Posts

Search Results

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 16

Fletch

Administrator

Public Relations

Luna's Pet Woof

@Anonymous #ECA9
Hey there!

Applicable tag is Questionable her vulva is excessively visible through the transparent bikini to the point it can already be considered a full out “visible genital”. Nonetheless it doesn’t have anything in it to warrant all the way to Explicit.

We appreciate that you brought this up to our attention!

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 15

Anonymous #ECA9

>>10084
Is this explicit, questionable, or suggestive? The tag guidelines says

Outlines of genitals visible through clothing (cameltoes, detailed bulges, anus ‘cameltoes’)

But someone changed it to explicit.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 14

LightningBolt

Senior Moderator

Emo siren

@Exedrus
I don’t want to see the latter.

Ratings are not the end-all be-all of searches and filters.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 13

Fletch

Administrator

Public Relations

Luna's Pet Woof

@Exedrus
Hello there!

This standard was adopted from derpibooru’s concept but adapted to a more mature audience. The standard’s been worked for a really long time and we generally receive good feedback from it. The rating standard also gives a lot of flexibility to filters and galleries.

Just in case of doubt, doing a search query like eg: tag, (explicit OR questionable), tag - will give you both ratings search.

If you’d like to discuss more about the concept behind rating tags please start a new thread since this one should remain focused on clarifying doubts about an image rating. I appreciate the comprehension!

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 12

Exedrus

No YoUwU

@CruFox

What’s the rational behind having separate categories for questionable vs explicit? Why would people want to see erect penises, but not vaginal secretions (i.e. a common way for female arousal to be shown)?

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago because: Made the female bit more specific.

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 11

CruFox

Moderator

I like tags

@Nightweaver20xx
The two highest ratings were slightly adjusted recently (but they were different than those on Derpibooru even before) and now it is like that:

-> visible penis that is not erect or visible vulva and as long as there is not contact with either of them = questionable

-> erect penis but as long as there is no sexual contact or sexual liquids on it and the picture is solo = questionable

-> erect penis when there is more than one character or if there is a sexual contact with genitals = explicit

Details:

questionable:

→ Exposed genitals (vulva, penis, etc), as long as there is no sexual contact with them.
→ Images where the main focus are the character’s genitals, or images of butts and nothing else.
→ Whenever an image is warrant the specific tag of morbidly obese
→ No depictions of visible sexual arousal between 2 or more characters.

explicit:

→ Sexual intercourse (sex)
→ Sexual liquids (precum, cum, vaginal secretions) or lubricants in contact with genitals
→ Masturbation or other sexual contact with genitals.
→ Genital insertions
→ Visible sexual arousal between 2 or more characters.

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 10

Nightweaver20xx

Ah sh*t here we go again

OK so I’m already confused. I just finished changing two tags that had visible male genitalia but were tagged “questionable” when I think they should be tagged “explicit” like on Derpi. Is that different here? Are we more liberal with what we can show? Someone inform me, because I’ve looked around and I can really only go by what I’ve been doing for years on Derpi.

EDIT: Never mind I’m an idiot apparently and didn’t actually read the tagging guidelines. I understand now, it’s different than Derpi.

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 9

CruFox

Moderator

I like tags

@Fleetfoot
Change the ratings then, they will have that

Stop! This user is a staff member.
Ask them before reverting their changes.

for future reference ;)

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 8

Fletch

Administrator

Public Relations

Luna's Pet Woof

@CruFox
I suppose all those can be questionable, given these images are solos and there’s really no sexual tension on the images aside the display of genitalia there’s no need to go explicit.

The idea of erection meaning explicit is more of an easy guideline about being sexually aroused but just exposure of the genital half way through it alone is no different than the display of a ‘dry’ vulva.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 7

CruFox

Moderator

I like tags

Does semi-erect count as arousal?

Because:

questionable: Detailed genitals (anus, vulva, penis, etc), as long as there is no contact with it, and as long as it does not show arousal

and

explicit: Visible sexual arousal (erect penis, vaginal secretions)

Examples: >>1126 >>1070

I tagged those above as explicit for now. Though this one: >>873, it looks almost flaccid so I tagged this questionable, although because the foreskin is partially pulled down I tagged it as semi-erect.

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 6

Fletch

Administrator

Public Relations

Luna's Pet Woof

@CruFox
Safe is fine.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 5

CruFox

Moderator

I like tags

@CruFox
Also, for the second post you made. Here’s an image from Derpi that has some similar aspects of this image. It’s marked suggestive.

This doesn’t count. it features a sexual accesory ;)

Also, this one here is a tad more tame than the one the other, still marked suggestive. So yes, suggestive.

The lionesses are not drooling, unlike that Fluttershy. And Fluttershy couldn’t eat you ;)

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 4

AlexMSD

:O

@CruFox
Also, for the second post you made. Here’s an image from Derpi that has some similar aspects of this image. It’s marked suggestive. Also, this one here is a tad more tame than the one the other, still marked suggestive. So yes, suggestive.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 3

AlexMSD

:O

I’d say this one could probably stay safe, but is definitely walking that fine line. As for the implied vore, I’d say you’re safe as it’s not necessarily implying that the act of vore has taken place with evidence in the art piece. Just my two cents.

How should this be tagged? >>565

Is it safe? The title (SNACKTIME) and tags on FA (vore) make me not sure ;) Does it work like this: vore -> fetish -> not safe? Or not? But is it really vore, the second character is not even in the mouth. In the meantime I used the tags “safe” and imminent vore, but maybe something like implied vore too? I don’t know, those tags need descriptions.

For example on Derpibooru there is an image 2260805 tagged as “implied vore” and “questionable” which is only micro swimming in front of an open maw, but then there is image 2194921 tagged with both “imminent vore” and “implied vore” but rated “safe”. By the vore tag description from Derpi:

A living being having their head/torso mostly in another or otherwise being eaten.

it should just be normal vore and not just implied or imminent, because the character is already in the mouth.

Defiantly suggestive. If I was a wee smol lad who stumbled across this site with mom behind the shoulder, I’d throw whatever device I’m holding if this came up.

Should this be safe or suggestive?

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway
your current filter.

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 2

CruFox

Moderator

I like tags

Should this be safe or suggestive?

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Post 1

CruFox

Moderator

I like tags

How should this be tagged? >>565

Is it safe? The title (SNACKTIME) and tags on FA (vore) make me not sure ;) Does it work like this: vore -> fetish -> not safe? Or not? But is it really vore, the second character is not even in the mouth. In the meantime I used the tags “safe” and imminent vore, but maybe something like implied vore too? I don’t know, those tags need descriptions.

For example on Derpibooru there is an image 2260805 tagged as “implied vore” and “questionable” which is only micro swimming in front of an open maw, but then there is image 2194921 tagged with both “imminent vore” and “implied vore” but rated “safe”. By the vore tag description from Derpi:

A living being having their head/torso mostly in another or otherwise being eaten.

it should just be normal vore and not just implied or imminent, because the character is already in the mouth.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Tagging Discussion » Rating Tags General » Topic Opener

Fletch

Administrator

Public Relations

Luna's Pet Woof

Hey there everyone!

This thread is for Rating Tags discussion specifically. If you as an user ever have any doubts on what would be the appropriate Rating Tag for an image you’re welcome to voice the matter here.

Please provide a link to the image using the >>1 format and state your doubt, a Staff Member will analyse the case and provide the image with it’s correct Rating Tag.

We kindly ask everyone not to engage in “Tag Wars” with other users regarding Rating Tag of an image, always defer to a Staff Member verdict.

Best regards,

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

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 Selector	Type	Description	Example
`author`	Literal	Matches the author of this post. Anonymous authors will never match this term.	`author:Joey`
`body`	Full Text	Matches the body of this post. This is the default field.	`body:test`
`created_at`	Date/Time Range	Matches the creation time of this post.	`created_at:2015`
`id`	Numeric Range	Matches the numeric surrogate key for this post.	`id:1000000`
`my`	Meta	`my:posts` matches posts you have posted if you are signed in.	`my:posts`
`subject`	Full Text	Matches the title of the topic.	`subject:time wasting thread`
`topic_id`	Literal	Matches the numeric surrogate key for the topic this post belongs to.	`topic_id:7000`
`topic_position`	Numeric Range	Matches the offset from the beginning of the topic of this post. Positions begin at 0.	`topic_position:0`
`updated_at`	Date/Time Range	Matches the creation or last edit time of this post.	`updated_at.gte:2 weeks ago`
`user_id`	Literal	Matches posts with the specified user_id. Anonymous users will never match this term.	`user_id:211190`
`forum`	Literal	Matches the short name for the forum this post belongs to.	`forum:meta`