Posted under General
jxh2154 said:
I think that the difference between this system and the system we currently use is subtle enough that subjectivity and the fact that we have hundreds of different people rating would steamroll right over any daylight between the two and nothing would change.
What he said. Way too subjective. Way too many people. Bad combination.
To me, safe means I can browse it at work and if I get caught by my boss he's not going to think I'm browsing for porn. Or if I browse Safebooru at a public library, people may get annoyed at me but they're not going to complain to the librarian that someone's looking at pictures of girls.
So I actually think your definition of safe is too lax. I think safe should exclude lingerie, almost all nudity, two piece swimsuits, and large visible breasts/ass. It's not really a matter of whether you think an image is sexualized, it's rather if some random person, at a glance, would consider it inappropriate to show that image in public in front of everyone (including children).
But I don't think hardly anyone agrees with me that safe should be taken that far. I still would not feel all that comfortable browsing Safebooru (as it is now) at work because the occasional buxom bikini girl shows up, but it's considerably safer than Danbooru itself.
"Worksafe" is the standard term, but in practice there are many more contexts where the notion is applied. Librarysafe, unisafe, trainsafe, livingroomsafe, momsafe, friendsafe, etc.
If your workplace forbids all "frivolous" browsing, not even disney.com would be "safe for work".
In other words, I wouldn't treat the word "worksafe" literally, but as a general term for "if I were caught looking at this, people wouldn't think I'm a pervert/fapping/looking at stuff not suitable for public display". That's a far more useful notion than "if 葉月 caught me looking at this, he wouldn't think the artist intended the work to be sexually titillating".
albert said: So I actually think your definition of safe is too lax. I think safe should exclude lingerie, almost all nudity, two piece swimsuits, and large visible breasts/ass.
You put the opposite criteria in place when overhauling safe in the past, though, particularly with lingerie and bikinis. The problem is that safe becomes too narrow, and questionable becomes too broad. As LaC says, "worksafe" can't be taken literally. Yes, in theory we have content that spans rather more than 3 categories of explicitness, but if we try to introduce more than 3 levels people are going to be very confused.
For your definition I think you'd need a "supersafe" level or something like that. Which is fine in theory - if we could be more granular, consistently and easily, I'd be all for it. I'm just not sure it's easy to do.
I actually thought about suggesting a "supersafe" category in this topic a couple times, although it would stray from the subject a bit. I think about a quarter of the images in safe actually really safe. But yeah, it's not a big deal anyway for me.
I think the discrepancy between questionable and explicit as suggested by 葉月 is especially valuable as an idea though (where questionable becomes anything that's not safebooru-ready, but not porn either, and explicit for the rest). But yeah like I said the sheer amount of work a change like that would entail makes it prohibitive in my opinion.
Well aware this thread is pretty old, but I've noticed whenever I search for wallpapers and do a search including -rating:explicit, there are a ton of images that still show up with cum in them. I know the rule is genitalia = explicit but really, isn't cum just as nsfw as the penis that shoots it? In a way it's almost worse, and I'm not sure it should really count as questionable. "Ice cream" or "spilled milk" (as some artists like to do) I think are probably fine since usually it's just meant as a tease, and you can see the source of it. Those should probably still be questionable. But I really think anything tagged "cum" should probably get an auto-explicit rating.
bettynoire said:
Well aware this thread is pretty old, but I've noticed whenever I search for wallpapers and do a search including -rating:explicit, there are a ton of images that still show up with cum in them. I know the rule is genitalia = explicit but really, isn't cum just as nsfw as the penis that shoots it? In a way it's almost worse, and I'm not sure it should really count as questionable. "Ice cream" or "spilled milk" (as some artists like to do) I think are probably fine since usually it's just meant as a tease, and you can see the source of it. Those should probably still be questionable. But I really think anything tagged "cum" should probably get an auto-explicit rating.
You probably should have made a new thread about this.
Regardless, I always rate cum as explicit, unless I can't be sure it's actually cum. And isn't cum listed under explicit in the howto:rate page?
I swore I went through the wallpaper tag and cleaned up the ratings...
We actually moved *away* from a lot of the old auto-rating based on tags, and for the better. It works in most cases but the exceptions are significant enough that the system breaks and doing it manually is better.
Anyway, yes, images with cum in them should be rated explicit.
