Danbooru

Tag Vandalism

Posted under General

Unbreakable said:

user #516258 has been mass-adding the loli tag to a lot of posts including many which aren't even close to qualifying (they even added it to safe posts during the first run 5 days ago but stopped after being called out on it). I've been reverting a lot of the changes but I can't say I'm 100% sure on all of them so if someone could go through the user's changes and adjust them accordingly it would be nice.

@spookywaves, stop adding the loli tag--your error rate is far too high.

忍猫 said:

I personally believe that in post #3552811 the left girl's torso looks disconnected from her ass, and her arms don't look proportioned correctly. For post #3603660 I think her hips and legs aren't shown accurately and her genitalia is really off, it's too broad.

There's nothing wrong with her arms other than their awkward positioning (if that even counts as wrong). Remember that there is also a bad proportions tag for images As for the ass, that's at least in part down to the positioning of the rope and the skindentation effect it creates. If you factor that out then yeah it isn't perfect but there are probably upwards of a hundred thousand posts on the site which are as bad or worse in that respect. If you start adding stuff like bad anatomy for every little flaw then you'll end up with the site absolutely flooded with them (bad hands could probably be used on half the site). I've removed the bad anatomy tag from the variants of this post where it was added as I really don't think they justify it.

As for the other one, yes it's flawed, which is probably the main reason why it's deleted. For me, though, it's a very long way off what I would tag as bad anatomy. I've left the tag on these for now, though, for a third party to resolve if they wish.

skylightcrystal said:

There's nothing wrong with her arms other than their awkward positioning (if that even counts as wrong). Remember that there is also a bad proportions tag for images As for the ass, that's at least in part down to the positioning of the rope and the skindentation effect it creates. If you factor that out then yeah it isn't perfect but there are probably upwards of a hundred thousand posts on the site which are as bad or worse in that respect. If you start adding stuff like bad anatomy for every little flaw then you'll end up with the site absolutely flooded with them (bad hands could probably be used on half the site). I've removed the bad anatomy tag from the variants of this post where it was added as I really don't think they justify it.

As for the other one, yes it's flawed, which is probably the main reason why it's deleted. For me, though, it's a very long way off what I would tag as bad anatomy. I've left the tag on these for now, though, for a third party to resolve if they wish.

Honestly, thank you for the sincere and honest explanation. I really appreciate the response and it helps a lot. I understand that to most users it's easy to discern what parts of the image are the most prominent, but for me sometimes an explanation on the most "obvious" things can do a lot to really get what should come easly. Thanks.

Hey, user #702329 has spent the last few days stripping bestiality from several hundred images. I've browsed through a handful of them and they all seem to be unquestionably the sort of thing the tag was intended for. Do we need to check every single one of these edits individually for maximum accuracy, or would it be alright to simply mass-revert them?

iridescent_slime said:

Hey, user #702329 has spent the last few days stripping bestiality from several hundred images. I've browsed through a handful of them and they all seem to be unquestionably the sort of thing the tag was intended for. Do we need to check every single one of these edits individually for maximum accuracy, or would it be alright to simply mass-revert them?

On the first page of their edit history I picked a few random ones and I found both valid and invalid removals. post #1908024 and post #1752697 had bestiality removed, which would be correct as they instead fall under interspecies (though this user didn't also add interspecies, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ). However, post #1830249 and post #1988958 also had bestiality removed when these posts are indeed unquestionably bestiality.

I checked the bestiality wiki and found that this same user had edited its previously clear definition to some barely legible arbitrary rules they appear to have made up themselves:

A human creature, monster tentacle some parasite some dragon the majority of pokemon, having sex with an animal that is not-humanoid and it has to look like a real animal that is not-humanoid

See interspecies for sexual activity with a human creature, monster, some parasite, the majority of pokemon, tentacle, and some dragon and other humanoid and some non-humanoid partner's.

user #591472 (LonelyMagnet) has already reverted these changes, so kudos to them.

I mentioned to the user when they mailed me that they needed to ask of the forum before making changes to an established definition at 2019-09-11 17:43. I guess they just decided to run with it. They then responded with an "I think that" message which is such a huge run-on that I can't even parse it if I wanted to.

If it's on a large enough scale that nobody wants to sit and garden it, a revert wouldn't be a bad idea. At least then we're back to "a few posts need fixing" instead of a mountain of them.

OOZ662 said:

I mentioned to the user when they mailed me that they needed to ask of the forum before making changes to an established definition at 2019-09-11 17:43. I guess they just decided to run with it. They then responded with an "I think that" message which is such a huge run-on that I can't even parse it if I wanted to.

If it's on a large enough scale that nobody wants to sit and garden it, a revert wouldn't be a bad idea. At least then we're back to "a few posts need fixing" instead of a mountain of them.

If only 10% of their edits are actually good, then that would be a better move. Both options result in mistagged posts, but reverting means far less work to do.

Something that might be of note: the same individual performed the same vandalism on Gelbooru a couple of months ago under the name Luigi_Darkclaw.

OOZ662 said:

If it's on a large enough scale that nobody wants to sit and garden it, a revert wouldn't be a bad idea. At least then we're back to "a few posts need fixing" instead of a mountain of them.

I already did the full revert.

RaisingK said:

I already did the full revert.

So I'm a little confused on that whole bestiality tag fiasco. Not only is the tag now being applied/removed very chaotically, but it being replaced with furry and/or interspecies is even more random. The general theme I'm spotting is that humanoid 'mon have been getting it removed, but not always replaced with furry and virtually never interspecies. I see multiple users doing similar, but only some are using interspecies.

Frankly, the whole bestiality-interspecies-furry tagging is extra messy right now. Some centaur pics are tagged bestiality while others aren't. post #2568027 is even tagged both bestiality and interspecies and only partially as a result of the vandalism.

When the gardening is making things more confusing, I dunno what to do.

Veradux said:

So I'm a little confused on that whole bestiality tag fiasco. Not only is the tag now being applied/removed very chaotically, but it being replaced with furry and/or interspecies is even more random. The general theme I'm spotting is that humanoid 'mon have been getting it removed, but not always replaced with furry and virtually never interspecies. I see multiple users doing similar, but only some are using interspecies.

Bestiality is for sexual interactions between a humanoid character and, well, a bestial character - essentially an animal. Dogs, horses, disgusting bug monsters etc. all fit the bill.

If a character is humanoid but not human and they're paired with a character that is human, then interspecies should be used. If this non-human character is an anthropomorphised creature to some degree, then furry should also be used.

Note that characters such as Gardevoir and Midna are humanoid, but not based off of some kind of animal - when paired with humans, these kinds of characters qualify for interspecies but not furry.

Veradux said:

Frankly, the whole bestiality-interspecies-furry tagging is extra messy right now. Some centaur pics are tagged bestiality while others aren't. post #2568027 is even tagged both bestiality and interspecies and only partially as a result of the vandalism.

When the gardening is making things more confusing, I dunno what to do.

Centaurs are somewhat confusing in that they have the potential to qualify for all three cases (regular human/human, interspecies and bestiality) depending on the circumstances. The bottom half is always a bestial horse, but the top half is humanoid and can appear furry (post #2568027) or human (post #3534276). Consider these scenarios:
- If the centaur's top half is human and the centaur and a human are kissing, then it's human/human.
- If the centaur's top half is furry and the centaur and a human are kissing, then it's interspecies.
- Regardless of the human-ness of the centaur's top half, if the bottom half is sexually interacting with a humanoid character (for example, the post you linked, post #2568027) then it's bestiality.

I guess part of the confusion is that it all seems to be a recent development. I didn't even know about the interspecies tag until I saw it cropping up in a few recent Pokémon pictures that were previously tagged bestiality and thus previously blocked by my blacklist. Hypno and the Machoke line seem to be the biggest ones hit; they're no longer to be tagged bestiality and instead interspecies?

But, even then, your centaur examples pose even more questions. post #3534276 is definitely not a furry as you state. In fact, of the few instances of centaur+furry being a tag combo, only three images (post #3279728, post #3279729, and post #3279766) appear to be tagging the centaur itself as a furry. And those three examples appear to be incorrectly tagged furry.

Again, part of the issue is that none of this appears to be currently implemented in practice. A majority of instances of tags that follow the guidelines you posted are tag updates from the past few weeks. Someone further up said "instead of a mountain of them." to fix, but there is a mountain of them to fix and I just wanna make sure my ducks are in a row before I start countin' 'em.

The question it raises is what of other Monster Girls? It would seem that post #2228208 is now to be tagged as bestiality. Do I also have to tag post #3187571 as interspecies? post #2431091 would be furry and interspecies, correct?

Granted, this is all in the wrong thread, so we should probably move to the how to tag thread, but still. Had to ask.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10