Ah, that's right. The name escaped me at the moment.
Posted under General
pool #2673 - Brilliant Genderswap
We already have genderswap. I'm aware this is supposed to be for the better genderswaps, but with anyone that likes a genderswap picture adding the ones they like into the pool, it ends up pointless.
Updated
Blue4 said:
pool #903
This has gone from "disgustingly adorable" to "slightly cute." This either needs a serious cleaning or complete deletion.
I've been regularly screening the additions to the pool and culling anything that doesn't seem to fit. But of course, one man's "disgustingly adorable" is another man's "meh" sometimes, so I set my standards lower.
However I haven't gone back to actually clean the entire pool, it's rather too huge for me to do that when I have other things to be doing.
pool #2269: "Stupidly Good"
"So good it's just dumb.
The thumbnail - even the full-sized image - can be mistaken for a photo."
Could probably be a tag instead ("photorealistic"?). Definitely needs a better title. Also it only has two posts, though I don't think it should be damned just because of that.
pool #2562 Hyper-Femininity (previously Sugar & Spice)
…did anyone ever think to contact the creators of pools before deletion? I definitely want to have a say as to whether this pool is deleted or not; I started it after all. Here are a few discrepancies I encountered:
#1 Not being able to understand the purpose of a pool isn't an excuse for deletion. I said in the original description that it has a certain je ne se quais about it - a theme which is difficult to put into words. By that description alone it should also be clear that it's not a pool for everyone to understand (or enjoy for that matter), but I think it was obvious to those who contributed to the pool what it was all about. I deleted less than 5 posts by other users; clearly some who called for its deletion were among the few who just didn't understand it.
I have to say that I really appreciate it's new summarization, but I spelled out it's definition as specific as I could, going through several versions until it felt right.
#2 Unless the description of what a pool in the Wiki has changed since I last read it, pools are allowed to have a witty title. Maybe you don't know the reference, but the name was taken from the rhyme:
"Sugar and spice and everything nice / That's what little girls are made of. / Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails, / that's what little boys are made of."
The name was also meant convey a sense of girlishness and to imply that pictures should have elements of both sugar (cuteness/childish feminity) and spice (sexiness), albeit in varying amounts of each.
#3 At least from the first page I can see that a significant amount of content was removed, all of which took a great deal of time and effort on my part to find and include. Having people who weren't or aren't involved in the pool's creation and/or growth go through and remove images is violating. My pool was policed by individuals who, in terms of understanding its theme, aren't necessarily qualified to do so. For example, post #733842 was removed and I considered it to be the most girly of all second only to post #546522 (the epitome example)
I do want to say that many images which were removed indeed did not belong, but perhaps people were a bit overzealous as some images will need to be restored.
I understand that many of you have experience and levels of contribution to Danbooru vastly outweighing mine, but you can't expect to be an expert on everything :(
I had also gone through and hand-selected the first page's content to best reflect the theme of the pool. Now, more than ever, it seems to have lost that visual level of clarity. It's imminent sense of deletion seems contrived - a claim that it wasn't clear enough has made it even more vague.
#4 I don't see how having a simple background removes an image from eligibility for inclusion to the pool. Having an intricate background definitely helps in terms of emphasis, but it is by no means a necessary qualifier.
#5 I don't see how my pool violates any of the guidelines in the wiki entry howto:pools.
From what I can distill from the (valid) complaints as to the existence of pool #2562, one argument seems to be that the scope of the pool is too large. In order to encompass the vast amount of pictures which would qualify for inclusion the pool would have to include literally thousands of posts. There are other pools which exceed the size of my pool by twice or more already, so this complaint seems misguided. Furthermore, I'm the one putting in the effort so it's really a personal issue.
The argument that the definition was vague has been fixed. (Thanks again)
I think the only real problem I have already addressed in issue #1, that some people just don't understand what "girly" means. Though long, the lists of common features I had originally included in the pool description made this very clear and if people still didn't understand… there are plenty of ways to find out on the internet. Sacrificing these for brevity is an issue of tradeoffs; one I am willing to accept.
Other than a pool, I see no way to encapsulate the content I wish to include in the pool's theme. It's not so specific that it can be summarized in a few tags, I don't see girly being added as a tag, nor do I see the implication that tag_group:theme will ever be created. (although being able to search for things like cheerful, sombre, or epic would undoubtedly be useful)
I want the pool to be a place where Danbooru users can go to find the best in girly content. Having to sift through the 100+ number of tag combinations without there being an easy way to eliminate images previously viewed can be extremely tiresome. Although I could see being able to use -fav:USERNAME as a possible alternative or the ability to blacklist your own favorites, but neither works.
#6 In my experience, without the ability to identify users in the real world, and without otherwise obvious username implications, individuals are by default assumed to be male until proved otherwise. Especially when pornography is involved; even if it isn't the only feature of a website. I find that many of such internet spaces are assumed to be "male spaces" and thus sexist speech and actions become acceptable if said actions are not overly blatant (ex: "Get back in the kitchen you stupid cunt!"). I find it no coincidence that a pool synonymous with extreme femininity attracts comments like
Fencedude said: Oh jesus, that pool […] KILL IT
Now, there's no proof that this comment is sexist (and I don't assume it to be, Fencedude) nor is there proof that my pool's deletion appeal is sexist either. I have personally experienced situations where sexism was an issue on other websites and I am making a personal request for clarification.
If you choose to respond about the subject of sexism please, PLEASE talk about why you personally would not be discriminatory. Sexist intentions cannot be disproved by logic; it's an emotional issue and should be addressed with a personal, emotional description.
I want to thank anyone who took the time to read this tirade in its entirety. I expect that any points I have made will simply be dismissed, but I hope that anyone responding will consider them earnestly.
Updated
pool #1696 TOO SPICY! should be a tag.
Hillside_Moose said:
We already have a realistic tag.
I think the implication is that there should be a tag for a technical attempt to recreate realism, as opposed to an artistic style representing, but not being, reality.
Not all realistic images would be photorealistic.
Food for thought.
Hillside_Moose said:
We already have a realistic tag.
Well, we've got large_breasts, huge_breasts, and gigantic_breasts, for example. If tacking on another "layer" of breast size is okay for making different tags, shouldn't the same consideration be given for another "layer" of realism? There's a clear difference between those images and the average realistic image.
Pretty_Princess said:
pool #2562 Hyper-Femininity (previously Sugar & Spice)
…did anyone ever think to contact the creators of pools before deletion? I definitely want to have a say as to whether this pool is deleted or not; I started it after all. Here are a few discrepancies I encountered:#1 Not being able to understand the purpose of a pool isn't an excuse for deletion.
/snip
I have to say that I really appreciate it's new summarization, but I spelled out it's definition as specific as I could, going through several versions until it felt right.
From what I have seen "je ne se quais" aka too subjective is generally frowned upon.
#2 Unless the description of what a pool in the Wiki has changed since I last read it,
/snip
and spice (sexiness), albeit in varying amounts of each.
If you go back a few pages you will see "cute" or "meme" (dat ass) style titles are currently being reconsidered and clarified.
#3 At least from the first page I can see that a significant amount of content was removed,
/snip
It's imminent sense of deletion seems contrived - a claim that it wasn't clear enough has made it even more vague.
I would say that is very debatable.
Not really girly IMO (at least to the description)
Girly
#6 In my experience, without the ability to identify users in the real world, and without otherwise obvious username implications, individuals are by default assumed to be male until proved otherwise. Especially when pornography is involved; even if it isn't the only feature of a website. I find that many of such internet spaces are assumed to be "male spaces" and thus sexist speech and actions become acceptable if said actions are not overly blatant (ex: "Get back in the kitchen you stupid cunt!"). I find it no coincidence that a pool synonymous with extreme femininity attracts comments like Now, there's no proof that this comment is sexist (and I don't assume it to be, Fencedude) nor is there proof that my pool's deletion appeal is sexist either. I have personally experienced situations where sexism was an issue on other websites and I am making a personal request for clarification.
If you choose to respond about the subject of sexism please, PLEASE talk about why you personally would not be discriminatory. Sexist intentions cannot be disproved by logic; it's an emotional issue and should be addressed with a personal, emotional description.
His quote was
Oh jesus, that pool. I tried to make sense of what it was actually supposed to cover a few days ago. Got nowhere. KILL IT
You are not helping your case by messing with a quote to help your point.
Also bringing up the sexism card will I suspect have the wrong effect. In fact you greatly weaken your position by adding point six.
No where in the discussion of the pool was it ever mentioned that "is a pool made by a girl, it sucks." Do you think anyone here really gives a rats ass what sex you are.
Content, description, clarity, can it become a tag? This is what the mods/admins/janitors/etc. look at.
One last note, pools that are subjective (emotion pools and whatnot) can at any time fall under the cross hairs of the community on the forums and be altered.
That being said I agree that they should have notified you and got you into the discussion first.
My join date might be new but I have been around for quite awhile off and on.
Pretty_Princess said:
#6 In my experience, without the ability to identify users in the real world, and without otherwise obvious username implications, individuals are by default assumed to be male until proved otherwise. Especially when pornography is involved; even if it isn't the only feature of a website. I find that many of such internet spaces are assumed to be "male spaces" and thus sexist speech and actions become acceptable if said actions are not overly blatant (ex: "Get back in the kitchen you stupid cunt!"). I find it no coincidence that a pool synonymous with extreme femininity attracts comments like Now, there's no proof that this comment is sexist (and I don't assume it to be, Fencedude) nor is there proof that my pool's deletion appeal is sexist either. I have personally experienced situations where sexism was an issue on other websites and I am making a personal request for clarification.
If you choose to respond about the subject of sexism please, PLEASE talk about why you personally would not be discriminatory. Sexist intentions cannot be disproved by logic; it's an emotional issue and should be addressed with a personal, emotional description.
WTF? How did you get sexism out of that comment?
Jesus, thats almost as stupid as the whole Dickwolves conflagration.
The pool is pointless and very badly defined. "Girly" is not a particularly distinguishing feature on a site with over 700 thousand images, of which something like 90% of them exclusively feature female characters.
Ok, that aside
…did anyone ever think to contact the creators of pools before deletion? I definitely want to have a say as to whether this pool is deleted or not; I started it after all. Here are a few discrepancies I encountered:
No, we did not consider contacting you, because being the creator of the pool gives you no special authority over its ultimate dispensation.
Fencedude said:
WTF? How did you get sexism out of that comment?
I apologize. I guess I was paranoid. I've been heckled on other websites relentlessly and I was assuming I might be running into the same thing here. Unfortunately I made an ass out of u and me. It was wrong of me to confuse here with there. I'm sorry.
theadonicus said:
Well, we've got large_breasts, huge_breasts, and gigantic_breasts, for example. If tacking on another "layer" of breast size is okay for making different tags, shouldn't the same consideration be given for another "layer" of realism? There's a clear difference between those images and the average realistic image.
What kind of comparison is that? You're telling me there's "realistic" and "realer than realistic"? At least breast size is measurable and objective.
Any further discussion about pool #2562: Hyper-Femininity see relevant thread.
The suggested photorealistic is different from realistic.
Realistic is an art style. A "real world style" as opposed to "anime" style, chibi or abstract. The tag is mostly about faces and human anatomy.
Photorealistic would be for images which can't be distinguished from photos at first glance, such as some of the "food porn" posts.
Arrei said:
However I haven't gone back to actually clean the entire pool, it's rather too huge for me to do that when I have other things to be doing.
Sir or ma'am, I thought I should alert you to the fact that I am currently purging the Disgustingly Adorable pool. While keeping in mind the basic subjectivity of the concept, I have tried to cull the most unremarkable posts -- of girls simply standing and smiling, for instance.
Frankly, the whole business of eliminating cute pictures is rather grim and makes me feel like Danbooru Hitler.
In order to simplify this process, I propose the institution of a more objective standard:
Images included in the Disgustingly Adorable pool must rate Cheeeeen or higher on the Chen Scale, where e = 1 kg * m/s², the force of the nosebleed a psychologically normal human male experiences at the sight of Chen on a bicycle.
More formally:
DA ≥ Ch(e⁵)n
My first cull, although cursory and probably inadequate, has eliminated thirteen pages and roughly four hundred posts.
Behold, I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds.
It is possible (I daresay probable) that I have mistakenly removed posts that were genuinely Disgustingly Adorable, in which case I invite other users to re-add them.
How about next time leaving to to someone with more experience and precision as sorting through the whole thing is going to be a massive pain.
And such removals are better handled by a discussion of people, not someone who's been here only 4 months.
I would have a more accurate description of what you did, but it would not be polite.