unicogirl said: I don't know when "Hyper-femininity" became the title, but is that the reason why so many images flooded the pool?
You can check the history of the pool easily. I changed the title, rewrite description and clean up some stuffs from the first few pages. It's up to the creator in the end to make a decent definition, but until then the pool is begging for deletion because of how many nonsense stuffs it is including.
If anyone don't know how "nonsense" it is: all the "Perfect Breasts", 99% "Perfect feet", all the "Squeezable X" are qualified.
Sugar & Spice was a terrible name. Vague, unhelpful and annoyingly pretentious. If you make thematic pools, give them descriptive names without frills.
The original intent of my pool was to create a space where relevant pictures could be placed so that other users interested in the idea wouldn't have to sift through hundreds of pages of images to find what they were looking for.
My problem is that I still want to keep the basic definition of the original pool, but to raise the standard of "how girly" an image needs to be in order to be added. Even with what I would consider to be a drastically higher standard than the first go-round, I still feel like there are going to be "too many pictures". I'm curious as to whether using a pool to facilitate other users' searches is a valid use of the pool feature.
I'm also curious if the (for lack of a better word) pool of images from which a pool might derive it's members should have an effect on tolerance for a pool's size. In other words, just because more cute/sexy/girly images are out there, why should a pool categorizing the epitome of a theme still have to remain small? The Badass pool is pretty damn big, why should Sugar & Spice be restricted any more so?
Pretty_Princess said: The name is staying the same because if you don't understand it from the title alone you can *gasp* view it for further information.
No. Pools are supposed to be clear, then clever, not the other way around. If you can't even decide on a consistent definition in a week's time, how the hell do you expect anyone to grasp it when you give it a stupid name on top of that?
Pool titles have a utilitarian purpose and your poetic aspirations will have to take a backseat.
I'm also curious if the (for lack of a better word) pool of images from which a pool might derive it's members should have an effect on tolerance for a pool's size. In other words, just because more cute/sexy/girly images are out there, why should a pool categorizing the epitome of a theme still have to remain small? The Badass pool is pretty damn big, why should Sugar & Spice be restricted any more so?
The badass pool likely could do with a pruning.
While the general consensus seems to be don't let it get too big (pools always grow) it I think has to do with control of content.
We already had a argument on "control" in another thread with regards to subjective pools. I would say keeping a well defined definition of content and a few "sample images" to start off might help it fly under the radar.
Basically there are a lot of images that are a little bit girly, but not nearly as many that really make one go "Damn now that is girly/froofroo".
Nothing can really save a subjective pool from notice once it gets big, but generally if nothing seems out of place, there is nothing to nitpick about it.
葉月 said: No. Pools are supposed to be clear, then clever, not the other way around. If you can't even decide on a consistent definition in a week's time, how the hell do you expect anyone to grasp it when you give it a stupid name on top of that?
Pool titles have a utilitarian purpose and your poetic aspirations will have to take a backseat.
Well you're going to have to give me a more substantial reason to change the name, I didn't understand half of the thematic pools I've seen until I viewed the definitions. For example: What do you mean it's not awesome? Judging from the title alone I had no idea what this pool was about. I see no precedent for how previous pools have had their witty names changed, so until you take care of earlier pools I'm not changing mine's name.
Besides, you seem like you're just trying to justify a change because you don't like the name, which isn't a valid reason at all.
Scarlet_200% said: The badass pool likely could do with a pruning.
While the general consensus seems to be don't let it get too big (pools always grow) it I think has to do with control of content.
We already had a argument on "control" in another thread with regards to subjective pools. I would say keeping a well defined definition of content and a few "sample images" to start off might help it fly under the radar.
Basically there are a lot of images that are a little bit girly, but not nearly as many that really make one go "Damn now that is girly/froofroo".
Nothing can really save a subjective pool from notice once it gets big, but generally if nothing seems out of place, there is nothing to nitpick about it.
I'll post the final description for review; I definitely will try to ensure that images adhere strictly to the definition. I'll post the pool description here when it's finished for review.
So far I described the pool as "Sexy images of only the most EXTREMELY girly girls." I will include a more detailed description of what "girly" means as well as a list of common features. There will also be a stipulation that images most include something like 5 or more of these features. And, of course, example images will be referenced.
Fencedude said: You really don't get how things work around here.
Well then, how do things work around here?
If pool names are supposed to be "clear, then clever" then how come there are other pools whose names are more clever than clear? Why are there so many manga pools that don't indicate what they are in the title? Other pools have the same "problems" you're telling me to fix, but they haven't been changed. Clearly, I have a solid grasp of "how things work".
You too are trying to remove my pool because you just don't like it. You're being a troll, and everything you say is a god damn waste of space.
Fencedude said: Because we haven't changed them yet.
I want proof that you will change them; that you want to change them. Until you do, the basis for everything you've asked of me is completely arbitrary.
And at the very least, you owe me an apology for not making your little whims known.
Why are there so many manga pools that don't indicate what they are in the title?
Offhand do you mean specific series manga like pool #833952 as an example? If so that has to do with the fact it is a direct translation of the authors title.
Pretty_Princess said: I want proof that you will change them; that you want to change them. Until you do, the basis for everything you've asked of me is completely arbitrary.
Dat ass -> Perfect ass. They get looked at when they are brought up and sometimes they get fixed quicker and sometimes slower.
Disgustingly Adorable is currently undergoing a purging and will be done soon (if we ever can agree on purging vs killing). It might get a name change as well.
The pool knifed was removed since there was a tag made. Pools vanish/get changed all the time.
And at the very least, you owe me an apology for not making your little whims known.
I would count to about 100 before I hit the post button. I myself (previous account) was guilty of this sort of thing. It just does not end well.
No. I spent a lot of time putting the first version of the pool together only to find that it went from 40 pages to 2 since I had last checked it. While I agree that much of the content was not needed, the removal of images was largely indiscriminate. Images that would have been OK to leave were removed. Now, if I want to try to fine-tune the pool I have to start all over, instead of being able to just weed out the crap. There was no warning of what people were doing and based on the information about how to make a pool on the wiki I had done little, if anything wrong. My time and effort was put to waste for reasons I couldn't have known beforehand. It was extremely rude and I'm still really pissed off - especially because people are still trying to force changes. I would consider making said changes, but no one here seems to have the self-decency to admit what they did was wrong.
And on top of it all, what I'm being asked to do is completely hypocritical. None the changes others want me to make seem to apply to other pools (which are older than mine) so I don't see why mine has to change first. It feels incredibly discriminatory (probably why I was so controversial in the beginning) and from a group who claims to do things objectively and for purposes of utility, my case exemplifies neither of these two values.
So no, I'm not trolling. I'm the one being trolled.
Pretty_Princess said: I want proof that you will change them; that you want to change them. Until you do, the basis for everything you've asked of me is completely arbitrary.
And at the very least, you owe me an apology for not making your little whims known.
Ok, well since you put things in such an understandable manner I can see why I might need to do things like change the name of the pool. If it were deleted and replaced with a tag I would be fine with that too, but I think the concept is clear enough that it doesn't warrant deletion otherwise.
Just to reinforce this, go through the pointless pools thread. It really is a case of someone noticing a pool and commenting on it. Sometimes stuff is done, sometimes not. Hell the same pool can come up multiple times and nothing is done the first few times, while another pool the first time it comes up gets "fixed"
It's just like moderating really. It doesn't matter how good you think it is (or how good it might be) if the people that approve don't like it, it's not getting approved. Pools really are the same way. The process is just reactive vs proactive.
Pretty_Princess said: I want proof that you will change them; that you want to change them. Until you do, the basis for everything you've asked of me is completely arbitrary.
