Pointless Pools

Yeah, the pool isn't pointless, but the art is definitely bad. Unapproving is fine here but I'm leaving the pool alone.

What about the few images that can't be unapproved anymore?

Is it just 4 images? I looked through what was in that pool, and checked the id of 4 that can't be unapproved. All 4 of them were put through the deletion appeal thread (in one case though more than once), and likely due to that undeleted. I'm not sure what sort of action can be done in response to that, it wouldn't seem quite right to delete them after being appealed (unless it was a blatant ToS violation).

But, OTOH, they're in no way better than the others in the pool. If the rest doesn't get reapproved, would deleting these outliers be prudent? They're exactly the same as that rest, so I don't see why they should be the only ones to stay when we're reconsidering the whole pool.

Lets see what happens. I approved a couple of those images, but I certainly don't feel excited enough about them to reapprove any of them right now. They're completely...ok. I wouldn't object to them being here, or to them being gone.

pool #2969

Was a two post pool and those two post didn't even get approved yet. I made them into parent/child posts so the pool is not needed anymore.

pool #2976 (Topless Mermaids)

Shockingly can be achieved with a topless mermaid search, maybe throw in nude for good measure.

pool #2990, "Extreme Dakimakura".

Since the description defines "extreme" here as "sexually explicit", it's basically just dakimakura rating:e. (Technically it's also females-only, but since we have barely over a page of male dakimakura and only one of those is explicit, it really doesn't make much difference.)

Done dakimakura, held off with mermaids for now, since I'm less sure if there aren't some unexpected problems with the query.

Topless mermaid gets a few false positives, but considering that the pool is far from comprehensive (most of the first page for the search, and its 4 pages, isn't on there), I don't see any reason to keep the pool.

OK, done then.

I missed my chance, but I was going to ask if topless mermaids could be useful if it was made more comprehensive or if working on fixing the tagging would be a better solution.

I don't see what needs to be tweaked.

Fencedude said:
I don't see what needs to be tweaked.

You mentioned false positives in the tagging and that the pool isn't comprehensive.

The pool that not being comprehensive means it had like 10 posts, whereas a simple query returns several times as many qualifying posts. False positives are basically always there, but I agree with Fencedude, there are so few, and the results are only 4 pages total, so it doesn't matter in practice.

Yeah, almost any tag search will bring up a few false positives, as long as they don't overwhelm what you are actually looking for, its not a problem.

Someone should probably check the mermaid posts and make sure the applicable ones have topless on them.

Fencedude said:
Someone should probably check the mermaid posts and make sure the applicable ones have topless on them.

Done.

pool #2721 - Puru-see (seigetu)

Restating this in case it was missed previously. It's just seigetu chibi.

The only thing I'm concerned about is losing the information contained in the pool's description.

葉月 said:
The only thing I'm concerned about is losing the information contained in the pool's description.

I wouldn't be. ぷるぷる shows up in the artist description section of nearly every Puru-see post on Pixiv, so it's not a big logical leap to figuring out it's a portmanteau for anyone who cares, and obviously the Pixpedia article is linked from every post as well.