Ratings check thread

These posts have been rerated multiple times and I'm not sure what to make of it.
post #3949201
post #3870710
post #3949244

It doesn't help that there is no mention of male characters on the wiki, so cases like these become harder to rate in a consistent manner.
I hope this (topless male, no shirt with a cloak/cape on and male characters in general) is addressed before it's too late on the "how to rate" wiki, otherwise without much to refer to it will just keep happening and get out of control fast.

I do think topless male shouldn't automatically mean sensitive and be context/intent dependent. Something like a normal drawing of a mexican wrestler is as G-rated as can be to me, for example (to reuse that post in your examples). Like, to me all three of these posts are G because nothing about them inherently comes across as risky, suggestive, or anything of that nature.
As much as it's a double standard in society and yadda yadda topless men aren't a particularly uncommon sight nor are they "more than G-rated" unless context and intent make it so. That said I suppose it all comes down to the standards evazion wants/needs to enforce with the new rating, but either way it definitely needs to be addressed.

I agree in most situations males shouldn't be subject to the same "too much skin" criteria disqualifying them from G. Most people aren't going to be embarrassed to be caught seeing a shirtless dude in public if it's not plainly drawn with sexual intent. post #3949201 and post #3949244 should be G, there's nothing sensitive about them. post #3870710 however, has a pretty prominent bulge, so I'd lean towards S just to be safe.

I originally deemed post #5376450 as G, someone else sees it as S, any other opinions? If non-sexual legs/barefoot is S I'll keep that in mind from now on.

pieguy said:

I originally deemed post #5376450 as G, someone else sees it as S, any other opinions? If non-sexual legs/barefoot is S I'll keep that in mind from now on.

I did it based on what was said on discord, when there's a large focus on legs/thighs and miniskirts, shorts and stuff it should be tagged as S because people have fetish on these body parts, but I'd like to see more opinions on that as well.

pieguy said:

I originally deemed post #5376450 as G, someone else sees it as S, any other opinions? If non-sexual legs/barefoot is S I'll keep that in mind from now on.

I'd say G. She's fully clothed (although barefoot) and her body isn't emphasized. I wouldn't have a problem seeing this at work.

Hyozen said:

I did it based on what was said on discord, when there's a large focus on legs/thighs and miniskirts, shorts and stuff it should be tagged as S because people have fetish on these body parts, but I'd like to see more opinions on that as well.

The legs and feet don't look particularly emphasized to me, and we shouldn't be rating things based on people having fetishes.

blindVigil said:

I agree in most situations males shouldn't be subject to the same "too much skin" criteria disqualifying them from G. Most people aren't going to be embarrassed to be caught seeing a shirtless dude in public if it's not plainly drawn with sexual intent. post #3949201 and post #3949244 should be G, there's nothing sensitive about them. post #3870710 however, has a pretty prominent bulge, so I'd lean towards S just to be safe.

That's fair. The line can be pretty blurry I guess, especially when it comes to outfits like that eg. wrestlers and such.

pieguy said:

I originally deemed post #5376450 as G, someone else sees it as S, any other opinions? If non-sexual legs/barefoot is S I'll keep that in mind from now on.

Yeah, that looks pretty G to me too.

How should posts containing gestures typically considered to be inappropriate - i.e. middle finger - but are otherwise SFW be rated? Out of the 2784 posts tagged middle finger, 2209 of them are rated S as opposed to 153 that are G. For context, I was looking over the tag changes made by other users on my posts and noticed that the rating for post #5242808 had been changed to G. When the new rating system went into effect, I had left it as S because a lot of people in the US see the middle finger as offensive and inappropriate for use around children. However, it is recognized as a form of free speech and is protected under the US Constitution. So I'm at a loss as to how this and it's parent should be rated.

Simple profanity and rude gestures can be rating:G, but anything lewd or with a sexual connotation should be rating:S.

I need a third opinion on rating of these two posts:
post #5441212
post #5441365

I rated them both as General, but there seems to be disagreement, and they were both changed to Suggestive. Now the second one of these I can kinda see why, but the other one really perplexes me. Could anyone give me their two cents on this?

SlickKilmister said:

I need a third opinion on rating of these two posts:
post #5441212
post #5441365

I rated them both as General, but there seems to be disagreement, and they were both changed to Suggestive. Now the second one of these I can kinda see why, but the other one really perplexes me. Could anyone give me their two cents on this?

Cleavage cutouts are S. They’re explicitly listed in the rating guidelines.

I'm not trying to be difficult with this reply, so I'm sorry if it seems that way, I'm just trying to understand it so I can do it correctly.

kittey said:

Cleavage cutouts are S. They’re explicitly listed in the rating guidelines.

howto:rate the line that comment is referencing

• Skimpy or revealing clothes, including swimsuits, lingerie, underwear, cleavage cutouts, playboy bunnysuits, skin tight or impossible clothes, etc.

Is this unconditional? I assumed the listing was examples which may qualify as "skimpy or revealing". Does a character wearing such a piece of clothing always qualify a post as S even if G-rating guidelines like the following fully apply?

howto:rate relevant G-guidelines

• G-rated, completely safe for work content.
• Fully clothed characters.
• Completely non-sexual scenes.
• Innocent comics and 4komass.
• Chibi and cute things.

So does this mean that every single one of the following posts are unambiguously S-rated?

• chibi ~swimsuit ~underwear --> post #5438334, post #5438333, post #5435307, post #4746747, post #2085858, post #2569048
• Innocent comic swimsuit --> post #5441249, post #5367279, post #5275256, post #5221479, post #4598646
• swimsuit -->post #5434971, post #5394924, post #4120634, post #3753603, post #5427884
• skin tight --> post #5318459, post #5244663, post #5250424, post #5042304, post #4180821
• cleavage cutout --> post #5421874, post #5380940, post #5419949, post #5390812, post #5423853
• lingerie --> post #5199634, post #4988760

On a related note, I just noticed the following line was axed from the article since I last checked it:

howto:rate between 22-05-23 and 22-06-08

• Large breasts, cleavage, blushing, midriff/navel, bare legs, bare arms, bare shoulders, and exposed shoulder blades don't instantly disqualify a post from [G-rating].

Is this not the case anymore and these now do disqualify a post from being G-rated, or should I not read anything into that change?

Thats a lot of questions. Lets start with post #5441212. It is a chibi with somewhat bulging cleavage and cleavage cutout. I would rate it S but I wouldnt correct it if I saw it rated G. Its right on the border.

I would love it if we could say "all cleavage cutouts are S or higher" but art is rarely that straight forward. Thus Danbooru doesnt try to impose strict rules but rather have guidelines. Every image must be rated by judgement by one (the uploader) or more members. If an artist miraculously managed to draw a pussy that couldnt offend anyone it would get a G rating (yes I know this is impossible). The reason we had to split Safe into Sensitive and General is because to many sexual posts where deemed Safe and normal by the somewhat sexually jaded Danbooru userbase.

post #5438333 seems to have swimsuit by some implication though I cant se one, G. post #2085858 has a chibi pantyshot, like your example its right on the border for me, S but I wont bother to change it. post #5367279 has a chibi with a skimpy bikini and a not quite chibi with a bare shoulder and midriff, I call S. post #5441249, so chibified and stylised that its G despite the swimsuit. post #5419949 is arguably a cleavage cutout but without any cleavage. Seems quite G to me. post #5421874, cleavage cutout and a corset. I changed it to S but I wouldnt fight over it. Your lingerie examples are S and the skin tight tag is a mess. Though post #5244663 seems like it could be used for a discussion of double standards for male vs female sexiness.

I think evazion (who owns Danbooru) got tired of people using that line as an excuse to rate deep cleavage and breast focused images as G. It wasnt added by him, so it likely caused more problem than it was worth. Ive heard no calls to go rate all bare legged non chibis as S so you should probably not read to much into it.

Cleavage, swimsuits, and underwear (including pantyshots) should be rated S 99% of the time. If it's clearly visible from the thumbnail, or notable enough to be worth tagging, then it should probably be rated S.

The exceptions would be when it's barely visible and in a context with zero fanservice or sex appeal. This is rare because anime is filled with fanservice and sex appeal. Frankly I don't trust most users to be a good judge of this, since most users here are so desensitized to sexiness in anime they don't recognize it when they see it. That's why the default assumption should be that it's rated S.

There is some extra leeway for things like chibis and comics, but just because something is a chibi doesn't automatically mean it's rated G.

Of your examples, post #5275256 and post #5221479 are perfect examples of things that absolutely should not be rated G. The first because it has an underage character posing in a bikini while being ogled by a male. The second because it has a loli-like character in a skintight school swimsuit. It's very important that anything that could be construed as the sexualization of minors, even in the slightest way, is not rated G. Anime fans may not see it that way, but that's not always how it appears to outsiders.

On a related note, I just noticed the following line was axed from the article since I last checked it:

howto:rate between 22-05-23 and 22-06-08

• Large breasts, cleavage, blushing, midriff/navel, bare legs, bare arms, bare shoulders, and exposed shoulder blades don't instantly disqualify a post from [G-rating].

Is this not the case anymore and these now do disqualify a post from being G-rated, or should I not read anything into that change?

I removed that line because I didn't write it and I don't want people using it as an excuse to push the boundaries.

I hesitate to say anything along the lines of "it's okay to show a little bit of skin sometimes" because you if give people an inch, they'll take a mile. That's what happened to the old rating system. The rule used to be that "tasteful" swimsuits and "tasteful" lingerie were safe and the rest were questionable. That eventually turned into "all swimsuits and lingerie are safe by default unless you can see the nipples". Then that turned into people rating micro bikinis so small they didn't even cover the areolas as """safe""" (post #5428068) because technically you couldn't see the nipples. Taggers want simple rules and don't do well with nuance.

The rules are strict because I know people will always push the boundaries, so the rules start from a baseline of "cleavage and swimsuits are always rated S" because in practice I know that will turn into "cleavage and swimsuits are rated S 99% of the time", which is the outcome I want.

Thanks evazion and ion288, these replies really cleared it up for me, both for how to apply ratings and why the guidelines are what they are.

What's the precise policy regarding exposed skin? More concretely, should a post that otherwise qualifies for general not be rated g if it includes one of the following:
bare shoulders regular tank-tops or non-revealing shoulderless dresses
bare legs: shorts or medium to short skirts/dresses without upskirt or other emphasis
midriff: bare stomach drawn in a non-suggestive and not emphasized fashion
collarbone: collarbone visible but no real cleavage

I just ran into a dispute about that, and if small amounts of bare skin without any suggestive or risqué qualities really do disqualify a post from g-rating, that should probably be added to howto:rate, because I wouldn't classify that as skimpy or revealing, and the list of items given doesn't really indicate that either. I'm expecting a similar answer to the one I got before, I'm mainly asking specifically, so I have something to reference.

For example the following posts:
tank-top, spaghetti-strap and similar: post #5242117, post #5221412, post #5259187 (technically a bikini, but it's a portrait)
shoulderless dress: post #5239724 , post #5267873, post #5244958, post #5245002, post #5264245, post #5258644, post #5254576, post #5242636
shoulderless and out of focus thighs: post #5242174
male shoulderless: post #5268859
non-emphasized midriff: post #5267874, post #5233286, post #5236861
non-emphasized collarbone: post #5267266
shorts and thighhighs: post #5274684 (and shoulderless and non.emphasized exposed stomach)
bare legs: post #5259033
non-emphasized short skirt: post #5244994

Here's my positions on the above. If I'm wrong please say - I'm posting this almost as much to establish whether my own position is right as I am to answer the above.

bare shoulders - if it's just the shoulders absolutely fine to be rated G unless there starts being heavy emphasis on it or the exposed area stretches significantly beyond the shoulders.
collarbone - by itself fine to be rated g. If the tops of the boobs or any cleavage are visible it becomes an s.
bare legs - if there's even the slightest emphasis on them then rated S. If there's even the slightest hint of ass visible then it's rated S, even if the ass itself isn't. I changed post #3344655 back to S when making this post because of the character on the right, for example. Otherwise bare legs is okay for a g rating
midriff - hard to describe the boundaries but if there's any hint of groin etc. then it definitely goes straight into S. Also really short crop tops that barely (or don't) cover the breasts would be an s but longer ones not

of the above posts, here's how i would rate them:
5242117 - g
5221412 - s as parts of upper breast visible and exposed
5259187 - s due to exposed area around breasts
5239724 - easy g
5267873 - g
5244958 - unsure so would err on side of caution and tag as s
5245002 - s
5264245 - g
5258644 - g
5254576 - s. it's low cut and the back is lifted up quite a bit even if it doesn't expose anything to the viewer
5242636 - g
5242174 - g. If the legs weren't so out of focus it would probably be an s though.
5268859 - no idea to be honest. It's the chest cutout that would make me lean to an s rather than shoulderless though
all the "non-emphasized midriff" - s. Especially the last one.
5267266 - The collarbone is fine. The cleavage and upper boobs not so. S.
5274684 - s because of the cleavage and ultra-skimpy super-tight crop top
5259033 - I'd tag that as g but would raise no objections if someone else thought it should be s
5244994 - not sure why you think this is non-emphasized. The legs are very much emphasized, including the upper thighs. I'd give this an s.

skylightcrystal said:

5244994 - not sure why you think this is non-emphasized. The legs are very much emphasized, including the upper thighs. I'd give this an s.

Looking at it again, you're probably right. I just wanted to include one post that has a short skirt, and this was the only one with that from among the sample.

The "examples" I've given aren't really examples, they're a subset from the posts of the mentioned dispute. I've been working my way through s-rated posts uploaded before the introduction of the g-rating, looking for posts that fit the bill to help populate the new rating. Most of the disputed posts are really just shoulderless (eg. post #5254420, post #5244948, post #5277081), but there's little reason to include a whole bunch of them. I figured this would be an effective way to contribute, as it's something I can do while relaxing, as it's basically just looking at art, but there's no point to it if a large chunk (closer to100 posts than to 50) just get's reverted again.

As I just mentioned in topic #21277, the final arbiter in this is @evazion and he is dealing with an other problem at the moment. We appreciate it when you do the relaxing rerating as you suggested but we must unfortunately wait until we get a ruling on anything but the tamest bare shoulders. I hope you can understand and be patient.

favgroup:14537 status:any bare_shoulders can be a guide on what he has previously rated G though, so by that I recon at least post #5244948 should be G.