Filters (SFW Furry) SettingsRegisterLogin

Posts

For more information, see the search syntax documentation. Search results are sorted by creation date.

Search Results

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 29

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Stinkek
yeah, I may have to reverse that. I know that it was not originally like that though, because there was not enough uses of it to reflect the amount of actual images with OCs in them.
Either way, I can mass-remove the tag easily, so don’t worry about it too much. I’ll be the one taking any flak (and mass-readding it lol) if Pup’s upset over it 😅
Turns out Philomena’s namespace thing results in this EXTREMELY awkward thing where “oc:” is not actually part of the tag name, so while you can search for all oc: tags, you cannot use a search like “oc:” to find all images with oc tags, because that search is considered exactly the same as “”…
Posted Report
Edited

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 28

Stinkek

poser
Seeing how oc has been made an error tag recently, I noticed it appears automatically when you tag an OC, but it’s (apparently) not actually implied by anything, which is weird, and you always to have to remove it manually.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 27

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Stinkek
@Dillocircus
human-like feet on species that aren’t human or humanoid, especially when like half of the canvas is occupied by feet.
In theory the latter is filtered off with “foot focus” (though I have no idea how prevalent that tag is on cutepa.ws for images that you want to aviod).
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 26

Stinkek

poser
@Dillocircus
Fair enough…
I wondered about “non-mammalian nipples” as well. I think most people don’t give a shit about non-mammals having nipples.
The fingers thing makes me think, I hope the finger count and toe count tags stay, because… I don’t how common this is, but I have a pet peeve with human-like feet on species that aren’t human or humanoid, especially when like half of the canvas is occupied by feet.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 25

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Stinkek
foreskin tug -> foreskin
humanoid penis -> humanoid genitalia
spread anus -> anus
spread vulva -> vulva
done
I noticed cocklet is defined as a small humanoid penis, however I’ve seen some penises under this tag that don’t look humanoid but more like a tapering penis, with no glans.
It had “small penis” aliased to it before I came in. So no, it’s just all small penii regardless of anatomical type.
raised tail, tail grab -> tail
If someone does it, it won’t be me. Hell, I’d rather remove all implications and make the tag invalid! IMO “tail” (or any other basic anatomical tags like “legs”, “eyes” or “fingers”) is used in a completely pointless way on e621, and by extension other boorus. There’s no reason to tag for features that are gonna be in the vast majority of images that happen to show the relevant section of the body. There’s a reason we don’t tag stuff as “character present” or “drawn art”: it’s part of the very medium!
Now tagging for the unexpected absence or presence of a feature is far more useful with tags like , though even there I think e61 goes WAY overboard with stuff like “non-mammalian nipples”.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 24

Stinkek

poser
foreskin tug -> foreskin
humanoid penis -> humanoid genitalia
raised tail, tail grab -> tail
spread anus -> anus
spread vulva -> vulva
I noticed cocklet is defined as a small humanoid penis, however I’ve seen some penises under this tag that don’t look humanoid but more like a tapering penis, with no glans.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 23

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 22

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 21

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Stinkek
This has been on my mind for a while… What’s wrong with the littlest pet shop (2012) tag proposal? It was supposed to refer to the 2012 animated series. It’s named literally just Littlest Pet Shop. There’s more than one animated series based on LPS. The characters who appeared in the 2012 series do NOT return in the later series named Littlest Pet Shop: A World of Our Own, which has a different main cast and takes place in a different world. They also did NOT appear in the Littlest Pet Shop animated series from 1995.
One of my assumptions is that it was considered useless, but there are at least 11 content:official tags for the Digimon franchise, though I’m not familiar with Digimon, so I can’t even comment on how useful these tags are.
I might need to double check. I try to minimize unnecessarily content tags (tbh, I would have far less MLP tags than there are too) and this may be one where I overstepped. Having had a quick look… huh. I definitely overstepped there. It’s hard to believe these thigns are even in the same frickin’ franchise to begin with. I have to go out soon, but I’ll come back to this when I got the time.
I’ll address the elephant in the room… I realise a single person can’t know everything, but a Booru should be managed by multiple people. Where is everyone?
I wish I knew! Who ever said I wanted to be the one making all the decisions, dubious or otherwise? 😭 There’s technically like a dozen mods, but only one has showed up since I was added t the roster.
To be fair, I think only like three people have been uploading stuff. You, me, and Rhumba.
Posted Report
Edited

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 20

Stinkek

poser
This has been on my mind for a while… What’s wrong with the littlest pet shop (2012) tag proposal? It was supposed to refer to the 2012 animated series. It’s named literally just Littlest Pet Shop. There’s more than one animated series based on LPS. The characters who appeared in the 2012 series do NOT return in the later series named Littlest Pet Shop: A World of Our Own, which has a different main cast and takes place in a different world. They also did NOT appear in the Littlest Pet Shop animated series from 1995.
One of my assumptions is that it was considered useless, but there are at least 11 content:official tags for the Digimon franchise, though I’m not familiar with Digimon, so I can’t even comment on how useful these tags are.
I’ll address the elephant in the room… I realise a single person can’t know everything, but a Booru should be managed by multiple people. Where is everyone?
Posted Report
Edited

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 19

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Stinkek
Also, this is off-topic, but when I type in tags my little pony: g3 or my little pony: g3.5 and search, I get no results. At first I thought the symbol : causes issues, but the G4 and G5 tags work just fine.
No idea what’s going on there, but you ca get around it by searching *g3 instead.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 18

Stinkek

poser
littlest pet shop (2012) –> littlest pet shop
delilah barnsley, minka mark, penny ling, pepper clark, russel ferguson, sugar sprinkles, sunil nevla, vinnie terrio, zoe trent –> littlest pet shop (2012)
Also, this is off-topic, but when I type in tags my little pony: g3 or my little pony: g3.5 and search, I get no results. At first I thought the symbol : causes issues, but the G4 and G5 tags work just fine.
Posted Report
Edited

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 17

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 16

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 15

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Stinkek
I actually reversed the diaper -> grotesque implication a few days ago. Until Pup can clarify whether grotesque is supposed to be excluding or not (non-con does not exclude other ratings, and in fact I can make any other tags a rating tag in theory), I won’t restore it.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 14

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 13

Stinkek

poser
“genitals” isn’t implied by any more specific tags, except “mismatched genitals”. I wonder if “cloaca” should imply it, considering it functions both as a genitalia and an opening for body waste release.
girls only –> females only, girl. It’s also not gray unlike similar tags of this type.
see-through –> clothing (?)
bottomwear down, pants down, shorts down, underwear down, briefs down –> clothing down
This implication should be removed: solo boy –> solo kid, because “kid” is stated to be specifically for human children.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 12

Stinkek

poser
I just realised the diaper implies grotesque thing has created a HUGE problem for regular users as they can’t edit tags for a picture anymore if it has “safe” and “grotesque”. I just wanted to add “full-length portrait” to that baby worm in a clean diaper without touching those tags - nope!
I can think of 3 ideas on how to solve this problem:
  1. The easy option: roll back the implication.
  2. The hard option: make it so that Safe and Grotesque don’t conflict, or the staff will have to add “Safe” to innocuous diaper pictures forever. I’ve never seen a Philomena Booru where Safe would be paired up with any other rating, every Philomena Booru tells you CAN’T combine Safe with those. Is it even possible to change this presumably hard-coded thing?
  3. Another easy option: for ALL pictures with diapers, always use “Grotesque” and never use “Safe”
With the way things are now, we’d have to report pictures with these two tags so the staff could do the tag editing for us, that we could’ve done ourselves in any other situation. More important reports could end up buried under these!
For now, I’ll stop sharing pictures with diapers.
Posted Report
Edited

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 11

Stinkek

poser
@Dillocircus
But I didn’t see the previous use of tags, the currently listed criteria for Grotesque are either gore / body horror or grossout substances with no hint of clean diapers (also I can logistically fit farts in Grotesque because they are commonly considered gross), and Derpibooru with Furbooru which have been around for much longer don’t use this implication. Hence why this came out of nowhere to me, maybe I’m not alone feeling like this, I don’t know yet.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 10

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Stinkek
Since earlier this week when I looked back at the previous uses of the tags and noticed a lot of them had been tagged by Pup with “grotesque”, so it seemed clear that a full-on implication was warranted. The tag guidelines don’t have to outline in exacting details all the tags that fall under that category.
Posted Report
Edited

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 9

Stinkek

poser
Um… since when does “diaper” imply “grotesque”? Why are diapers grouped together with body waste, regardless of whether they actually contain those or not? Was there an agreement to make it this way without letting regular users know? Because I still don’t see diapers listed in the Grotesque criteria in Tag Guidelines.
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 8

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
When Pup reappears, I will suggest that the entire set of tags related to underage needs an overhauling to properly delimit them. With a particularly pressing need to coin a distinct tag for “cub as bodytype” (leaning toward “cutie” as my suggestion) so it’s not both a bodytype and an age thing at the same time.
I mean, if “cub” is “anything short and cute”, then how are we supposed to tag literal cubs so they’re distinct? When searching for solo stuff, It’s literally impossible to restrict your results to actually underage stuff because about 80% of digimon/pokemon are cubs, as are Morgana, Rocket Raccoon or Jack Frost! And like, don’t get me wrong, I like these characters (and they have made up the bulk of my uploads so far), but it’s not serious purporting to be a cub-focused website where you can’t filter to just cubs.
(as an aside, I think we need a much clearer guideline whether shota/loli is categorically okay or not and whether some of it needs to go).
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 7

Stinkek

poser
@Dillocircus
Expanding on this: The whole “ion this website, the tag ‘cub’ is a body type thing, not an age thing” is going to get us so many DNPs once people start taking notice. Like, there’s a lot of artists out there who don’t want their art associated even remotely with cub/shota/loli stuff, much less directly tagged as such…
Damn, you’re right, I didn’t even think of this… At least the first DNP entry here isn’t from an anti (it’s mine lol)
Posted Report

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 6

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Dillocircus
So “kid” has this explanation: A human shota or loli. For cubs, don’t use this tag. Okay.
@Stinkek
The entire set of tags related to age/child/cub is a bit of a hot mess and I do want to ask Pup (the admin/owner) to draw some clear guideliens decisions for why in the upload tag list the tag indicated is “child”, a tage that is aliased to young (?!) while the wiki seems to be using “kid” instead, and the distinction between that and “cub” are poor at best. Also “cub” is sued for the generic tags like adult/cub, adding to the confusion.
However, Pup is incommunicado for almost three weeks now.
Expanding on this: The whole “ion this website, the tag ‘cub’ is a body type thing, not an age thing” is going to get us so many DNPs once people start taking notice. Like, there’s a lot of artists out there who don’t want their art associated even remotely with cub/shota/loli stuff, much less directly tagged as such…
@Stinkek
@Dillocircus
Ouch… I had some Booru-related heartbreak myself. I put too much passion into a free Booru platform that would be shut down in a month or a few.
Oh, I could have, like, gone over to rule 34 or something, but I LIKE figuring character sources and applying/fixing tags distinctions. E621 really scratched that cataloguing/documentation/ontology itch for me.
Posted Report
Edited

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 5

Showing results 1 - 25 of 30 total

Default search

If you do not specify a field to search over, the search engine will search for posts with a body that is similar to the query's word stems. For example, posts containing the words winged humanization, wings, and spread wings would all be found by a search for wing, but sewing would not be.

Allowed fields

Field SelectorTypeDescriptionExample
authorLiteralMatches the author of this post. Anonymous authors will never match this term.author:Joey
bodyFull TextMatches the body of this post. This is the default field.body:test
created_atDate/Time RangeMatches the creation time of this post.created_at:2015
idNumeric RangeMatches the numeric surrogate key for this post.id:1000000
myMetamy:posts matches posts you have posted if you are signed in. my:posts
subjectFull TextMatches the title of the topic.subject:time wasting thread
topic_idLiteralMatches the numeric surrogate key for the topic this post belongs to.topic_id:7000
topic_positionNumeric RangeMatches the offset from the beginning of the topic of this post. Positions begin at 0.topic_position:0
updated_atDate/Time RangeMatches the creation or last edit time of this post.updated_at.gte:2 weeks ago
user_idLiteralMatches posts with the specified user_id. Anonymous users will never match this term.user_id:211190
forumLiteralMatches the short name for the forum this post belongs to.forum:meta