Posted under General
Shinjidude said:
My interpretation has always been "height of head" to "any dimension of breast". Area is tough to accurately gauge.
How so? You just eyeball it, or use your finger and thumb.
Also gigantic_breasts shouldn't have an upper bound. It can be used to filter out egregious examples, much in the way bad_proportions or jpeg_artifacts can be used
Egregious in what way?
Egregious as in pushing the bounds of acceptable. It had been that gigantic_breasts was defined as being beyond the ToS. In that way it could be used much as guro or furry were used to either call attention to things that need exceptional merit to keep, or otherwise to filter them out.
Whether we redefine large_breasts upper bound and gigantic_breasts lower bound to three heads I'm not sure, but I'm against putting an upper bound on gigantic.
albert said:
Three heads for a single breast. I know it's hard to imagine but I would say volume, not area.
I'm totally fine with this, but I would think that would be very hard to judge for the untrained.
Shinjidude said:
Egregious as in pushing the bounds of acceptable. It had been that gigantic_breasts was defined as being beyond the ToS. In that way it could be used much as guro or furry were used to either call attention to things that need exceptional merit to keep, or otherwise to filter them out.
Ah, okay.
Hmm. We'll need to work out a new set of metrics on the breast size tags, then.
Rough draft:
flat chest = less than half a head in size
breasts = between around half a head to a whole head
large breasts = greater than 1 head, no more than 2
huge breasts = greater than 2, less than 3
gigantic breasts = 3 or more, thus OUT
sgcdonmai said:
Rough draft:
flat chest = less than half a head in size
breasts = between around half a head to a whole head
large breasts = greater than 1 head, no more than 2
huge breasts = greater than 2, less than 3
gigantic breasts = 3 or more, thus OUT
This sounds overly complicated to me already.
When I read that I understand that post #938967 would transition from huge_breasts to large_breasts.
Except for maybe gigantic_breasts I hope our tagging policies aren't changing because I think they're pretty much perfect right now.
sgcdonmai said:
Rough draft:
flat chest = less than half a head in size
breasts = between around half a head to a whole head
large breasts = greater than 1 head, no more than 2
huge breasts = greater than 2, less than 3
gigantic breasts = 3 or more, thus OUT
If we do go this route then we'll probably need new example images for huge and large breasts (see huge breasts wiki entry). But I don't know if we need to change our breasts size guidelines to such a degree. Instead maybe gigantic breasts should encompass a wider size of breasts.
sgcdonmai said:
Rough draft:
flat chest = less than half a head in size
breasts = between around half a head to a whole head
large breasts = greater than 1 head, no more than 2
huge breasts = greater than 2, less than 3
gigantic breasts = 3 or more, thus OUT
I disagree with these changes, the current definitions are well established for large, huge and gigantic. I do not see a need to change the current definitions for these tags, even if it is to ease comparing the image to the regulations of the ToS. So -1 to this draft.
Additionally it would be foolish to attempt to use the breasts tag for only a specific size, as that goes against all the established implications and it would get rid of a catchall tag that is extremely well established.
I'm quite sure the people who use gigantic_breasts as they would furry or guro would rather the current definition stays the same, since what will be visually depicted in such tagged images does not change. The proposed changes in definition would only achieve to now make such users have two tags on the blacklist instead of one (in short both huge_breasts and gigantic_breasts).
Frankly I think you're mistaken in the idea that just because there was a shift in the ToS that the tag metrics need to be changed. The tags themselves do not necessarily have to reflect such changes. Tags like guro and furry do not fully represent images that are against the ToS, as our guro tag is more accurately the gore tag. Additionally furry does not truly reflect the content that is actually banned by the ToS. Certainly content that would be removed because of the ToS will end up under those tags, but that does not mean the tag exists only for the purpose of labeling what will be removed. The tags themselves exist as a separate identity that may contain both acceptable and unacceptable images (regardless of quality exceptions). Like furry and guro then, there is no reason to change gigantic_breasts' definition, as it too can also be a container of images that may or may not be acceptable.
Updated
I agree with two points you make. First, breasts obviously shouldn't be restricted to usage on medium sized breasts (in fact it can't be due to implications). I interpreted the list above as simply implying "breasts by itself without otherwise special designation".
Second, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of increasing the upper bound on huge_breasts either (nor the redefinition of the ToS for the same reason), but I think mirroring the ToS does have meaningful benefits in that it denotes borderline unacceptable posts.
The reason guro and furry don't in practice reflect the prototypical portrayals of those concepts is because those concepts are technically off limits. What remains is just the borderline cases that were decided to have merit. They actually do reflect the hazy line drawn by the ToS, despite what you are saying.
I feel we need to be consistant. If we want to redefine "Danbooru quality" as including three-head-sized breasts, we should also redefine the tags that were defined along the same lines.
Shinjidude said:
Second, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of increasing the upper bound on huge_breasts either (nor the redefinition of the ToS for the same reason), but I think mirroring the ToS does have meaningful benefits in that it denotes borderline unacceptable posts.
I don't see any need beyond adding a note that images of 3 heads in volume and larger goes against the ToS under the gigantic_breasts wiki. There is no need to change the definition otherwise.
Shinjidude said:
The reason guro and furry don't in practice reflect the prototypical portrayals of those concepts is because those concepts are technically off limits. What remains is just the borderline cases that were decided to have merit. They actually do reflect the hazy line drawn by the ToS, despite what you are saying.
Please, don't give me that. There are many that would fall under those tags that are not even close to borderline to the point of not even being hazy (particularly furry). What is in there is mostly not what is there based simply on merit, but because we know it does not violate the ToS. They do not reflect so much this hazy line , as it reflects that there is content that receives those labels that are understood as not violating the ToS to any extent (or significant extent in some cases).
The tags are much more than what the ToS lists, and I do not see why the gigantic_breasts tag can not be more than what is in the ToS as well.
Shinjidude said:
I feel we need to be consistant. If we want to redefine "Danbooru quality" as including three-head-sized breasts, we should also redefine the tags that were defined along the same lines.
If you wish to be consistent, then we shouldn't be changing the definition of the tag so freely. Having the tag definition consistent over a long period of time seems to me far more important than arbitrarily changing it because of a rule change. Even more so given that the definition change seems completely unnecessary. We do not need a tag simply just to pigeonhole the images to say they violate the ToS.
Updated
NWF_Renim said:
Additionally it would be foolish to attempt to use the breasts tag for only a specific size, as that goes against all the established implications and it would get rid of a catchall tag that is extremely well established.
This was not my intention, although I see how that might have been misconstrued based on what I typed. I meant that, at the size range between "flat" and "large", there would be no particular size noted, thus they would simply be tagged breasts. Shinjidude caught my meaning, I think.
Having the tag definition consistent over a long period of time seems to me far more important than arbitrarily changing it because of a rule change.
Actually, I think it helps improve the categorization significantly. There have been complaints in the past about the vagueness of the large breasts tag and what size range it represents. With this, it gains a certain amount of clarity, which simplifies tagging judgment significantly.
We do not need a tag simply just to pigeonhole the images to say they violate the ToS.
Part of the purpose of the gigantic breasts tag was to reflect that the images it referenced were technically disallowed, but that they served as an example - both of what is too big, and of what might be of sufficient quality to pass muster despite their excess.
sgcdonmai said:
This was not my intention, although I see how that might have been misconstrued based on what I typed. I meant that, at the size range between "flat" and "large", there would be no particular size noted, thus they would simply be tagged breasts. Shinjidude caught my meaning, I think.
Ah, okay.
sgcdonmai said:
Actually, I think it helps improve the categorization significantly. There have been complaints in the past about the vagueness of the large breasts tag and what size range it represents. With this, it gains a certain amount of clarity, which simplifies tagging judgment significantly.
But what you're doing is radically changing the definition of 3 already established tags. This is not simply adding or subtracting to what is in these tags, this is ultimately rebuilding all these tags and requiring going through 3 huge collections of images (somewhere around 60300 images). I just don't see a good reason for it. You're just creating even greater confusion by shifting the definitions of each of these tags, and for honestly no real gain. Frankly the confusion this will generate imo is far greater than whatever current confusion exists, since there will always be some confusion over these tags.
sgcdonmai said:
Part of the purpose of the gigantic breasts tag was to reflect that the images it referenced were technically disallowed, but that they served as an example - both of what is too big, and of what might be of sufficient quality to pass muster despite their excess.
This does not mean that we should change the tag simply because what the original purpose was. Once it was created and has existed for such a long time, it was given its own identity and has become for the most part an independent entity. The changing in rules does not have to impact the tag at all. You're making a huge deal over nothing. The change in the ToS is not going to radically change what goes in this tag nor will it radically change what is approved. It has simply removed the ability of citing the ToS to flag some of these images. It has not removed the fact that many of the images that will fall within the current definition of the gigantic_breasts tag will still not be approved due to quality reasons.
Given that many will still have issues with quality, that then does not change the fact that the current definition then falls perfectly well under what you call a reference tag, because what will end up under the tag will be those that have passed quality and were approved then. In short you're making a huge change for no purpose.
NWF_Renim said:
You're just creating even greater confusion by shifting the definitions of each of these tags, and for honestly no real gain. Frankly the confusion this will generate imo is far greater than whatever current confusion exists, since there will always be some confusion over these tags.
I'm not convinced that this is true. In fact, I believe that the more measurable nature of each size level - "this many heads equals this size" - would significantly cut down on the amount of confusion involved.
As for there being "no real gain", well, that's your take on it, but I don't agree.
Look, one rather major point is that what you're proposing can easily be achieved by adding a new tag instead of changing the current tags. All you've done is shifted the definitions and for all extensive purposes you've done nothing that is greater or superior to the current system than added a new tag and then went and renamed all the current tags. If you add a tag that covers 3+ sized breasts you get all the "improvement" that you propose with none of the headache.
But what is the value of this new 3+ breast sized tag? All it is is a pigeonhole to stuff things that are past what is in the ToS, but as far as approval should be it should have no difference than the 2+ size breasts (ie being judged by quality). All you get is a label to induce bias, you get no improvement over putting them into the 2+ size tag. Frankly having the 3+ mixed with the 2+ I think would be more of a good thing than a bad thing. People who downright hate the 3+ are going to likely hate the 2+ as well, so they need only one tag to know what to hate. It also makes it unnecessary to have a tag that is even more progressively smaller than the next size down (41k currently in large which is ~1, 19k in huge which is 1 < 2, and 327 in gigantic which is 2+). So if we have 327 for 2+, a 3+ tag is going to be somewhere around like 10-30 or even fewer images.
Frankly I think your system is poorer in the size definitions by removing the current large size category. If the current large is around ~1 head size, then that shows that people recognize large in size is somewhere around say 0.80-1.20 heads in size. This means that what people will consider large will either go untagged or it will fall into a category that contains those that reach the point at which we're already currently calling huge. That honestly shows that your proposal draws an arbitrary line that fails to take into account what people want to recognize as large in size currently.
Updated
I like the tags as they are now. I see them being more about how art is drawn than how Danbooru functions. For instance, the breasts tag as it is now is perfect for the average figure, large breasts suits the usual size for your average busty figure, and huge breasts for the beyond average. Gigantic breasts... I suppose wouldn't matter either way, though.
Breast size tags are kinda ambiguous and are applied differently by different people, yes.
But, I find myself unable to get worked up about that. I guess I just view it as one of those tags you can't perfect, and being in the ballpark is good enough.
Generally I think we're in the right ballpark. The only tag I occasionally have a "wtf that shouldn't be here" is flat_chest, since I see it applied to some chests I'd never describe as flat. But maybe I only notice because it's the only size-specific breast tag I use.
Seconding NWF_Renim.
jxh2154 said:
Breast size tags are kinda ambiguous and are applied differently by different people, yes.
With the exception of flat_chest, as you described, I think they're applied more consistently than what we could expect, from the small proportion of mistagged posts I meet.
