I think I'd have the rating pretty much the same no sense in changing a system that works in my opinion... *looks at Microsoft and shakes his head*

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=help&topic=rating

Not the wiki but just for reference on the rating definition. The wiki should always be more up to date than the help section in a few more months.

Still I don't understand what is proposed to be changed. There is a system, so what is the difference. If nothing, then why.

When I search rating:safe I come up with many results I don't consider "Safe for work" at all. I wouldn't even consider browsing it at work, at school, or on a library computer. I think some higher degree of scrutiny is needed but it's hard for me to come up with clear-cut recommendations. The golden rule to me is, if you would feel uncomfortable that someone might see you looking at a picture on a public computer that it should not be deemed safe. Another useful frame of mind is trying to see things the way your mom or a pastor would in terms of acceptability. You wouldn't, like, browse pictures of women in bikinis on a public computer even if they are deemed safe under this site's guidelines.

An irony about the rating system is that even a site like Safebooru isn't "safe" to browse in public. And since it was asked what I would do if this were *my* website, I shall say that I would have Safe ratings in effect only after moderator approval. Users could pick from Questionable or explicit and Questionable would have a check box for consideration for Safe.

Except pastors, please. Any mom wouldn't oppose bikini. Any pastor can oppose anything. I do not know what would happen if a mom was a pastor, but let's assume that it is a contradiction that we can not solve here.

Pastor was a bad example. Should have realized immediately, but I do these things very very late ate night, or rather moderately early in the morning. The conception of pastors I have from my youth doesn't gel as a universal idea of pastors since they can vary tremendously from fire-and-brimstone types to hippie-dippy rasta weed-smoking ones and all stripes in between.

The gist of what I meant, ignoring bad examples, as I'm sure you understood, is that how an image would appear to "normal" people, not familiar with fanart/animation and not decincitized to non-safe images is the proper mindset for rating an image. The bikini shtick is fine, but as has been pointed out by others, they are iffy and many bikini pictures rated Safe definitely are not.

I'd made it with 0 to 1 system (0% to 100%, in vernacular). Where 0 is totally safe and 1 is fully explicit. For convenience, there might be not rated value.

Initial assumption would be done based on the picture tags. Say, the tag `sex` would raise the level to 1, `nude` to 0.5, etc... Hence, treat images as safe with threshold 0.25, explicit from 0.667.

Picked values out of the head, but need to collect some real data prior implementing such system.

It could work fairly well if users would tag their uploads, but there would be cases of false positives.

Well, it is possible to make hybrid system with fallback to human estimation in case of undertaged images. Another use case is to assist in selecting proper rating.