MyrMindservant said: Just want to say that I also think that all "Hot Something" pools (listed in forum #67397) are pointless, same as other completely subjective pools.
And the, previously mentioned, presence of "Perfect Breasts" or "Perfect Ass" pools is not a valid argument. When we deal with pools for body parts we can at least judge the anatomy and proportions, so these pools aren't entirely subjective.
Your criteria for pools of body parts are obvious and natural, but unexplained. The contributors must come to these conclusions by themselves, probably by comparing their potential new posts to the other posts in the pools.
Just don't any any cowgirl less sexy than the ones at pool #4279 and everything will be fine.
Pools are meant to be the subjective alternative to tags anyway. A pool being subjective isn't a criteria for deletion. A pool being poorly defined (say subject to the whims of a single user) is what makes a pool worthy of deletion.
Actually, I believe pools were meant for sequential images (initially). Writing "beautiful"/"hot"/"perfect" in front of any substantive doesn't make it a good idea for a pool. Your new favorites pool just got a theme. Remember when we had vip_quality? Many of the images in those pools are just the images drawn by good artists. They'll just end up in every damn "perfect x" pool. Read:
pool #4241 - The Perfect Face A face having three qualities (i.e. being in three other pools) qualifies as "perfect" for this pool.
That's just a BAD idea for a pool.
pointless pools: pool #2197 - Beautiful Agony Reason: It's just orgasm and face. It isn't even beautiful.
pool #4399 - Perfect Neck (mentioned earlier) Reason: neck and/or nape will ever only be used for images in which that body part is "perfect" aka "beautiful" or the focus of the image. If you do a tag search, you'll get everything you would have had in the pool, just without the subjectivity.
Shinjidude said: A pool being poorly defined (say subject to the whims of a single user) is what makes a pool worthy of deletion.
I'm not trying to be insulting in any way when I say this, but if you look in a dictionary you'll see that you just provided the definition of subjective, which contradicts your entire statement. Regardless, the ultimate reason why I suggested that the pool in question be deleted is due to the fact that a single tag covers the entire contents of the pool. If a pool and a single tag yield the same results, I can't see a reason for both to exist. That's the final word I have on the issue.
S1eth said: Actually, I believe pools were meant for sequential images (initially).
This is true, but in practice we very early on accepted using pools for unordered sets with a common theme including those with subjective definitions (whereas subjective tags have been virtually banned since the beginning).
Iceburger said: ...if you look in a dictionary you'll see that you just provided the definition of subjective, which contradicts your entire statement.
You are ignoring the "poorly defined" and "single user" parts. Something can be subjective and still well defined such that most people will agree with the categorization. When this is true, it can be a perfectly fine theme for a pool. For example, you could define "The set of images featuring faces at least 90% of users would consider beautiful", which is entirely subjective because it is based on non-objective opinion, but still well defined.
The deletion-worthy type of pool I was referring to is one with a vague definition set by and known only by a single user. For example a pool titled "Hot stuff", curated by a single user and having no determinable theme except that it is a set of images appealing to that user (i.e. essentially a favorites list). This is also subjective, but also worthless, as no user but the creator can know what to expect when browsing it, nor know what criteria can be used to add images to it. This sort of pool is deletion-worthy.
Iceburger said: If a pool and a single tag yield the same results, I can't see a reason for both to exist.
As for pools that match tags or query strings, yes those pools are also useless, but only if there is (or should be) close to a 1:1 correspondence. A pool defined as "the set of images with hats and skirts" is worthless because it's the same as hat skirt.
However, when subjectivity is added to a pool's definition, that 1:1 correspondence is broken. A pool defined as "the set of images featuring hands at least 90% of users would consider beautiful" is not the same as "the set of images featuring hands" (remember tags are supposed to be entirely objective). The pool = tags or query argument can't be used to say that this sort of pool is worthy of deletion.
It also has the family element, however, which I don't think has an appropriate tag. While the family concept might go under pool #2140 (Family Bonding), I feel that the pool in question is more "family slice of life" than "family bonding."
Plus, the Yakumo family has some interesting and unique quirks as a family that I don't believe are really given due justice to by the tags alone.
I just looked through my aforementioned tag search, and there were a lot of "cutesie"/family-esque images. It's very likely that most posts (there's bound to be a few under-tagged ones) from the pool would be included in it.
So I'm not seeing much of a reason for keeping the pool, aside from doing some last-second tag maintenance.
Bapabooiee said: So I'm not seeing much of a reason for keeping the pool, aside from doing some last-second tag maintenance.
I can see one. If we were to have a "Scarlet Devil Mansion family" or "Myouren family" pool they would hit the tag limit, and it doesn't seem right to me to only allow pools for the larger families.
However, this pool is specifically for the 3 of them, doing family stuff if there is more than them, or only and only if, there is the 3 of them alone. As such, it does not fully correspond to yakumo_yukari yakumo_ran chen 3girls.
The 3girls tag may be 5girls, or more at times.
The family tag may not be applied either, as they're not technically a family, but a master with a shinigami which has a shinigami.
pool #4169 definitely has its place in my opinion.
edit: Just making it clear, I meant that an image in said pool might be tagged 5girls instead of 3girls depending on the context.
