Posted under General
Godel said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, it sounds like you're massively contradicting yourself. Saying we don't tag female because it's the norm, and how censorship is also the norm.
Do you understand the function of the word unless?
I'm saying that I don't think we should be tagging both instances of censorship and the absence thereof, just like we don't tag both male and female.
Godel said: So anyways Algasir, that's what censored is. Ok then, uncensored is the opposite thing.
Actually, no, the usage is not that simplistic here. They aren't binary opposites because there is a large middle ground which is neither. The uncensored tag looks like it's a complete mess right now, unfortunately.
And any programming questions go to albert. I'm not involved in coding Danbooru and know no programming myself.
jxh2154 said:
Actually, no, the usage is not that simplistic here. They aren't binary opposites because there is a large middle ground which is neither. The uncensored tag looks like it's a complete mess right now, unfortunately.And any programming questions go to albert. I'm not involved in coding Danbooru and know no programming myself.
I asked him about it already, thanks :)
Soljashy said:
Do you understand the function of the word unless?I'm saying that I don't think we should be tagging both instances of censorship and the absence thereof, just like we don't tag both male and female.
Ah, oops I misread...
As for being opposites..well, if it was that simple we would have resolved this problem long ago I suppose, hehe
Godel said: As for being opposites..well, if it was that simple we would have resolved this problem long ago I suppose, hehe
It seems that uncensored should be nixed, and decensored maintained for images that have had censorship removed. Right now "uncensored" is just being used as "sexually explicit without any sort of censorship present... but only on about 5k of the ~45k that could technically apply to" which is all sorts of not useful. rating:e -uncensored -censored gives approx 40000 results.
So I'd say the concept of uncensored as a distinct tagging idea from decensored holds no value, as it's analogous to rating:e -censored. And it's only being applied in ~15% of possible cases right now. And and I don't like the concept of total-coverage binary tags either.
Arg..I wish it were just as simple as:
Is there a pussy or penis shown?
Are they shown clearly? Y/N
Y=uncensored, N=censored
Why does it have to be so complex? T_T
Anyways, I can't really think of anymore arguments...the plan doesn't really seem to want to be implemented. Not much else I can do about it...
Updated
Maybe we need new tags for 'traditional' types of censorship: blur_censorship (and/or pixelation_censorship?) bar_sensorship (and/or block_censorship? Although that sounds like it could also include making things 'blocky' / pixelated...) Or do those already exist?
Hmm, it's hard to figure out exactly what to call them. But the point is, then those could all imply censorship.
Xabid said:
Maybe we need new tags for 'traditional' types of censorship: blur_censorship (and/or pixelation_censorship?) bar_sensorship (and/or block_censorship? Although that sounds like it could also include making things 'blocky' / pixelated...) Or do those already exist?Hmm, it's hard to figure out exactly what to call them. But the point is, then those could all imply censorship.
Yeah, this would be the other solution, but that would take a hella long time, and people wouldn't know for a while to start writing what type of censorship it is either
I mean. censor_bar is NOT used, it's existant but no one actually uses it. And it seems to be more for "identity censoring" (or that's what I see on a lot of those anyways).
Imo censored should just be for 'traditional' censoring methods, what you except when you look at a censored hentai pic. Which is why I suggested the idea I did (back on page one, look for the list with bullets), but that really doesn't seem to want to be accepted by everyone.
jxh2154 said:
It seems that uncensored should be nixed, and decensored maintained for images that have had censorship removed. Right now "uncensored" is just being used as "sexually explicit without any sort of censorship present... but only on about 5k of the ~45k that could technically apply to" which is all sorts of not useful. rating:e -uncensored -censored gives approx 40000 results.So I'd say the concept of uncensored as a distinct tagging idea from decensored holds no value, as it's analogous to rating:e -censored. And it's only being applied in ~15% of possible cases right now. And and I don't like the concept of total-coverage binary tags either.
Those are probably MOSTLY images that show only nipples that don't need censorship. (Or maybe just cum, perhaps even really sexually suggestive)
Btw, I tallied up the votes (of who clearly support/don't):
+:8
-:3
Didn't count jxh's either since I can't really tell what he's thinking. At first he's like naw, then he's like that could work, but no actual answer
Updated
Godel said: Those are probably MOSTLY images that show only nipples that don't need censorship.
Nipples only are not rated explicit, so this would not be the case. These images are rated questionable.
(Or maybe just cum, perhaps even really sexually suggestive)
Sexually suggestive (by the wiki definition anyway) alone would not be explicit either. Cum generally would be, but either way there are are minimum 12000 images with penis or pussy that are tagged neither censored nor uncensored.
Didn't count jxh's either since I can't really tell what he's thinking. At first he's like naw, then he's like that could work, but no actual answer
If I had to vote just as an individual user it's negative, however as an admin I'm keeping options open.
The reason this isn't decided yet is that new issues keep cropping up. Even if we did the main list of suggestions it keeps reaching outward and affecting other tags.
Log said:
Make that 7-4 suiseiseki has a damn good point: it's far easier to add one tag to new censored images (which type of censoring it is) than it is to babysit mutliple tags for all changes.
Well, I asked albert about having a function to search for recently edited tags by the tag edited (which would make it very easy to watch), but he didn't respond yet...or maybe ever o_o
Xabid said:
Maybe we need new tags for 'traditional' types of censorship: blur_censorship (and/or pixelation_censorship?) bar_sensorship (and/or block_censorship? Although that sounds like it could also include making things 'blocky' / pixelated...)
I don't really see a point in distinguishing between pixelation/mosaics and bars. The fact that we have ~25000 censored posts and don't already have tags for these goes to show that no one really cares about the difference between the two. And also, it would be a lot of work to retag existing posts with these since often you can't tell for certain the type of censorship from the thumbnail, so you couldn't do it all with tagscripts.
I don't really oppose this approach (keeping the implication and tagging traditional censors), but I think it would be easier overall to just undo the implication and leave censored for traditional censors.
evazion said:
I don't really oppose this approach (keeping the implication and tagging traditional censors), but I think it would be easier overall to just undo the implication and leave censored for traditional censors.
That's what I was trying to do in the first place, then I came up with a pretty good plan (18th post on page 1 if you haven't seen it) but that's not exactly supported for implementation either.
But yeah I mean I'm all out of arguments lol
Godel said: Well, I asked albert about having a function to search for recently edited tags by the tag edited (which would make it very easy to watch), but he didn't respond yet...or maybe ever o_o
Put it on Trac - that's the easiest way to make sure it actually enters albert's danbooru workflow. dmails and forum posts are harder for him to keep track of (which is essentially why I'm here, to handle the forum and user side of things so he can do important stuff like make the site exist).
Godel said:
evazion said: but I think it would be easier overall to just undo the implication and leave censored for traditional censors.
That's what I was trying to do in the first place, then I came up with a pretty good plan
It's still down to that whole issue of how we define censored on a fundamental level. I mean we could "just undo the implication(s)" and all but then we're still left with a bunch of contradictory understandings as to where it should go, and newly confusing tag names, which necessitated coming up with obstructed view and... this is why changing how we use 25,000+ image tags that are as old as the site is not a simple matter.
Can we at least unimplicate censor hair from convenient censoring which implicates censored? Because censor hair is usually just covering the nipples, which are hardly ever censored with "traditional" means like bars or mosaics.
jjj14 said: Can we at least unimplicate censor hair from convenient censoring which implicates censored? Because censor hair is usually just covering the nipples, which are hardly ever censored with "traditional" means like bars or mosaics.
Hmm. Thoughts, anyone? censor_hair can also cover the crotch but he's right that it's usually the breasts.
jxh2154 said:
Hmm. Thoughts, anyone? censor_hair can also cover the crotch but he's right that it's usually the breasts.
+1 for jjj14. Unlike genitals, bare breasts aren't considered explicit or uncensored when exposed , so there's no need for censored to be implicated when they're covered.
I think hair_over_breasts should be used for this too, most of the time the hair are just covering the nipples anyway.
Bumping, I just noticed that the tags maebari and bandaid_on_pussy do not implicate convenient_censoring and censored, while tags like censor_hair and convenient_leg do.
How silly is that?
Fred1515 said: Bumping, I just noticed that the tags maebari and bandaid_on_pussy do not implicate convenient_censoring
I'm not sure why they would? They're treated almost like articles of clothing, intentionally applied to the crotch. Completely different concept from convenient_leg or censor_hair.
But that said I've removed the censor_hair -> convenient_censoring implication as well, for now.
jxh2154 said:
I'm not sure why they would? They're treated almost like articles of clothing, intentionally applied to the crotch.
And in what way they're different from the articles of clothing used to conveniently censor most (or at least a lot) convenient_censoring posts?
post #531180 is censored, but post #469548 is not?
Personally I don't think either of them are, which is why I wanted to point that out as a contradiction with the way convenient_censoring is currently used, and as an argumement in favor of Godel's unimplication suggestion.
