Danbooru

Rule 34

Posted under General

I really don't like the Rule 34 tag as it stands now. The way that it stands now, the tag currently is applied to any porn that is considered rare. There's little information conveyed by the tag, and no information about the picture.

The Rule 34 tag should either be restricted only to post #87180, or to it and pictures that are known to have been created for Rule 34 requests. I'd prefer the former, but I suppose the later would add some meta-information about the purpose of the image.

I'm planning on cleaning it out, and just wanted to make sure that there were no objections before I did so.

Updated by 葉月

NWF_Renim said:
Though there are images that I think clearly fall under rule 34 (post #246718)...

I absolutely disagree with you on this picture. This post has nothing to do with rule 34, and it was not created in response to a rule 34 request, so using rule 34 is really just a way of saying "rare porn". This conveys no information about the picture.

Kumarei, the definition you really want to use for rule 34 is worthless to be honest. We'll likely never approve true material that references the rule anymore, and all the current material that would fall under it probably is material qualified for the deletion bin.

I think you happen to be confusing 34 with 35, after taking 5 seconds to search for the rules of the internet:

34. There is porn of it. No exceptions.
35. If no porn is found of it, it will be created.

It doesn't have to be created as rule 34 to qualify as rule 34. It does for 35 but we don't carry 35 material.

The problem is that it's too subjective (I'm not a fan of the "what" tag either for what it's worth). A pool seems like the only way it'd be acceptable, and even then I have no idea what people will be using as criteria, like with the "Clever" pool.

Granola said:
So delete all rule_34 tags. They can be replaced with what instead.

I'd like to do that. It's just that I'm already biased against Rule 34 (I think it's stupid), so I didn't want to cause a loss of information without a consensus.

NWF Renim:
Kumarei, the definition you really want to use for rule 34 is worthless to be honest.

I agree, but I think it's much more consistent with our modern tagging practices. I do think that it would work much better as a pool than a tag, since it's really a set of disparate images without a unifying visual theme.

EDIT: Okay, I'm going to add all the images to a Rule 34 pool. Then I'm going to run a tag script "-rule_34 what" on them. That way, if anyone decides that it's a bad idea, rule_34 can be added to the items in the pool, and there will be no harm done.

Updated

I have no problem with humorous tags that tag memes (though I'll very rarely if ever approve memetic pics), we simply need fairly narrow rules to define their use. I'd be of the opinion of using rule_34 only to pics that refer to the meme (much like our stance on moe as a tag.) "Rare porn" is way too wide and way too subjective.

*sigh* once again another purely worthless tag is made through redefining.

Can we just delete post #87180 already and be rid of the rule 34 tag then? The image is off-topic, and I don't see the reason to let it lie around with it's own unique tag. We're never going to approve new content that will use the tag and letting it exist will just be asking for problems in the future.

Shinjidude said:
It's not like there aren't plenty of worthless 1 post tags in the tens of thousands we have already.

I don't know if this irks anyone as much as it does to me, but having one-post tags really gets on my nerves, especially if its a mispelling. Just look at the tags tab and select the general by date option, there's a whole ton of crap like that.

Granola said:
I don't know if this irks anyone as much as it does to me, but having one-post tags really gets on my nerves, especially if its a mispelling. Just look at the tags tab and select the general by date option, there's a whole ton of crap like that.

I used to very much be of that opinion until several months ago when I downloaded the full tag list. At that point I resigned myself to the fact that there are just so very many that it's virtually impossible to chew through. Zipf's Law appears to apply to Danbooru tags such that there is an exponentially higher number of rare tags than common ones.

Maybe I or someone else should publish a list of these 1 or 2 post tags and try and sort them out collaboratively. Back then I tried to do what I could with alternative pluralization and misspellings.

Even in spite of all this though, I think one-post tags can have their place if they act as an index to an otherwise difficult to tag post. As much as I dislike the image it refers to, long ago someone used that argument to support the socks_on_cocks tag which is an apt example. Strangely enough, I see it is no longer a 1 post tag.

Updated

Shinjidude said:
As much as I dislike the image it refers to, long ago someone used that argument to support the socks_on_cocks tag which is an apt example. Strangely enough, I see it is no longer a 1 post tag.

The sad thing is that, while there are some 10 cocks under this tag, there are also precisely 0 men.

1 2