Male/Female? I think it's pretty obvious that it's Intersex/Female.

membrillito said:
Male/Female? I think it's pretty obvious that it's Intersex/Female.

Tag what you see, not what you know. As there are no real defining features that would indicate that is an intersex.

tilltheend said:
Tag what you see, not what you know. As there are no real defining features that would indicate that is an intersex.

It doesn't seem like an efficient system. This system ignores the underlying content of the publication. Furthermore, the publication that descends from this one makes this point quite clear.

Wish this animation would get finished, I've seen this reposted 100's of times

membrillito said:
It doesn't seem like an efficient system. This system ignores the underlying content of the publication. Furthermore, the publication that descends from this one makes this point quite clear.

I agree, however the rule clearly states, and I quote "For example, a solo picture of a character who appears male must be tagged male.
That remains true even if the artist or the character owner themselves state that the character is not male, or if text within the image states that the character is not male. These tags refer strictly to a character's outward appearance and nothing more." twys

membrillito said:
Male/Female? I think it's pretty obvious that it's Intersex/Female.

obvious?

tilltheend said:

So the rules need updating. I find it incredible that the author's own words have so little value when it comes to adding tags.

clan said:
obvious?

Yes

membrillito said:
Yes

that's why lor

membrillito said:
It doesn't seem like an efficient system. This system ignores the underlying content of the publication. Furthermore, the publication that descends from this one makes this point quite clear.

membrillito said:
It doesn't seem like an efficient system. This system ignores the underlying content of the publication. Furthermore, the publication that descends from this one makes this point quite clear.

tilltheend said:
I agree, however the rule clearly states, and I quote "For example, a solo picture of a character who appears male must be tagged male.
That remains true even if the artist or the character owner themselves state that the character is not male, or if text within the image states that the character is not male. These tags refer strictly to a character's outward appearance and nothing more." twys

my understanding is that that's why lore tags exist

I appreciate E6s' community's conviction towards the tagging system but I do hope no one is downvoting each other purely out of spite.

People are just trying to tag appropriately and for the most part - our community and moderators do an acceptable job (especially compared to other art sites).

membrillito said:
Yes

was hoping you would elaborate but congrats on your presumptuousness

membrillito said:
It doesn't seem like an efficient system. This system ignores the underlying content of the publication. Furthermore, the publication that descends from this one makes this point quite clear.

It's a very efficient system for what it's designed to do: Make search and blacklists be as reliable as possible. Having the tags be based on what the artist says would make the gender tags useless, because most posts with "gynomorph" and "herm" would be tagged female or male instead. (not to mention there would also be images tagged gynomorph and herm despite there being no visible dicks in them)
This is why lore tags were created: What the artist says goes in lore tags, and what's visible in the image goes in the normal tags.

clan said:

If you know the artist, the characters involved, and analyze the content, it becomes a bit obvious.

postsupergenesiswave said:

dw223612 said:

I wasn't aware of lore tags. I'll have to do more research.

membrillito said:
If you know the artist, the characters involved, and analyze the content, it becomes a bit obvious.

that sounds less obvious rather youre just using context clues