I like that idea.

Hmmm, having them in the same image/same context (manga pages, whatever) would make more sense, since it would look more like a "costume_swap" that way. It could even be just one character dressed up, with the other still in their regular outfit (B wearing A's outfit, while A is still wearing theirs). Not school uniforms in any given anime/manga/game, since EVERY character would be, but with distinctive outfits.
I know I've seen a couple with the Pokemon girls, lets see what else I can find...

Unless their uniforms are distinct, (such as a Lucky Star character wearing an Ouran High School uniform, for example). Some anime have very distince and creative uniforms. They don't all look like sailor suits.

Maybe then, Change the name to Alt_Costume. Makes more sense. It works for different variations. Alt, as in, An alternate Costume that the character normally doesn't where. We already have a Costume Tag, don't we?

Distinct Uniforms? I don't know. School_Uniform would suffice for all. Besides, I don't think everyone knows the specific names for each Uniform.

Wait, Do we have Different types of Bikini Tags?

String_Bikini
Two_Piece_Bikini
One_Piece_Bikini
School/Gym_Bikini
Etc.

Kinda goes with School_Uniform, doesn't it?

I think you missed the point of what I said.
First, the costume_swap tag would be for when characters are in the same picture and wearing each other's clothes/costumes.
Second, he was suggesting that the costume_swap tag not apply to school uniforms, and I feel that it should, if the uniform looks distinct enough.


Yes. There are many different bikini tags.
bikini
thong_bikini
micro_bikini
sling_bikini

...I don't think that one piece bikinis exist. The closest would be one_piece_swimsuit.

From most of the suggestions in this thread, which I admit I had to skip through most of the longer posts since it was much like a wall of text... I believe we need to introduce implications to the site. This should, according to what suggestions I've read, make about 70% of them moot if there is an implied meaning to it.

Because I'm sure some of the readers may have no idea what it is:

If a user would type in thong_bikini it would then add in bikini, making the tags "thong_bikini bikini". If a user puts in costume_swap, it will add in clothing_swap as well. This would make more specific tags carry the broad definitions as well. :3 would give it that harelip tag, :) would be smile, etc. Hopefully this will be worked on, as I know I was talking to geltas about getting it implemented. I recall him saying how it would be a pain, but would be interesting to do.

On a non interesting side note, I got worried you guys were going to write more than 64KB so I increased the size.

Umm... I don't quite think that "harelip" accurately describes the :3 tag. It is more of a cute, cat-like innocent smile that cute anime characters tend to use. A harelip is a disfigurement of the lip and is not pleasent to look at. Trust me. I've seen it before. The :3 expression is in no way a harelip.

Wrestling: Yes, I read everything you had to say about wrestling. We still disagree. This thread isn't about wrestling though, so I'll let you continue to believe whatever it is you want to belive about wrestling and me and end it. No more references to "wrestling" unless that's a tag. This is my thread, and here I'm the referee. Off-topic material is subject to immediate disqualification and relinquishing of the title belt. And, you get gang-beaten in the parking lot after the match is over. On television. While the fans are watching. And the cops never arrive to break it up even though there are some on guard in the auditorium. And an ambulance conveniently arrives on the scene just as the other wrestlers are vacating. All according to the script.

Toe_curl: That should be a tag. In fact, it is. Eight images are correctly tagged with "toe_curl" in a sexual context in which orgasm is explicit in most, implied in a couple. Two images are so taged in which the curling is entirely incidently to anything. Sometimes people just curl their toes for no reason at all, or just because it feels good to flex them that way. One looks, at first glance like incidental curling until you notice that one of the kittens *might* be performing cunnilingus on the human character, but I still classify it as "incidental" because there isn't even an implied orgasm. One image is incorrectly tagged. There is no discernible curling of the toes. One is an after_sex image. And, finally, one is actually a combination toe-curl with a big toe "lift" -- a pretty common thing for people to do, but it's obviously in connection with an orgasm. Yes, toe curling happens in real life. It's not just in porn, and it doesn't always happen. It's a pretty individual thing, and can even vary from experience to experience.

female_ejaculation: Another good tag (125 images to date). Sadly, quite a few hentai images I've seen in the same context as "female ejaculation" are actually orgasmic urinary incontinence, and clearly so from the way the artist depicted it (usually with the spray coming from the urethra and tinted yellow). Not "female ejaculation". No, I don't know how many images on Gelbooru might be mis-tagged that way because I didn't bother to look. Those images aren't my "thing". "Squirters" do exist in real life. Not every woman does this, and those that do don't every time they have an orgasm. Frankly, this is a very controversial subject and I used to be on the "female ejaculation is a myth" side of the isle until I experienced it, myself. When it really happens, though, if you see a single stream squirt out you can bet it's urine. Even a "spray" can come from the urethra. I honestly don't know the source of female ejaculate. The literature is vague, contradictory, and totally inadequate, but the "real stuff" has none of the qualities of urine -- not color, not scent, not taste, and it's mildly slick and sticky, to boot. Nor does it shoot halfway across the room. If that happens ... sorry ... orgasmic urinary incontinence.

4chan discussion, then we lay it to rest: No, not rumors. One of the guys in the thread was actually working to decensor the image in question. This wasn't a hypothetical discussion -- image in hand, Photoshop running ... no naughty bits present under the censorship layer, and this guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about, so I'm sure he didn't "miss" any layers. I don't recall the details, but I think someone asked him to decensor the image, he downloaded it, and that's what he found. I could be wrong about that, though, since I wasn't following the thread closely.

Preview button: Yes! Give us a preview button ... and a toolbar for formatting posts. I know you can quote a passage. I've seen you do it. It's not obvious from the user interface, though.

No, it's not contradictory to say that a single instance can disprove something, but that a single instance cannot prove something. This is ordinary common sense, as well as being part and parcel in the rules of both informal and formal logic. Cases in point ...

"All dogs bark." All I need to do is show you one single instance of a dog (and there are whole breeds, in fact) that do not bark to disprove that statement.

"This dog barks, so all dogs must bark". That's the other situation ... trying to prove the general from the specific. It's obviously false.

The Krystal controversy: We're arguing apples and oranges, here. After carefully analyzing the entire discussion arc, I've finally figured this out. You were coming at it from the perspective that the "original" image was the sketch. I understood it from the beginning that the censored colorized drawing was the "release form". To me, sketches in someone's sketchbook do not constitute finished work and are, therefore, not "original" versions of something. They are sketches ... frequently nothing more than concept drawings which will never get released or are not the final versions which do. From the perspective of that "original" rough sketch, yes, that image is uncensored. However, the colorized version differs in some important ways from the original line drawing. That's why I rejected the sketch as the "original" form of that version. Still, using Krystal, which is furry artwork in the Western style proves nothing about hentai drawn in Japan, and that was the crux of my argument against your contention that all hentai is drawn uncensored when your only "poof" of this was a single non-hentai image.

You wrote: "They are ALL created in uncensored form". There. That's a sweeping generalization that you can't possibly offer any proof for. You'd have to demonstrate this for every single hentai image ever created. And you can't. This is something you believe. It's an opinion. You stated it as "fact" and because of that your conclusion is wrong because it doesn't follow from the *known* facts, which in this case are probably not even "knowable". You may be right, and I've admitted as much. But you cannot state this is as fact because it's an unprovable hypothesis.

Quote you don't remember writing: I missed a quote mark, immediately after "requirements." Sorry. As for why I "took it out of context", let's put it back into context, OK? Here's your complete paragraph, in all it's unnecessary glory:

"No, I'm not missing a thing, though if you require glasses, you might need them here.

The software implementation has nothing to do(at least the one I'm looking at and not the one you are) with changing the default tagging system, what it does is uses every available tag from a def list(we're waiting on that list) and allows the user to gather them together in a hierarchy of their own choosing, no matter how ridiculous other users may think it is. The programmer isn't, the programmer would make it a module just like the search box, but every user can use it differently to meet their requirements; the programmer isn't going to give every user a pot of food, The programmer will just supply them with the kitchen utensils to get the food form the pot, what don't you understand about that?"

The only part of the specific sentence I left out was "The programmer isn't, ", which adds nothing whatsoever to the purpose for quoting the sentence, which was to draw attention to the fact that you refer to the programmer "making a module", thereby refuting your original contention that this isn't a programming issue.

Anyway, for closure ... you asked how to apologize to me. The best way to apologize to me is to continue this discussion in a rational, logical, literate manner. I don't require anyone to say "I'm sorry". I don't hold grudges, and apologies frankly don't mean much to me. Sorry, but I grew up in an environment where I had to grow a pretty thick skin just to maintain my sanity and nobody ever apologized for anything they did to me.

Censorship tags: Good ones, but please explain "Digimo". If that's a brand name of something, we don't need it. "Pixelation" is what I think many people refer to regarding your use of the term "mosaic", but I'm not sure. Strictly speaking a "mosaic" is an image composed of a (usually) rectangular array of other images. "Pixelation" is the process of averaging the colors of adjacent pixels together and creating a larger pixel to replace them with that average color -- which is the kind of censorship we normally see and is, in my book, the kind that gets taken to absurd extremes. Also, if we start using these, what's to stop people from thinking they're "useless" tags and just unilaterally removing them ("tag Nazis", as I've referred to them). Can tags contain a forward slash? I don't recall seeing one like that.

biibii801, if you *would* go back through all the "tl;dr text walls" you'd find that somewhere up there, buried in all that text is a discussion of why individual censorship tags are important ... at least to some of us. I may well do a search for "transparent_blackbar" just to find those images because I *think*, although I'm not certain, that it might be almost trivial to decensor them. There are off-putting types of censorship even to those of us who can live with censorship. Maybe I'd like to add "-airbrush_censored" to a search, just so I don't come up with all those annoying airbrush censored images. Again, you might not see the point in it. I do. So does Thref, and I'm sure there are other people here on Gelbooru who would see their utility.

I agree in principle about the use of "costume_swap", but what of an image in which a single character might be dressed up as a different character? I don't know that many such even exist, but what would we call this? This is related to Thref's issue about pages in a manga, but could exist in a single image released with no such context, too. Or, I could well image an "everyone" image in which thirty characters are all wearing each other's costumes. However, I have go back to one of Thref's arguments about the "meaning of hentai" in which he pointed out that one page of a manga in which the character is not in a sexual situation would have to be labeled "non_hentai", even if the very next image in it showed her in an obviously sexual situation. That same logic appears to be applicable here. Zelda dressed as Peach on one page ... Peach dressed as Zelda on the next. Neither of these, by biibii801's criteria would meet the requirements for "costume_swap" even though, in the context of the manga, that's what they're doing.

I have to agree with Thref, as well, that school uniforms, if distinctive enough, and if "swapped" between two characters would get the "costume_swap" tag. I really don't see how this could be otherwise, as long as the whole notion of the "swap" is implied in the context of the image.

"one_piece_bikini": The clothing item exists, for both males and females (look up "mankini" on your favorite search engine and remember -- what has been seen cannot be unseen). So, yes, it should be a tag, but only if there's really an image which shows one, of course.

Sorry, Ferryt, I'm going to skip your responses temporarily to address Board Leader and th8827.



What Board Leader is Saying(I think), th8827, Is that a Tag Inheritance Structure May be in the works, even IF it might take some willing Effort to get it done,

As for Harelip, When I think that I think Harelip Steve from Family Guy, Yeah, that is unpleasant.

I have Seen Anime Expressions that are :3, like the Face is truly in a 3 shape. The mild versions that resemble a line shouldn't have this tag but something else. That Blue Haired Girl(who's name escapes me at the moment, I think it starts with a K) from Lucky Star in some images can be seen with the :3 Expression clearly visible.

So, yeah. Maybe we should keep the :3 tag and inherit it with Facial_Expressions Tag, or something.

Yeah, I know a lot of those are mis-tagged.
As for where it comes from, I have detailed Illustrations and Scientific Names. Let me See if I have them:

According to the Diagram I am looking at, It says that The fluid comes from the Paraurethral Gland OR Urethral Sponge.

Stimulation of the G-Spot is said to build up this fluid and trigger it's release during Orgasm.
Coincidentally, the G-Spot Is located Just Below the Paraurethral Gland Within the Vagina.
So, it would make some sense that stimulation of this region would would produce fluid in the Paraurethral Gland.

From what you are describing, It can't shoot across the room because it isn't pressurized by the bladder; isn't pushed out by the Urinary sphincter.
What you stated about the composition of Fem Cum Seems consistent with these diagrams I'm looking at.

A Porn Star, Appropriately Named Kream, is Suspected of Ejaculating during Orgasms. All the Liquid comes out Transparent and Does shoot out a distance. But, it may just be a trick that includes a special Diet that causes her to Not Urinate the Tint of Yellow when she does orgasm.

To this date, it still remains a mystery of just how capable every women of this physiological reaction.
There are a lot of Key factors that play into this, most of which have to do with finding girls willing to be examined. The other factor is pursuit of the issue.





O.K., What are manga's then? They are Rarely ever colored, but they Certainly are released.





O.K. Then.
No, It's unprovable under YOUR hypothesis. Your requesting things that you know cannot be remotely possible to do. And that's not fair thing to do. When I asked for proof, it Was remotely possible for you to acquire it. You didn't. I Showed My proof with the Krystal Pics. You danced around them in you own fashion and focused on your own points to support your own argument. You never once considered to Ask Matt if he Did it. You Never once Mentioned the Dates they were created, and Finally, Again, None of the Images I showed you Of Krystal were Censored. And you still refuse to acknowledge the point of Uncensored and Censored Hentai Ovas, because they Will shatter your argument completely If you even dared acknowledge them.

That bit you said about dogs and barking, It works against you here.
I think it's safe to close this case now.







You did it Again. You took it out of context. You didn't include which part I was responding too in your responses. Ah, but I have Copies. Let me place it BACK in context for you then:




The software implementation has nothing to do(at least the one I'm looking at and not the one you are) with changing the default tagging system, what it does is uses every available tag from a def list(we're waiting on that list) and allows the user to gather them together in a hierarchy of their own choosing, no matter how ridiculous other users may think it is.






The programmer isn't, the programmer would make it a module just like the search box, but every user can use it differently to meet their requirements; the programmer isn't going to give every user a pot of food, The programmer will just supply them with the kitchen utensils to get the food form the pot, what don't you understand about that?


There We Go. That help? The reason you took it out of context is that you Notice that I was responding to the Entire Paragraph and took advantage by splitting what I said up to make it appear that I was saying something else. Manipulation out of context in your favor. That's kind of a low ball tactic.





If you don't hold grudges, then why did you decide to “play a game” with me outside this thread?
Not exposing any details though. Nobody wants or needs to know about that.
I should apologize, even if it means nothing to you. I do apologize for what you deem as personal attacks from my responses to yours. You mentioned that you can take me out of this thread anytime you see fit. Well, Do you really want me to leave? Cause I will.





Back to thread discussions.
Digimo, as what I understand it to mean, Is the Process of Pixelating something. Digimoing a face, Digimoing Naughty Bits. Basically, it's the name of the “FKUp Fairy” that Ruins All Hentai and Japanese Pr0nr0garphy. MISSINGNO., Can be Considered the Cousin of Digimo because MISSINGNO. FKsUp your Pokemon Cart in the Original Pokemon Games. In Fact, Digimo and MISSINGNO. can be seen Violating May(Haruka, was it?) in an Image Here on Gelbooru.
Other Less famous Digimios Include Happy Faces, Tiny Obstructive Character stamps, and other obstructive Signs & Symbols. Tingle, Might be considered a Remotely Related Digimo; Unless he falls under the Tiny Obstructive Character Stamp Category, Which then would make him a Certified Digimo.

I don't know about the slash part, I just use slashes instead of And/OR sometimes.




Eh, You meant to say Blacklist, right?





I think it should be, Alt_Costume; maybe you didn't see it because I hadn't posted yet.







Actually, There is a workaround to this. It's complicated, but It works effectively enough.
While you May not be able to Unsee something, you could completely forget that you even saw it in the first place, if that makes any sense to anybody. I relies on a bombardment of thoughts, fallowed by a direct draw of attention to something desirable/pleasurable. Then, more bombardments of random things that aren't as displeasuring to see. It could take 10 minutes or more to completely forget a picture you seen under this method. With practice, it will take no more then 10 seconds to completely forget about a picture you never wished to see. Also, avoiding Direct contact with Mal pics is a Key factor in this methods success.

There are benefits and mal effects to this though. Let's start with the mal effects. You may develop random memory loss of things you want to remember(I haven't figured out, by occupational hazard of the method I described how to retain your actual memory, just yet). The benefits? You May forget Good Images that You didn't remember you had when you see them again, then Remember them for some time with direct focus! That's how I'm able to see things I wouldn't want to remember later on. Strangely, I haven't had any nightmares of the Mal images that I forgot about. I'd Like to go into detail, but I'm Falling asleep at the wheel here.



Night Folks!