Danbooru

Ratings check thread

Posted under General

Two trails of suspicious fluid leading from her vulva. It isn't unreasonable to think they're pussy juice - in fact, considering the placement of them, I'd say it's not reasonable to think they're anything else.

Just noticed, it seems there has been some kind of rating vandalism again.
rating:s + pussy yeilds over 140 results and rating:q + pussy yeilds over 2700 results...

Looking at the tag history, a lot of them have been changed to S or Q without any update on the history. I remember this happened before, but are these new or is there a new "rating hacker" going around again?

Either that or are we expanding our questionable rating to support vaginas as well? I got used to breasts, but vaginas? D:...

Anyways sorry this is a bit off topic but I wasn't sure making a new thread was appropriate.

Out of around 7 pages of images that were under rating:s pussy search, all but 1 image of the non-deleted posts had had their rating changed by the user bamhammer several months ago. The user was given a -1 to his rating for rating vandalism 3 months ago (but no ban). I went ahead changed all the images under that search that he was involved with back to the rating that was present before his editing.

In most cases his edits were left floating unattributed to anyone, but the rating changes were either left afloat with him as the last editor or they were wrongly attributed to the user who edited after him.

Updated

post #896075

The liquid in the pic looks more like cum than milk to me due to its stick consistency, but there's a carton of milk and some text in the pic which I can't comprehend, so the rating for this might be changed to questionable under this circumstances.

post #902463

Danbooru said:

Rating: Explicit
This post is rating locked.
Post=902463 Date='2011-04-23 04:45' User=葉月 Rating=e

Really? From howto:rate I gather that "Actual intercourse, if portrayed in a restrained and tasteful manner" should be rated Questionable. If this rule applies to post #901447, post #895187 and post #724080, then how does it not apply to post #902463? Letting this stand as a precedent would effectively reinstate the "everything unambiguously sexual is Explicit" policy, in my opinion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 59