Posted under Tags
Ylimegirl said:
The actual qualifiers are "can you see that its backless? if yes, tag it, if no, don't". There isn't really much else to add. If you can see that it's sideless, you can tag that. But if you can't see the back, don't tag it. End of story.
So basically... it's not a guideline anymore. It's the rule.
Okay.
It's not like this wasn't previously explained to you AND conveyed across both two feedbacks and this whole topic yet it seems as though you seem to wipe the memory every few weeks and go right back to mass mistagging based on facts rather than what's in the image. I've had to revert several of your edits and that's only on the ones I know, and I'm somewhat skeptical about how far you've stretched the definition of the tag because you don't seem to know for sure what you're doing before you do it.
AbsoluteRainbow said:
So basically... it's not a guideline anymore. It's the rule.
Okay.
"Tag what you see, not what you know" is a "guideline" because there are exceptions where you can make reasonable assumptions or tag things based on canon information.
The clothes a character is wearing is usually not one of those exceptions. The character is either wearing something, or they're not, and if you can't tell this from what you can see in the image without knowing anything about the character beforehand, you don't tag it.
Things that "tag what you see, not what you know" generally refers to relationship tagging, gender tagging, and blacklist tagging that relates to those tags. So parent and child, siblings, husband and wife, 1boy/1girl/1other, and of course incest. None of these are things that can be discerned visually in images.
Clothing is something that's 100% visually discernible in art. No need to rely on tagging what you know for it.
