user63: We've talked about this for a while, but we've never done anything about it... so let's do this now. Let's talk about what we should do with image id-requests that can be easily found via reverse image search.
What constitutes as "easily" reverse image searchable? There's various ways of going about it... you can use: Google, Tineye, SauceNao, or iqdb.
I want to propose that if it's explicitly clear on at least the first page of a  Google reverse image search who someone is or what series it's from, it should be marked as off-topic (probably bundled in with our bad id-req reason).
I don't think we should be bothered with these kinds of trivial id-reqs, nor do I think they should take up space on our front page.
What say you community? Should we put the hammer down on these simple image id-reqs?

user63: NO!

(I think we should let them be...)

user63: YES!!

(We don't need them!)

user24: Neither!!

As usual, this poll presents a false dichotomy: Either we add a new off-topic close reason or we do nothing. Neither of these is an optimal solution. 
The best option (as I explained in more detail here) is to realize that the real problem with these questions is that they're all abstract duplicates; it's a volume problem rather than a content problem. This calls for a canonical question and answer and closing future questions as duplicates of that when they're trivially answerable by reverse image search. 
This will allow the remaining non-trivial questions to remain answerable and be easier to follow for both experts and new users than some abstract meta policy that requires one to check several completely different sites to even know if the question is on-topic.

63: <p>We've talked about this for a while, but we've never done anything about it... so let's do this now. Let's talk about what we should do with image id-requests that can be easily found via reverse image search.</p>

<p>What constitutes as "easily" reverse image searchable? There's various ways of going about it... you can use: <a href="https://www.google.com/imghp?sbi=1" rel="nofollow">Google</a>, <a href="http://tineye.com/" rel="nofollow">Tineye</a>, <a href="http://saucenao.com/" rel="nofollow">SauceNao</a>, or <a href="http://iqdb.org/" rel="nofollow">iqdb</a>.</p>

<p>I want to propose that if it's explicitly clear on at least the first page of a  Google reverse image search who someone is or what series it's from, it should be marked as off-topic (probably bundled in with our bad id-req reason).</p>

<p>I don't think we should be bothered with these kinds of trivial id-reqs, nor do I think they should take up space on our front page.</p>

<p>What say you community? Should we put the hammer down on these simple image id-reqs?</p>
 63: <p><strong>NO!</strong></p>

<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/qyre4m.jpg" alt="We better not..."></p>

<p>(I think we should let them be...)</p>
 63: <p><strong>YES!!</strong></p>

<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/p2629m.jpg" alt=" WE CAN!"></p>

<p>(We don't need them!)</p>
 24: <p><strong>Neither!!</strong></p>

<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/znunMm.jpg" alt="Objection"></p>

<p>As usual, this poll presents a false dichotomy: <em>Either</em> we add a new off-topic close reason <em>or</em> we do nothing. Neither of these is an optimal solution. </p>

<p>The best option (as I explained in more detail <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2321">here</a>) is to realize that the <em>real</em> problem with these questions is that they're all abstract duplicates; it's a volume problem rather than a content problem. This calls for a canonical question and answer and closing future questions as duplicates of that when they're trivially answerable by reverse image search. </p>

<p>This will allow the remaining non-trivial questions to remain answerable and be easier to follow for both experts and new users than some abstract meta policy that requires one to check several completely different sites to even know if the question is on-topic.</p>
