While these proportions are in the real-world realm of possibility, they're pretty far on the extreme end, to the point where I'd guess she's gone under the knife at least once. Not sure whether this pic turned out this way due to reckless exaggeration or referencing heavily doctored porn stars (the latter of which has been a source of confused flags in the past).
While these proportions are in the real-world realm of possibility, they're pretty far on the extreme end, to the point where I'd guess she's gone under the knife at least once. Not sure whether this pic turned out this way due to reckless exaggeration or referencing heavily doctored porn stars (the latter of which has been a source of confused flags in the past).
Would you mind clarifying further? I do not see how your comment addresses my point nor does it reinforce the flagging reason.
I get a waist-hip ratio of ~0,61 when calculating. Looks "ok" at first sight, but when you look how her lower left side bulges out, then I can see the flagger's point.
I get a waist-hip ratio of ~0,61 when calculating. Looks "ok" at first sight, but when you look how her lower left side bulges out, then I can see the flagger's point.
So the flagger is exaggerating?
The bulge is normal if you sit like that. It's almost a wariza; it's common for the hips to push out in that posture.
Would you mind clarifying further? I do not see how your comment addresses my point nor does it reinforce the flagging reason.
I'm saying that while these proportions are technically possible in real life, they still suggest a body structure that is entirely unnatural. It's a kind of case that could go either way, but here, I don't think the artist quite had the grace to pull it off. (The left thigh especially looks very questionable.)
I'm saying that while these proportions are technically possible in real life, they still suggest a body structure that is entirely unnatural. It's a kind of case that could go either way, but here, I don't think the artist quite had the grace to pull it off. (The left thigh especially looks very questionable.)
Given the artist's typical subject matter + other illustrations, and how the anatomy here isn't impossible, I don't think the the issue pointed out by the flag is as bad as it seems.
The rest of the image is well drawn but yes, the left thigh is unfortunately cropped out and prevents us from seeing what the artist was aiming for as a whole.
Given the artist's typical subject matter + other illustrations, and how the anatomy here isn't impossible, I don't think the the issue pointed out by the flag is as bad as it seems.
The rest of the image is well drawn but yes, the left thigh is unfortunately cropped out and prevents us from seeing what the artist was aiming for as a whole.
And what relevance does the artist's other artwork have? If this is unusually crappy work for a good artist, then there's no reason to preserve a standalone image that can't carry its own weight, and if it's an unusually good work for a crappy artist, then that just begs for more flags.
In any event, it's not something I find bad enough that I'd flag it, myself, but it's not something good enough that I'd approve it or overturn the flag, so meh. The image as a whole seems like it would be better if it were stretched 20% taller, since Hamakaze seems unusually 'compressed' in this image. Looking at it closely, her navel's also basically right where her hips start, and her lower torso seems too short all around...
NWSiaCB said: And what relevance does the artist's other artwork have?
Certainly more relevant than citing pornstars that were put under the knife as counterpoint to the possibility of real people having large hips.
If this is unusually crappy work for a good artist, then there's no reason to preserve a standalone image that can't carry its own weight, and if it's an unusually good work for a crappy artist, then that just begs for more flags.
No offense, I don't understand the point you're trying to get across, nor the premise and accompanying logic of what you're trying to say.
The image as a whole seems like it would be better if it were stretched 20% taller, since Hamakaze seems unusually 'compressed' in this image. Looking at it closely, her navel's also basically right where her hips start, and her lower torso seems too short all around...
Agreed, the illustration seems a bit mushed vertically and she would certainly look more balance if the body length was increased.
Certainly more relevant than citing pornstars that were put under the knife as counterpoint to the possibility of real people having large hips.
So far as "realistic anatomy" goes, saying that the anatomy is possible only with surgery (putting the validity of such claims aside for a moment) is a relevant argument.
Squishy said:
No offense, I don't understand the point you're trying to get across, nor the premise and accompanying logic of what you're trying to say.
I'm saying what you think of anything else the artist does is totally irrelevant to the quality of THIS piece. You claimed,
Given the artist's typical subject matter + other illustrations [...] I don't think the the issue pointed out by the flag is as bad as it seems.
How does the artist's other art change anything about whether this is good or bad anatomy?
So far as "realistic anatomy" goes, saying that the anatomy is possible only with surgery (putting the validity of such claims aside for a moment) is a relevant argument.
I've heard of boob jobs, and maybe butt jobs. But hip jobs? Really?
And with the ubiquitous presence of characters with unrealistically large breasts for their overall figures (where the surgery angle can also apply) being accepted without question, I think it's incongruous to bring in these exceptions for hips. Especially since it's far less applicable.
How does the artist's other art change anything about whether this is good or bad anatomy?
Other artists pieces are of similar quality that emphasize ass, hips and thighs with no issue. Suddenly this 1 month old image (without the wide_hip tag until I added it) is a problem. I'm confused?
I've heard of boob jobs, and maybe butt jobs. But hip jobs? Really?
And with the ubiquitous presence of characters with unrealistically large breasts for their overall figures (where the surgery angle can also apply) being accepted without question, I think it's incongruous to bring in these exceptions for hips. Especially since it's far less applicable.
Other artists pieces are of similar quality that emphasize ass, hips and thighs with no issue. Suddenly this 1 month old image (without the wide_hip tag until I added it) is a problem. I'm confused?
It is a long-held principle on Danbooru that saying "other art is worse" is not a valid reason not to flag a work. If anything, if other art is worse, it's a valid reason to flag that stuff, too.
And frankly, there is a LOT of questioning going on about a lot of the work that "is worse than this", and it's a matter of a couple rogue moderators that much of that stuff has been allowed to fester as long as it has.
It is a long-held principle on Danbooru that saying "other art is worse" is not a valid reason not to flag a work. If anything, if other art is worse, it's a valid reason to flag that stuff, too.
And frankly, there is a LOT of questioning going on about a lot of the work that "is worse than this", and it's a matter of a couple rogue moderators that much of that stuff has been allowed to fester as long as it has.
If people find it enjoyable, then calling "festering" is a bit much I think.
NWSiaCB said: And frankly, there is a LOT of questioning going on about a lot of the work that "is worse than this", and it's a matter of a couple rogue moderators that much of that stuff has been allowed to fester as long as it has.
Isn't that a bit of a severe accusation to make out of the blue? Saying that there are "rogue moderators", as if there were some form of corruption, would be an extremely self-righteous thing to say unless there were people with admin authority who agreed with you, or at least some kind of significant concurrence.
Not that I disagree with you entirely either. If there is some kind of motion going on in the background that is going to affect the standard of quality on the site then I am curious.
It is a long-held principle on Danbooru that saying "other art is worse" is not a valid reason not to flag a work. If anything, if other art is worse, it's a valid reason to flag that stuff, too.
And frankly, there is a LOT of questioning going on about a lot of the work that "is worse than this", and it's a matter of a couple rogue moderators that much of that stuff has been allowed to fester as long as it has.
Please don't attribute this argument to me. The "other art is worse" is an unusual point that implies a lack of standards upon the people it is being applied to. It's not the first time I've seen you play this card and I'd appreciate it if you make a sincere effort to understand what others are trying to say instead of substituting a poor argument for them on their behalf.
The point I was trying to get across was that the artist's work has been largely accepted without issue, which implies the quality of their illustrations are well within acceptable standards. This particular image in question matches the artist's usual technique and subject matter, and has been fine when it was uploaded.
As well, the flag reason is exaggerated and not at all accurate about the issue being highlighted. It is not 2x to waist ratio but a more believable 0.61 as per Provence's calculations. The rest if the image is fine, and the overall issues do not hurt the image enough to warrant deletion.
Please don't attribute this argument to me. The "other art is worse" is an unusual point that implies a lack of standards upon the people it is being applied to. It's not the first time I've seen you play this card and I'd appreciate it if you make a sincere effort to understand what others are trying to say instead of substituting a poor argument for them on their behalf.
If you don't want it attributed to you, then don't make it. That is the only way to interpret this sentence:
Squishy said:
And with the ubiquitous presence of characters with unrealistically large breasts for their overall figures (where the surgery angle can also apply) being accepted without question, I think it's incongruous to bring in these exceptions for hips. Especially since it's far less applicable.
If you are going to argue an image's merits, argue it's merits. Saying other images are better or worse is irrelevant and an argument that will simply wind up with people telling you that "other stuff is worse" is not a valid argument.
And I'd appreciate it if you'd not repeatedly make spurious allegations of that sort against a moderator in good standing when they are explaining their position to you in the future.
Squishy said:
The point I was trying to get across was that the artist's work has been largely accepted without issue, which implies the quality of their illustrations are well within acceptable standards. This particular image in question matches the artist's usual technique and subject matter, and has been fine when it was uploaded.
There's a reason there's dozens of older images being flagged daily. As I've told you before, a serious problem with Danbooru's moderation system is that a single moderator can approve large numbers of things other moderators object to, and it becomes a real problem to clean up after it, especially when it takes a very long time to actually get consensus around removing moderators. (And even longer for someone to go over all the things they had approved.) Add to this that some users have privileges that let them skip the queue when they probably should put it in for review, and there are a lot of things on Danbooru now that are in real jeopardy of being flagged whenever certain people happen to notice them.
If you are going to argue an image's merits, argue it's merits. Saying other images are better or worse is irrelevant and an argument that will simply wind up with people telling you that "other stuff is worse" is not a valid argument.
That is a rebuttal to the point about large hips being only found on people that have undergone cosmetic surgery, and how this point seems at odds when it comes to other body parts being considered on this site.
As well, establishing an *accepted* standard with which to measure an image's merit is necessary since any discussion of merit with no agreed upon baseline to compare to seems moot to me. This is very different from 'there's sucky art out there so we should keep this'.
And I'd appreciate it if you'd not repeatedly make spurious allegations of that sort against a moderator in good standing when they are explaining their position to you in the future.
Your position as a moderator has no bearing on your constant misunderstanding of my points and subtle pokes at my ability to reason about good and bad art. Please don't pull the authority card on me as well. I have nothing but respect for your translation work and wealth of knowledge concerning Danbooru's subject matter, which is why I am quite puzzled to how you seem to be interpreting my discussion points in the worst way possible most of the time.
There's a reason there's dozens of older images being flagged daily. As I've told you before, a serious problem with Danbooru's moderation system is that a single moderator can approve large numbers of things other moderators object to, and it becomes a real problem to clean up after it, especially when it takes a very long time to actually get consensus around removing moderators. (And even longer for someone to go over all the things they had approved.) Add to this that some users have privileges that let them skip the queue when they probably should put it in for review, and there are a lot of things on Danbooru now that are in real jeopardy of being flagged whenever certain people happen to notice them.
I do not understand this political power play that is happening in the background that you keep bringing up, and frankly I'd rather not indulge in it. It's unrelated to the merits of this image, and if I am to accept this talking point into the discussion than it colours all discussions regarding uploading, appealing and flagging into two camps that clearly defines one as being right and the other being wrong, with no room for compromise. This attitude does not foster a healthy community at all.
Please don't attribute this argument to me. The "other art is worse" is an unusual point that implies a lack of standards upon the people it is being applied to. It's not the first time I've seen you play this card and I'd appreciate it if you make a sincere effort to understand what others are trying to say instead of substituting a poor argument for them on their behalf.
The point I was trying to get across was that the artist's work has been largely accepted without issue, which implies the quality of their illustrations are well within acceptable standards. This particular image in question matches the artist's usual technique and subject matter, and has been fine when it was uploaded.
As well, the flag reason is exaggerated and not at all accurate about the issue being highlighted. It is not 2x to waist ratio but a more believable 0.61 as per Provence's calculations. The rest if the image is fine, and the overall issues do not hurt the image enough to warrant deletion.
From what I can see, these are not normal proportions for this artist by a long shot. The only other picture I can immediately find with a similar waist-hip ratio is post #2725945, and I'd consider that one questionable as well. Most of the artists' posts either have more normal proportions (e.g. post #2729735) or use foreshortening to emphasize certain areas (post #2709476). In addition, the majority of the artists' posts have bypassed the mod queue (five pages of results with approver:none status:active vs. six pages in total), and six posts that were uploaded for approval have been deleted, so flagging this post isn't breaking any kind of implicit status quo.
I'm not sure why you interpreted my remark about plastic surgery as an attack; it was only intended as an explanation as to why a large number of approvers already passed the image by. I tried to search for real-life women with these proportions, and ended up exclusively getting photoshops or women who had undergone some type of body modification. (A few natural pear-shaped women could come close, but not quite to the level this picture is at.) Based on past experience, approvers tend not to be fond of "unnatural"-looking images, and that includes images that could technically be explained away with implants. (And alternatively, if you choose to look at it from the "wide hips" angle instead of the "squished big butt" angle, then you end up with a leg that looks straight-up dislocated.)
If you want to argue that the merits of this particular picture outweigh the points that detract from it, you can leave it in an appeal and see what the approvers think. (ed - which Apollyon did while I was typing.) If you want to say that the current approval standards are too biased against certain types of bodily exaggeration, that would be a subject too broad for the comments section of this post; I'd recommend making a forum topic instead.
That is a rebuttal to the point about large hips being only found on people that have undergone cosmetic surgery, and how this point seems at odds when it comes to other body parts being considered on this site.
As well, establishing an *accepted* standard with which to measure an image's merit is necessary since any discussion of merit with no agreed upon baseline to compare to seems moot to me. This is very different from 'there's sucky art out there so we should keep this'.
Your position as a moderator has no bearing on your constant misunderstanding of my points and subtle pokes at my ability to reason about good and bad art. Please don't pull the authority card on me as well. I have nothing but respect for your translation work and wealth of knowledge concerning Danbooru's subject matter, which is why I am quite puzzled to how you seem to be interpreting my discussion points in the worst way possible most of the time.
I do not understand this political power play that is happening in the background that you keep bringing up, and frankly I'd rather not indulge in it. It's unrelated to the merits of this image, and if I am to accept this talking point into the discussion than it colours all discussions regarding uploading, appealing and flagging into two camps that clearly defines one as being right and the other being wrong, with no room for compromise. This attitude does not foster a healthy community at all.
My statements put aside the individual merits of this individual post. I'm not really taking a side on it, as I've previously stated.
I stepped in solely to say that certain arguments, based around arguing other images, are invalid in trying to argue for an image.
Beyond that, it seems your arguments are straying far afield to the point where you're not even making a coherent argument so much as complaining about several different things at once. If you don't want other people to "misunderstand" your argument, make sure you understand it and make it coherently in the first place. I made no argument about surgery, and only replied to your own statements by saying that it was at least relevant to the topic at hand, while saying that arguing other images has no bearing.
Referencing back to past disagreements is perhaps a mistake, especially since it doesn't seem it makes you grasp the flagrant hypocrisy of your arguments, anyway. Let me just instead say that perhaps you should reflect upon your own statements, and try to understand why it's so easy to find a statement you previously made where you argued the exact opposite of what you are arguing now. "Interpreting your discussion points in the worst way possible most of the time" is not a personal attack, its a basic skill of debate. If you don't understand the full implication of your own statements, then it's not an affront for me to point it out to you.
However, this is clearly just going into personal defensiveness and has nothing to do with the image at all, so I won't pursue this any further.
feline_lump said: I'm not sure why you interpreted my remark about plastic surgery as an attack; it was only intended as an explanation as to why a large number of approvers already passed the image by. I tried to search for real-life women with these proportions, and ended up exclusively getting photoshops or women who had undergone some type of body modification. (A few natural pear-shaped women could come close, but not quite to the level this picture is at.) Based on past experience, approvers tend not to be fond of "unnatural"-looking images, and that includes images that could technically be explained away with implants. (And alternatively, if you choose to look at it from the "wide hips" angle instead of the "squished big butt" angle, then you end up with a leg that looks straight-up dislocated.)
Thank you for clarifying. I didn't not take your comment as an attack at all. If I gave that impression then I am terribly sorry.
I was only confused because this remark does not explain the approach taken with respect to disproportionate breasts. I'm not talking grotesquely huge but generous enough to approach the gray area between natural and modified in real-life.
Am I mistaken that there appears to be a different standard between judging very large breasts, very large hips and other exaggerated body parts? If so, then what are the different thresholds for these components before it approaches bad anatomy territory that ruins the entire image?
It seems the wiggle room for very large breasts are more lax than very large hips. If using real-life possibilities is the basis for these decisions, then this wiggle room should not exist at all. That is why I am confused at the IRL analogy. It explains one but not the other, and it would not be an explanation I would bank on if it results in differing conclusions.
It really does seem to be the case that the approvers are more forgiving toward unnatural breasts than hips. Now I'm not proposing that this forgiving approach be tightened for breast anatomy, but if there is room for consideration of relaxed the threshold for other body parts within reasonable parity. That is, if there is a difference in treatment to begin with.
If you want to say that the current approval standards are too biased against certain types of bodily exaggeration, that would be a subject too broad for the comments section of this post; I'd recommend making a forum topic instead.
Thank you, this is the major question I had in my head because I am unsure whether or not my understanding of approval standards are skewed or there is an actual inconsistency when it comes to certain types of bodily exaggeration. It really comes down to the latter being established before I have any good reason to make a case, and so far I am still not certain. All I've been told in various cases it's that certain artistic approaches to human bodies are very bad and image needs to be deleted no matter how tastefully drawn the entire composition is, while equivalents in other parts are given a pass
But back to this image in question, the flag reason only cites hip ratio. Even among the cases of major pearl-shaped scenarios, I honestly do not think the proportions here are off enough to warrant deletion.
NWSiaCB said: Beyond that, it seems your arguments are straying far afield to the point where you're not even making a coherent argument so much as complaining about several different things at once. If you don't want other people to "misunderstand" your argument, make sure you understand it and make it coherently in the first place. I made no argument about surgery, and only replied to your own statements by saying that it was at least relevant to the topic at hand, while saying that arguing other images has no bearing.
It seems that you mistook my rebuttal to IRL surgury to be an argument based around arguing other images, and countered it as such. Clarifying my point, and reiterating what it was in response to, was an attempt to clear up this misunderstanding.
If you took that attempt as 'complaining' then I really don't know what to say.
Referencing back to past disagreements is perhaps a mistake, especially since it doesn't seem it makes you grasp the flagrant hypocrisy of your arguments, anyway.
I think I'm in entitled to clarify my stance (not the ones assumed of me) and share my concerns to someone who is constantly waving away my arguments by citing something I did not bring to the table of a discussion.
"Interpreting your discussion points in the worst way possible most of the time" is not a personal attack, its a basic skill of debate. If you don't understand the full implication of your own statements, then it's not an affront for me to point it out to you.
Again, instead of addressing my points, you make statements about my ability to reason. I put sincere effort into bringing forth points that I think are valid and worthy of feedback for. If these points are flawed, I welcome to being corrected. What is unhelpful is when I am accused of lacking the mental capacity to grasp my own thoughts. Why is this necessary? This is exactly why our exchanges across the site have always devolved into bitterness that leave neither of us with any understanding of each other.
Thank you for clarifying. I didn't not take your comment as an attack at all. If I gave that impression then I am terribly sorry.
I was only confused because this remark does not explain the approach taken with respect to disproportionate breasts. I'm not talking grotesquely huge but generous enough to approach the gray area between natural and modified in real-life.
Am I mistaken that there appears to be a different standard between judging very large breasts, very large hips and other exaggerated body parts? If so, then what are the different thresholds for these components before it approaches bad anatomy territory that ruins the entire image?
It seems the wiggle room for very large breasts are more lax than very large hips. If using real-life possibilities is the basis for these decisions, then this wiggle room should not exist at all. That is why I am confused at the IRL analogy. It explains one but not the other, and it would not be an explanation I would bank on if it results in differing conclusions.
It really does seem to be the case that the approvers are more forgiving toward unnatural breasts than hips. Now I'm not proposing that this forgiving approach be tightened for breast anatomy, but if there is room for consideration of relaxed the threshold for other body parts within reasonable parity. That is, if there is a difference in treatment to begin with.
Thank you, this is the major question I had in my head because I am unsure whether or not my understanding of approval standards are skewed or there is an actual inconsistency when it comes to certain types of bodily exaggeration. It really comes down to the latter being established before I have any good reason to make a case, and so far I am still not certain. All I've been told in various cases it's that certain artistic approaches to human bodies are very bad and image needs to be deleted no matter how tastefully drawn the entire composition is, while equivalents in other parts are given a pass
It is true that the limit for acceptable breast size here is far above the natural upper threshold for them in real life - the post you linked is just brushing up against the latter line. There also seems to be quite a bit of disagreement all around the site over where the line should be drawn for hips and asses. I would attribute a case of this double standard in an individual's approvals to two things:
Prevalence. huge breasts presently has 60k posts, while huge ass has just 3k. There are a lot of established characters whose official appearances can fit easily into the former tag, while most of the popular subjects for the latter are quite a bit less exaggerated officially. It takes a lot less deviation from real life norms for an image in the latter category to look "off" to approvers.
Anatomy. Compared to breast shots, ass shots are relatively difficult to draw. A badly-drawn ass can also cause errors in the torso or legs, and bad perspective is also fairly common (e.g. when a character is bent over). It may be necessary for approvers to be more selective to compensate for these common problems.
This standard is only affecting a niche subset of popular subject matter on this site, and I don't think it's gatekeeping too harshly, though others might disagree. At the very least, it might be a good idea to set some rules in stone if these flags are going to be a continuous source of drama.
But back to this image in question, the flag reason only cites hip ratio. Even among the cases of major pearl-shaped scenarios, I honestly do not think the proportions here are off enough to warrant deletion.
As far as I'm aware, approvers tend to use flag reasons as a starting point for evaluating an image holistically, rather than as the one and only thing they look at. There's no formal expectation for flag reasons to represent a comprehensive look at an image's flaws, so persistently needling at it past the first couple comments is unlikely to affect a post's chance at approval much. (This isn't meant to discredit your argument towards this post per se; it's more towards a general pattern of behavior that's been coming up in flag discussions.)
As far as I'm aware, approvers tend to use flag reasons as a starting point for evaluating an image holistically, rather than as the one and only thing they look at. There's no formal expectation for flag reasons to represent a comprehensive look at an image's flaws, so persistently needling at it past the first couple comments is unlikely to affect a post's chance at approval much. (This isn't meant to discredit your argument towards this post per se; it's more towards a general pattern of behavior that's been coming up in flag discussions.)
That is absolutely correct and flags really should be approached like that. Nobody is expecting from the flagger to state every flaw; maybe there are more and the flagger did not saw further flaws. In the end, it's up to the Approver staff to decide if a posts warrants deletion.
OK, I don't like this kind of body proportions myself, but it doesn't strike me as anatomically incorrect, as I've seen such hips IRL on the streets.
And we probably need another thick lover in approver staff. People don't automatically become impartial when reviewing flagged image, they actually judge it harsher instead, while still guided by their own tastes.
OK, I don't like this kind of body proportions myself, but it doesn't strike me as anatomically incorrect, as I've seen such hips IRL on the streets.
And we probably need another thick lover in approver staff. People don't automatically become impartial when reviewing flagged image, they actually judge it harsher instead, while still guided by their own tastes.
That is one of the problems lately in the approving queue. Since it doesn't give a good balance or doesn't had those people who had better judgement.