Appeal for a new "rough" tag

For the sake of example, these illustrations all have distinctive rough lines on their composition:
post #2722765;
post #2723642;
post #2722641;
post #2722424;
post #2722464;
post #2722486;
post #2722511;
post #2722386;
post #2722323;
post #2722334.

(These posts are not considered sketches.)

A "rough" tag should exist, used when the illustration is not a sketch but has rough lines, visible individual strokes for shading, outlines intermingled with each other when they really shouldn't (for example, right sleeve on post #2722386), shading by scribbled lines (for example, neck on post #2722334), outlines that stretch further than they should, colors that go past their outlines (even if a matter of a few pixels).

Ideally, there should also be a "rough_background" tag for when only the background of an illustration has these traits. For example:
post #2722260;
post #2722246.

The usefulness of this tag would include:
Artists looking for reference. Rough lines and shading are evidences of how the picture was made;
Quality filtering. Rough illustrations can be considered to be low quality and increase the browsing experience when filtered out.
(EDIT: Let me rephrase the above statement. Rough illustrations can be considered to be low quality subjectively, and it would be good for the browsing experience if they could be filtered out.)

I'm okay with the idea but don't agree with the tag name as it's too ambiguous and too easily mistaken for something else. That said, I can't think of a better one off the top of my head.

Don't really see the point about the background. Those post you have pointed out here serve as a pretty bad example, since they are clearly not poor quality. The focus is only different. The background serves more as a location where the character is without being too detailed. That is not poor quality nor does it lower the quality of the image and such a "rough_background" tag is highly subjective.
The background is brought into consideration when the whole post isn't that good. But a background alone is not enough to say that something is poor quality, not even partially.

Mmmmm... don't know about this one. Maybe "rough lines" would do, but the effort to garden that is pretty heavy. + Roughs can also be accepted as an artistic or stylistic choice/motif, never intended to look truly finished even as study pieces. The problem is how far the definition would extend, and if anyone would confuse it with sketch -- which I think many will.

First point I agree with. The reference part is useful, potentially. Second point, I do not. Rough illustrations or sketches are not determining elements of lower quality posts. There have been users in the past that have flagged over 'rough lines' and have been reprimanded in turn. Sketches, oekaki, etc. But from a purely preference-based standpoint it's somewhat ehh.

I suppose for now I'll be against this proposition. I upload a lot of sketches/roughs myself, so I may perhaps be a bit bias: user:Mikaeri sketch

EDIT: words

provence said:

Don't really see the point about the background. Those post you have pointed out here serve as a pretty bad example, since they are clearly not poor quality. The focus is only different. The background serves more as a location where the character is without being too detailed. That is not poor quality nor does it lower the quality of the image and such a "rough_background" tag is highly subjective.
The background is brought into consideration when the whole post isn't that good. But a background alone is not enough to say that something is poor quality, not even partially.

I agree that if the background try to convey something abstract, such as my first example, such a tag wouldn't be needed. However, you misunderstand something. I'm not saying that rough lines and backgrounds make a picture low quality, but they can be considered low quality subjectively, as you've stated, and it would be good if they could be filtered out.

Mikaeri said:

Mmmmm... don't know about this one. Maybe "rough lines" would do, but the effort to garden that is pretty heavy. + Roughs can also be accepted as an artistic or stylistic choice/motif, never intended to look truly finished even as study pieces. The problem is how far the definition would extend, and if anyone would confuse it with sketch -- which I think many will.

First point I agree with. The reference part is useful, potentially. Second point, I do not. Rough illustrations or sketches being considered 'low quality' is not grounds for flagging, but from a purely preference-based standpoint it's somewhat ehh.

I suppose for now I'll be against this proposition.

Indeed, there is an ocean of illustrations that would require this new tag, but maybe some people would do it. I'd do it myself to some extent.
When I said that they "can be considered low quality", I meant subjectively from the individual. For this reason, it would be good if it could be filtered out.

Yeah, that is true. But when you have a subjective tag, then the borders what it should mean are very vague und undefined and exactly the opposite of any tag's nature. If something is still loq quality for you, then you can flag it, or just ignore it in a search.
This is fairly similar to the poorly drawn tag: That tag is also very subjective, and if you think something is poorly done, then it should get flagged.

provence said:

Yeah, that is true. But when you have a subjective tag, then the borders what it should mean are very vague und undefined and exactly the opposite of any tag's nature. If something is still loq quality for you, then you can flag it, or just ignore it in a search.
This is fairly similar to the poorly drawn tag: That tag is also very subjective, and if you think something is poorly done, then it should get flagged.

What you say is true. post #2723721 is in the middle ground of what I would and would not immediately consider as rough, and would tricky to tag. There is, however, a big difference from something like post #2723737, so I would still defend my appeal.

Well, this discussion would bring up 2 concerns, which are pretty relevant to whenever a new tag is created and adopted:

1) To what extent could a "rough lines" tag be considered subjective?

• Threshold for tagging: Does one bad line make it "rough lines" or an error instead? What if it's a sketch instead? Not all sketches have rough lines either.
• How consistently can we trust users to stick to its usage as best as they can?

2) Perceived grounds for quality. Will a "rough lines" tag be seen in the same vein as the bad_* tags and serve as grounds for flagging/qc? We do accept "rough lines", but there are limits to how rough such an image can be before it starts to look like a huge scribble.

There used to be a "rough" tag that I remember using on images that looked "finished" but not "clean", but I guess it got aliased to sketch back in 2014 looking at the tag history.

freewyy said:

What you say is true. post #2723721 is in the middle ground of what I would and would not immediately consider as rough, and would tricky to tag. There is, however, a big difference from something like post #2723737, so I would still defend my appeal.

As explained in howto:tag, tags need to be objective, and by your own admission, the proposed tag is highly subjective. Any definition of "rough" is bound to be so open to interpretation that it becomes unmanageable as individual taggers all have differing expectations of how it should be used. It's hard enough to get everyone here to agree on simple things like hair color tags, so a tag based on quality or art style is guaranteed to become a complete mess.

Mikaeri said:

Well, this discussion would bring up 2 concerns, which are pretty relevant to whenever a new tag is created and adopted:

1) To what extent could a "rough lines" tag be considered subjective?

• Threshold for tagging: Does one bad line make it "rough lines" or an error instead? What if it's a sketch instead? Not all sketches have rough lines either.
• How consistently can we trust users to stick to its usage as best as they can?

2) Perceived grounds for quality. Will a "rough lines" tag be seen in the same vein as the bad_* tags and serve as grounds for flagging/qc? We do accept "rough lines", but there are limits to how rough such an image can be before it starts to look like a huge scribble.

Well, I believe I can help with the first concern. I was having trouble defining what is and isn't sketch on topic #14053.

These are sketches:
post #2720851
post #2722791

These are not sketches:
post #2721361
post #2720996

So what we have here is a progression of polishing. There's sketch, "rough" or "rough_lines" as you suggested, and untagged.

Personally, I wouldn't consider almost any of the examples you provided as rough (lines), not according to the pixiv tag, or my own impression of your definition.
I understand the concern, but it's too subjective right now.

Lynx190 said:

There used to be a "rough" tag that I remember using on images that looked "finished" but not "clean", but I guess it got aliased to sketch back in 2014 looking at the tag history.

topic #8667. It was aliased because the distinction between rough and sketch was too vague, although there wasn't very much discussion.

iridescent_slime said:

As explained in howto:tag, tags need to be objective, and by your own admission, the proposed tag is highly subjective. Any definition of "rough" is bound to be so open to interpretation that it becomes unmanageable as individual taggers all have differing expectations of how it should be used. It's hard enough to get everyone here to agree on simple things like hair color tags, so a tag based on quality or art style is guaranteed to become a complete mess.

When the image is clearly rough such as post #2723602 post #1810116, I believe there's no subjectivity. However, I am unsure, for example, about post #2720060: the right thigh is undeniably rough, but not much. For no subjectivity, there could be a concrete description of what makes an illustration rough (making the last example worthy of the tag), such as a more objective version of what I wrote on the original post.

We used to have the rough tag, but it was aliased to sketch after topic #8667.

Personally, I think that the concept is rather subjective and it would be too hard to maintain the tag and keep it from becoming a complete mess.

^

After seeing some more opinions, especially the discussion that happened in topic #8667, I'm against this proposition overall.

It's way too subjective in my opinion. The examples (especially the ones that could be considered "rough background") don't help very much.

I also think that we shouldn't change anything.
Pretty much agreeing on everyone else's stance here, since subjective tags shouldn't exist. You can flag those images if you like to. Flags are subjective. Or you can ignore them, which is my recommendation for you.

Mikaeri said:

^

After seeing some more opinions, especially the discussion that happened in topic #8667, I'm against this proposition overall.

It's way too subjective in my opinion. The examples (especially the ones that could be considered "rough background") don't help very much.

Forget about "rough_background". I digress.
It's not subjective that the posts that I showed as example have rough lines and shading. What could happen is that any rough element on an illustration makes it worthy of the "rough" tag, given there's a concrete and objective definition of what makes a drawing rough.

Since the rough tag is already aliased to sketch, I think its definition should be clear?

Rough = Sketch