Tag Implication: pointless_censoring -> censored

Implicating pointless_censoring -> censored.

Reason: By definition.

I'm not sure that's a good idea, since something with pointless censoring is (also by definition) very nearly not censored.

To my mind, this implication would be a problem both ways:

• someone looking for images that aren't censored is probably also interested in those that have pointless censoring (so the implication means they may miss things they would otherwise have wanted to see)
• someone looking for images that are censored probably does not want to see stuff with pointless censoring (unless they're doing an academic study or the like), since by definition it doesn't actually block anything significant.

I think pointless censoring falls into the grey area between censored and uncensored, but doesn't actually meet the requirements for either.

I'm in disagreement on that, kounishin. Pointless censoring is still censoring, just reduced to its most ineffectual form. It does, at least in part, compromise the image beneath it; it merely fails to do so as well as a large black bar, heavy mosaic, or whiting-out.

With the implication in place, doing a search for pointless censoring would still return all the same hits it would without the implication, so that first bulleted point is moot. The second is solved by searching for censored -pointless_censoring.

+1 to the implication.

kounishin said:
someone looking for images that aren't censored is probably also interested in those that have pointless censoring

In my experience, the sort of people who are looking for images that aren't censored will bitch about even the most insignificant black bar.

kounishin said:
someone looking for images that are censored probably does not want to see stuff with pointless censoring

That may be true, but I'm not sure that this hypothetical someone exists. "I want porn... but only porn with mosaics!"

Also, making the implication falls in line with what was decided in forum #37949. +1.

Hmm, didn't see that thread before. Mind you, I also missed it in the thread list the first couple of times when looking specifically for it just now, so I guess I'm just blind today.

Having read that, I agree that the implication in this thread is consistent with what was decided there. It still seems weird to me that we're essentially saying "failure to cover things up -> things being successfully covered up", but if censored is going to be an ancestor tag for all the other types, that's better dealt with by updating the wiki definitions.

sgcdonmai said:
With the implication in place, doing a search for pointless censoring would still return all the same hits it would without the implication, so that first bulleted point is moot.

I was actually thinking of searches along the lines of "<topic> -censored", which definitely would be affected by the implication. However, that only really makes a difference if there's more than one "censored but not really"-type tag, which on reflection there probably isn't; if it's just pointless_censoring, then searching for that specifically is easy enough.

kounishin said:
However, that only really makes a difference if there's more than one "censored but not really"-type tag, which on reflection there probably isn't; if it's just pointless_censoring, then searching for that specifically is easy enough.

convenient_censoring also means "censored but not really"...

glasnost said:
That may be true, but I'm not sure that this hypothetical someone exists. "I want porn... but only porn with mosaics!"

That'd be "Japanese". The law has actually been relaxed a few years back, but surprisingly it turned out that when the producers tried releasing uncensored versions, the market preferred censorship which they grew used to. As a friend put it, "the mosaic is there so that Japanese know where to look".

Done.