Posted under Tags
NWF_Renim said:
Going to disagree with having that POV clause, because I'd never agree that something like post #2408421 is a pantyshot.
Yeah, but then is upshorts a pantyshot or panty peek? If you say either, then we're starting to get into the grey territory of defining percentages of panty visibility versus which tag gets added, vastly increasing the subjectivity of the tagging.
BrokenEagle98 and Provence, I think you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that not all tags are going to be a 0 or a 1 and that there will be subjectivity in there existence. Even something like hair color and eye color are subjective to a degree, so trying to say a tag has to be a binary existence of is or isn't is bad reasoning.
post #2408421 is not a pantyshot, it'll never be a pantyshot, and you're going to have to get over the fact that your logic will never succeed in making it a pantyshot.
As for upshorts, the majority appears to be panty peek type depictions. Only a few of them may warrant pantyshot.
Updated
Provence said:
I don't like this idea: At least 5% of the panties need to be visible to be a pantyshot.
I'd be strict here and say: It's either visible or not. Doesn't matter how much the panties are visible.
This would only create uncertainty.
I'd still like to distinguish between limited (waistband & legband) and almost full exposure (especially of the crotch area).
I was just taking a look at the Wikipedia article of Panchira and it says: "The word Panchira is similar to panty peek in English."
If enough people see pantyshot as an alias for panty peek, then nothing what we try accomplish here will succeed.
Provence said:
What is the reason why you say it doesn't fit the pantyshot tag? Because it's not a skirt/dress she's wearing or that the view isn't accidental?
A good pantyshot should expose a reasonable level of the crotch or rear portion, something like post #2408421 does not really expose the crotch or rear.
At least for the front perhaps a good way to take it is if you erased the panties and it you wouldn't have enough material left to censor the genitals, then it's probably a pantyshot. If you'd still have enough material left to conceal it, it's probably a panty peek.
Updated
NWF_Renim said:
At least for the front perhaps a good way to take it is if you erased the panties and it you wouldn't have enough material left to censor the genitals, then it's probably a pantyshot. If you'd still have plenty of material left to conceal it, it's probably a panty peek.
I think this is an interesting approach. Maybe you could extend this definition by also mentioning the anal region (anus).
NWF_Renim said:
A good pantyshot should expose a reasonable level of the crotch or rear portion, something like post #2408421 does not really expose the crotch or rear.
So much for subjectivity. Because in this approach I can't see it :P.
But I don't want to attack you here, but I think that this is a good approach to this tag and its usage because it does make sense and doesn't leave much room for discussion^^.
Provence said:
So much for subjectivity. Because in this approach I can't see it :P.
But I don't want to attack you here, but I think that this is a good approach to this tag and its usage because it does make sense and doesn't leave much room for discussion^^.
I'm completely lost now ... xD (Maybe the ironic :P finished me off.)
Which approach are you referring to? I got the impression that you are talking about:
NWF_Renim said:
A good pantyshot should expose a reasonable level of the crotch or rear portion, something like post #2408421 does not really expose the crotch or rear.
At least for the front perhaps a good way to take it is if you erased the panties and it you wouldn't have enough material left to censor the genitals, then it's probably a pantyshot. If you'd still have enough material left to conceal it, it's probably a panty peek.
If we define pantyshot as "significant panty + crotch area exposure" and panty peek as "tiny/small panty exposure, i.e., mostly waistband & legband", then post #2408421 will be a pretty clear case, in my opinion.
Updated
just dropping something i found, the underused panty_slip tag that might be already covered or retooled in the future.
ghostrigger said:
just dropping something i found, the underused panty_slip tag that might be already covered or retooled in the future.
This just seems to be poor tagging as it covers posts which should be tagged panties aside, pantyshot, panties down, or panty peak. If I remember I will clean this up much later today. panty slip should not be in use IMO.
As for this thread, I am 100% in favor for keeping panty peak for the reasons already put foward.
reiyasona said:
If we define pantyshot as "significant panty and/or crotch area exposure" and panty peek as "tiny/small panty exposure, i.e., mostly waistband & legband", then post #2408421 will be a pretty clear case, in my opinion.
This is the best definition I've heard so far (edited slightly).
I'd say update the Wiki entries and provide examples of both for guidance, then call it done. Agree...?
NWF_Renim said:
The tag alias panty_peek -> pantyshot has been rejected.
What's with forum #116740^^?
The bulk update request #805 has been approved.
I can potentially see this get reversed in the future, but seems fine for now.
