pool #4939 Hatsune Miku - Tux and Top Hat
Unless I'm missing something the pool name is the tag search you need to do.
Posted under General
pool #4939 Hatsune Miku - Tux and Top Hat
Unless I'm missing something the pool name is the tag search you need to do.
pool #4947 wow that was fast
Empty and a clone of pool #1823 Wow, that was fast
pool #4961 fleur
from what it looks like. it's just a pool of blonde haired girls. and it's locked.
pool #3304: "Do you mind? We're busy here!"
looking_at_viewer + caught or walk-in tag search.
These get deleted very quickly, an hour after being posted (on a weekday afternoon) the last one posted is already done.
It always makes me wary we are deleting useful information without making sure it's still properly accessible.
Are these getting retagged appropriately prior to being deleted? (it's impossible to verify after deletion).
Also (though I can't verify this either) it sounds as though that tag search won't work. First, it's not possible to do a ~(caught looking_at_viewer) ~walk-in search. Second, neither caught nor walk-in specify if it is the viewer or a 3rd party catching the act or walking into the scene, or if the one(s) caught know or care.
Looking at viewer only works if it's assumed the viewer is the one catching them in the act as a pov (post #243853 fulfills the query, but not the spirit of the pool). Neither specifies that the person/people being caught are aware of it. The pool would suggest they have to be aware and take offense to it (so say post #868718 under caught shouldn't fit the pool).
We take days deliberating tag usage elsewhere. Why are we always so gung ho and trigger happy when it comes to deleting pools?
I verified all the images contained within the pool were tagged looking at viewer and caught. If someone wants to recreate it with different restrictions that's fine but there was really nothing indicating that it was anything but a "best of caught looking_at_viewer" pool.
Ok, so long we verify things are tagged properly, it's fine. This does seem to be a taggable concept, and if they all were caught looking_at_viewer then we still have it captured. The inability to go back and see history for deleted pools still bugs me a bit though.
Actually, that's been bothering me a lot in this thread. By the time I pull it up every day or two, many of the pools in question are already gone, and I can't tell what they were originally for (especially when someone just posts the pool number and not the name).
Can there be a longer waiting period on this for debate?
I tagged looking_at_viewer where it was missing before reporting this pool, and I always check for such things before posting here. Assuming whoever deletes pools also checks for himself and verifies that the pool is really pointless and that everything's tagged properly if the concept is taggable, I'd say there's enough justification for the pool to be deleted immediately.
Having said that, I think keeping at least some information about the pool after it's been deleted (like who the creator was or which posts it contained) might not be a bad idea.
pool #4943
We could make a tag out of it instead.
pool #2164
This can be covered by pointless censoring.
It's like people don't even read the thread. Give pool's name and explain what it's about! Don't just give the pool's number. Here:
NeoChaos said:
pool #2164 - censor fail.For when the convenient censoring is placed incorrectly or too small, the steam isn't thick enough, or any other case in which the key area shouldn't actually be considered covered.
This can be covered by pointless censoring.
Now, from the pointless censoring wiki: "Censorship in an image that completely fails to properly conceal the object in question, or, in rarer cases, censoring something that doesn't need to be censored."
Pointless censoring is when you can see the important part despite the censor. pool #2164's is when the artist has tried to use convenient censoring, hasn't covered the important part, yet we still can't see it. i.e. We're left looking at bare skin, wondering where her nipples are.
The pool should possibly be redefined to include any censor, not just the convenient kind, and possibly means the image is bad anatomy worthy.
It's definitely tag material though, but needs a clearer definition. Here's my attempt at the current definition:
Convenient censor fail
For when the convenient censoring reveals too much, yet it seems there's nothing to cover.
The censor is placed incorrectly, the text isn't thick enough, the angle is wrong, the arm is a little too far left, the leaf is too small, the steam isn't thick enough, the shirt is pulled up too far or not pulled down far enough. Any image that leaves us staring a bare skin, wondering where her nipples/crotch/etc are.
Updated
pool #2097 "Just Another Ordinary Day..." and pool #2419 "Unnatural Naturalness" have exactly the same theme. While the theme itself is good, it's both redundant and confusing to have two pools on the same theme.
pool #4268: Pokemon - Kanto Gym Leaders
pool #4269: Pokemon - Johto Gym Leaders
pool #4270: Pokemon - Hoenn Gym Leaders
pool #4272: Pokemon - Sinnoh Gym Leaders
pool #4273: Pokemon - Unova Gym Leaders
Posts focusing on the Gym Leaders of * - their Pokémon, their battles, their lives, their badges, etc.
not sure, but do we need these? isn't the gym_leader tag enough? i don't see a unifying theme at all, imho.
pool #4991 - consentacles.
A single post pool, and really it's way too subjective to use.
pool #4956 - Breast Delivery
I think this is a taggable concept... Something like breasts_on_tray?
Mysterio006 said:
pool #4956 - Breast Delivery
I think this is a taggable concept... Something like breasts_on_tray?
breasts_on_plate was a tag that appears to have been nuked.
I think they expect you to find images like in pool #4956 with a breast_rest tray search, and the original tag was nuked over 2 years ago in forum #19594. I think the concept as a pool is fine though, since as a tag it was rejected.