Bottom line: we don't need a too common theme pool, whereas you can find the picture in every other posts or so.
That's the thing though, it should not be "over other picture". It really should only contain stuff that really is just so damn adorable that you can't help but crack a smile.
Chibi in it's own right would not fall into the pool automatically. Hmm some examples off the first page for me.
StriderTuna said: post #679772 , is it worthy of DA? I figured it'd have a good chance since it's Yanagi and it has 3 mini suikas in addition to the usual Yanagi Chibi Suika.
Scarlet_200% said: Chibi in it's own right would not fall into the pool automatically. Hmm some examples off the first page for me.
So you two are going to go through the pool and keep only the images that you think are good enough? How is this different from a two-person favorites pool?
This is my problem with the clean-up idea. If there was any, even the slightest hint of objectivity in the criteria for pool inclusion, people appointing themselves as guardians would be A-OK, because they could then enforce said criteria. Since there's not, though, nobody has any basis to do so except their own personal, subjective judgement, which is not inherently better than anyone else's. Unless one of you got a sword from some strange woman in a pond while I wasn't looking, this is a bad idea.
Well I try to look up the artist's other pictures in the pool, looking at comments, comparing with other similar pictures. And I'm mainly sorting through GrandAdmiralSean8's deleted post history as his self admitted crude methods might have taken out a few good pictures at least. But so far I'd say his was mainly on target.
If the system can't grow to encompass some degree of subjectivity, it's pretty worthless. I see people talking about this as though there's some inherent benefit to destroying the information of the pool's existence, as if the sacrifice is greater than a few bytes in a database and paltry microseconds of CPU time.
I don't really agree with some of the things in that pool, but I disagree even more with pulling a Wikipedia.
On the subject of keeping it clean, that's why when I culled additions, I removed only those that I was sure were definitely not up to par.
Whether the contents are policed or not, the pool still serves a purpose: to collect images that are very cute, much like how some other pools collect images that are clever, extravagant, badass, etc.
The main argument against this, then, seems to be that it's hard to decide what really goes into the pool because it lacks objectivity. However, this seems to be an argument against subjective pools as a whole, not this pool in particular.
So the question becomes this: Are the rules fine with pools whose criteria are entirely subjective?
DschingisKhan said: I see people talking about this as though there's some inherent benefit to destroying the information of the pool's existence
The benefit is that I never have to hear anyone bitch about its contents again, and I consider that to be quite a significant benefit.
Hell, if I thought that appointing guardians for this pool (lifeguards?) was going to quell the bitching, I'd swallow my tongue despite the fact that I find the idea silly. But I don't think it's even going to manage that: after the initial spike in bitching that will happen when members realize the pool is under new management, it will settle back into a level of bitching no lower than the current level. Possibly even higher, given how much easier it will be to make ad hom attacks on the new managers.
Most of the bitching is caused by 'elite' sorts who want to force their opinions on things despite the majority thinking the opposite. Of course it'd help it wasn't always the same 2-4 people deleting things most of the time.
StriderTuna said: Most of the bitching is caused by 'elite' sorts who want to force their opinions on things despite the majority thinking the opposite. Of course it'd help it wasn't always the same 2-4 people deleting things most of the time.
Name names. Get them in here. Let's have ourselves a group therapy session/Jerry Springer episode.
Seriously, there are only two ways this stops: either you make it so people cannot disagree, by developing objective criteria for pool inclusion, or you make it so people do not disagree, through negotiation and compromise. Since the former is apparently disagreeable to multiple people for whatever reason, it's going to have to be the latter. Your current plan, which, as far as I can tell, is "pick some random member/oligarchy to be Presidum of the Supreme Soviet of Disgustingly Adorable and have them send everyone who doesn't agree with them to Danbooru Siberia", does not strike me as likely to succeed. There are, I suspect, no comic book villains browsing Danbooru, so it's not as though anyone here is doing anything to any pool for the sole purpose of antagonism, which means there should be a middle ground somewhere.
And hey, if there's not, I'm still not opposed to just deep sixing the damn thing.
I was thinking of having a DA debate thread in the forums as a way for people to talk over if something is truly DA or not and it'd be linked in the pool's main page.
And I wasn't saying those few people did so solely for antagonism, but only looking at things with their personal views as opposed to the views of the greater whole.
glasnost said: So you two are going to go through the pool and keep only the images that you think are good enough? How is this different from a two-person favorites pool?
I never said I would go through it. I was only stating what I thought fit the whole disgustingly adorable concept.
This is my problem with the clean-up idea. If there was any, even the slightest hint of objectivity in the criteria for pool inclusion, people appointing themselves as guardians would be A-OK, because they could then enforce said criteria. Since there's not, though, nobody has any basis to do so except their own personal, subjective judgement, which is not inherently better than anyone else's. Unless one of you got a sword from some strange woman in a pond while I wasn't looking, this is a bad idea.
I guess for this and any subjective pool it might be a good idea to really look at them and set up a group (creator + 8-10 people with good posting habits) and moderate them or not allow them to exist.
Note: They would moderate all the subjective pools.
I never said I'd go through the pool itself and starte deleting things... sure I might have removed a couple of things but they weren't that cute at all.
And my real beef was the lack of precision in it, not the removal of things.
Scarlet_200% said: Yes but at the same time, there now will be "the law" with regards to a subjective pool which will remove any "who owns what" issues.
Do I have to quote more Monty Python at you? Unless there is some basis for said group's claim to supreme executive power, it's pointless. There are three ways such a claim could be made:
1) we make the Janitors+ do it (good on them if they want to, but I suspect they're busy enough) 2) we establish a new rank of members with pool management powers to do it and have the Mods+ nominate some more people (which I guess is not so bad, but seems like a huge pain in the ass to go to over half a dozen pools) 3) we hold elections (oh god the word "clusterfuck" just flashed before my eyes in bright red letters)
None of those choices really seem ideal to me.
StriderTuna said: I was thinking of having a DA debate thread in the forums as a way for people to talk over if something is truly DA or not and it'd be linked in the pool's main page.
I guess if you are really, truly dead set on having this pool exist, this is the best option. Personally, I still think it'll be a mess, because there is still no way of resolving a truly insuperable conflict, but you lot will at least have a designated place to shout at each other.
New Ranks? That wouldn't be good as going up in rank is more a matter of who you know and luck than anything else barring the money route. Kinda like politics.
I think a discussion thread would be good as it'll show how many people want to keep something and how many people want it gone, dispelling the illusion things are being removed by some butthurt elitist.
StriderTuna said: New Ranks? That wouldn't be good as going up in rank is more a matter of who you know and luck than anything else barring the money route. Kinda like politics.
I'm gonna cut in to say that this is untrue. I mean I'm a Contributor and I didn't and still don't know anyone here.
glasnost said: Do I have to quote more Monty Python at you? Unless there is some basis for said group's claim to supreme executive power, it's pointless. There are three ways such a claim could be made:
I am just a little confused as to how what you just described is any different from the moderators (in concept).
1) we make the Janitors+ do it (good on them if they want to, but I suspect they're busy enough) 2) we establish a new rank of members with pool management powers to do it and have the Mods+ nominate some more people (which I guess is not so bad, but seems like a huge pain in the ass to go to over half a dozen pools) 3) we hold elections (oh god the word "clusterfuck" just flashed before my eyes in bright red letters)
I hear tossing out ideas is a bad thing. You solutions has been to remove it. I am tossing out ideas on how to keep it.
None of those choices really seem ideal to me.
I guess if you are really, truly dead set on having this pool exist, this is the best option. Personally, I still think it'll be a mess, because there is still no way of resolving a truly insuperable conflict, but you lot will at least have a designated place to shout at each other.
I am getting more then a little tired of you putting words into my mouth. I am offering suggestions nothing more.
I said more then once toss it if it is unworkable.
Why, exactly? Because you might get bored of an artist? Who it's made by, and how often they draw in that style does not diminish the content of any individual image, does it? It can be argued that not every picture by that artist deserves adding to the pool, but I see no reasonable basis on which to say that you should restrict images by artist.
unicogirl incidentally summed it up very nicely just now in forum #55705:
unicogirl said: If certain artist/s works are dominating the pool, then what purpose is having half their work in it? By that point it is easier to just track your favorite artist/s on your profile. The same goes for certain tags that will constantly bring up the same image with not much change.
Anyway I should have been more accurate and added "when similar".
I don't think subjective pools should and can have the same role as tags. Tags are factual information where subjective pools are X individuals opinion over a picture. If it's been acknowledged that some image by yanagi was good enough for pool #903 I don't think it needs to be stated for each other similar picture of the artist, because doing so is just repeating the same claim and we already got the message. If you hnnngggged at that yanagi picture, chances are you'll do on the others, therefore you'll want to click the artist tag and maybe suscribe. And that's all we need. If you didn't like it, you probably don't want to find more pictures by the artist further in the pool.
This would greatly help to reduce the size and make browsing significantly easier. I used to follow that pool when it started, but when it reached 30 pages from eating everything it already wasn't possible anymore.
Restricting to one post per artist isn't really possible most of time, shouldn't have said that. There's too much range in what they have in the pool. Restricting to similar images is possible however. Some people might still want to fight about to what extent posts can be considered similar, so in addition, artists could have an agreed limit of 5 posts in the pool (whatever, even 10 posts would still help). After that, even if they're not the 5 or 10 ones you'd have wanted you just let go because the limit is reached. Different facets of an artist's work, preferably different characters, and the usual sanctions for people who care too much about who added what. In case a new post by whatever artist is so good that you want to replace an old one then just do so. Rotation is better because it gives spotlight. I've always thought subjective pools ought to be gardened anyway.
Scarlet_200% said: I am just a little confused as to how what you just described is any different from the moderators (in concept).
Well, yeah, that's kind of the point. It would just be more people available (with a more restricted set of powers) to do pool-related work, since the current Janitors+ have their hands full with their present responsibilities. I don't like the idea all that much for the reason I stated, but it is a possibility.
Scarlet_200% said: I hear tossing out ideas is a bad thing. You solutions has been to remove it. I am tossing out ideas on how to keep it.
Tossing out ideas is great, but someone's got to swing at them to see if they're home runs or strikes. Just playing my role.
Scarlet_200% said: I am getting more then a little tired of you putting words into my mouth. I am offering suggestions nothing more.
I said more then once toss it if it is unworkable.
Uh, I was responding to StriderTuna in that paragraph. That's why I quoted him. Try not to take things so personally.
StriderTuna said: This isn't like Gensokyo High after all.
I knew you reminded me of someone. I hope these nefarious 'elites' aren't figments of your imagination this time too, Wiseman.
