I've said it in the pointless pools thread:
"Images by good artists will just be in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE POOLS".
These subjective pools are impossible to moderate and become favorites pools very fast.
Just take a look at the UI bars at the top of these posts:
post #1032635
post #1032105
post #1032628
post #1032102
post #908406
Surely, most of you can tell that none of these images feature beautiful hair/smiles/eyes, but the userbase is notorious for wanting to add posts to as many pools as possible, proven by that one pool we once had about "images belonging to at least *** pools".
Now we have pools like:
The Perfect Woman : Images which are in at least 6 hot/beautiful/perfect pools
The Perfect Face : Images tagged face which are in at least 3 hot/beautiful/perfect pools
The result is the vip_quality tag (in pool form), of which we got rid of.
In reality, feet order:score and legs order:score are much more reliable than their pool counterparts "hot legs"/"perfect feet". A single user can add an image "he likes" to such a pool and force his opinion on what is "perfect" on others. Of course, he can re-add that images as many times as he wants if others disagree with him. Score, on the other hand, relies on the large number of users (with rating privileges) to vote. Votes of the staff count double. (Works even better for the neck/nape tag)
Unfortunately, this method works only for body parts with tags dedicated to "images focusing on them". This doesn't work for "hair" and "eyes".
The hot [profession] pools are even more favorites pools. I don't care about Danialx21's favourite cowgirl pics collection.
We already make the distinction between good art and art not meeting danbooru's quality standards. Do we really need to make a collection for the "best of the best" and have people fight over why image x is (not) in pool y?
-
I guess we should just make even more of those. How about "Perfect Anus", "Beautiful Penis" and "Hot Navel"? If we can still see the image under all those bars, then they are apparently not enough.
Updated by user 358670