I just found another oddity in the breast tags. Why is hyper_breasts implicated to huge_breasts and huge_breasts implicated to big_breasts when big, huge and hyper refer to 3 different size groups? This means anything tagged hyper_breasts automatically gets the huge_breasts and big_breasts tags even if they don't apply.

Example:
post #1043196

According to the wiki:
- big_breasts: Pretty big, but still smaller than the bearer's head.
- huge_breasts: Still physically plausible to somewhat unlikely. Equal or exceeds the bearer's head in size.
- hyper_breasts: From too large to physically carry and beyond.

So how can a character's breasts be smaller than their head, equal to or greater than their head, and significantly larger than their head all at the same time? Implicating the tags together results in diluted search results (ie. searching big_breasts always finds big, huge and hyper) and requiring extra effort to find images in one specific category when it should as simple as searching the category you want to get the category you want.

Also, in relation to my previous post, something like this...
post #390318
...satisfies the condition of being smaller than a character's head (ie. big) yet are large enough to be considered huge (or possibly even hyper) if her head was a bit smaller. So which size group should it belong to, big or huge?

Looking through amy_rose images, I found a massive range in what qualifies for the big_breasts tag. Breasts as small as post #873218 and as large as post #390318 both fit the definition despite one being several times larger the size of the other just because her head is so huge. This can potentially happen to any macrocephalic (ie. large headed) character.

I recommend an overhaul on the size definitions to prevent situations like this from happening.