Sluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp~

You can't really say this is Fluttershy just from what's seen in this pic.

looks like Onta is done with ponies now? Going back to regular humans?

From the description on the source, I'd say it IS in fact, a humanized Fluttershy... Doesn't anyone check the source these days?

Rederik_Wood said:
From the description on the source, I'd say it IS in fact, a humanized Fluttershy... Doesn't anyone check the source these days?

You must be new here. Common sense would dicate that, but there is a rule here that forbids using the source as a source of information - whatever fucking purpose that might serve - so although anyone using his brain should be able to see it's Flutters, you are not allowed to tag her as such.

Bloodscale said:
You must be new here. Common sense would dicate that, but there is a rule here that forbids using the source as a source of information - whatever fucking purpose that might serve - so although anyone using his brain should be able to see it's Flutters, you are not allowed to tag her as such.

Don't explain it like a twat, that doesn't help anything.

We tag only by the pic and not any outside source because tagging is for the purpose or searching on this image archive site. Someone searching for fluttershy, for example, would wonder why that got some random human girl.

CamKitty said:
Don't explain it like a twat, that doesn't help anything.

We tag only by the pic and not any outside source because tagging is for the purpose or searching on this image archive site. Someone searching for fluttershy, for example, would wonder why that got some random human girl.

We had that discussion before. Everyone using his brain could figure out why that got some random human girl by looking at the source or reading comments. The application of sources might result in the one and only problem that people would get some - very few in comparison - results that would seem irrelevant on first glance. Not on the second.

Whereas applying the tag-what-you-see rule causes that many relevant pictures to be ignored by the search (humanized ponies will not be found when searching for ponies. I don't know about you, but I'd say someone doing the search might be interested in that as well. More general: they may want to see less obviously related things too). It also causes endless bouts of confusion that got a lot worse with ponies - think about the gender debates or the herm stuff! An image carries a message, that message is what is really important and it is composed by the artist. Like that one picture with the humanized parachuting Pinkie. It loses all content, everything that it's about, if the tags do not inform the viewer that it is Pinkie depicted - and, of course, only very few will ever see the picture that way, as people searching for cute stuff involving Pinkie won't find it. It is essentially dead.

Ok Bloodscale, I am not an admin by any means, but I am going to explain why you are being an idiot here.

Lets take this picture. What in it gives it a Visusal representation of a pony?

Human skin tone
Human hands
Human face

NOTHING here indicates a pony. The only correlation to Fluttershy is the hair color/style. Does that make this image My Little Pony?

Take this image into consideration:

We have a popular character within the furry fandom named Krystal. I am sure you are familiar with the character, but just in case, here is are a couple pictures of it: http://e621.net/post/show/289518/anthro-blue_eyes-blue_fur-blue_hair-canine-female- http://e621.net/post/show/289512/anthro-blue_eyes-blue_fur-blue_hair-breasts-canine

Now this character is very popular, and many hours have been taken to tag Krystal to the appropriate character. But with your logic, we can now have any person say that since there is blue hair, it should be tagged "Krystal" because the artist said so.

So here is a crystal picture? http://e621.net/post/show/295155/2011-avian-beak-bird-blue_hair-bracelet-female-gol

How about this one? http://e621.net/post/show/298115/-3-anthro-black_eyes-blue_fur-blue_hair-duo-green_

Or how about we retag all of these due to blue_hair tag. Afterall, Krystal was around for a long time before this caracter: http://e621.net/post/show/303383/blue_hair-equine-female-fribox-friendship_is_magic

This is why we tag to what is seen in the image. If we take everything the artist says, then we will not be able to search for an image that we have seen, but rather we will have to know what the artist was trying to convey when drawing it.

Ohh, the artist wanted to convey the 2 foot donkey dick was a clitoris, then we will not be able to tag it as such? it is a bad example, but we have to tag what we see for an IMAGE site due to us actually looking at images, not trying to decipher them to find out what they are trying to portray.

I'd say the hair is the defining feature.

_Waffles_ said:
words

Basically, it doesn't matter how many times you tell people it's a duck, if it doesn't look like a duck, it's not a duck.

_Waffles_ said:
words

I appreciate the effort you put into this, but I'm afraid you completely missed the point. Remember what I said:

Bloodscale said:
An image carries a message, that message is what is really important and it is composed by the artist.

It is called a character for a reason. And it is the same character with the same set of connotations, that is what matters - because it is those connotations that make the picture interesting, the story it tells, its meaning, its message.

Aside from the fact that the arguments I brought forth in the second paragraph were of a pragmatical nature and have not yet been adressed.

_Waffles_ said:
but we have to tag what we see for an IMAGE site due to us actually looking at images, not trying to decipher them to find out what they are trying to portray.

In addition, that is to be said: no. Trying to find out what they are trying to portray is exactly what we do. What you see up there is a bunch of pixels. It is what it is trying to portray what matters in the context of porn: the message of the picture is hey look, a pussy. In this case: hey look, this timid girl with that and that voice, with those surroundings and that backround is showing you her pussy. Ceci n'est pas une pipe. Content is what pictures are all about.

Hmmm... Made by doxy, Fluttershys hairstyle. Close enough
to be Fluttershy. So I'd say it is a humanized Fluttershy.

Bloodscale said:
Content is what pictures are all about.

Which is why we tag the content rather than the interpretation. :V

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Which is why we tag the content rather than the interpretation. :V

The viewers interpretation is not the content - except for impressionism maybe - but as I said, neither is a bunch of pixels on a screen. I am loathe to repeat myself, but: the message is the artists delivered vision. THAT is the content. THAT is what we are indeed supposed to not only tag, but also take in and understand - but we do that instinctively (which is the problem I think, because that way many people aren't aware of how this is the same). When we talk about a picture, like a picture or do whatever with a picture, we admire the skillfulness of the delivered message - in case of pornography, realistically depicted acts - not what we see directly.

Bloodscale said:
The viewers interpretation is not the content - except for impressionism maybe - but as I said, neither is a bunch of pixels on a screen. I am loathe to repeat myself, but: the message is the artists delivered vision. THAT is the content. THAT is what we are indeed supposed to not only tag, but also take in and understand - but we do that instinctively (which is the problem I think, because that way many people aren't aware of how this is the same). When we talk about a picture, like a picture or do whatever with a picture, we admire the skillfulness of the delivered message - in case of pornography, realistically depicted acts - not what we see directly.

Except what the artist meant and what the viewer sees aren't necessarily the same thing, which is why it doesn't matter what the artist meant when it comes to tags. We only tag what is directly, indisputably, observably there. It doesn't matter what the artist says is there if we can't see it.

If I posted a blank white image and tagged it "snow polar_bear tea blizzard", and made a comment about how it's a polar bear drinking tea in a snowstorm, you'd call me fucking retarded, wouldn't you?

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Except what the artist meant and what the viewer sees aren't necessarily the same thing, which is why it doesn't matter what the artist meant when it comes to tags. We only tag what is directly, indisputably, observably there. It doesn't matter what the artist says is there if we can't see it.

That's what I've been trying to explain. As my list of pragmantical reasons further up there was supposed to show, doing that essentially reduces the picture to a fragment of what it really is. The polar bear would be an extreme example - but if you recall, there has been serious art made with just that. In this particular case however, it's about delivering connotations. I keep on repeating myself here. Knowing what it is supposed to mean, if someone now came up and declared that this up there is NOT Fluttershy (after having consulted the source) THAT would be 'fucking retarded'. Because the artist delivers the message 'Here, have the same character but in a different species'. The looks differ. But that's all. And if the looks were what mattered, we would be obliged to no longer call that woman up there Fluttershy if we saw her in context. As pointed out, it is of course common sense that we still do. And if we call her so - still apart from the pragmatical aspect, mind you - I see no reason why we should contradict that common sense with a law.

Bloodscale said:
When we talk about a picture, like a picture or do whatever with a picture, we admire the skillfulness of the delivered message - in case of pornography, realistically depicted acts - not what we see directly.

This leads to a lot of problems though.

Like this image: http://e621.net/post/show/260522/2012-amber_eyes-ambiguous_gender-bed-bedroom-blond

Initial thoughts on this image to you? What do you see?

Now look at the artist. The character performing the fellatio is usually drawn as a male character.

Does that make this picture depicting a gay act?

We can not say for sure, therefor we do not tag as such. We tag what is in the image. "fellatio", "ambiguous gender", "canine", etc. We tag what we see for it is what is in the image.

Now, I have to ask though, why are you wanting this picture to have a fluttershy tag so badly? If there was a cutie mark, tail, or any number of more MLP designated "tells" in the image, then no one would fight you and we would have it tagged.

But this image has none of that. It has some very hard to see hair that is similar, and nothing more MLP related.

Like someone else said above: does an artist calling a dog a duck make it so that we tag a dog a duck?

This is why we still have images of a single gender character labeled herm/cuntboy/dickgirl. Just because a character is normally portrayed as a herm, does not make every image from there on out a herm. People draw characters differently, and we got to change the tags appropriately.

We can not have every equine imaged MLP if it is not of the MLP universe, nor can we tag every human MLP because it has a very very slight correlation of a MLP character.

i wonder what fluttershy is thinking, lol

Bloodscale said:
That's what I've been trying to explain. As my list of pragmantical reasons further up there was supposed to show, doing that essentially reduces the picture to a fragment of what it really is. The polar bear would be an extreme example - but if you recall, there has been serious art made with just that. In this particular case however, it's about delivering connotations. I keep on repeating myself here. Knowing what it is supposed to mean, if someone now came up and declared that this up there is NOT Fluttershy (after having consulted the source) THAT would be 'fucking retarded'. Because the artist delivers the message 'Here, have the same character but in a different species'. The looks differ. But that's all. And if the looks were what mattered, we would be obliged to no longer call that woman up there Fluttershy if we saw her in context. As pointed out, it is of course common sense that we still do. And if we call her so - still apart from the pragmatical aspect, mind you - I see no reason why we should contradict that common sense with a law.

Honestly, my thoughts on this are if an artist wants their artwork interpreted a certain way, then they need to actually make sure the artwork itself organized/composed in such a manner that it delivers the message or interpretation that the artist is trying to get across. The viewer should not have to depend on the artist's information in order to see an image in the "right" context; the artwork should already be doing that. Why? Because not everyone is going to have access to that additional information the artist provides, nor should it be e621.net's responsibility to try to tell users "this is what the artist ACTUALLY drew in the picture, they just drew it in such a way that you can't actually tell that just from looking at it". The site simply shows you artwork for exactly what it appears to be. If the artist's message or intention isn't properly conveyed within the artwork itself, then it should come as no surprise to the artist when people aren't able to figure it out on their own.

The fact is, the artist can say that this picture depicts a certain character, but that's only going to be the artist's own way of interpreting it, which might not match up with how a viewer would interpret it (or what the artist actually drew).

Let me put it another way: http://penisland.net Does the URL say "pen island" or "penis land"? What does it LOOK like to you? Visiting the site shows that what they INTENDED was "Pen Island", but what you can't help but SEE is "Penis Land". The owners of the site can claim until they're blue in the face that they never intended for it to be "penis land" (although I'm sure it was intentional), but that doesn't change the fact that ANYONE ELSE is going to see "penis land". On e621, we tag it as it appears, not what the artist says they intended, because what an artist says they intended doesn't always line up with what they actually drew. Same principle for penisland.com.

_Waffles_ said:
Now, I have to ask though, why are you wanting this picture to have a fluttershy tag so badly?

Bloodscale said:
Whereas applying the tag-what-you-see rule causes that many relevant pictures to be ignored by the search (humanized ponies will not be found when searching for ponies. I don't know about you, but I'd say someone doing the search might be interested in that as well. More general: they may want to see less obviously related things too). It also causes endless bouts of confusion that got a lot worse with ponies - think about the gender debates or the herm stuff! An image carries a message, that message is what is really important and it is composed by the artist. Like that one picture with the humanized parachuting Pinkie. It loses all content, everything that it's about, if the tags do not inform the viewer that it is Pinkie depicted - and, of course, only very few will ever see the picture that way, as people searching for cute stuff involving Pinkie won't find it. It is essentially dead.

But some of your reprisals are valid. I still do not agree to your point, but I am starting to understand some of its relativities.

So let's find out which character this is! If we know it's Fluttershy, surely the tag will be approved by the ones who can only see the flat surface of an image!

Holy shit, I'm so glad I uploaded this image. The comments are such a laugh. I've seen some retarded arguments in my time, but this takes the cake.

Bloodscale; you try far too hard. It's not Fluttershy. End of story. Did you all really need to develop such a clusterfuck argument over something so easily conclusive?

Souce address:http://mylittledoxy.tumblr.com/post/45254416390/flutterpuss
flutterpuss. it says flutterpuss right in the url. how is this not a humanized fluttershy?

Well, at this point I am out. Had an enjoyable discussion so far, thanks to my partners up there, it wasn't the best one could have hoped for but we actually managed a discussion that was somewhat productive and fun. "For the rest, in your own tone.": http://youtu.be/5g9zxduFtSM?t=11s

Bloodscale said:
Things and stuff...

Good Show

CamKitty said:
Don't explain it like a twat, that doesn't help anything

Yes it does, shut up.

kristsf said:
Holy shit, I'm so glad I uploaded this image. The comments are such a laugh. I've seen some retarded arguments in my time, but this takes the cake.

A fairly civil normal discussion? Your trying too hard lol

Kage134 said:
Souce address:http://mylittledoxy.tumblr.com/post/45254416390/flutterpuss
flutterpuss. it says flutterpuss right in the url. how is this not a humanized fluttershy?

Did you just, like...completely and totally ignore the discussion that's being had in the comments on this pic? When tagging, you don't use outside information (like the source); you use the information presented in the picture itself.

Honest it's a rather ignorant rule.

Not meaning to be offensive, but it really is the appropriate word.

I'm not going to take sides here, but on the 'tag how it is interpreted' rule, can't people interpret it differently?

(Jayfeather) said:
Good Show

Quite so, eh?

CamKitty said:
A fairly civil normal discussion? Your trying too hard lol

You earned my respect for this. It always saddens me to see how many people don't get the difference between an argument and a discussion.

I guess that's also the reason why they start with that 'butthurt', 'drama' and what have you stuff. People, we're discussing a topic here, not clawing each others eyes out. I don't know about you, but I actually do this kind of stuff for fun.

Bloodscale said:
You earned my respect for this. It always saddens me to see how many people don't get the difference between an argument and a discussion.

I guess that's also the reason why they start with that 'butthurt', 'drama' and what have you stuff. People, we're discussing a topic here, not clawing each others eyes out. I don't know about you, but I actually do this kind of stuff for fun.

I definitely enjoy good debates too, since I'm just as interested in trying to learn and understand my opponent's position as I am in trying to explain and defend my own. It's hard for a lot of people to not take it personal or not make it personal though. =/

... Good Gods, what have I done?

Char said:
I definitely enjoy good debates too, since I'm just as interested in trying to learn and understand my opponent's position as I am in trying to explain and defend my own. It's hard for a lot of people to not take it personal or not make it personal though. =/

Tell me about it...

Bloodscale said:
Quite so, eh?

I'm the old woman, correct?

(Jayfeather) said:
I'm the old woman, correct?

Ne'er would I presume less.

Yea this should have been tagged as fluttershy as the hair was already enough for me to tell that this was a humanized version of fluttershy and was only confused when I looked at the tags and found that it was not tagged as such. The tag-what-you-see rule should not be enforced to an absolute strict rule but as a guideline to judge on an individual basis. If it voted on for this pick id see ppl saying in majority that it was a picture of a human fluttershy

Nice picture btw

I'unno, "girl with pink hair" doesn't automatically equal "Fluttershy" to me.

Bloodscale said:
Ne'er would I presume less.

Always nice to have a classy conversation with a pleasant individual.

Okay, firstly, you can tell it's Fluttershy by her hair. Secondly, the name of the pic is Flutterpuss. Who else could that possibly refer to?

(Jayfeather) said:
Always nice to have a classy conversation with a pleasant individual.

The pleasure is all mine, I assure you.

i find it funny when people on this site argue about stupid tags.
i dont care if this is fluttershy or not.
honestly why do people care?.

dragonrump said:
i find it funny when people on this site argue about stupid tags.
i dont care if this is fluttershy or not.
honestly why do people care?.

Order without rules = anarchy

and why the hell is there like 20 comments below threshold?.

And yet another good image buried and suffocated as a result of draconian and illogical posting rules.

Someday, maybe we will have posting rules that aren't so arbitrary. Then maybe, JUST maybe, people wouldn't bitch and complain about it?

...na.

On e621, we tag it as it appears, not what the artist says they intended, because what an artist says they intended doesn't always line up with what they actually drew. Same principle for penisland.com.
[/quote]

To some people it appears to be pen island.
We KNOW it is actually pen island.

To some people it appears to be penis land.
It's not actually penis land.

Who's right?

To some people it appears to be a picture of Fluttershy.
We KNOW it is actually Fluttershy

To some it appears to be a random girl
Its not actually a random girl.

Who's right?

According to your own logic, the website should be assumed to be penis land, not pen island, and this image should be assumed to not be Fluttershy.

Penis land it is.

On e621, we tag it as it appears, not what the artist says they intended, because what an artist says they intended doesn't always line up with what they actually drew. Same principle for penisland.com.

To some people it appears to be pen island.
We KNOW it is actually pen island.

To some people it appears to be penis land.
It's not actually penis land.

Who's right?

To some people it appears to be a picture of Fluttershy.
We KNOW it is actually Fluttershy.

To some it appears to be a random girl
Its not actually a random girl.

Who's right?

---------------------
According to your own logic, the website should be assumed to be penis land, not pen island, and this image should be assumed to not be some random girl, not fluttershy.

How can you say "tag it as it appears" when "how it appears" is completely arbitrary? Plenty of other people see this as Fluttershy. Plenty of people don't. Why do you cater to one side and forsake the other?

TheFrozenOne said:
To some people it appears to be pen island.
We KNOW it is actually pen island.

To some people it appears to be penis land.
It's not actually penis land.

Who's right?

To some people it appears to be a picture of Fluttershy.
We KNOW it is actually Fluttershy.

To some it appears to be a random girl
Its not actually a random girl.

Who's right?

---------------------
According to your own logic, the website should be assumed to be penis land, not pen island, and this image should be assumed to not be some random girl, not fluttershy.

How can you say "tag it as it appears" when "how it appears" is completely arbitrary? Plenty of other people see this as Fluttershy. Plenty of people don't. Why do you cater to one side and forsake the other?

This has already been settled, stop stirring the shit pot.

Hermlove150 said:
This has already been settled, stop stirring the shit pot.

Rules should be completely black and white, and left with no ambiguity, not this arbitrary mess that causes people to point fingers at one another in regards to who is right and why.

The fact that that this issue is still popping up daily is proof enough that this problem has not been settled and never will be until the admins take the time to make a more sensible and clear-cut tagging structure, like other tag-oriented image repositories do. Mis-tagging is a pain in the ass the affects everyone, and it has only got worse since the website was restructured.

It looks like Fluttershy's hairstyle to me. Therefore, it's Fluttershy.

Well, I am going to be that dick today.

If this is ruled to be fluttershy, then anytime we have a character with a similar hair style to Krystal, Sonic, Flora, ETC, I am going to tag it as such.

Aparently we can not take the fact that there is so little to match this up to fluttershy beyond the hair. As this website is NOT SUPPOSED to use outside identification sources like THE DAMN NAME of the drawing, I will consider hair enough of an identification to characters.

Since Anailaigh, a zebra with rainbow hair, mane, and tail, was posted here a whole year before Rainbow Dash, I am going to start tagging every MLP Rainbow Dash with the tag Anailaigh.

Well the first one is done

http://e621.net/post/show/303481/2013-anailaigh-blue_eyes-blush-clothing-costume-di

Nothing distinguishable that it is MLP.

No cutie-marks.
No ponies.
Nothing remotely MLP.... Except for the hair.

But that's right... We established that hair is a character trait. Well, since Anailaigh had that hair style before any MLP character, then it gets tagged as such.

Any admin seeing this now knows where it is located and I hope they will understand why this has been done.

A hairstyle does is not something only one character ever has. It is not a reliable way to determine who a character is. Unless something incredibly telltale is apparent, don't tag it as something just because of a minor feature like a hairstyle. Thank you.

Go check out Gelbooru's, Danbooru's, or Sankakucomplex's rules and come back.

"Tag what you see" isn't really the problem, all image sites have this rule. The problem is when it involves characters. Most sites include characters in the "tag what you see rule", regardless of whether or not only a part of the character is inside picture. It has nothing to do with using outside knowledge of a picture.

If we see a tree in a picture, do we tag 'tree'? Of course. If we see only half a tree in a picture, do we still tag 'tree'? Yes. If that tree is partially cut off, blue, upside-down, and has no leaves, is it still tagged 'tree'? Yes, because it is in the picture and can be seen despite being changed in numerous ways.

So what is so different when tagging characters? If a character is in a picture, it should be tagged as such. It shouldn't matter if the face is cut off, or it is only their butt, and so on. There should be no debate about it. I'd really like to see the rules updated to be more precise, much like Gelbooru. I don't understand why there is such a problem with this.

Just my 2cents.

MoistPancake said:
stuff

To add on to that, Gelbooru requires that you tag characters, if at all possible. It makes sure that people who are searching for certain characters find what they want and people who blacklist certain characters to avoid what they want, even if it isn't extremely apparent to some people. This ensures that pictures are accurately tagged and aren't left up to what someone "thinks".

I don't know, I don't like contributing to this stupid argument, and I'm not trying to offend anyone. I just thing e621 has weird rules.

Ratte said:
A hairstyle does is not something only one character ever has. It is not a reliable way to determine who a character is. Unless something incredibly telltale is apparent, don't tag it as something just because of a minor feature like a hairstyle. Thank you.

Ratte said:
A hairstyle does is not something only one character ever has. It is not a reliable way to determine who a character is. Unless something incredibly telltale is apparent, don't tag it as something just because of a minor feature like a hairstyle. Thank you.

well I guess all the humanized versions of ponies can't be tagged as ponies, since the only thing they share is the hairstyle and eye color.

Catachan said:
well I guess all the humanized versions of ponies can't be tagged as ponies, since the only thing they share is the hairstyle and eye color.

No, that is not true. As long as the image somewhere has some definitive connection to MLP it will be tagged as such.

This can be as simple as a cutie mark insignia on a part of the the clothing.

Like:
http://e621.net/post/show/302402/bikini-crown-cutie_mark-ear_piercing-eyewear-femal
http://e621.net/post/show/297363/2012-artman2112-breasts-cutie_mark-equine-female-f
or even
http://e621.net/post/show/182431/blue_hair-butt-cutie_mark-doll-english_text-equine

Since there is a direct correlation to the MLP universe, we can directly assume that hair styles, clothing patterns, eye color, etc. can represent specific characters.

Bloodscale said:
The pleasure is all mine, I assure you.

Ah sorry for the long wait my good chum

(Jayfeather) said:
Ah sorry for the long wait my good chum

That is absolutely no problem.

I love how you guys were arguing over something obvious. It really puts the scope of your intellects into perspective.

AS PER https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=tag_what_you_see I have changed the tags of this image. If you remove the tags "fluttershy_(mlp) friendship_is_magic my_little_pony" you will be in direct violation of this rule.

Rocket_Corgi said:
You can't really say this is Fluttershy just from what's seen in this pic.

True

They fixed the rules to allow for source information when tagging character names.

VAGINA. LOOK AT IT.

VAGINA. LOOK AT IT.

Am I the only one who thought the picture was a picture of a real pussy at first glance?

I love this and have MLP blacklisted, that's why you tag what you see, not by the source :P

I can feel my IQ dropping as I read through this god-forsaken comment section.

Here's my two cents. If I wanted to find all the pics that depict fluttershy, no matter the form, I wouldn't find this in it. Also, if there are other images I want to find, where the character is vaguely similar to a known character, then I would not be able to find those images again. I feel like there should be a resemblance tagset...

Since character names are now a partial exception to TWYS, I'm going to go ahead and overrule this so it can be tagged as fluttershy_(mlp).

SuaveLana said:
I love this and have MLP blacklisted, that's why you tag what you see, not by the source :P

Not the best reason or reasoning, but still a solid one.
K, I'm shutting up.

Wow.. This was quite the comment section.

I mean, its a vagina, look at it and do whatever.