create implication bad_anatomy -> poorly_drawn
create implication bad_perspective -> poorly_drawn
Posted under Tags
create implication bad_anatomy -> poorly_drawn
create implication bad_perspective -> poorly_drawn
create implication bad_proportions -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_hands -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_leg -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_feet -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_ass -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_vulva -> bad_anatomy
The bulk update request #880 has been approved.
The bulk update request #878 has been approved.
Don't know how to feel about this.
Are bad feet really enough to tag an entire picture as poorly drawn?
Kikimaru said:
Don't know how to feel about this.
Are bad feet really enough to tag an entire picture as poorly drawn?
I don't think so. You can have something like bad feet or bad hands where the rest of the image is well-drawn otherwise. To me, the poorly drawn tag suggests bad art in general, with an overall lack of skill or multiple problems with anatomy/shading/perspective. A single mistake on the artist's part shouldn't be enough to deserve poorly drawn.
This update probably deserved more discussion before approval.
iridescent_slime said:
Kikimaru said:
Don't know how to feel about this.
Are bad feet really enough to tag an entire picture as poorly drawn?
I don't think so. You can have something like bad feet or bad hands where the rest of the image is well-drawn otherwise. To me, the poorly drawn tag suggests bad art in general, with an overall lack of skill or multiple problems with anatomy/shading/perspective. A single mistake on the artist's part shouldn't be enough to deserve poorly drawn.
This update probably deserved more discussion before approval.
In my opinion, it is enough because the poorly_drawn tag is not something that describes utterly catastrophic drawing quality. For really bad cases of bad anatomy we have the bad_proportions tag, and for extreme cases there is still the anatomical_nonsense tag.
Please also take a look at the wiki entry of error. Tony Taka, for example, is famous for drawing "wrong" hands (post #827161). But of course his artworks are anything but poorly drawn.
For the sake of completeness, I'll quote the "Anatomy and Perspective" paragraph of howto:upload:
Anatomy and Perspective
Figure illustrations have always, and will always make up the vast majority of our collection. As a result, we have developed a fussy eye for drawn people. Danbooru is especially picky and can be especially harsh at times when it comes to judging an artist's execution of perspective and anatomy. A good example of how a professional quality illustration quickly falls under Danbooru's ultra-sensitive anatomy checker is post #190107.
- Generally Accepted
- Illustrations demonstrating correct execution of anatomy AND perspective. This is extremely important!
- Danbooru loves good anatomy and perspective. Pools have been created to celebrate excellence in illustrative anatomy:
- Subject to Contention
- Sometimes an illustration with some touchy issues but otherwise good anatomy shows up on Danbooru. Moderators debate to no end while these illustrations fall into the fires of deletion.
- High quality illustrations marred by glaring anatomical errors.
Such images still stand a high chance of being rejected.
- High quality illustrations with mostly good anatomy, but feature grotesquely exaggerated breasts and genitals.
- Generally Rejected
- Images showing poor execution of human anatomy. Danbooru moderators are known to be repulsive of 'horrors' like poorly drawn hands and feet, disproportionate breasts, uneven eyes and deformed heads.
- Hallmarks of Danbooru deletions: post #266189, post #595403
(Some say that these guidelines are outdated. However, the quoted part was written by albert himself.)
Updated
Perhaps I've been too hasty with these implications. If people still want to debate, I'm willing to revert the changes if there's a good argument against it.
For future reference, you should have posted your reasoning from forum #119451 in the OP instead of leaving the Reason field blank, @reiyasona.
I thought of the "poorly drawn" tag the same way iridescent slime does, that the image is poorly drawn in general. I wouldn't think of it being tagged if it's just one part that's poor. If we're going to be go with a more expansive definition of poorly drawn, then the wiki needs to be reworded, as I don't feel there are grounds to discourage an upload if a post looks good overall but with just one aspect that's poor.
remove implication bad_anatomy -> poorly_drawn
remove implication bad_perspective -> poorly_drawn
remove implication bad_proportions -> bad_anatomy
remove implication bad_hands -> bad_anatomy
remove implication bad_leg -> bad_anatomy
remove implication bad_feet -> bad_anatomy
remove implication bad_ass -> bad_anatomy
remove implication bad_vulva -> bad_anatomy
After scrolling through nearly 200+ pages of my post edits, I realize this bulk update was a mistake and it didn't match how the site at large was using the poorly_drawn tag. Unfortunately I don't know how to revert my edits to a previous state without removing the tags that were manually added before the update. If anyone experienced with scripts can help me, that'll be swell.
The bulk update request #881 has been approved.
Hillside_Moose said:
Unfortunately I don't know how to revert my edits to a previous state without removing the tags that were manually added before the update. If anyone experienced with scripts can help me, that'll be swell.
Yeah, reverting an implication or an alias is always a disaster, we have no built-in tools for that. I could fast-code something using Java, but it'll have to wait another 6 hours while I get home, and then the time for coding and debugging. @RaisingK, perhaps you could help us with that? You have most of the tools prepared already.
Steps to clean up everything (unless I missed something):
There's about 340 version pages and 6800 posts affected. Should fit in the hourly API limit, and there's no haste so it might be distributed over a few hours, but I can run the script with my api key if that's necessary.
Hillside_Moose said:
Perhaps I've been too hasty with these implications. If people still want to debate, I'm willing to revert the changes if there's a good argument against it.
For future reference, you should have posted your reasoning from forum #119451 in the OP instead of leaving the Reason field blank, @reiyasona.
I will certainly do so from now on.
iridescent_slime said:
I don't think so. You can have something like bad feet or bad hands where the rest of the image is well-drawn otherwise. To me, the poorly drawn tag suggests bad art in general, with an overall lack of skill or multiple problems with anatomy/shading/perspective. A single mistake on the artist's part shouldn't be enough to deserve poorly drawn.
This update probably deserved more discussion before approval.
EB said:
I thought of the "poorly drawn" tag the same way iridescent slime does, that the image is poorly drawn in general. I wouldn't think of it being tagged if it's just one part that's poor. If we're going to be go with a more expansive definition of poorly drawn, then the wiki needs to be reworded, as I don't feel there are grounds to discourage an upload if a post looks good overall but with just one aspect that's poor.
I think that the main issue here is the wording of the poorly_drawn (bad_art) tag itself. It suggests poor overall quality in terms of rough (sketchy looking) elements, bad shading, bad linework/lineart, bad coloring, bad anatomy and bad perspective. However, this is not how the tag is defined. In fact, the tag only covers perspectival and anatomical errors. The wiki entry of poorly_drawn also never called for the existence of multiple problematic aspects. The majority of the posts you can find with the query "poorly_drawn -bad_anatomy -bad_proportions -bad_perspective" are tagged incorrectly. They feature "simple" artworks with sloppy lines and poor coloring. "Rookie Art" is what I'd call most of them. Poor understanding of anatomy or perspective is not necessarily the problem here.
Updated
What needs to be done to resolve this problem? Here is my Plan:
[1] howto:upload: Generally Rejected: Images showing poor execution of human anatomy. Danbooru moderators are known to be repulsive of 'horrors' like poorly drawn hands and feet, disproportionate breasts, uneven eyes and deformed heads.
Updated
Type-kun said:
Yeah, reverting an implication or an alias is always a disaster, we have no built-in tools for that. I could fast-code something using Java, but it'll have to wait another 6 hours while I get home, and then the time for coding and debugging. @RaisingK, perhaps you could help us with that? You have most of the tools prepared already.
Steps to clean up everything (unless I missed something):
- Search through versions for user 85307, with version IDs between 16337850 and 16345298
- Pick the ones where "added-tags" contains poorly_drawn or bad_anatomy
- Call undo on those versions, using `PUT` method on "/post_versions/<version_id>/undo"
There's about 340 version pages and 6800 posts affected. Should fit in the hourly API limit, and there's no haste so it might be distributed over a few hours, but I can run the script with my api key if that's necessary.
@RaisingK sorry, disregard that, got some free time while on work, will fix it myself.
I'm just spitballing ideas here, but would it be possible/helpful to add something like "tag_string_auto" or something else to the Posts Model to keep track of tags added manually versus tags added automatically for situations like this...?
Another idea is something like "tag_string_temporary" where there would be a probationary period for implication tags before they were committed to the rest of the tags...
BrokenEagle98 said:
I'm just spitballing ideas here, but would it be possible/helpful to add something like "tag_string_auto" or something else to the Posts Model to keep track of tags added manually versus tags added automatically for situations like this...?
Another idea is something like "tag_string_temporary" where there would be a probationary period for implication tags before they were committed to the rest of the tags...
I'm thinking about building admin tool for mass-undo instead. It's a long-needed update anyway, since it can also be applicable to manual mass-mistagging and tag vandalism. Mandatory creator ID, start and end version ID, and optional field for added and removed tags theoretically should make it fast enough while allowing to fix virtually any mistake of any scale, not to mention it will work as a delayed job like alias/implication/BUR approval.
Either way, something like that should be built-in. Fixing what's described in this thread will take 2 hours at this rate, and it's relatively small-scale.
Updated
Type-kun said:
I'm thinking about building admin tool for mass-undo instead. It's a long-needed update anyway, since it can also be applicable to manual mass-mistagging and tag vandalism. Mandatory creator ID, start and end version ID, and optional field for added and removed tags theoretically should make it fast enough while allowing to fix virtually any mistake of any scale, not to mention it will work as a delayed job like alias/implication/BUR approval.
Either way, something like that should be built-in. Fixing what's described in this thread will take 2 hours at this rate, and it's relatively small-scale.
Definitely an important feature! +1
Let's not forget what happened in forum #118129.