Weird exclusion of female_pervert and pool: Madoka - Perverted Homura

BUR #5765 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

mass update pool:3171 -> pool:3171 female_pervert

Is there still a reason to keep the Madoka - Perverted Homura pool and the female_pervert tags mutually exclusive? I understand that at one point the pool would have overwhelmed the tag, but it looks like additions to the pool have slowed to a trickle in recent years, while the tag has grown substantially since then.

(It looks like the only image this update wouldn't work for is post #909858, as that's the single genderswap in the pool, but that can be fixed manually.)

I don't think implications work for pools. You need to do a mass update
Mass update pool:3171 -> pool:3171 female_pervert

Thanks, updated.

Is there a point in the pool at all? Why can't it be replaced with female_pervert akemi_homura?

nonamethanks said:

Is there a point in the pool at all? Why can't it be replaced with female_pervert akemi_homura?

There was a point. Mostly because female_pervert hasn't existed back then yet. And after it was created, people avoided tagging Homura to avoid flooding the tag results.

Though, currently the count stands at 885 Perverted Homuras in the pool, 3601 female_perverts without Homura, and 169 female_perverts with Homura. With 74 of such female_pervert Homuras also included in the pool. If we tag all Perverted Homuras with female_perverts... hmm... around 980/4581 of the female_pervert tags will be about Homura, I think? Not counting false positives like another girl being the pervert instead of Homura. Anyhow, doesn't seem like it's going to flood the tag then.

As such, currently probably not too much of an issue to tag all the Perverted Homuras with female_pervert. So I wouldn't object strongly to mass tagging them and then deleting the pool.

The point of Perverted Homura not being tagged "female pervert" is specifically to be able to find OTHER Madoka characters being perverted. The Madoka series tag is huge, and so with including Homura, finding images of the other characters being perverted become much harder to find, particularly Madoka herself (I guess there is the "Madoka's Revenge" pool, but not every image of Madoka being perverted would fit in that, like post #925868).

EB said:

The point of Perverted Homura not being tagged "female pervert" is specifically to be able to find OTHER Madoka characters being perverted. The Madoka series tag is huge, and so with including Homura, finding images of the other characters being perverted become much harder to find, particularly Madoka herself (I guess there is the "Madoka's Revenge" pool, but not every image of Madoka being perverted would fit in that, like post #925868).

Alright. Not going to support this change then. Voting accordingly.

EB said:

The point of Perverted Homura not being tagged "female pervert" is specifically to be able to find OTHER Madoka characters being perverted. The Madoka series tag is huge, and so with including Homura, finding images of the other characters being perverted become much harder to find, particularly Madoka herself (I guess there is the "Madoka's Revenge" pool, but not every image of Madoka being perverted would fit in that, like post #925868).

That argument explains the existence of the pool, not why the posts in the pool shouldn't be tagged "female pervert". Imagine if we did this for every copyright where a certain character has a specific trait.

nonamethanks said:

That argument explains the existence of the pool, not why the posts in the pool shouldn't be tagged "female pervert". Imagine if we did this for every copyright where a certain character has a specific trait.

The pool becomes kind of meaningless if she is also tagged "female pervert" since Homura is often still involved in images of other characters being perverts and so negating her leaves out a lot of posts. Also, it's a pretty unique case, and the practicality in not needed in most other instances (most simply because the counts aren't there, and other high-count copyrights tend to have much larger casts of characters).

EB said:

The pool becomes kind of meaningless if she is also tagged "female pervert" since Homura is often still involved in images of other characters being perverts and so negating her leaves out a lot of posts. Also, it's a pretty unique case, and the practicality in not needed in most other instances (most simply because the counts aren't there, and other high-count copyrights tend to have much larger casts of characters).

You can just do mahou_shoujo_madoka_magica female_pervert -pool:3171 for those cases though. Removing these posts from the female_pervert search just means that those who search for female_pervert will get fewer relevant results.
It's not reasonable to ask users to always add an OR search to a pool just to see all results whenever they're searching for that tag.

EB said:

The point of Perverted Homura not being tagged "female pervert" is specifically to be able to find OTHER Madoka characters being perverted.

You'd still be able to do that if they were tagged, though. Just add -pool:3171 to your search.

nonamethanks said:

You can just do mahou_shoujo_madoka_magica female_pervert -pool:3171 for those cases though. Removing these posts from the female_pervert search just means that those who search for female_pervert will get fewer relevant results.

In that case, you are still missing things like post #1717051 and post #2114790. Maybe there should be a "multiple perverts" tag? But the latter point is a good one as it is counterintuitive for anyone unaware of the special pool (though there is, or was, a note in wiki on that).

EB said:

In that case, you are still missing things like post #1717051 and post #2114790. Maybe there should be a "multiple perverts" tag? But the latter point is a good one as it is counterintuitive for anyone unaware of the special pool (though there is, or was, a note in wiki on that).

That line was removed today, in response to this thread I guess? Someone sure jumped the gun.

blindVigil said:

That line was removed today, in response to this thread I guess? Someone sure jumped the gun.

Huh, you're right. I was only planning on doing that after this update got approved.

I don't think a pool should sub in for tags. It just creates an unnecessary complication to searching for something.

If the pool is only remaining relevant because it's forcing bad tagging habits, it shouldn't be relevant.

I will say that I don't like using a BUR to solve this, though. I feel it needs to be gardened manually.

Veradux said:

I will say that I don't like using a BUR to solve this, though. I feel it needs to be gardened manually.

I can start going through and start manually changing them over, then, if we're agreed that the pool shouldn't exclude the tag. Somebody changed the wiki and nobody's changed it back, so it sounds uncontroversial.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #5765 (forum #187891) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

I forgot about this but I'm going to approve it since the discussion was pretty clear-cut. Half the pool was already tagged with female pervert anyway.