Implicating annoying_watermark -> watermark.

Reason:

Why do we even need an 'annoying_watermark' tag anyway?

Possibly, post #39562

Yes

done

I think annoying watermark is needed lol

It's obvious that it's an annoying watermark, but does anyone really ever look for an image with that tag? In my opinion, we could do with less of these 'funny' but completely useless shit tags.

Rather, it's a good tag to place on a blacklist.

Valence said:
Rather, it's a good tag to place on a blacklist.

Alright, I hadn't thought of that. However, if a watermark is so undeniably annoying that people have to put it on blacklist just to avoid seeing it (without saying anything of the content of the picture itself, purely for the annoying watermark), then maybe pictures with watermarks like that shouldn't be allowed to be posted, and not approved by moderators at their discretion?

Just seems to me that if we're allowing something on the site that has to be blacklisted not because of the content, but because some artist is overly protective of their art, then it almost becomes borderline DNP.

Kclub said:

Just seems to me that if we're allowing something on the site that has to be blacklisted not because of the content, but because some artist is overly protective of their art, then it almost becomes borderline DNP.

Except the purpose of a watermark is to protect an artist's work while allowing the work to be shared.

In my opinion a watermarked image is better than no image at all. Obviously if a non-watermarked version crops up (legitimately) then that should replace or at least take precedence over the watermarked version.

KloH0und said:
Except the purpose of a watermark is to protect an artist's work while allowing the work to be shared.

And I'm not disputing that. But if the person has a watermark that covers so much of the image that you can barely see what's underneath it, then it's not exactly the sort of thing we want on this image board.