Would it be possible to implement a thing where you'd be forced to add some sort of gender tag? Any of them, even ambiguous gender. I have the "female" tag blacklisted, but I also have to blacklist "-male" to make sure female images that haven't been tagged properly don't make it either. This presents a problem, though, since I could also lose out on some quality images with only males in them doing this.

I think this'd be possible. I can't think of an image that was relevant to this site that has no applicable gender-related tag.

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧

Oh I know of plenty that are totally relevent and have NO characters in it.

post #187980
post #3276
post #11489
post #19620

ippiki_ookami said:
post #187980
post #3276
post #11489
post #19620

Ffffffffffffffuuuuuu-

ippiki_ookami said:
post #187980
post #3276
post #11489
post #19620

In order:
female (schoolgirl about halfway down on the left)
male (just look at all those phallic projections!)
herm (only herms are *that* complex)
female (the collar is clearly a metaphor for a vagina)

post #142200

More seriously, this is far from elegant, but perhaps we could have some sort of no_relevant_gender tag that counts as a gender tag?

Snowy said:

More seriously, this is far from elegant, but perhaps we could have some sort of no_relevant_gender tag that counts as a gender tag?

what about no_character. BUT then again it would oppose the tag what you see rule.

Extra side note: Wow, a mlp troll face got through . . .

Just wow

Perhaps you could just...deal with it? I mean, is it causing you physical pain to see a 2d female? Like you said, you've already got "female" blacklisted, so the only way you're seeing them now is if one or two slip through 'cause of bad tagging. Maybe instead of trying to get the system changed to suit your own personal wants, you could be like a normal person who doesn't try to block out every little thing they don't like.

mosh_grizzly said:
Perhaps you could just...deal with it? I mean, is it causing you physical pain to see a 2d female? Like you said, you've already got "female" blacklisted, so the only way you're seeing them now is if one or two slip through 'cause of bad tagging. Maybe instead of trying to get the system changed to suit your own personal wants, you could be like a normal person who doesn't try to block out every little thing they don't like.

Or, y'know, make sure to tag the images so that they're blocked by your blacklist if you don't like them.

And then if you have to do that, you get to bitch about people not tagging their shit on that post. You win twice, brotha!

Percy101 said:
Or, y'know, make sure to tag the images so that they're blocked by your blacklist if you don't like them.

And then if you have to do that, you get to bitch about people not tagging their shit on that post. You win twice, brotha!

This would work too.

Percy101 said:
Or, y'know, make sure to tag the images so that they're blocked by your blacklist if you don't like them.

And then if you have to do that, you get to bitch about people not tagging their shit on that post. You win twice, brotha!

but be nice about the bitching or you might get bitched at too... but by a person with a banhammer.

Aurali said:
but be nice about the bitching or you might get bitched at too... but by a person with a banhammer.

Indeed, a lesson I keep in mind before I start bitching.

mosh_grizzly said:
Perhaps you could just...deal with it? I mean, is it causing you physical pain to see a 2d female? Like you said, you've already got "female" blacklisted, so the only way you're seeing them now is if one or two slip through 'cause of bad tagging. Maybe instead of trying to get the system changed to suit your own personal wants, you could be like a normal person who doesn't try to block out every little thing they don't like.

If you actually READ the original post, which I'm absolutely sure you didn't, you'd know I wanted this added because I want to be able to see some of the poorly tagged images that do have only males in them, not because I don't want to see a few females.

Even then, we're not going to do this, sorry. There's a lot of images where genders don't apply and we don't need a "no gender" tag because it doesn't make sense with how we tag.

Freq said:
If you actually READ the original post, which I'm absolutely sure you didn't, you'd know I wanted this added because I want to be able to see some of the poorly tagged images that do have only males in them, not because I don't want to see a few females.

Maybe I'm english incompetent or something, but that's definitely not what I'm getting from your op.

Freq said:
If you actually READ the original post, which I'm absolutely sure you didn't, you'd know I wanted this added because I want to be able to see some of the poorly tagged images that do have only males in them, not because I don't want to see a few females.

Now now.. it's not nice to mince words.. even your own.

Aurali said:
Now now.. it's not nice to mince words.. even your own.

"This presents a problem, though, since I could also lose out on some quality images with only males in them doing this."

But yeah, I don't want to get into TOO much of an argument here. I know it's not possible now, so thanks for answering my question.

I actually have to deal with this fairly often, too. I have a blacklist, and I'm really grateful to the site admins/designers that it's there. But it doesn't work if (this took a fair amount of editing and deep breaths to bring down to civil language) ...people can't be bothered to tag their stuff properly. It'd be one thing if it wasn't >20 someodd images in a row of it.

It's exacerbated when people want to be butthurt princesses about the gender, lack thereof, or particular flavor of, for their ...art/characters. I've had to go and do a lot of (re)tagging because of this. I haven't complained specifically about this, _yet_, because I'm hoping it's still an isolated instance, and possibly foreign language/ignorance as opposed to deliberate trolling.

However, I'd like to ask: how feasible/infeasible would it be to set up an automatic implication for tags that _obviously_ imply a character, like "chubby", "tail", etc. that would be something along the lines of ambiguous_gender, that the poster could fix at their leisure?

Or (and I realize this may be _less_ feasible, but I just want to throw it out here) some sort of highlight or other attention-getter for character-implying tags at post-time, right after the submit, as a gentle reminder to the poster?

P.S.: Sure, somebody could put up a picture of a beach ball with the tags "chubby" or "voluptuous" as an example. I'd remove those tags, though - I think most reasonable users would consider that a specious edge case. :/

It does not pick your pocket or break your arm to see a tiny thumbnail of a character that is a gender you aren't interested in. If you accidentally click on it - that's what a back button is for. If it's not tagged properly, please think about tagging it. If you do tag it, thank you, you make e621 a better place.

AzureRaptor said:
However, I'd like to ask: how feasible/infeasible would it be to set up an automatic implication for tags that _obviously_ imply a character, like "chubby", "tail", etc. that would be something along the lines of ambiguous_gender, that the poster could fix at their leisure?

The implication system does not work this way. An implication is sort of a permanent thing. If, for example, "chubby" implied "ambiguous_gender," there would be no way at all to remove the "ambiguous_gender" tag without also removing the chubby tag.

null0010 said:
It does not pick your pocket or break your arm to see a tiny thumbnail of a character that is a gender you aren't interested in.

No, but I'm going through a fair amount of eyebleach. ;} In all seriousness, to turn your metaphor around, it would do neither to the original poster to properly tag their post. It seems sometimes there is an onus on the viewer to be constantly tolerant, and none whatsoever on the sloppy (or trolling) poster. I do go and fix tags when I can. It's damned annoying to have to do so for 20+ posts in a row. And this isn't even addressing when there's subsequent butthurt over said tags.

The implication system does not work this way. An implication is sort of a permanent thing. If, for example, "chubby" implied "ambiguous_gender," there would be no way at all to remove the "ambiguous_gender" tag without also removing the chubby tag.

Hmm. That's good to know. Thank you for the clarification.

I'm still interested in hearing comments about the post-time reminder(s), though...

AzureRaptor said:
It seems sometimes there is an onus on the viewer to be constantly tolerant, and none whatsoever on the sloppy (or trolling) poster.

In a perfect world all posts would be perfectly tagged at the instant of their upload. Sadly this is not a perfect world. So, in this less-than-perfect world it is up to those who notice the problem to fix it. Complaining about it does not fix it.

AzureRaptor said:
I do go and fix tags when I can.

Thank you.

As far as reminders to better tag posts at the time of upload, I am not a coder so I cannot say how difficult that would be.

Maybe a system that checks the occurrence of tags, takes the 3-5 most common and least common tags on the pic, and then lists 5 tags next to them that are the most likely to be paired with the tags. All as you're typing ;)

Example, you type in a character name, and often a gender and species will be two of the 5, maybe a series, a common attribute or two like long_hair or heterochromia. Click on the tag to add it to the list and the script runs again. Tags already included are skipped in finding suggestions.

trfg7xz2oxps said:
Maybe a system that checks the occurrence of tags, takes the 3-5 most common and least common tags on the pic, and then lists 5 tags next to them that are the most likely to be paired with the tags. All as you're typing ;)

[...]

Now that sounds interesting. I think delicious used to do something like that; it's been a long time since I used my account there.

I have a bad feeling that'd be _really_ database-intensive, though :( ...not sure. But I like the idea a lot. Especially if the tags are clickable to include. Hopefully that's not the hard part.

I think we have that already. Try pressing the "related tags" button. I use it all the time when I tag images.

That is pretty much it. A slight overhaul might help it look more intuitive such as showing which tags lead to related tags, depending on how the current related tags are actually picked. It could be a function of all the post's tags in which case nothing more can be done?

I'm fairly sure the related tags button simply grabs a list of the tags already added to the image and then churns out a list, for each tag previously mentioned, of other tags it (the first tag) often appears with.

Not to resurrect the topic or anything, but I don't think the question has been fully answered: Must all posts (with characters) have a gender tag? They're some of most blacklisted tags so it's an important question...

I would think so, but for instance, post #92875 currently has no such tag, and I'm not sure I would give it one, though if anything, probably male. The tag definition doesn't strike me as something where it applies here, though. Maybe it's just I can't imagine a reason I would want to search for the tag.

ThenIThought said:
Not to resurrect the topic or anything, but I don't think the question has been fully answered: Must all posts (with characters) have a gender tag? They're some of most blacklisted tags so it's an important question...

I would think so, but for instance, post #92875 currently has no such tag, and I'm not sure I would give it one, though if anything, probably male. The tag definition doesn't strike me as something where it applies here, though. Maybe it's just I can't imagine a reason I would want to search for the tag.

I would tag it as ambiguous_gender personally.

Anyone who wants to improve the state of gender-tagging should do a search for the following: -male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender

That's a four-tag search that anyone can do, and reveals many pages of mistagged images.

31h253 said:
Anyone who wants to improve the state of gender-tagging should do a search for the following: -male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender

That's a four-tag search that anyone can do, and reveals many pages of mistagged images.

Woah, that's a good idea! I'll do that. :D

Snowy said:
More seriously, this is far from elegant, but perhaps we could have some sort of no_relevant_gender tag that counts as a gender tag?

slyroon said:
what about no_character. BUT then again it would oppose the tag what you see rule.

Was this ever resolved?

There does exist a no_humans tag on Danbooru;which is used when there are no humanoid beings present.Such as the case of still lifes,landscapes,or (feral) animals.

However,we'd need to adjust it to include both anthro & ferals as well.

slyroon's no_character suggestion sounds good

Let's not start tagging what isn't there.

Fair enough,doubt there are people out there who are offended by pictures without furries,humans or anthros in any case.

..I hope

Freq said:
I have the "female" tag blacklisted, but I also have to blacklist "male". This presents a problem, though, since I could also lose out on some quality images.

why.jpe