Implicating MLP / FiM -> cutie_mark.

Reason: All ponies have one.

123easy said:
Implicating MLP / FiM -> cutie_mark.

Reason: All ponies have one.

Nope. Scootaloo, Sweetie Belle, and Apple Bloom.

then implicate the ponies individually. Doesn't matter. at current, only 40 cutie_mark tags, compared to the 4K MLP posts.

But you might not always see the cutie mark, because of the pony's position, or because the artist didn't draw one. It's like having vampire implicate fangs; if something's in front of his mouth, you can't see them, and people might not be searching for a vampire without fangs showing. Same with cutie marks; some people will search for specific ponies without their cutie marks.

I'll direct you to be verifiable. It states: "If the character or object is well known, you can tag its sex or species or general type in even if that's not stated explicitly in the image."

Thus, vampires have fangs. MLP ponies (aside from those three cutie mark crusaders, whatever) have cutie marks. Even if you can't see them, you KNOW they have them. Just like even if Artica Sparkle is clothed, and you can't see the junk in the front, you still -know- it's a herm.

123easy said:
I'll direct you to be verifiable. It states: "If the character or object is well known, you can tag its sex or species or general type in even if that's not stated explicitly in the image."

Thus, vampires have fangs. MLP ponies (aside from those three cutie mark crusaders, whatever) have cutie marks. Even if you can't see them, you KNOW they have them. Just like even if Artica Sparkle is clothed, and you can't see the junk in the front, you still -know- it's a herm.

And if a character is drawn without them? If Artica Sparkle is drawn without a dick? Exceptions always exist.

123easy said:
I'll direct you to be verifiable. It states: "If the character or object is well known, you can tag its sex or species or general type in even if that's not stated explicitly in the image."

Wait ! What ???

Who wrote this ? When was this decided ??? This is a total infrigement to core rules that have been applied till now. The "tag what you see" rule has always prevailed and allowing otherwise is opening a gate to the worst bullshit ever.

What?! When was this decided? Was anyone consulted? I wasn't even TOLD. Why wasn't I told this? This a total infringement on the search system's core attributes....

Aurali said:
What?! When was this decided? Was anyone consulted? I wasn't even TOLD. Why wasn't I told this? This a total infringement on the search system's core attributes....

Core claimed attributes, perhaps, but I've noticed a LOT of pictures where it still gets tagged herm or male or whaever even if you can't tell the gender, because the character itself is so well known- Artica is one example that I remembered there being at least one pic of that you couldn't tell, but you knew it was the character, and it was tagged as per character, not what you could see. There's been many more, I just can't really remember them specifically.

123easy said:
Core claimed attributes, perhaps, but I've noticed a LOT of pictures where it still gets tagged herm or male or whaever even if you can't tell the gender, because the character itself is so well known- Artica is one example that I remembered there being at least one pic of that you couldn't tell, but you knew it was the character, and it was tagged as per character, not what you could see. There's been many more, I just can't really remember them specifically.

There's a difference between tagging a character female even if you can't tell, and tagging something like penis even if you can't see it.

123easy said:
Core claimed attributes, perhaps, but I've noticed a LOT of pictures where it still gets tagged herm or male or whaever even if you can't tell the gender, because the character itself is so well known- Artica is one example that I remembered there being at least one pic of that you couldn't tell, but you knew it was the character, and it was tagged as per character, not what you could see. There's been many more, I just can't really remember them specifically.

A character like Artica with 100 images? yeah. because if you go "man that's a hot chick' and click on the character name to see more and are immediately assaulted by hermcock... boner killer.
{
Further, the creator, I believe, of Artica regularly comes around and keeps images of artica_sparkle and sierra_starpaw tagged properly.

and ther's a BIG difference between 100+ images of artica and... Blackhermdragonessa337 and LordessGothScales who have only 1 picture of themselves uploaded...

SnowWolf said:
A character like Artica with 100 images? yeah. because if you go "man that's a hot chick' and click on the character name to see more and are immediately assaulted by hermcock... boner killer.
{
Further, the creator, I believe, of Artica regularly comes around and keeps images of artica_sparkle and sierra_starpaw tagged properly.

and ther's a BIG difference between 100+ images of artica and... Blackhermdragonessa337 and LordessGothScales who have only 1 picture of themselves uploaded...

Which is just further argument that the ponies should be tagged with cutie_mark as they have one, and we know they have one, because they are well known- several hundred images each.

SnowWolf said:
A character like Artica with 100 images? yeah. because if you go "man that's a hot chick' and click on the character name to see more and are immediately assaulted by hermcock... boner killer.

It doesn't matter, pics are to be tagged out of context, regardless of what other sites, or even what other pics within e621, show.

People should know by now that furries like to play around the different genders at will, and even characters that are known as females often have a herm version somewhere.

Not following the "tag what you see" rule, in this very case, has 3 effects :
- people who look for herm might not find what they want
- people who look for female might miss out on a nice picture that fit their desire
- black listing will not work properly, and gender is probably one of the most used theme in that regard

Kald said:
It doesn't matter, pics are to be tagged out of context, regardless of what other sites, or even what other pics within e621, show.

People should know by now that furries like to play around the different genders at will, and even characters that are known as females often have a herm version somewhere.

Not following the "tag what you see" rule, in this very case, has 3 effects :
- people who look for herm might not find what they want
- people who look for female might miss out on a nice picture that fit their desire
- black listing will not work properly, and gender is probably one of the most used theme in that regard

I've yet to see a picture of a character that's crossgendered atm or is in a gender they aren't normally ever get tagged gender-wise as something it's not. for example, when Artica is straight female, it reflects as much in the tags- it's only ambiguous images that got tagged appropriate to the character's original gender.

123easy said:
it's only ambiguous images that got tagged appropriate to the character's original gender.

And this is where it goes wrong. Herm are defined as having both genders' genitalia, therefore a picture that shows an overall feminine shape, and some feminine attribute, but no male genitalia, are to be tagged female.
See post #112168, which is in infrigement atm.

123easy said:
I've yet to see a picture of a character that's crossgendered atm or is in a gender they aren't normally ever get tagged gender-wise as something it's not. for example, when Artica is straight female, it reflects as much in the tags- it's only ambiguous images that got tagged appropriate to the character's original gender.

look up "eli"

What happens if someone draws images of ponies who we know have cutie marks, without them, and i'm looking for those pictures? I won't be able to find them because of a bad implication. Just tag what you see, because exceptions always exist.

Honestly. Cutiemark is a pointless tag. All most every small equine has a cutie mark. Creatures that are not ponies do not have cutie marks.

Jsut as we do not tag eyes, ears, nose, fur, tail on every image, cutie mark should not be on every picture unless it, or the body part in question, is somehow in direct focus, or if a cutiemark is in a strange and unusual place or character: post #145311 post #143082 post #118135 .... but it shouldn't be a feature for EVERY image of a pony.

better might even be to tag for the absence of a cutiemark--cutie-mark-less... or, more appropriatly for the setting blank-flank...