The description of pool #3032 ("Beautiful Smile") says:
"The goal of this pool is to selectionnate a picture showing a character (Animals is fine too) with a very beautiful smile. The smile doesn't have to be heart warming or else, it just should be beautiful. So, a dark smile can be accepted too."
Despite that, apparently most smiles there are heart-warming. Below I'm listing some beautiful smiles of evil/angry/assertive/aggressive girls. Would people want them added to the pool? Or, alternatively, maybe the pool should be restricted to heart-warming smiles only?
I think the first batch should count, or else should be able to be cataloged somewhere else.
For the second batch also, I don't see that an open mouth would disqualify something as a smile. In fact we have grin which is aliased to smile and explicitly disallows touching lips.
The third batch I think still qualify as smiles, but being faint smiles, I don't know if they'd fit well in a pool specifically focusing on the smile itself. That said the facial expressions themselves in those posts as a whole probably qualify for being pooled somewhere.
Each bullet point that follows in this message is one different subject discussed.
From the few replies here, I don't see much excitement towards the specific idea of including smirks in the pool. (link repeated here: pool #3032) And, most importantly, as I said in the initial message, the pool simply is de facto restricted to heartwarming smiles, even if the description technically allows smirks. A smirk would certainly be lost there. If nobody has anything else to say, I'm going to edit the text to allow heartwarming smiles only and create an additional, separate, pool whose name may or may not be "Beautiful Smirk".
I could not agree more with Shinjidude's "I don't see that an open mouth would disqualify something as a smile". In fact, the concept of disqualifying open mouth smiles is just weird and unexpected to me and the pool in question absolutely does not follow that disqualification: the first smile is open, the second is closed, the third is open, the fourth is closed.
The smiles of the third batch listed by F.I.A (post #74223 and post #723783) are somewhat faint but still are the center of the attention. The focus of both images is the girl smiling, even if most of her body is visible. This happens with other posts in the pool (post #836493, post #650594, post #815394...), but they are so rare and more beautiful than the potential two new ones, that I'm not particularly inclined to add these two to the pool.
Danielx21 said: From the few replies here, I don't see much excitement towards the specific idea of including smirks in the pool. (link repeated here: pool #3032) And, most importantly, as I said in the initial message, the pool simply is de facto restricted to heartwarming smiles, even if the description technically allows smirks. A smirk would certainly be lost there. If nobody has anything else to say, I'm going to edit the text to allow heartwarming smiles only and create an additional, separate, pool whose name may or may not be "Beautiful Smirk".
Spamming more pools is never a good idea in my book. Plus, "Beautiful Smirk" sounds rather awkward. I think it would be better to alter the pool description to also include those. Then we will be able to find them with a pool:3032 smirk search.
MyrMindservant said: Spamming more pools is never a good idea in my book. Plus, "Beautiful Smirk" sounds rather awkward. I think it would be better to alter the pool description to also include those. Then we will be able to find them with a pool:3032 smirk search.
Whether or not beautiful smirks are conceivably possible is the central question here. Still, it's a no-brainer: the answer is yes, they exist. There is no universal rule stating that all drawn smirks in the universe are inherently less-than-very-beautiful.
With that in mind, and some examples of beautiful smirks to start, we must think whether or not they should be in a pool; and what pool.
You clearly (but somewhat implicitly) qualified the potential pool "Beautiful Smirk" as spam. However, I think the reverse: Adding smirks to "Beautiful Smile" would be spam, because it diverts so much from the atmosphere of the pool. Smirks are just not expected there. They would be hidden in the depths of the multiple pages and the search pool:3032 smirk would be the most counterintuitive; i.e., people would be unlikely to think of that, because they would be unlikely to notice the existence of smirks there in the first place. (Note: Not surprisingly, the search pool:3032 smirk is empty. If, ideally, all smirks are tagged, then the pool does not have any smirk anyway.)
Seeing dozens of nonsmirks together and trying to search for smirks among them is like seeing forty puppies together in a pet shop and starting to look for a cat among the dogs.
My conclusion is that we can either simply abandon the beautiful smirks altogether or create a new pool for them all to be together and easily searchable... (The latter most certainly fits the second half of Shinjidude's "I think the first batch should count, or else should be able to be cataloged somewhere else")
Personally I wouldn't have a problem keeping in them in the beautiful smiles pool. They are a type of smile after all. I also agree that "beautiful smirk" sounds odd, though a new pool wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea either so long as there is enough material for it and it's well enough defined (what differentiates a smirk from a smile or a grin?).
Shinjidude said: Personally I wouldn't have a problem keeping in them in the beautiful smiles pool. They are a type of smile after all. I also agree that "beautiful smirk" sounds odd, though a new pool wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea either so long as there is enough material for it and it's well enough defined (what differentiates a smirk from a smile or a grin?).
Tentative definitions for two separate pools:
"Beautiful Smile" with hearwarming smiles. The smiler must express either calm or joy, and always feel comfortable. Acceptable characteristics include relaxed eyes, blushing cheeks, and body language. Paying attention to the viewer or something else that causes the relevant emotions for whatever reason is a great bonus.
"Beautiful Dark Smile" with nonheartwarming smiles. The smiler must express either discomfort or assertiveness. Common emotions are anger, malice and sexual lust. Acceptable characteristics include tension in the eyes, some degree of shadows on the face, and body language. Paying attention to the viewer or something else that causes the relevant emotions for whatever reason is a great bonus.
Danielx21 said: You clearly (but somewhat implicitly) qualified the potential pool "Beautiful Smirk" as spam. However, I think the reverse: Adding smirks to "Beautiful Smile" would be spam, because it diverts so much from the atmosphere of the pool. Smirks are just not expected there. They would be hidden in the depths of the multiple pages and the search pool:3032 smirk would be the most counterintuitive; i.e., people would be unlikely to think of that, because they would be unlikely to notice the existence of smirks there in the first place. (Note: Not surprisingly, the search pool:3032 smirk is empty. If, ideally, all smirks are tagged, then the pool does not have any smirk anyway.)
I didn't say that "Beautiful Smirk" would be a spam, you could've at least tried to understand my post before going into full defence of your intentions. What I did say is that I'm against making any new superfluous pools. And as Shinjidude has said there are absolutely nothing wrong with adding smirks and other relatively dark/evil smiles into "Beautiful Smile" pool since they are also smiles. Smirks were not added there simply because people didn't thought about that, this is very easy to fix by a description edit. And no one with half a brain will have a problem with noticing and finding such smiles in pool #3032 if we write how to do that, or even provide a ready to use links.
I admit that "Beautiful Dark Smile" name is an improvement over "Beautiful Smirk" (it's somewhat weird nevertheless), but regardless of the name this new pool still seems to be redundant to me.
Note: I'm not requesting its deletion, not yet at least, but the decision was made by a pretty much single user so I think that additional consideration is needed.
Beautiful smile should just be adjusted to include both, there aren't a lot of examples of the latter and I'd rather deal with the definition being slightly altered to fit the pool than creating another pool.
