evazion said:
BUR #19869 has been rejected.
nuke pool:20602
Gaping wide open. This is just gaping, but bigger.
I opened a counter-proposal in forum #258994 since this seems like something we'd want to be able to blacklist.
Posted under General
evazion said:
BUR #19869 has been rejected.
nuke pool:20602
Gaping wide open. This is just gaping, but bigger.
I opened a counter-proposal in forum #258994 since this seems like something we'd want to be able to blacklist.
zetsubousensei said:
The problem with disgustingly adorable is people use it as a dumping ground for chibi posts despite the description to the contrary.
+1
Pretty sure it's predominantly one specific person responsible for the majority of it, but yeah, the pool is mostly devoid of any standards. Can't say I really expect the pool to actually get nuked, but I certainly wouldn't miss it.
kittey said:
Isn’t that pretty much the definition of a (collection) pool? If the pool’s theme was objective, it would be a tag instead.
Well pools will always be subjective by their very nature, but they are mainly supposed to be for abstract concepts if I remember correctly.
What is mean is that the "Hot girls working out" requirement is extra subjective (does it mean that I can remove posts I don't find hot?) and that the majority of posts has been added by 2 users which makes it feel more of a favourite pool.
Unbreakable said:
Well pools will always be subjective by their very nature, but they are mainly supposed to be for abstract concepts if I remember correctly.
What is mean is that the "Hot girls working out" requirement is extra subjective (does it mean that I can remove posts I don't find hot?) and that the majority of posts has been added by 2 users which makes it feel more of a favourite pool.
I assume you're referring to forum #190306, but that was about turning a pool into a tag, not nuking a pool.
Unbreakable said:
BUR #21148 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
nuke pool:19741
Subjective pool.
Pool:19741 is an obvious favorites pool. It's just two users dumping pics of girls getting fucked near barbells. Supposedly its specifically for "hot girls in workout clothes working out", but then I open it and get stuff like post #2367031.
Updated
The bulk update request #21148 (forum #259741) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
pool #21194 is either a favorite pool or a pool to skirt the tag search limit since everything in that pool is covered by the very tags the pool itself lists. The pool isn't trying to capture a feeling, a reference or an event and it's not a collection of stories, it is unnecessary.
I'm gonna admit I don't have too much experience with making new pools, so I could use some feedback. Bear with me as I explain this because I'm sure a lot of people here aren't familiar with searching for male character content here.
This pool's concept is based around a doujin tag on a very popular yaoi site, MRM. It's called {Manly Gay Couple} over there. It's a gay/yaoi specific tag because there are a bunch of different types of yaoi pairings that each have different types of fans.
I went with a pool instead of a tag because as I understand it pools are better suited for more subjective themes like this one.
I didn't name it "manly" because we use the "manly" tag for something completely unrelated. Now "mature" might not be the best alternative but it's only been a day since the pool was created... I didn't get to finalize anything yet.
Anyway the point of this pool is to help searching through the very broad yaoi/male focus tag.
It's basically the equivalent of onii-shota, child on child, cuntboy with male, furry with non-furry etc, but for two adult males. Including or excluding it in a search could be really useful to find what you're looking for.
How do you search for a pairing like that without getting bombarded with all kinds of different male focus character designs? Not to mention the solo focus content. You'd need at least a 5 tag search or a very specific blacklist. Why should we make searching for such a concept so hard?
Right now what we have up on danbooru is very biased to the few yaoi uploaders we have, but this kind of pairing isn't actually all that popular in the actual yaoi sphere so that's why I thought making this pool would be useful.
Updated
Admiral_Pectoral said:
I'm gonna admit I don't have too much experience with making new pools, so I could use some feedback. Bear with me as I explain this because I'm sure a lot of people here aren't familiar with searching for male character content here.
This pool's concept is based around a doujin tag on a very popular yaoi site, MRM. It's called {Manly Gay Couple} over there. It's a gay/yaoi specific tag because there are a bunch of different types of yaoi pairings that each have different types of fans.
I went with a pool instead of a tag because as I understand it pools are better suited for more subjective themes like this one.
I didn't name it "manly" because we use the "manly" tag for something completely unrelated. Now "mature" might not be the best alternative but it's only been a day since the pool was created... I didn't get to finalize anything yet.Anyway the poiny of this pool is to help searching through the very broad yaoi/male focus tag.
It's basically the equivalent of onii-shota, child on child, cuntboy with male, furry with non-furry etc, but for two adult males. Including or excluding it in a search could be really useful to find what you're looking for.How do you search for a pairing like that without getting bombarded with all kinds of different male focus character designs? Not to mention the solo focus content. You'd need at least a 5 tag search or a very specific blacklist. Why should we make searching for such a concept so hard?
Right now what we have up on danbooru is very biased to the few yaoi uploaders we have, but this kind of pairing isn't actually all that popular in the actual yaoi sphere so that's why I thought making this pool would be useful.
I will be completely honest even with your explanation I still don't understand. Looking at the pool I don't get the sense that it's something vague enough to be unsearchable and from the pool description it looks like the only requirement is that the image has to be a mature gay couple with no restrictions on if the image needs to be sfw or nsfw but from what you're saying here that's not quite the case. Those are just my gripes and I'll drop it since there's more to the pool for those in the know but maybe leave a description in the pool saying that it's based on that specific tag
To be honest, I do not see any usefulness and necessity of this pool. The title itself potentially lead inexperienced users to casually add any looking_at_another hetero eye_contact 1boy 1girl images. Contrary to the title, many posts do not even always depict female gazes as well.
- The picture must be focused on the male.
In fact, vast majority of posts depict both male and females with balanced amount of focus.
- The female may also be the focus, but not much more than the male.
Moreover, things like post #6952971 was added despite it does not look like being focused more on the male. It seems contradictive to another rule of addition. I'll let the fate of such pool on the hands of the moderation team.
Updated
World_Funeral said:
The pool is fine. Most of the time even when hetero art depicts two canon characters, the male tends to be somewhat out of frame, or not particularly focused on with greater focus put on the girl, or such. So it's nice to be able to find art that puts equal or greater focus on the guy, and since it's not really a taggable concept it's good as a pool. I think the problem is just the line "The picture must be focused on the male." but at the same time if it said "equal or greater focus on the male" people would probably add too many things in it that don't fit the purpose of the pool.
As for the name I don't really see a problem with it. Male/female gaze is a specific term with a specific meaning which has nothing to do with where a character is looking.
BUR #21620 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update pool:1096 -> pixiv_bottle_(meme)
nuke pool:1096
in light of pov_cheek_warming_(meme)
pool #1528 seems like it could just be a tag.
Veraducks said:
pool #1528 seems like it could just be a tag.
I think the pool should be kept and the description should be worded more broadly. There is significant variation in the posts and I believe at least most of them fit the spirit of the pool, even if they don't match the description entirely (examples: post #2049433, post #2086396, post #4407315). And it is because of that variation that a tag would not be suitable for covering these posts.