Pointless Pools

Saduharta said:

If nothing else the pool seems somewhat arbitrary. I mean, rules like "no explicit images" as well as "...keep in mind that just because a character has a giant ass with a tail glued onto it doesn't automatically make it a candidate for this pool." make it seem more like a pool for someone's personal tastes rather than a specific needed pool.

Not having access to searching with more than two tags has ~never~ been related to whether something gets a pool or not. In fact, creating pools to get around the tag search limit for basic accounts seems like something that I recall specifically being frowned on in the past.

Frankly, this is something that's an inherent problem with the search system, and I don't see any reason tails and asses would warrant any special privilege here. For instance, if you were looking for pics that have a guy with a girl in them, you might search for "1guy 1girl". But if you specifically wanted pictures with a guy and a girl where the girl had blonde hair, obviously "1girl 1guy blonde_hair" would include posts where the guy has blonde hair and not the girl. That doesn't mean we're going to be creating a pool for "girls with blonde hair that are with a guy".

Then we(?) should either remove the "no huge ass" and "no explicit images" rules or wipe this pool out due to AIDS being pointless and too subjective, just like we(?) wiped out almost all "Perfect X" pools. Or leave unchanged, I don't know…

Yes, pool #1480 should be deleted. It's been suggested that it be deleted like 4 times in the past since it's the same as tail ass and no real reasons explaining anything that makes it useful have been presented any of the times.

Toks said:

Yes, pool #1480 should be deleted. It's been suggested that it be deleted like 4 times in the past since it's the same as tail ass and no real reasons explaining anything that makes it useful have been presented any of the times.

There is a minor problem caused by impossibility to "merge" tags together. As I said before, there could be two girls: one with no tail, but with an exposed ass, and second with a tail, but with no visible ass. However, this is only a minor problem and occurs to almost no images. Problem is resolved, I guess?.. Oh, yes, it is.

Asagi said:

There is a minor problem caused by impossibility to "merge" tags together. As I said before, there could be two girls: one with no tail, but with an exposed ass, and second with a tail, but with no visible ass. However, this is only a minor problem and occurs to almost no images. Problem is resolved, I guess?.. Oh, yes, it is.

That argument has been used for almost all the pools that I have seen on the chopping block. It just doesn't hold because it's using the pool system to get around the tag limit. Pools that have become tags, can be found in any combination of tags less than I believe 4, and pools that cannot be defined within it's own right are candidates.

Asagi said:

There is a minor problem caused by impossibility to "merge" tags together. As I said before, there could be two girls: one with no tail, but with an exposed ass, and second with a tail, but with no visible ass. However, this is only a minor problem and occurs to almost no images. Problem is resolved, I guess?.. Oh, yes, it is.

That's still not an argument for the usefulness of the pool. Maybe about 0.5% of posts under tail ass are false positives like you say, but who is going to be bothered by such a small number? If there were like 30% false positives or more a pool like this might have some slight amount of usefulness but that does not seem to be the case.

pool #7777 - Trigger Kill La Kill promotional images

I was in midst of trying to maintain this and wanted to update after holiday was over and I had more images to post from Twitter and Instagram. I found out it was deleted today.

FoolyDooly said:

pool #7777 - Trigger Kill La Kill promotional images

I was in midst of trying to maintain this and wanted to update after holiday was over and I had more images to post from Twitter and Instagram. I found out it was deleted today.

The reason it was deleted is because we already have a promotional_art tag, so there is no need for that pool.

Toks said:

The reason it was deleted is because we already have a promotional_art tag, so there is no need for that pool.

So since promotional_art tag is suffice, even if there was a commentary, it would be no good?

Issue is that even though it's technically promotional_art, the value here was it's more of production_art; Since pool #7563 can't cover production_art outside of its category, I wanted to do essentially same thing as pool #7563, but images provided on the other media (such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter)

If there was a way this could be reconsidered, I would like some help on learning about it.

FoolyDooly said:

So since promotional_art tag is suffice, even if there was a commentary, it would be no good?

So you're saying the purpose of the pool was to allow searching for not just promotional art, but for promotional art with commentary?

We already have the commentary tag, which can be used to search for posts with commentary. I don't see why a pool would be necessary on top of that.

FoolyDooly said:

Issue is that even though it's technically promotional_art, the value here was it's more of production_art; Since pool #7563 can't cover production_art outside of its category, I wanted to do essentially same thing as pool #7563, but images provided on the other media (such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter)

pool #7563 seems pointless too. Isn't it basically just a trigger_(company) commentary search (maybe with the promotional/production_art tag in there too)? Some posts were erroneously missing the commentary tag but I just fixed that.

Regarding some post without commentary, some commentary covers more than two images; I didn't want to clutter it posting same commentary over and over, making people think it's different commentary... That'd be wrong. If you meant vice-versa, (image without commentary tag) some posts were made prior to new Booru version so I did not get to thoroughly check all yet. If that's the case, I thank you for corrections.

I also no longer understand what you are trying to say. What good is the pool, if #7563 doesn't qualify as a series?

I thought ideal was collecting noteworthy group of images with a common theme and putting them easier to search. ?

FoolyDooly said:

Regarding some post without commentary, some commentary covers more than two images; I didn't want to clutter it posting same commentary over and over, making people think it's different commentary... That'd be wrong. If you meant vice-versa, (image without commentary tag) some posts were made prior to new Booru version so I did not get to thoroughly check all yet. If that's the case, I thank you for corrections.

I said that they were missing the commentary tag, nothing more. I added the tag. I don't support copy-pasting the same commentary all over the place.

FoolyDooly said:

I also no longer understand what you are trying to say. What good is the pool, if #7563 doesn't qualify as a series?

I thought ideal was collecting noteworthy group of images with a common theme and putting them easier to search. ?

We already have the trigger_(company) tag though. Doesn't that tag (possibly along with the other tags I mentioned) already make it "easy to search" for these images?

Toks said:

I said that they were missing the commentary tag, nothing more. I added the tag. I don't support copy-pasting the same commentary all over the place.

Yeah, hence I rambled on about I wasn't sure which you were talking about.

We already have the trigger_(company) tag though. Doesn't that tag (possibly along with the other tags I mentioned) already make it "easy to search" for these images?

Then what difference does it make with 90% of the other series?

I'm just saying, I just want to know what makes one being nitpicked on, and one conforming to the rules; that's all. Not mad or frustrated, just thoroughly confused

Upon reflection, pool #7966 (Past Self) might work better as a past_self tag.

Agree (Y/N)?:

TheKid965 said:

Upon reflection, pool #7966 (Past Self) might work better as a past_self tag.

Agree (Y/N)?:

If a character has a "past self" appearance worth tagging, we can create a tag for that character.
Other than that, younger does the job. And the "scenes of a character's past" can be better dealt with with a backstory tag or something of that sort. (or the existing flashback tag)

S1eth said:

If a character has a "past self" appearance worth tagging, we can create a tag for that character.
Other than that, younger does the job. And the "scenes of a character's past" can be better dealt with with a backstory tag or something of that sort. (or the existing flashback tag)

Then we should add something like "do not use the tag for younger or older" to this "past self" tag's wiki, because for instance post #532037 is definitely covered by younger.

pool #6282 "Trolling"

Can be replaced by the (existing) trolling tag.

MagicalAsparagus said:

Then we should add something like "do not use the tag for younger or older" to this "past self" tag's wiki, because for instance post #532037 is definitely covered by younger.

I was actually advocating for not using a past self tag at all, and instead creating tags for individual characters that need one. (as we've already done for saigyouji_yuyuko_(living) and fujiwara_no_mokou_(young))

S1eth said:

I was actually advocating for not using a past self tag at all, and instead creating tags for individual characters that need one. (as we've already done for saigyouji_yuyuko_(living) and fujiwara_no_mokou_(young))

Oh. I'm a bit derp as always.
Yeah, that seems more reasonable, since there aren't that many characters that actually have a "past self". But then the question is, what about isolated cases? I don't think we should create a separate chartag if it's just one or two posts.

MagicalAsparagus said:

But then the question is, what about isolated cases? I don't think we should create a separate chartag if it's just one or two posts.

If a character has a "past self" distinct from their normal form, and it's official (not something a fan artist made up), then I think creating a chartag would be a good idea even if it only has 1-2 posts. We have plenty of existing chartags with just a couple posts too.

MagicalAsparagus said:

Oh. I'm a bit derp as always.
Yeah, that seems more reasonable, since there aren't that many characters that actually have a "past self". But then the question is, what about isolated cases? I don't think we should create a separate chartag if it's just one or two posts.

The Mokou tag was created when she only had 2 posts, and it took half a year for a third one to be uploaded. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with creating a tag for a single occurance.