As a tag it was labeled unecessary and redundant, so why would a pool be any different?
Posted under General
pool #4963 "He/She Gone Mad"
Empty pool. The crazy tag covers the same material that would have gone in the pool.
Rampardos said:
As a tag it was labeled unecessary and redundant, so why would a pool be any different?
Actually, currently its definition is not redundant because it is broader in scope, but the definition could be improved a little bit. Essentially the pool is used for images in which the character is performing a breast rest and transporting their breasts (intentionally or not). So images of characters carrying boxes, stacks of books, trays and are performing a breast_rest on the object they're carrying would fall under it.
pool #208 - Bare-legged Bunny Girls
Just a bunnysuit bare_legs search now.
ghostrigger said:
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.
No unifying theme at all? Really? Despite the pool names and your description of them?
People often debate the usefulness of "themed group" pools, but I find them quite useful when trying to avoid everyone posts and random grab bag pics. In the case of Pokemon, I can see far more utility in those pools than the gym leader tag, which pretty much applies to any pic that contains any member of over half the human cast of the series.
I can't honestly think of a single use for that tag in a search except to try to narrow down and find a character you only know by English name and appearance, since Danbooru is one of the few rare sites to use the Japanese names.
NeoChaos said:
pool #2164 [- censor fail]
This can be covered by pointless censoring.
Interesting. I put down a note to bring this one up a few weeks ago, back when it was called "Border skirting failure." It had the same, semi-incoherent description then. I didn't bring it up then because I thought that might be a technical term of some sort, and I wanted to do some research on it first when I was less busy.
As far as I can tell, it's not actually pointless censoring. It's the opposite.
Looking at the pictures, they are all examples of where *something* should be showing (usu. nipples/areola, rarely pussy) due to a failure to properly cover the area with clothes, but instead no naughty bits were drawn.
The pool name is now terrible. It's not "censor fail." It's actually censor success.
Either way, everything in it can either be tagged no nipples and/or no pussy and then the pool can be nuked.
BCI_Temp said:
No unifying theme at all? Really? Despite the pool names and your description of them?
ok, if someone finds these useful then fine i guess. not going to loose sleep to stand and debate on this. and if this ever go beyond 3 posts then this probably stays no matter what, something i have to accept despite my opposition (which is pretty normal since i made many unpopular views). the pool descriptions are so broad, it has actually no limits. what does the etc in each description mean? it's so broad and general that what exactly one post connect with the rest? it's like making a naruto any ninja country sensei pools. description? posts focusing naruto senseis of * country, their techniques, their blood limit, their students, their battles, their lives, etc.
honestly, these kind of pools like pokemon type pools are way beyond danbooru. lots of external site offer info about them and should stay that way. a valid unifying theme should not be just a theme for the sake of making a pool and populate the list of pools page.
and in case you find gym_leader tag not useful, then maybe it's a good candidate for being nuke and pointless wikis, i guess?
anyways, it's not my decision to decide on this. in my honest perspective, these pools are excessive. but if the community decides it stays, then i'll just ignore i see them and move on, i guess. thanks.
pool #4661 - About Time - Saw it Coming
Posts that have been highly anticipated or expected.
Content can result in a "why hasn't this been done yet?" reaction.
Content can also involve material that fit well together for clever or comedic purposes.
That last sentence makes the definition much too broad.
The pool overlaps too much with the Clever pool even though they are by definition mutually exclusive.
If an image is highly anticipated, it cannot be in the clever pool anymore.
The pool is a collection images form other tags and pools:
pun, parody, crossover, too_literal, pool #330 and seiyuu_connection
Examples:
post #4963 - over 6 years old, not exactly "about time"
post #660518 - is Hilarious In Hindsight
post #675609 - a pun, post #674398, post #196460 came before that one
post #1061227 - just a pairing, single franchise
something else, probably requires meta knowledge I don't have:
post #457364, post #981196, post #927156
Adding images to the pool is always done by a single person and I'm sure that artists don't come up with stuff that not at least one danbooru user anticipated.
NWF_Renim said:
Actually, currently its definition is not redundant because it is broader in scope, but the definition could be improved a little bit. Essentially the pool is used for images in which the character is performing a breast rest and transporting their breasts (intentionally or not). So images of characters carrying boxes, stacks of books, trays and are performing a breast_rest on the object they're carrying would fall under it.
What difference does a broader scope make? Whether it's breast_rest tray, breast_rest book, or breast_rest box, they're all visually taggable, and the two-tag searches give little to no margin of error. pool #4956 is useless.
It's a rather specific concept that could only be replicated using several different combination searches, so at minimum nuking it without at least giving it a proper tag would be foolish, if that is what you're suggesting. Also not every combination will give accuracy to this kind of search, because there are plenty of times paper (stack of papers) or books or other objects will appear with a breast_rest that will not be on an object being carried by the user. Your own proposed breast_rest book search itself contains plenty of images that do not actually have the person carrying the object that they're resting their breasts on.
Updated
As well, a two tag search would not be exhaustive. Novel objects would count as well as books and boxes. To get absolutely every image you were looking for, you'd have to either think up every tag that could potentially count as breast carry (let's say) to combine with breast rest and you're not going to think of everything, so you're left manually sift through the breast rest tag for something that's easily tag-able.
There are multiple ways to solve this:
Tag the images
breast_rest carrying,
breast_rest holding or even
breast_rest breast_hold
The last option would mean extending the purpose of breast_hold to include:
NWF_Renim said:
Also not every combination will give accuracy to this kind of search, because there are plenty of times paper (stack of papers) or books or other objects will appear with a breast_rest that will not be on an object being carried by the user.
You think I didn't realize that? Why did you think I mentioned "little to no margin of error"? It's not perfect, but then again it doesn't have to be, so long as the signal-to-noise ratio is overwhelmingly bad (and it's not).
Serlo said:
As well, a two tag search would not be exhaustive. Novel objects would count as well as books and boxes.
If you had a novel object in mind, you would think you'd try and find it with breast_rest novel_object. The pool in question certainly didn't add any of these hypothetical novel objects; instead, it went with the low-hanging fruit that is breast_rest tray, a book example, and a rather literal "breast serving".
S1eth said:
Tag the images
breast_rest carrying,
breast_rest holding or even
breast_rest breast_hold
breast_hold is a specific pose. I would rather not butcher the tag.
carrying doesn't have any results related to the pool in question, mostly carrying people. holding does show some promise with some breasts resting on gift boxes and watermelons. Then again, breast_rest gift and breast_rest watermelon works too.
Updated
Hillside_Moose said:
You think I didn't realize that? Why did you think I mentioned "little to no margin of error"? It's not perfect, but then again it doesn't have to be, so long as the signal-to-noise ratio is overwhelmingly bad (and it's not).
14 out of 26 posts under breast_rest book do not involve resting the breasts on the books or resting the breasts on the object they're carrying, that's around 54% of the images. That would be considered unacceptable amounts no matter how you spin it.
Well I guess you proved me wrong there, though with only a little more than a page of results, I think people can search what they want without too much suffering. Oh, three of them were erroneously tagged with breast_rest.
Then again, I'm not sure why we're so focused on books and other objects when the pool itself is all about serving breasts on a platter.
Edit: This discussion is getting too long. Go to forum #73674 to continue.
Updated
I don't really think a new thread is necessary.
Looking at pool #4956 again, every image is concerned with breasts being served as you would a cup of milk (tray or no tray), a suggesting breast sucking is "on offer".
post #1076310 is the only exception and threw me off first time I looked at it. The "or box" part of the description is a complete red-herring. If I wanted to find an image like that, I would search breast_rest ~standing ~walking and wouldn't include it even in this pool.
I do think the pool is a tag-able concept, but if the ruling in forum #19594 must stay, then I think the pool should live.
This thread is not a discussion thread. It's meant to be a quick list of obviously pointless pools that need to be pruned. Any discussion longer than one or two posts makes this thread confusing and hard to navigate. Continue the discussion in the thread I linked, please.
Updated
pool #5055 "Safe"
No other description, obviously a favorites pool.
"Typical Name Thingy" #2 to #16 pools:
pool #4023
pool #4024
pool #4020
pool #4051
pool #4073
pool #4288
pool #4053
pool #4132
pool #4056
pool #4096
pool #4064
pool #4062
pool #4147
pool #4285
pool #5058
These weren't very convenient to follow separately and also cluttered the pools page, so I combined them all into pool #5060 adding in the description where each new part starts.