I thought I remembered us having a tag like this but after some searching, I'm not finding anything. Am I misremembering? Does it not exist?

No Panties? pool.

Can we please convert the pool to a tag then? That way it will be detected when fetching the Pixiv tags. It's very similar to the implied_* family of tags we already have.

+1.

Something like implied_no_panties then?

Fred1515 said:

+1.

Something like implied_no_panties then?

+1

-1, the pool is built around a deliberate concept of ambiguity on whether the person is or isn't wearing panties, which should be subjective and open to interpretation. "Implied_no_panties" is the same as saying concretely that there isn't any panties, which isn't what the pool is built around.

So we should make implied_futanari a pool then? It's exactly the same kind of thing.

NWF_Renim said:

"Implied_no_panties" is the same as saying concretely that there isn't any panties, which isn't what the pool is built around.

That's just no_panties.

The No Panties? pool is for when it looks like a character is probably not wearing panties, but there is some room for doubt. This is exactly how the other implied_* tags work, and if they are allowed to exist as tags I don't see why this wouldn't be.

Toks said:

This is exactly how the other implied_* tags work, and if they are allowed to exist as tags I don't see why this wouldn't be.

They're really not the same. There is much more information presented in the images in most implied_* tags than what is going under the No Panties? Pool (pool #2385). The closest might be the implied_futanari tag, but there is actually imo a big problem with this tag, to the point that makes it unlike the other implied_* tags in its current state.

The implied_futanari tag isn't like the other implied_ tags in use, as that in most cases it is making an assumption on the character being a futanari, and throwing out possibilities that they might be using something like a dildo. This is bad logic, since most of these images can be rationalized away with normal use sex toys or appendages (for example post #799184 could be a tentacle or tail or something). In these cases the use of "implied" is inaccurate, and the image implies nothing about the character being a futanari. All the image is depicting is a woman humping another woman, but that doesn't have any real bearing on whether the character is a futanari or not. In this way the bulk of these images are improperly tagged. The only ones that are properly implying the presence of a futanari are images like post #692358, where you're relying on an actual visual that indicates a penis (sperm), or post #477439, where you have text that would indicate what is not being shown. Only these cases are in line with other implied_* tags, as they're using other information to show the action is occurring/presence of something (or in the case of implied_pantyshot it is a given a pantyshot is occurring, there is nothing implied, it is just that it isn't the viewer seeing it).

The fact that the implied_* tags do use external information and leave little to doubt is what makes them different from the No Panties? pool. No Panties? is built on the presence of there not being enough information to say whether the person is wearing panties or not, even if it looks like they might not be wearing any. Implied_no_panties can't operate in this manner, because implying it is really confirming that it isn't there, even if you can't see it. There isn't any real ambiguity, it is for the most part concrete. Implied_no_panties would be things like post #1792797, while No Panties? is properly things like post #1490250. post #1792797 relies on something to confirm that they aren't there. post #1490250 on the other hand doesn't actually imply that there are no panties, yes it looks like there might not be panties, but there still isn't enough information to actually say she isn't wearing any. She could be wearing something like highleg_panties (example post #1639465) that hasn't been ruled out at all, which isn't something out of the question or unreasonable to think could be the case. Also her pose/actions do not imply anything either, because it is normal for someone to push down the skirt to prevent it from being blown up all the way. So in short, an implied_* tag would still require something to imply that she isn't wearing panties, as opposed to the pool which leaves reasonable doubt on whether she is or isn't wearing panties.

This isn't to say the pool is being perfectly used, it isn't either, there are posts that do not belong. Images like post #1612760 does not leave reasonable doubt, there is too much information and seems rather clear that she isn't wearing panties. You also have things like post #913962, which imo is again too much information, and makes it rather clear that she isn't wearing anything. Unlike post #1490250, where the skirt lift is just low enough to not rule out some types of panties and thus leaving room for doubt, post #913962 exposes too much, too high, and pretty much reduces to zero the chances that she is wearing panties. If post #913962 is your idea of "implied_no_panties," the thing that "implies" that there are no panties is actually the concrete proof of a lack of panties (or more specifically the lack of the sides of the panties being visible which in turn identifies what is below the clothing). This is something again that confirms without reasonable doubt what is or isn't beneath her clothes, which is again different from what I'm saying the No Panties? pool concept is when it is being properly used.

I agree with NWF Renim.

Also, should we be taking into account the 「はいてない？」 tag being people other than the artist?

NWF Renim said:

So in short, an implied_* tag would still require something to imply that she isn't wearing panties, as opposed to the pool which leaves reasonable doubt on whether she is or isn't wearing panties.

I think you're getting really hung up on the word "implied". It's a bit of a misnomer here. It would be more accurate to just call the tags something like possible X or ambiguous X rather than implied X. Something that captures the ambiguity without saying it implies something one way or another.

The implied_futanari tag isn't like the other implied_ tags in use, as that in most cases it is making an assumption on the character being a futanari, and throwing out possibilities that they might be using something like a dildo.

When an ambiguous image could plausibly be interpreted as futanari or yuri I think it's most useful to tag it as both. For searching purposes it doesn't matter what something "really" is, it only matters what it looks like. If you prefer to think post #1799417 is yuri, then just put on your yuri goggles and ignore the implied futanari tag.

Tagging both is a lot more useful than tagging neither just because we can't definitively say which one it is.

Bansho said:

Also, should we be taking into account the 「はいてない？」 tag being people other than the artist?

Non-artist tags definitely shouldn't hold any weight. IMO even artist-added tags should be taken with a grain of salt. They're useful as suggestions but they're not necessarily guaranteed to fit our criteria for tagging.

evazion said:

I think you're getting really hung up on the word "implied". It's a bit of a misnomer here. It would be more accurate to just call the tags something like possible X or ambiguous X rather than implied X. Something that captures the ambiguity without saying it implies something one way or another.

Except, as I already stated, the current implied_* tags actually do use indirect information to imply something and remove the ambiguity. The naming isn't off, given that they are relying on implication to determine what is being shown. The no panties? pool just isn't what you guys are trying to lump it into being. Changing all the implied_* tags just to get this pool to fit into the same scheme is a bad way to try and work it out.

NWF_Renim said:

Changing all the implied_* tags just to get this pool to fit into the same scheme is a bad way to try and work it out.

I don't think Evazion suggested changing the existing tags, sounds like he is suggesting turning the No Panties? pool into ambiguous_no_panties/possible_no_panties.

Which is fine by me too, the name really doesn't matter all the much.

Toks said:

I don't think Evazion suggested changing the existing tags, sounds like he is suggesting turning the No Panties? pool into ambiguous_no_panties/possible_no_panties.

Which is fine by me too, the name really doesn't matter all the much.

evazion said:

It would be more accurate to just call the tags something like possible X or ambiguous X rather than implied X. Something that captures the ambiguity without saying it implies something one way or another.

No, he's saying it for all the implied_* tags.

Also, I'm not sure why you guys are so caught up in trying to convert this into a tag. This is especially so, since you guys were so adamant before on non-subjective things. This pool is built on ambiguity, and in turn will have subjectivity, this is not something that would be the foundation of a regular tag.

Ah, wow. I hadn't checked this in days but I appreciate all the input and discussion it's generated! Thanks, guys. I'll stick with the pool now that I know it exists.