, but I do support it.
Protip: people will find something to bitch about no matter what you do.

But hey, I even have a solution to that problem!
Delete these five tags:
not_a_horse
anubis.gods.egypt
background_explosion
tail_bondage
smeared
Holy shit there's enough room now for those Stated_Gender tags!
Catastrophe Avoided!

Five tags which should never have been put there in the first place. Like the stated gender tags.

Okay, so, here's a message for YOU, Atani, to consider before posting again. Quit crying because people aren't doing what you want.

I'm not sure what Riversyde is talking about because, like I said, I honestly am thinking having declared gender tags might be the way to go. They should also only be used when the declared gender disagrees with the apparent gender. That way anyone wanting to see only herms (even if they can't tell they're herms) can search for "herms declared_herm".

I think I'd be fine with this, and we'd need to write up a wiki page and link it in the news so people understand this new idea.

Anyways, I'm leaving for the beach this afternoon for the weekend, so I won't really be able to respond or contribute any further to this thread until I get back.

As it stands though, I'm really leaning towards stated_gender or declared_gender or whatever we want to call it, and I encourage the other admins to give it some serious consideration too.

I'm not okay with this.
I'm not okay with this at all.
But then again, no-one seems to care, so my objections will obviously be pushed out of the way.
I can deal with this, but I would reeeeeally like their normal gender to be in their wiki entry instead.

Okay, supporters of stated gender tags... if you (hypothetically) have a five females and a herm (all chars with set genders) in a picture with no penis showing so they all looked female, how would the uneducated user know which one was the herm?

<.< Well this sounds like something that everyone's gonna eventually rage ove,r even though the policy.is old as shit.

What no one realizes is that they're not making new rules, they're just reminding people.

And no offense Riversyde, you've been kinda rude :| But seeing as I don't frequent the forums, I'm just gonna slip back out.

Sometimes you have to be a bit heavy-handed to make a point.

Riversyde said:
Sometimes you have to be a bit heavy-handed to make a point.

As you said before: furries.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it's wasted energy.

Riversyde said:
Okay, supporters of stated gender tags... if you (hypothetically) have a five females and a herm (all chars with set genders) in a picture with no penis showing so they all looked female, how would the uneducated user know which one was the herm?

They don't really care that others don't know the characters and therefore don't know the characters' "real" gender. From what I can tell it's kind of like a secret club with insider information that those who are a part of the club get to enjoy, and is of pretty much no benefit to those who don't know.

Char said:
They don't really care that others don't know the characters and therefore don't know the characters' "real" gender. From what I can tell it's kind of like a secret club with insider information that those who are a part of the club get to enjoy, and is of pretty much no benefit to those who don't know.

That's stupid...

Okay, so, if we are gonna have these stated gender tags, it would obviously be logical to implicate the character's stated gender to stated_*.

But then another problem arises.

What if the character does not have a set stated gender? So far we've only been talking about Artica Sparkledog, who is a stated herm, but what about others?

Riversyde said:
Okay, supporters of stated gender tags... if you (hypothetically) have a five females and a herm (all chars with set genders) in a picture with no penis showing so they all looked female, how would the uneducated user know which one was the herm?

Research by someone and a note in the comments, like for species and character names - for example, what I did for post #66704 many months ago.

[edit] Assuming you wanted to be enlightened, of course. :p

CinoxFellpyre said:
Sometimes [being heavy-handed] works, sometimes it's wasted energy.

Off-topic - it *never* works, especially on the Internet, and one should expect such a thing to backfire eventually. Time and persistence is too strong of a weapon against rage. How else would nerdy collaborative projects like Wikipedia (and, well, e621 itself) survive?

lurkingfox said:
Research by someone and a note in the comments, like for species and character names - for example, what I did for post #66704 many months ago.

A comment for every occurrence? Eh...

Off-topic - it *never* works, especially on the Internet, and one should expect such a thing to backfire eventually. Time and persistence is too strong of a weapon against rage. How else would nerdy collaborative projects like Wikipedia (and, well, e621 itself) survive?

Maybe with CONTENT? And POPULARITY?
Also, heavy-handedness does sometimes work.

Atani said:
Situation A: Tag What You See, Always.
People who care more about what the artist says than what the image shows are unhappy
Situation B: Tag What The Artist Says.
Blacklists become ineffective due to tags not properly reflecting actual content.
Situation C: Tag What You See, Always. Then, Add Secondary Tags Based On Artist Statements.
Blacklists continue to work like a charm, as does searching in general. Those who care more about what the artist says are happy as well. The only people who bitch are those who don't deserve to be happy.

Situation D: Tag What You See, Always. Then, Add Comments And Wiki Entries Based On Artist Statements (If Necessary).
Blacklists continue to work like a charm, as does searching in general. Those who care more about what the artist says are happy as well.

I really don't see much of a problem with this plan. It's not perfect - and nothing will be - but a quick note in the comments and a character entry on the wiki gives people all the information they need at a glance without the need for confusing new tags.

Now for an honest question: what is the primary objection to this method?

Shitake said:
Hey, what about images that are part of a series? I'd say that if a previous image in the series establishes someone as a dickgirl, they should be tagged as one in images after that in the series, even if it is not obvious when looking at them. I mean, an image series like a comic should be tagged as if you're reading the whole thing. If someone wants to blacklist a particular element that shows up everywhere in that story then they would not be pleased if a few images snuck through.

I agree completely. It seems really counter intuitive to break something that's meant to be viewed as a series, tag-wise, unless it involves something specifically calling for a change in the gender tags, like transformation.

Would it be too much to ask for an extra allowance when it comes to gender-tagging a series? If you make a search for a specific gender, you probably don't want only half of a series to show up because you can't see specific parts in one or two of the pictures.

Riversyde said:
I'm not okay with this.
I'm not okay with this at all.
But then again, no-one seems to care, so my objections will obviously be pushed out of the way.
I can deal with this, but I would reeeeeally like their normal gender to be in their wiki entry instead.

Okay, supporters of stated gender tags... if you (hypothetically) have a five females and a herm (all chars with set genders) in a picture with no penis showing so they all looked female, how would the uneducated user know which one was the herm?

I am 100% With Riverside on this.

Putting something on the wiki can be done AS WELL AS the stated gender tags, you know.

Don't assume that just because someone isn't doing something the way you want it to be done, nothing that you want will happen. Turns out, life isn't that black and white!

Oh yeah also if we didn't use stated gender tags, then it would just have a herm tag, and that isn't any better for knowing which character is supposed to be herm.

Riversyde said:
But then another problem arises.

What if the character does not have a set stated gender? So far we've only been talking about Artica Sparkledog, who is a stated herm, but what about others?

Char answered this with:

Char said:
They should also only be used when the declared gender disagrees with the apparent gender.

Riversyde said:
I'm not okay with this.
I'm not okay with this at all.
But then again, no-one seems to care, so my objections will obviously be pushed out of the way.
I can deal with this, but I would reeeeeally like their normal gender to be in their wiki entry instead.

I don't blame you for being against it. Just like I don't blame people for being for it. There's obviously people on both sides of this dilemma, or it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Riversyde said:
Okay, supporters of stated gender tags... if you (hypothetically) have a five females and a herm (all chars with set genders) in a picture with no penis showing so they all looked female, how would the uneducated user know which one was the herm?

You make a good point in bringing that up. I think you're unintentionally being productive by bringing forward possible issues that will need to be worked out before these new tags are implemented. I think in this hypothetical situation, if it does ever (or already has) occurred, the simplest solution would be to add a translation/note like what is used to point out individual characters like in post #158923. Nothing fancy, text would be something simple like Artica_Sparkle (Stated_Herm) in an image in which her vagina isn't apparent, but the artist claims its there. The image would be tagged "Dickgirl" as well as "Stated_Herm".

targetdog said:
Situation D: Tag What You See, Always. Then, Add Comments And Wiki Entries Based On Artist Statements (If Necessary).
Blacklists continue to work like a charm, as does searching in general. Those who care more about what the artist says are happy as well.

I really don't see much of a problem with this plan. It's not perfect - and nothing will be - but a quick note in the comments and a character entry on the wiki gives people all the information they need at a glance without the need for confusing new tags.

Now for an honest question: what is the primary objection to this method?

The only issue is for people who want to search for images based on artist-stated genders. I know it seems odd, but there are actually people who want the artist's view on the image to add depth to the image. Actually, there's two types of people I can think of who fit that description: Those who are here to appreciate the art, whether fapping or not, and are interested in more than just the pixels; and those who are here to fap, but do so in a manner more than just glancing through images while jerking it. Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle. Even when fapping, I find myself glancing through the comments, the tags, oftentimes I'll wind up far away from where I started, not even fapping anymore. Not all of us are here simply to jerk off and nothing more.

Captain_Jackal said:
I agree completely. It seems really counter intuitive to break something that's meant to be viewed as a series, tag-wise, unless it involves something specifically calling for a change in the gender tags, like transformation.

Would it be too much to ask for an extra allowance when it comes to gender-tagging a series? If you make a search for a specific gender, you probably don't want only half of a series to show up because you can't see specific parts in one or two of the pictures.

I've already taken part in the suggestion of a method to tag pools. I think the best option would be to tag all images of the pool individually, as would be done for any other image. Then, add descriptive tags to the pool itself. I think its best that these pool tags are not searchable, as that could easily mess up the entire search system. Its designed to search images based on tags, not entire pools. Pool tags would be simply for reference, not actually integrated into the search system.

Princess_Celestia said:
I am 100% With Riverside on this.

Thanks for the update :p
As I said to Riversyde, I don't blame you for taking the side you're on.
At the same time, these (extremely mild) changes won't in any way negatively impact your (and my) side of this unnecessary battle. Instead, group A is just as happy, either way, and group B is suddenly about has happy as any situation could result in.

Didn't read the followup, since it isn't exactly relevant to my query: Take an example of a flat-chested character. (e.g. lolicon type, or cub) Would that mean they would be tagged cuntboy instead of female?

If so (or not), please edit and elaborate on the front post.

EDIT: I personally think cuntboy is a rather silly tag, since breasts were never a defining feature of females, hence a lack of breasts shouldn't exclude them from being defined female. Based on tag what I see, I wouldn't see any cuntboys at all, and as per suggestion, cuntboy can be tagged under wiki instead.

Lyokira said:
Didn't read the followup, since it isn't exactly relevant to my query: Take an example of a flat-chested character. (e.g. lolicon type, or cub) Would that mean they would be tagged cuntboy instead of female?

If so (or not), please edit and elaborate on the front post.

EDIT: I personally think cuntboy is a rather silly tag, since breasts were never a defining feature of females, hence a lack of breasts shouldn't exclude them from being defined female. Based on tag what I see, I wouldn't see any cuntboys at all, and as per suggestion, cuntboy can be tagged under wiki instead.

Cuntboys aren't flat chested females. They are simply dudes with vaginas. Dude in the face, dude in the body. But with a vaj.

ippiki_ookami said:
Cuntboys aren't flat chested females. They are simply dudes with vaginas. Dude in the face, dude in the body. But with a vaj.

But "manly" features doesn't mean much either. Normal bodily variances can also have that, and especially when you consider a fantasy world where bodily variances are everywhere.

Alternatively: give me a standard citera for "manly face" and "manly body", without the use of dick.

Lyokira said:
Didn't read the followup, since it isn't exactly relevant to my query: Take an example of a flat-chested character. (e.g. lolicon type, or cub) Would that mean they would be tagged cuntboy instead of female?

If so (or not), please edit and elaborate on the front post.

Except that children have their own physical characteristics that indicate youth, and those traits aren't sexually dimorphic to begin with (this applies to a lot of the animal kingdom, not just humans). The younger the characters are, the harder it is differentiating males from females without resorting to checking which set of genitals they have.

Those factors in identifying the sexes of children also play a role in deciding how to tag images featuring them. You look at an image and say "These characters appear very young. Therefore, I can't use traits that only distinguish the sexes between adults to decide which genders these characters are."

You'll have to go on whatever else in the image points to a particular gender. Yes, it's more difficult, and yes, you'll end up with a lot of ambiguous_gender tags when looking at younger characters. Because children look ambiguous.

"Unintentionally productive"? :P
I've been productive this whole time, it's how we're progressing this argument.
Also, ilu targetdog and Rena <3

A few things regarding what's being said right now
1(somewhat off topic) heavy-handedness is good in small doses, it's when you take things too far that it causes a shitstorm.
2.(back on topic) stated_gender tags seem kinda pointless, they also seem like they would cause more problems than they would fix, I know cub tags can cause the same kinda shitstorm (if not worse), but as per legal reasons, they are needed (cubs are also a lot more inherently obvious {and disturbing to somefurries} than a character with an out of picture penis/vagina being a herm).
3. This has been said countless times, but since we are still arguing about this it bears repeating, TAG. WHAT. YOU. SEE.
4. Wow, 10 pages going on 11, on just gender tagging, that's impressive.
5. Wow, I actually made a post without ponies and/or cynicism, in a thread about something as trivial this... aw, I was doing so good.

There is so much that is wrong with your opinion, Char.

Against:
Pictionary (active)
Atani (active)
NSFW
jaxinc
JustFrame (active)
Nahald
trfg7xz2oxps
SoulLess (active)
Darlthris
KyuNinetails (active)

On The Fence/Neutral (not enough info from posts)/Wants more before accepting:
Snowwolf
lurkingfox
Lupo
Captain Jackal
Acru
Enismirdal
Anomynous
acct0283476
CinoxFellpyre
Lyokira

For:
Princess Celestia
ExplosiveBlaziken
KloH0und
ikdind
Riversyde
123Easy
ippiki ookami
narji
Cyborgcat
abooksigun
Morhe
Rabeatus
Valence
RedOctober
Venti Mocha
NotThatGuy
anon420
Eclectric
RMJ
targetdog
swamprootwolf
drages
nzt
cookiekangaroo
Wahai
Braeburn
baracudaboy
Aurali
Actini
Tony311
Shitake
Scriffer(?)

10 people who either didn't share enough about their opinions on the current system being more heavily enforced to show support for or against, or people who are for with minor changes, usually these stupid "stated gender" tags when it's already been stated to post that stuff in the wiki.

THIRTY ONE (two, not sure on Skriffer, seemed liek a 'for', but still ambiguous) people for, not counting exactly how many of them are constantly active, but at least five (Riversyde, Morhe, KloH0und, myself, RedOctober for an easy five)

Five really loud people bitching about it, a few others tossing in their complaints about it once or twice and then either a) falling silent or b) accepting responses.

10 people against total on the forums, vocal minority rule in effect.

Char: Don't give into the vocal minority when it's going to displease the majority who actually agree with the ruling of tagging what you see properly, instead of so many stupid arguments of "Arctica is a herm, ALWAYS" even if drawn by the creator as a female or male specifically. -.-

For the most part, the people who haven't said anything are those who just come here to view their porn and get off. They don't care about assumed gender or usual gender, they care that it looks like what they're searching for, not what it usually is.

Jasp said:
There is so much that is wrong with your opinion, Char.

And the things wrong with Char's opinion would be...

123easy said:
[massive list]
[stuff regarding said list]
10 people against total on the forums, vocal minority rule in effect.

Char: Don't give into the vocal minority when it's going to displease the majority who actually agree with the ruling of tagging what you see properly, instead of so many stupid arguments of "Arctica is a herm, ALWAYS" even if drawn by the creator as a female or male specifically. -.-

For the most part, the people who haven't said anything are those who just come here to view their porn and get off. They don't care about assumed gender or usual gender, they care that it looks like what they're searching for, not what it usually is.

I take it you're talking about the whole "tag what you see" thing, that rule isn't going anywhere, period. There will be arguments, lots of them, but it could always be worse (i.e. subjective tagging, tagging according to word of god [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod] and not what is actually in the picture).

nzt: That's what these mostly just the same five people are arguing for- the subjective tagging according to word of god/artist. I'm heavily against. But Char seems to be wiffling because of said five people. I'm just showing numbers of the vocal forums-going population, not even just the average user, and adding that the average user here to fap doesn't care that Arctica is normally a herm, they just want to see what they're searching for.

123easy said:
nzt: That's what these mostly just the same five people are arguing for- the subjective tagging according to word of god/artist. I'm heavily against. But Char seems to be wiffling because of said five people. I'm just showing numbers of the vocal forums-going population, not even just the average user, and adding that the average user here to fap doesn't care that Arctica is normally a herm, they just want to see what they're searching for.

Um, wiffling?

Char said:
I don't care if a character TYPICALLY has 12 dicks, 30 testicles, and 14 vaginas on their body if I CAN'T SEE THEM. It doesn't matter what the artist says, it doesn't matter what the character owner says, it doesn't matter what ANYONE says. If they look like a female, they get tagged female. If they look like a male, they get tagged male. If they look like a herm, they get tagged herm. Period. You should never, EVER tag a picture according to information that has been gathered from an artist/owner/ANYONE's description of the characters in the picture.

Unless Char has had a massive face heel turn over the past 10 pages, and disregards the opinions of all the other users (and admins), I don't see WoG/subjective tagging happening anytime soon.

I've always hated this rule and found it to be totally stupid. If you're directly going against what the artist says then the artist who is supplying you furfags WITH said porn is much more likely to give the site the bird and DMCA your asses.

thus leaving everyone else sadder.
everyone would be fricking happy if the proper tags were tagged on pictures, NOT based on WHAT YOU SEE.

Oh my gosh.
Drama.
Drama everywhere.
Why?

123easy said:
Against:
[Some People (including Atani)]

On The Fence/Neutral (not enough info from posts)/Wants more before accepting:
[Some People]

For:
[Even More People]

10 people who either didn't share enough about their opinions on the current system being more heavily enforced to show support for or against, or people who are for with minor changes, usually these stupid "stated gender" tags when it's already been stated to post that stuff in the wiki.

THIRTY ONE (two, not sure on Skriffer, seemed liek a 'for', but still ambiguous) people for, not counting exactly how many of them are constantly active, but at least five (Riversyde, Morhe, KloH0und, myself, RedOctober for an easy five)

Five really loud people bitching about it, a few others tossing in their complaints about it once or twice and then either a) falling silent or b) accepting responses.

10 people against total on the forums, vocal minority rule in effect.

Char: Don't give into the vocal minority when it's going to displease the majority who actually agree with the ruling of tagging what you see properly, instead of so many stupid arguments of "Arctica is a herm, ALWAYS" even if drawn by the creator as a female or male specifically. -.-

For the most part, the people who haven't said anything are those who just come here to view their porn and get off. They don't care about assumed gender or usual gender, they care that it looks like what they're searching for, not what it usually is.

Since you seem to be implying that the list you've created accurately reflects the views of all members on this site:
20% Against a strict "Tag What You See" guideline
20% On the fence
60% For a strict "Tag What You See" guideline
That means compared to those who are for the strict tagging, 1/3 as many are against. It seems that number is large enough to warrant an attempt at a compromise.

I find it terribly hilarious that you grouped me in with "Against".
I find it terribly hilarious that you grouped those who offer compromises as being "Against".
I find it terribly hilarious that you seem think the suggestions I made in any way negatively impact anyone. At all.
I'll be honest, I really don't find any of your post to be any variety of amusing. For someone who felt it necessary to review the opinions of apparently everyone in this thread, you obviously haven't been paying enough attention.

I am FOR "Tag What You See". I'm also for adding "Stated_Gender" tags. Let me crunch the numbers for you.
60% are happy due to "Tag What You See" being in effect.
20% are happy (or at least content) because they seemed pretty indifferent in the first place.
20% are happy because they can search based on artist-stated-genders. Without in any way negatively affecting the searching/fapping of all the others on e621. By my math, that's an approval rating of 100% (I think there's some science rule that requires I append "<5% Confidence Interval" to all figures, I don't know why ;3) . In the end, the only one's who are left unhappy are the ones who are bitching for literally no reason. I don't mean "no reason" as in "very little reason". I mean as in "literally no reason". Please, debate this with me without using the standard argument of "It's not necessary" or other BS like that. It's necessary if you want the most people to enjoy this site. It's necessary because it improves the experience for many, without in any way affecting others.

123easy said:
On The Fence/Neutral (not enough info from posts)/Wants more before accepting:
Acru

My vote is for dual tagging of gender, the standard ones for visible content per image, and one in the form of either stated_herm or herm_(character) for the gender as specified by either the artist or the subject, even if it is the same. Char should specify which of the two forms is more appropriate.

RedRoverBlueRover said:
Oh my gosh.
Drama.
Drama everywhere.
Why?

Because furries!

Spetznas said:
I've always hated this rule and found it to be totally stupid. If you're directly going against what the artist says then the artist who is supplying you furfags WITH said porn is much more likely to give the site the bird and DMCA your asses.

thus leaving everyone else sadder.
everyone would be fricking happy if the proper tags were tagged on pictures, NOT based on WHAT YOU SEE.

For the love of god in all that is furry, please be a troll.

Spetznas said:
I've always hated this rule and found it to be totally stupid. If you're directly going against what the artist says then the artist who is supplying you furfags WITH said porn is much more likely to give the site the bird and DMCA your asses.

thus leaving everyone else sadder.
everyone would be fricking happy if the proper tags were tagged on pictures, NOT based on WHAT YOU SEE.

I think it was like 1 day after this thread started that ExplosiveBlaziken "convinced" an artist to threaten removing his work (or work of his character, I can't remember) because it wasn't obviously apparent that the characters tail was a fish tail.

RedRoverBlueRover said:
Oh my gosh.
Drama.
Drama everywhere.
Why?

Because those who are for "Tag What You See" seem to think "Stated_Gender" tagging will in some way encroach on their own fappage. Where this logic comes from, I haven't the slightest fucking clue.

Acru said:
My vote is for dual tagging of gender, the standard ones for visible content per image, and one in the form of either stated_herm or herm_(character) for the gender as specified by either the artist or the subject, even if it is the same. Char should specify which of the two forms is more appropriate.

Yeah, 123easy hasn't been paying attention, like I said. Apparently, if you're for compromise (which includes using "Tag What You See") you're against "Tag What You See". Idfk what he's on, but it's messing his logic skills up something fierce.

nzt said:
For the love of god in all that is furry, please be a troll.

The thing is, he's right about the DMCA thing. Chances are a few artists are going to be livid about it. But hey, less art is a better solution than Stated_Gender tagging, right?

ippiki_ookami said:
That's Adiago, an artist who regularly uploads her own art.

That's 54 images of quality art and/or pornography right there we risk losing. For no goddamn reason whatsoever. This whole situation reeks of herp and derp.

Oh and I guess I'll need to clarify this in every post I make from now on:
I AM BOTH FOR "TAG WHAT YOU SEE" AND "STATED_GENDER" TAGGING. COMPROMISE. I KNOW ITS A BIG WORD, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE SCARED OF IT.

nzt said:
For the love of god in all that is furry, please be a troll.

That's Adiago, an artist who regularly uploads her own art.

Also,
Stated gender is a completely stupid idea. E6 has its own wiki database for a reason. The people who care about the *true* genders already know what gender the character normally is, so why bother adding unseen traits to the tags? What's next?
"My character's a diabetic, so i want a diabetic tag."
"This character is a doggified version of my cat character, so it should be tagged as cat because that's what she normally is."
"My character is a dog/fox/wolf/hyena/husky/shiba inu hybrid, so it must be tagged as such."
If an artist or commissioner really and truly has a problem with the way it is tagged, we can solve the issue on a case by case basis. Maybe they'd like to update their wiki, or leave a comment for people to see. There are simpler solutions than completely changing the tagging policy that has made e6 what it is today.

Atani Said
Because those who are for "Tag What You See" seem to think "Stated_Gender" tagging will in some way encroach on their own fappage. Where this logic comes from, I haven't the slightest fucking clue.

O_O Encroach on their own fappage? Where did you even come up with something so... I don't even...
Anyway, it's because stated_gender tags are an unnecessary thing that will just cause more drama, not... whatever you said.
Also, we should have a feature where you have to listen to your comment read back to you before you confirm you want to post it so people can actually hear what they sound like.

This...this thread...
I...
I don't even.

ippiki_ookami said:
That's Adiago, an artist who regularly uploads her own art.

Oh good, I was worried that a "you are not a special snowflake" speech would fall on deaf ears, but apparently it won't. So let me say this, not as a consumer but as a fellow artist; you are not a special snowflake, you are not god's golden gift to mankind, there are tons of other artists out there, as artists we can do what we do because we have fans who support us, and those fans deserve respect dammit. Please, please, put your art before your ego and think before you say such nasty things to your fans.