Furry being tagged no_humans

It feels awkward to me that by searching no humans you get lots of posts containing furry and other humanoid mecha characters. There are several monster girl posts that aren't tagged as such because it is to my understanding the purpose of the tag was meant to serve as a way to view pictures without "intelligent" life on it, and these character posts feel like they're cluttering its intent.

Is it really fine to tag furry as no humans? Because I don't think the average user is expecting to see furries in their results after searching the tag.

According to the no humans wiki, humanoids count as humans. I guess the degree of furryness determines if a furry counts as humanoid?

Post count for no_humans status:any: 51133

Post count for no_humans furry status:any: 791
That’s a 1.6% furry ratio. I don’t think that counts as “lots of posts” cluttering the no humans tag.
Many of the results score a solid 4 on the furry scale and barely count as humanoid. The 2nd degree ones among the results should definitely count as humanoid, though.

Post count for furry -no_humans status:any: 7034
Most taggers seem to agree that furries count as humanoids.

Post count for no_humans pokemon status:any: 13685
The 27% Pokemon ratio is more interesting since they’re usually not humanoid but might count as “intelligent life”.

Post count for no_humans mecha status:any: 7808
Post count for no_humans gundam status:any: 3387
As for mecha (15%, is that “lots of posts”?), do they count as “intelligent life”? I’m not into Gundam (6.6%), but don’t they need a pilot because they’re dumb machines and the no humans tag is justified?

Maybe no humans should be renamed to no humanoids? Sounds a bit clunky, though.

This whole issue stems from the no_humans wiki using the word "humanoid" then defining it as "characters who appear identical to humans but are canonically not human".

Use this tag when no humans (or humanoids, e.g. human-looking homunculus, youkai, or the like) are visible in the picture.

The term "humanoid" commonly refers to the basic human shape - one head, two arms, stands on two legs etc. This implies that the tag is for posts with no characters who resemble the human shape (definition A). However, the examples that this wiki lists as humanoids are homunculi (artificially created beings meant to resemble humans) and youkai (spirits from Japanese folklore that are said to take human form). This definition is a lot stricter and implies that the tag is actually for any character that isn't of the human species (or a close fictional version, such as an elf), as it is essentially saying "don't tag no_humans based on lore" (definition B). The answer to this dilemma is whether we want the tag to use definition A or definition B.

If we choose definition A, then the tag would be intuitive - no_humans means no_humans (within reason). However, as stated in the OP the problem of being unable to look for posts with zero human-shaped characters will remain. This is something I can imagine a decent amount of users would enjoy being able to search for.

If we choose definition B, then the tag should be renamed to no_humanoids and the wiki should be rephrased in order to prevent any confusion. However, users will lack the ability to blacklist characters that aren't human but are still humanoid-shaped - I imagine a large amount of users would like to be able to easily blacklist non-human characters such as furries, androids, demons, monster girls/boys etc. as they're not to everyone's tastes.

A solution that would solve both issues would be to use both: no_humans for definition A and no_humanoids for definition B, with no_humanoids implying no_humans. That way users are able to blacklist non-human humanoid-shaped characters using no_humans, while also retaining the ability to search for posts that lack any humanoid-shaped characters at all. This is the choice that I'm in favor of; feedback would be appreciated.

A solution that would solve both issues would be to use both: no_humans for definition A and no_humanoids for definition B, with no_humanoids implying no_humans. That way users are able to blacklist non-human humanoid-shaped characters using no_humans, while also retaining the ability to search for posts that lack any humanoid-shaped characters at all

I agree with this. It would allow for no_humans queries to produce a more intuitive result without losing the ability to find posts featuring nothing that resembles humans i.e: objects, scenery etc.

+1

AngryZapdos said:

I imagine a large amount of users would like to be able to easily blacklist non-human characters such as furries, androids, demons, monster girls/boys etc. as they're not to everyone's tastes.

Not sure I got that right: are you suggesting that blacklisting no humans would be an easy way to blacklist all furry, android, demon, monster girl/boy etc stuff? Because it’s really not. As soon as one human(oid) is present in the image, it doesn’t get tagged no humans and thus won’t be hidden. Users should blacklist the individual tags if they don’t want to see such content (e.g., if a post contains a human and a furry, blacklisting furry would hide the post as intended but blacklisting no humans would not).

A solution that would solve both issues would be to use both: no_humans for definition A and no_humanoids for definition B, with no_humanoids implying no_humans. That way users are able to blacklist non-human humanoid-shaped characters using no_humans, while also retaining the ability to search for posts that lack any humanoid-shaped characters at all. This is the choice that I'm in favor of; feedback would be appreciated.

Sounds reasonable.

I'm in favour of adopting both no_humans and no_humanoids. While I upload no_humans art, as I appreciate it's value, when searching I typically only want to see human art and therefore have no_humans blacklisted. Having the definition of "human" become stricter would improve my experience on Danbooru.

kittey said:

Not sure I got that right: are you suggesting that blacklisting no humans would be an easy way to blacklist all furry, android, demon, monster girl/boy etc stuff? Because it’s really not. As soon as one human(oid) is present in the image, it doesn’t get tagged no humans and thus won’t be hidden. Users should blacklist the individual tags if they don’t want to see such content (e.g., if a post contains a human and a furry, blacklisting furry would hide the post as intended but blacklisting no humans would not).

I'm suggesting that users probably want to be able to to easily blacklist that stuff, not that they're able to do so right now.

I don't think we need another tag that would basically be the exact equivalent of an inverse "human" search (there's many reasons why we don't have it). If people don't like furry the blacklist exists.

Where do you draw the line? Do women with hooves count as humans? What about humans with pitch black skin and no arms? What about Gardevoir, which is almost always drawn as a woman with no feet, but was tagged as no_humans in post #3967280?

I find it ridiculous that posts like post #3979974 would not be tagged as no_humans.

If the name is the issue just alias it to no humanoids or a more broad name, but having two tags at once is a recipe for disaster.

I have to agree with nonamethanks above, it's a good and simple enough solution.

Considering the confusion that this thread is causing, I'm going to open a discussion for a tag for non-human humanoid characters after we deal with the no_humans -> no_humanoids shift. Trying to discuss both at the same time is a headache for most of the participants and they can easily be talked about and voted on separately - there's no need for both proposals to happen at the same time. I apologize for causing any headaches with my ramblings.

The alias request thread is forum #169200.

No humans means no people, where a person is anything you would tag as 1girl or 1boy. Furries count as people for this purpose.

The original purpose of this tag was to find posts without any people, for example scenery, still lifes, food porn, animal focus posts, mecha posts, text only pages, etc. It's supposed to be something like a chartags:0 or -1girl -1boy -multiple_girls -multiple_boys search, except those searches don't work, hence the need for this tag. The word humans wasn't meant to be taken too literally here.

I really don't like how every time we have an ambiguous or misused tag, we end up renaming it to some worse-sounding alternative. See: all the legwear/headwear/footwear/eyewear tags, <color>_theme tags, hip focus, text focus. We've done this with a bunch of tags and all it's given us is uglier tag names.

No humanoids isn't necessarily clearer either, if you don't understand what no humans means, then you're not necessarily going to understand what no humanoids means. You still have to know that things like monster girls still count as humanoids, even when they're not fully human-shaped, while mecha don't count as humanoids, even though they are human-shaped.

evazion said:

No humanoids isn't necessarily clearer either, if you don't understand what no humans means, then you're not necessarily going to understand what no humanoids means. You still have to know that things like monster girls still count as humanoids, even when they're not fully human-shaped, while mecha don't count as humanoids, even though they are human-shaped.

It's still a sight better than no_humans, which is a very poor name since the tag is not actually for posts with no humans. The average person who sees the tag no_humans is going to assume that it means there are no humans in the post, which as we've established is untrue. no_humanoids is much less likely to have users confidently make an incorrect assumption.

I really don't mind if you'd prefer to call it something other than no_humanoids, but as it stands no_humans is a very unintuitive name for a tag that is able to be added to posts with no humans. I really think it needs a different name.

We could use no_anthropomorphs but that would likely not be very search friendly.

Does Sonic count as a non human? Im not sure I would tag him 1boy.

ion288 said:

We could use no_anthropomorphs but that would likely not be very search friendly.

Does Sonic count as a non human? Im not sure I would tag him 1boy.

Sonic is a male anthro/humanoid/furry, so you should tag him as 1boy.

Let's alias it to no_humanoids. Expand on the wiki, and be done with the topic.

Does no_person or no_people capture the intent better?

Apply the harkness test. https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Harkness_Test
Even then we'd still have to settle the personhood status of pokemon.

ElectricSheep said:

Even then we'd still have to settle the personhood status of pokemon.

Pokemon should be creatures, and are never referred to as people, right?

Mysterious_Uploader said:

Pokemon should be creatures, and are never referred to as people, right?

Generally yes, but there are cases such as pool #3662 where humanoid Pokemon are treated identically to furries.