From other thread:
Currently anything with nudity gets marked explicit, sexy non-nude is questionable, and normal non-nude is safe (at least that is how it seems to be done currently).
For this reason I would also propose creating a new tag called hardcore, or adding a new rating above explicit to separate softcore and hardcore images.
Also I wouldn't be opposed (if a hardcore rating or tag is added like I suggest), to have those images hidden by default, and to be required to explicitly enable them in your profile settings. In addition you could optionally revive ero.imouto.org in a sense so it is possible to view the content of both ero and moe together on the same page (in its current merged fashion) or separately if desired.
A rating for nsfw hardcore nudity
A rating for nsfw softcore nudity
A rating for 'ecchi'/sexual/suggestive non-nude images
And keeping safe for non-nude, non-ecchi, non-sexual, non-suggestive, completely sfw images.
Here are a few quick examples out of what I'm sure are many many thousands of softcore images rated incorrectly as explicit by your definition, when they should be questionable.
post #54252 post #54251 post #54245 post #44197 post #41852 post #41747 post #54254 post #54140 post #54141 post #54139 post #54137 post #54136 post #54135 post #54133 post #54131 post #54130 post #54124
Only hardcore should be rated as explicit if there is not going to be another rating added.
Currently anything with nudity gets marked explicit, sexy non-nude is questionable, and normal non-nude is safe (at least that is how it seems to be done currently).
For this reason I would also propose creating a new tag called hardcore, or adding a new rating above explicit to separate softcore and hardcore images.
Also I wouldn't be opposed (if a hardcore rating or tag is added like I suggest), to have those images hidden by default, and to be required to explicitly enable them in your profile settings. In addition you could optionally revive ero.imouto.org in a sense so it is possible to view the content of both ero and moe together on the same page (in its current merged fashion) or separately if desired.
I still think it would make sense to add a 4th category.vistigris said:
I've been rating images according to http://moe.imouto.org/help/ratings
A rating for nsfw hardcore nudity
A rating for nsfw softcore nudity
A rating for 'ecchi'/sexual/suggestive non-nude images
And keeping safe for non-nude, non-ecchi, non-sexual, non-suggestive, completely sfw images.
There is still a massive problem with full nude softcore (which you say should be questionable) images being mixed in with explicit.admin2 said:
I think nsfw = explicit
softcore/ecchi = questionable
stuff you can look at work = safe
Here are a few quick examples out of what I'm sure are many many thousands of softcore images rated incorrectly as explicit by your definition, when they should be questionable.
post #54252 post #54251 post #54245 post #44197 post #41852 post #41747 post #54254 post #54140 post #54141 post #54139 post #54137 post #54136 post #54135 post #54133 post #54131 post #54130 post #54124
But admin2 just said softcore, like the ones I linked, should be questionable. Exposed pussy without penetration or anything sexual about them is softcore. Think of it like artistic nudes.vistigris said:
Those have exposed pussies and are therefore rated correctly...
Only hardcore should be rated as explicit if there is not going to be another rating added.
To sum it up, I think full nude (pussy w/ closed lips?) but not particularly sexual images and without penetration, masturbation, etc. (similar to artistic nudes) should not have the same rating as hardcore, masturbation, penetration, (pussy w/ open lips?), etc. images.petopeto said:
I don't think added granularity is going to solve any real problems, but just make things more complex.
If no new rating is made, that would mean explicit would become hardcore only and questionable would be full nude softcore plus 'ecchi' images.
By doing this it would be a partial solution to the issue here considering all of those objectionable tags would fit under explicit under this new definition, but not to the expense of more tame nudes: http://moe.imouto.org/forum/show/2347
Fine with me. Was just saying that under the current rating guidelines, exposed genitals = explicit. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yeah that is how things have been rated for a long time. I was thinking that after admin2 explained, by exposed genitals he must have meant open pussy lips? Is that correct admin2, or when you wrote it, did you actually just mean a pussy line counted as exposed?vistigris said:
Fine with me. Was just saying that under the current rating guidelines, exposed genitals = explicit. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Anyway, if no one has any objections, the descriptions for the ratings should be re-done to make them more clear cut so softcore full nude hopefully don't get marked as explicit.
Right, the descriptions could be more specific. I thought that it meant visible genitals. I think that most people had been rating images with that in mind.
As above, I try to rate innocent nudity Q. But there's a subjective borderline there, too. If it's a photoshop where someone took a fairly innocent image and stapled a vagina on it, I can't see any intention but to make it porny, and I'm more inclined towards E (even if I might not have been if the actual artist had drawn it that way). I also try to be a bit conservative for loli stuff.
I think if vaginas are the dominant bodily feature in an image, like a big arrow pointing and going "this, here, is the purpose of the image"--then it's also reasonably E. Post #54245, post #44197 make me think they're saying "hey look, poon!" Many of them have the rough, out-of-place, photoshopped look to them.
On the other hand, post #47676--there's just nothing suggestive at all there, and I don't think it makes sense to group that in with the porn.
The "ratings" page is just from the Danbooru code and hasn't been edited. I'm very sure "exposed" never referred to, uh, labia separation. I've always just rated based on my own intuition of what the useful distinctions are...
A lot (not that I clicked all that many) of these are suggestive + full nudity, which I think is reasonably E.
I think if vaginas are the dominant bodily feature in an image, like a big arrow pointing and going "this, here, is the purpose of the image"--then it's also reasonably E. Post #54245, post #44197 make me think they're saying "hey look, poon!" Many of them have the rough, out-of-place, photoshopped look to them.
On the other hand, post #47676--there's just nothing suggestive at all there, and I don't think it makes sense to group that in with the porn.
The "ratings" page is just from the Danbooru code and hasn't been edited. I'm very sure "exposed" never referred to, uh, labia separation. I've always just rated based on my own intuition of what the useful distinctions are...
I see them as non-suggestive + full nudity which would be softcore and Q. What makes them suggestive to you? They are just nudes either standing, lying, or sitting without doing anything sexual. You would group those images with the real hardcore images with sex, rape, ect happening?petopeto said:
A lot (not that I clicked all that many) of these are suggestive + full nudity, which I think is reasonably E.
I disagree, since they are not doing anything sexual, like penetration or masturbation.petopeto said:
I think if vaginas are the dominant bodily feature in an image, like a big arrow pointing and going "this, here, is the purpose of the image"--then it's also reasonably E.
This is the main reason I would propose a new rating instead. Personally I am not very fond of hardcore images, and prefer the non-explicit (hint hint) full nude softcore (think artistic nudes) sort of like the ones I linked. There is no way to currently separate these images, even though they are of two totally different extremes.
Here is wiki's definition, but not necessarily the one we have to use (they didn't have a discrete entry for artistic nudes, which is a bit tamer but usually falls under the softcore umbrella):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_pornography
Post #54133, post #54135 look suggestive to me.
I just don't see enough of a problem to want to get bogged down in various definitions of "porn", which is just not much fun ...
I just don't see enough of a problem to want to get bogged down in various definitions of "porn", which is just not much fun ...
So in other words you think images with things like depictions of sex, masturbation, penetration, tentacles, bukkake, etc (like post #54299) should be in the same group as something like post #54124 ?
Ultimately I still think a new rating should be added for images that fall between hardcore and non-nude/partial-nude 'ecchi' images.
You sound like you don't like the idea, and admin2 also sounds against, but he seems to classify the different ratings a bit closer to what I have been thinking.
Anybody else have any thoughts? If nobody but me cares to make a change, it's kind of pointless for me to make a push for it.
Edit: Re-wrote post to make myself a bit more clear and change the tone a bit, to more accurately reflect what I wanted to say.
Ultimately I still think a new rating should be added for images that fall between hardcore and non-nude/partial-nude 'ecchi' images.
You sound like you don't like the idea, and admin2 also sounds against, but he seems to classify the different ratings a bit closer to what I have been thinking.
Anybody else have any thoughts? If nobody but me cares to make a change, it's kind of pointless for me to make a push for it.
Edit: Re-wrote post to make myself a bit more clear and change the tone a bit, to more accurately reflect what I wanted to say.
I don't think there are any problems with the current rating system. What you suggest will just complicate matters. I'm with admin2, and petopeto on this.Cyberbeing said:
Ultimately I still think a new rating should be added for images that fall between hardcore and non-nude/partial-nude 'ecchi' images.
You sound like you don't like the idea, and admin2 also sounds against, but he seems to classify the different ratings a bit closer to what I have been thinking.
When I rate images I use a similar system to vistigris, but you still have to use your common sense. I spend more time in trying to judge when a S image becomes Q. That isn't always am easy choice to make.
My question still remains.
Do you believe that images with things like depictions of sex, masturbation, penetration, tentacles, bukkake, etc (like post #54299) be in the same group as something like post #54124 ? YES/NO?
If we are keeping the same three ratings, do people want to have post #54124 (and images like it) as explicit or questionable?
Do you believe that images with things like depictions of sex, masturbation, penetration, tentacles, bukkake, etc (like post #54299) be in the same group as something like post #54124 ? YES/NO?
If we are keeping the same three ratings, do people want to have post #54124 (and images like it) as explicit or questionable?
Stop yelling?
I don't really care to look at that image (which I find painful to look at, in a way I don't any of eg. the riki images...) enough to form an opinion on it, but I explained my general rating already in some depth...
I don't really care to look at that image (which I find painful to look at, in a way I don't any of eg. the riki images...) enough to form an opinion on it, but I explained my general rating already in some depth...
I suppose a pool rating might be a good idea? But really people should use their common sense and check the pool contents before downloading the images, or the zipped version.
Pubic hair by itself doesn't make an image explicit...
Pubic hair by itself doesn't make an image explicit...
I didn't mean to come off that way. I just wanted to get a clear idea of where people (including those other then you, admin2, and Radioactive) draw the line on what they think should be rated as explicit, considering it is the users/uploaders who end up rating most everything anyways. I also expect different peoples opinions would vary. It's too bad you can't make polls here.petopeto said:
Stop yelling?
post #54299 is actually a yan-yam image (http://www.geocities.jp/yan_yamjp/top.html) and post #54124 is a rather tame urushihara satoshi image. I don't like the riki images either and wouldn't link them here.petopeto said:
I don't really care to look at that image (which I find painful to look at, in a way I don't any of eg. the riki images...)
I assume you are referring to post #54124 which is currently marked as explicit?Radioactive said:
Pubic hair by itself doesn't make an image explicit...
Yes. If it was me I would *probably* have marked it as a QCyberbeing said:
I assume you are referring to post #54124 which is currently marked as explicit?
If you are not sure simply set it at the highest rating. Another person here will make a judgement call.
Hmm, let me ask something a little different.
Is there any issue with me going through and marking some tame, currently explicit rated images I think should be questionable as so?
Is there any issue with me going through and marking some tame, currently explicit rated images I think should be questionable as so?
No problem with that. Just point me toward a couple, and I'll give you my opinion to begin with.
explicit - hardcore and/or image is really focused on pussy/dick/whatever (i.e. post #54610) also anything like post #54765 should be considered explicit, however not that is because its loli but because of "after sex" (couldn't think of another term)
questionable - softcore/ecchi, use your best judgment, this would probably cover 90% of moe's content.....
safe - something you can look at from work
questionable - softcore/ecchi, use your best judgment, this would probably cover 90% of moe's content.....
safe - something you can look at from work
petopeto
ratings
We don't have strict guidelines for rating. I try to rate genuinely "innocent" nudity as Q, as well as minor ecchi nudity (eg. topless and suggestive but not covered in spoo). Clothed/suggestive (panties, lingerie) is borderline S/Q. Many people rate innocent + bottomless as E where I'd go Q; it's never really bothered me, as long as we're in the same ballpark...
In any case, while I don't think this is a pressing issue, people should be talking about how to rate what (and importantly: why; what are particular distinctions good for), long before talking about adding new ratings. I don't think added granularity is going to solve any real problems, but just make things more complex.