I have a strong feeling that what I'm about to suggest has been suggested at least once before, considering that this site specializes in furry porn. If it hasn't, then I'm surprised no one's thought of it.

We NEEEEEEED to have a set of new tags to imply individuals of a specific gender within a species.

I'm sure many of you have experienced a scenario similar to the following one:
Let's say you decide you're in the mood for some porn of female foxes getting plowed, or maybe female dragons. So you enter "fox" or "dragon" into the search box along with "female".

And whaddaya get?

A mashup of various pictures, half of which feature MALE dragons/foxes plowing another species altogether-- yet those pictures still got into your search because they contained additional characters that were female. Now you have to sift through potentially hundreds of pics looking for the kind of pictures you're looking to get off from.

Blacklisting or filtering out tags in the search DO NOTHING TO REMEDY THIS, because there are no established tags to specify the particular genders of animals within given species.

Therefore, I am suggesting that we implement several new tags and set them to imply a certain species AND a certain gender. Then we can tag them onto the appropriate images to make it easier to find those certain gender/species individuals in a search.

Here are just some of the major tags we can start with (obviously there are far more than this, these are just examples of the major ones that would be implemented):

Vixen => implies "fox" and "female"
Reynard (or tod) => implies "fox" and "male"
Dragoness => implies "dragon" and "female"
Drake (or draig) => implies "dragon" and "male"; can also imply "duck" and "male";
Tomcat (or tom) => implies "cat" and "male"
Puss (or molly) => implies "cat" and "female"
Bitch => implies "dog" and "female"
Stud (or sire) => implies "dog" and "male"
Mare => implies "horse" and "female"
Stallion => implies "horse" and "male"

Doing some research, I've found that many species use the same words to denote males and females of their kind, such as 'hen' and 'cock' (primarily for birds) or 'cow'* 'heifer' and 'bull' (primarily for larger animals, including reptiles like alligators and crocs, as well as marine mammals like seals and sea lions).

*_{'heifer' would have to be used in place of 'cow', obviously, because 'cow' is already a species tag. The word already refers to a female, so it shouldn't be an issue.}

These terms could simply be set to imply 'female' or 'male' based on their respective correlations within different species. They could then be applied where necessary (it should be an easy task to apply a gender-specific name to an image where an individual of the appropriate gender is found), and be added on with the name of a species in the search box when a person searches for them on the site.

(for example, since 'hen' and 'cock' are used to denote males/females of many bird species, you could simply add those terms to appropriate pictures where a male/female owl, chicken, eagle, or other bird was depicted, and then all you would have to do to search that image is enter "owl", "eagle", "chicken", etc. along with either "hen" or "cock" into the search box, depending on which gender of the animal you were looking for.)

A full list of terms applied to males and females of various species can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_names

Please note that this would primarily serve as a way to make the search system capable of more specific searches. At the moment, there's no way to specify a search for images of individuals of a certain species AND gender without filtering out images that contain other species/gender combinations.

Also note that this is not meant to be a perfect suggestion for all species. I'm well aware that not all animal species have designated terms for their male and female members. However, the majority of animals depicted in images on this site DO have designated gender terms that can be applied to them.

We can address the issue of finding ways to identify genders for niche or uncommonly-depicted species (AND SPECIES WITHOUT DESIGNATED GENDER TERMS) on the site in due time. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

One last thing: To anyone who worries that this kind of tag implementation is unfeasible because it would take too long, I AM WILLING TO PERSONALLY IMPLEMENT THE NECESSARY TAGS ON ALL THE PROPER IMAGES ON THE SITE MYSELF IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES. YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO DO A DAMN THING UNLESS YOU WANT TO. But if an admin (Parasprite) gives me the go-ahead for this tag implementation, I will do it all myself, even if it takes me years to get it all put in. Yeah, I'm that committed to this.

That'd be a tremendous retagging activity. I can see the point, but I don't know if there's a proper bilateral tag for each and every species.

You could at least make your searches more accurate with hyphens:

• fox female -male
• dragon female -male

Alternatively:

• fox female -male -interspecies
• fox female -male -interspecies

no no no. we have literally spent past few years trying to get rid of the gendered species tags. also what on earth you are going to do with dickgirls, cuntboys and all that stuff?

It just wouldn't work. Vixen, for example, was constantly tagged for intersex. Not just for females.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
That'd be a tremendous retagging activity. I can see the point, but I don't know if there's a proper bilateral tag for each and every species.

You could at least make your searches more accurate with hyphens:

• fox female -male
• dragon female -male

Alternatively:

• fox female -male -interspecies
• fox female -male -interspecies

That causes just as many problems, though. Filtering out the 'male' tag also filters out any pics of the desired female species in sex with males, which is basically one of the main things people like me are looking for. Filtering terms doesn't help in this case because there's no way to single out only the pics that contain the 'male' or 'female' tag under certain desired parameters (e.g. 'X' species male is having sex with 'Y' species female, or 'X' species female is having sex with any species male).

Mutisija said:
no no no. we have literally spent past few years trying to get rid of the gendered species tags

That's just idiotic. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure we've never even HAD gendered species tags to begin with. And I would know. I've been here way longer than the 'past few years'.

Do me a favor: PLEASE DO NOT start trying to stomp out the suggestion I've made when it would be nothing but beneficial to the search system.

Genjar said:
It just wouldn't work. Vixen, for example, was constantly tagged for intersex. Not just for females.

That's easily resolved by searching for "vixen -intersex", thus showing only results with female foxes, NOT intersex foxes.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
That's just idiotic. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure we've never even HAD gendered species tags to begin with. And I would know. I've been here way longer than the 'past few years'.

Do me a favor: PLEASE DO NOT start trying to stomp out the suggestion I've made when it would be nothing but beneficial to the search system.

we have had gendered species tags but they are now all aliased away. you can see it for example here and here and again, what you are going to do with dickgirls, cuntboys, herms and such? and what we do with species that do not have gendered terms? the reason why im stomping this suggestion is because it just doesnt work and because we have spent years trying to get rid of the mess you want to recreate now.

Mutisija said:
we have had gendered species tags but they are now all aliased away. you can see it for example here and here and again, what you are going to do with dickgirls, cuntboys, herms and such? and what we do with species that do not have gendered terms? the reason why im stomping this suggestion is because it just doesnt work and because we have spent years trying to get rid of the mess you want to recreate now.

You are raising issues that would all be easily resolved by refining one's search terms. (if you want a certain gender of a species but don't want intersex characters included, you just add "-intersex" to your search (e.g. "vixen -intersex" or "stallion -intersex"). Do I really have to explain this to you?)

Alternately, there could simply be a rule that those tags can't be applied to specify intersex members of a species. If intersex members of a species and a designated gender of the same species appear in the same pic, then it would be fine to implement the gender-specific tag on that pic. But pics that only had intersex members of a certain species could not have the gender-specific tags applied to them.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
You are raising issues that would all be easily resolved by refining one's search terms. (if you want a certain gender of a species but don't want intersex characters included, you just add "-intersex" to your search. Do I really have to explain this to you?)

Alternately, there could simply be a rule that those tags can't be applied to specify intersex members of a species. If intersex members of a species and a designated gender of the same species appear in the same pic, then it would be fine to implement the gender-specific tag on that pic. But pics that only had intersex members of a certain species could not have the gender-specific tags applied to them.

you answered only to one question. what about species that do not have gendered terms? also its kinda dumb to create special gendered species tags that apply only to two genders when we got this whole range of gender tags. if we want to do something like gendered species tags, they should be somehow applicable to ALL species and ALL gender tags. not just like 6 species and 2 gender tags. the system you are trying to create is useless if it works only in few cases.

Mutisija said:
you answered only to one question. what about species that do not have gendered terms? also its kinda dumb to create special gendered species tags that apply only to two genders when we got this whole range of gender tags. if we want to do something like gendered species tags, they should be somehow applicable to ALL species and ALL gender tags. not just like 6 species and 2 gender tags. the system you are trying to create is useless if it works only in few cases.

Read the addendums I've made to my original post for the answers to those questions.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
That's just idiotic. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure we've never even HAD gendered species tags to begin with. And I would know. I've been here way longer than the 'past few years'.

Do me a favor: PLEASE DO NOT start trying to stomp out the suggestion I've made when it would be nothing but beneficial to the search system.

Tone it down a bit will you? No need to get so worked up over your idea being questioned. Mutisija knows what they (I do not know their gender) are talking about and is contributing to this topic. Plus, they have been here for over 5 years. This is something of enormous scale, not even mentioning it being erased in the past, so if the idea appears to be leaking, people will bash it.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
Read the addendums I've made to my original post for the answers to those questions.

there is never way to find special gendered terms for every single species and each gender tag. this is exactly the reason why this system wont work like this and this is exactly why the gendered species tags were aliased away. we cant start using a tag system that works only with 1/10000 of the posts. we cant just start using a wide ranged tag system like this that does not even work and just think about the issues later.

As the others have been saying: We've been getting rid of gender-species tags, not adding them. The reason? Something like vixen -intersex would not only cut out intersex foxes, but would also cut out a female fox who was with an intersex partner. Likewise, vixen intersex could get you that intersex partner when you actually wanted the intersex vixen. The gender tags just straight up do not work.

What's more, we already get enough instances of people ignoring Tag What You See and tagging an ambiguous gender or female-in-appearance as "Male" when it should be ambiguous_gender or female. Suddenly, we'll get amibguous dragons tagged as dragoness, while there's no common male or ambiguous term for them.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Tone it down a bit will you? No need to get so worked up over your idea being questioned. Mutisija knows what they (I do not know their gender) are talking about and is contributing to this topic. Plus, they have been here for over 5 years. This is something of enormous scale, not even mentioning it being erased in the past, so if the idea appears to be leaking, people will bash it.

Sorry about that. I didn't intend to come off as being worked up. It's just that I've gradually become more and more fed up with the fact that every time I try to search for pics of female foxes, cats, horses, cows, and dragons, the best parameters I can specify for that search (+female -intersex -male/male, for instance) still require me to sift through countless pictures featuring a male of the species I'm looking for with a female of some other species. Finally I decided that I needed to suggest this idea (which I've been mulling over for quite some time up 'til now).

Mutisija said:
there is never way to find special gendered terms for every single species and each gender tag. this is exactly the reason why this system wont work like this and this is exactly why the gendered species tags were aliased away. we cant start using a tag system that works only with 1/10000 of the posts. we cant just start using a wide ranged tag system like this that does not even work and just think about the issues later.

Let me repeat what I stated in the OP: I never said that this would be a perfect tag system. No tag system on this site ever is. It's simply meant to make it easier to find certain genders within MOST (if not all) species.

Personally, I think that "it wouldn't work for all species, therefore it's not a good idea" is a poor (not to mention overly stringent) excuse for an argument. Just because it may not necessarily work for ALL species on this site doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Like I said in the OP, we'll deal with gender specification for species without gender-specific names in due time.

You think that there is never a way to find special gender-specific terms for every single species? Then we MAKE gender-specific terms ourselves. I'm aware that applying widely-used gender-designation terms like "bull", "heifer", etc. would still cause problems when it comes to pictures featuring two species that both use the same terms for males and females. That's why we do this little thing called SPECIFYING with the tag:

EXAMPLE-
For "bulls" referring to male bovine animals: bull_(bovine)
For "bulls" referring to male reptiles: bull_(reptile)
For "bulls" referring to male marine creatures: bull_(fish)
etc.

If absolutely necessary, those tags can be made even MORE explicit:
Male cows: bull_(cow)
Male alligators: bull_(alligator)
Male sharks: bull_(shark)
Male anteaters: bull_(anteater)

Will implementing tags like this be a long, difficult, and meticulous process? Hell, yes. Will that stop me from doing it myself if necessary? NO. But hopefully, that won't be necessary because there are countless other users on this site who take the time to add proper tags to images.

This idea CAN be implemented-- it just needs to be tweaked and refined to address the various quirks and issues that it may have, such as the ones you've pointed out. If you can have the patience to work through the process of refining this idea (even if it takes a while), then eventually we CAN find a way to make it work.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
Male cows: "bull_(cow)"

Male_(female)? How would that work? I think it'd be better to just use the intersex tag at that point. Cow means "Female," after all.

Furrin_Gok said:
As the others have been saying: We've been getting rid of gender-species tags, not adding them. The reason? Something like vixen -intersex would not only cut out intersex foxes, but would also cut out a female fox who was with an intersex partner. Likewise, vixen intersex could get you that intersex partner when you actually wanted the intersex vixen. The gender tags just straight up do not work.

What's more, we already get enough instances of people ignoring Tag What You See and tagging an ambiguous gender or female-in-appearance as "Male" when it should be ambiguous_gender or female. Suddenly, we'll get ambiguous dragons tagged as dragoness, while there's no common male or ambiguous term for them.

Now you're introducing contradictory scenarios.

If you're looking for female foxes (with or without an intersex partner), you just leave -intersex out of the search and include female. If you're into that sort of thing, you just include intersex AND female in the search.

Plus, if someone doesn't want to see intersex foxes, chances are they probably don't care to see intersex foxes with female fox partners either.

Regarding the issue of people who ignore TWYS, that's why we CORRECT THE MISTAGGED IMAGES when we come across them. People already mistag ambiguous_gender characters with male or female tags all the time--there's no new problem being introduced there. Complaining about mistagged images in the first place is illogical, because you can easily resolve the issue of mistagging on an image by fixing the tags yourself.

If this is a matter of you not wanting to have more mistagged images to deal with, then what you're essentially saying is "these new tags shouldn't be implemented because I want to be lazy", and that is one of the most pitiful arguments a person can make.

Furrin_Gok said:
Male_(female)? How would that work? I think it'd be better to just use the intersex tag at that point. Cow means "Female," after all.

Note what I said in the OP: 'heifer' would have to be used to denote female cows and other female individuals of applicable species, as 'cow' is already a species tag and 'heifer' refers to a female anyways.

You could add "female_only", "male_only" and so on tags

The_Masked_Newfag said:
Note what I said in the OP: 'heifer' would have to be used to denote female cows and other female individuals of applicable species, as 'cow' is already a species tag and 'heifer' refers to a female anyways.

Cow is an invalid tag, actually, it's been aliased to cattle.

The easiest means to handling gender-species tags would be the most direct form: male_dragon ambiguous_dragon female_dragon hermaphrodite_dragon etc.

Furrin_Gok said:
Cow is an invalid tag, actually, it's been aliased to cattle.

The easiest means to handling gender-species tags would be the most direct form: male_dragon ambiguous_dragon female_dragon hermaphrodite_dragon etc.

Then that just makes things easier. All the admins would need to do is remove the "cow = cattle" alias and change it to "cow -> female" as an implication.

xXMAGIKzMushroomXx said:
You could add "female_only", "male_only" and so on tags

But that still cuts out images of the desired female species with male partners, and vice versa.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
Then that just makes things easier. All the admins would need to do is remove the "cow = cattle" alias and change it to "cow -> female" as an implication.

Or we could keep it invalidated and just use female_cattle instead. Tags like male_cow would be aliased to things like male_cattle to prevent confusing tags while allowing people to still tag it that way if that's what their instinctive wording is.

Furrin_Gok said:
Or we could keep it invalidated and just use female_cattle instead. Tags like male_cow would be aliased to things like male_cattle to prevent confusing tags while allowing people to still tag it that way if that's what their instinctive wording is.

That might work. It'd depend on which word is used as a species female identifier. As I said in the OP, there are several animal species that use the word "cow" to denote females (and "bull" to denote males).

Furrin_Gok said:
Cow is an invalid tag, actually, it's been aliased to cattle.

The easiest means to handling gender-species tags would be the most direct form: male_dragon ambiguous_dragon female_dragon hermaphrodite_dragon etc.

That's even better. That'd work great. We'd just apply the "male_", "female_", "herm_", or whatever prefix to the species name and add it to the tags. Although at the very least, terms like "vixen", "dragoness", "stallion", and other commonly used gender-specific animal names would need to be aliased to the appropriate gender-specific tags for people who typed those terms in the search box (or they could just be used to denote those gender-specific species members, and others could just use the [gender]_[species] tags if they don't have unique gender-identifying terms).

There's currently over 5000 species tags.

Even if it were only limited to male_*, female_* and intersex_*, it'd still be far too many new tags. And it'd would double the species count for majority of the images.

post #724262

Male_skunk, female_skunk, female_mouse, female_cat, female_duck, male_dragon, male_coyote, male_dinosaur, male_agumon, female_bunny, male_unknown_species, male_donkey,....

Let's not.

I haven't seen the mentioning of singular or plural tags, such as solo, duo, and group. You can always add those alongside specifying which genders you do and don't want to see.

Genjar said:
There's currently over 5000 species tags.

Even if it were only limited to male_*, female_* and intersex_*, it'd still be far too many new tags. And it'd would double the species count for majority of the images.

post #724262

Male_skunk, female_skunk, female_mouse, female_cat, female_duck, male_dragon, male_coyote, male_dinosaur, male_agumon, female_bunny, male_unknown_species, male_donkey,....

Let's not.

You're assuming that the tags would be automatically classified as 'species' tags. I'm suggesting implementing these as GENERAL tags. Or, if the admins are willing, they could be placed under a whole new subcategory of tags: "Gender".

And like I said to Furrin_Gok, opposing this idea on the grounds that you don't want to have to deal with all the tags that would have to be added, that is essentially arguing that this is a bad idea because you want to be lazy, and that is a BAD argument.

Also, why is everyone acting like this sort of thing would have to be done overnight? This kind of endeavor WILL take at least a month under ideal conditions (i.e. every person who regularly adds appropriate tags to images chips in as much as they can), maybe a few weeks if we're extremely lucky. Most likely, it will take several months to do.

GameManiac said:
I haven't seen the mentioning of singular or plural tags, such as solo, duo, and group. You can always add those alongside specifying which genders you do and don't want to see.

Again, while these do narrow down search results, they still don't help when it comes to searching for all images depicting gender-specific members of a certain species. You still get images depicting individuals that are the right species but the wrong gender partnered with individuals that are the right gender but the wrong species.

The tagging system as it is now does not have an elegant way to make this work. Ideally, posts would be tagged with separate groups per character. For examples:

post #599224

feral male dog houndoom licking_lips
anthro female wolf kaptainkelly all_fours

post #589368

anthro male dog standing nude
anthro female fox kneeling topless

This make searching very easy. It would also require something like 1 million heavily involved retags.

Yes, let's start tagging female canine characters as "Bitch" and watch the outcry of all the character owners.

Also, we invalidated those tags for very good reasons, that they aren't used properly and cause problems.

Implicating character names to species or gender is also not going to happen, ever.

leomole said:
The tagging system as it is now does not have an elegant way to make this work. Ideally, posts would be tagged with separate groups per character. For examples:

post #599224

feral male dog houndoom licking_lips
anthro female wolf kaptainkelly all_fours

post #564225

anthro male fox standing clothed
anthro female zebra kneeling nude

This make searching very easy. It would also require something like 1 million heavily involved retags.

The way I see it, what you're suggesting would be far more complicated than the tagging implementation I'm suggesting. What you're describing would require a complete overhaul of the search system to specify one set of tags for one character in any given image, another set of tags for the second character, and another for every other character in an image.

Some examples of what would turn up for different search results depending on whether certain gender-specific tags applied to female (or male) and intersex or just female (or male).

(this may or may not be necessary/relevant at this point in the discussion; I'm just passing the time by typing whatever I can think of that might help anyone understand my suggestion better)

Example:

If vixen is applied to female AND intersex (dickgirl/herm) foxes...
Search: vixen
Results:
post #817845 post #813329 post #772683 post #754074 post #593862 post #816151 post #807003 post #701771 post #772058 post #770204 post #793162
*Results include
(1) female foxes with male non-fox partners
(2) female foxes with male non-fox partners (mostly) nonsexually
(3) female foxes with intersex fox partners
(4) female foxes with intersex non-fox partners
(5) female foxes with male fox partners
(6) solo female foxes
(7) feminine intersex foxes with intersex non-fox partners
(8) feminine intersex foxes with female non-fox partners
(9) feminine intersex foxes with male non-fox partners
(10) feminine intersex foxes with male fox partners
(11) solo feminine intersex foxes
etc.

If vixen is applied to female foxes ONLY...
Search: vixen
Results:
post #817845 post #813329 post #772683 post #754074 post #593862 post #816151
... then only numbers (1) through (6) come up, as they all contain at least one female fox.

NotMeNotYou said:
Yes, let's start tagging female canine characters as "Bitch" and watch the outcry of all the character owners.

Also, we invalidated those tags for very good reasons, that they aren't used properly and cause problems.

Implicating character names to species or gender is also not going to happen, ever.

I had a feeling someone would bring this up.

In that particular scenario, Furrin_Gok's suggestion could be used, and "female_dog" could be used instead of "bitch".

I've already said that I'm aware of the potential for problems arising from the implementing of these tags. But frankly, I don't see any other solution to the problem I'm trying to address. And it is a MAJOR issue (at least for me; I'm sure many other people on this site find this frustrating to no end as well). Filtering words in the search box or the blacklist DOES NOT HELP.

If someone else can come up with a method of searching that specifically picks out ALL pictures that contain a member of 'X' species that is of 'X' gender, by all means let me hear it. Until then, I'M GOING WITH THE TAG IDEA.

Also, no disrespect NotMeNotYou, but by your own logic, the general 'male', 'female', 'intersex', and 'ambiguous_gender' tags should all be invalidated as well, because they get misused constantly on this site, and cause plenty of problems as it is. And our solution to this has always been to simply go in and correct misapplied tags.

How would this be any different if we implemented gender-specific tags for members of different species? The way I see it, they won't be treated any differently than the existing gender tags.

The fact that species names would be part of the tags would NOT be a significant factor. If you recognize what kind of animal is in a picture, you can easily tag it with a gender-and-species-specific tag-- if you enter the wrong gender in the tag, it's no different than if you tagged the wrong gender in general on the image.

Look, I get it-- with all the herms, girly boys/traps, cuntboys, dickgirls, and other gender-clashing characters that are rampant in furry art, people are bound to incorrectly tag a character's gender quite a few times-- hence the present issue on the site of incorrect gender tags. But if someone is too stupid to recognize a fox as a fox, or a cat as a cat, or a bird as a bird, or whatever, in a picture, then they probably shouldn't even be on this site to begin with. Like I said, the fact that species names would be part of the tags would NOT be a significant factor.

Parasprite, if you see this thread, for the love of taco night

PLEASE weigh in!

You keep implying that people are lazy for not wanting to try to implement this overly-complicated problem-causing tag overhaul, but here's a thought:

Get as close as you can to what you want to find with tags in your search, and then just don't click on thumbnails that look like they don't have what you actually wanted. If I want to see female foxes getting fucked, I can just search "fox female sex" or something and then just manually sort through the thumbnails visually for pics where it looks like the female getting fucked is a fox. It's really, really, really not a big deal and only takes a little extra time to deal with. "Stop being lazy."

The few extra seconds or minutes people might save on their searches under your proposed system are not worth the ongoing and continuous extra workload and headache that it would simultaneously cause taggers and mods, not even including the ridiculous amount of work the initial implementation would be.

Crispix said:
You keep implying that people are lazy for not wanting to try to implement this overly-complicated problem-causing tag overhaul, but here's a thought:

Get as close as you can to what you want to find with tags in your search, and then just don't click on thumbnails that look like they don't have what you actually wanted. If I want to see female foxes getting fucked, I can just search "fox female sex" or something and then just manually sort through the thumbnails visually for pics where it looks like the female getting fucked is a fox. It's really, really, really not a big deal and only takes a little extra time to deal with. "Stop being lazy."

The few extra seconds or minutes people might save on their searches under your proposed system are not worth the ongoing and continuous extra workload and headache that it would simultaneously cause taggers and mods, not even including the ridiculous amount of work the initial implementation would be.

Ehehehe... *eye twitches* ...it's like I'm talking to a f**king wall here...

First of all, this is NOT a problem-causing system, no matter how many times you or someone else says it would be. This would cause no more problems than the current gender-tagging system already does. Nobody's even saying that we have to actively go out and add the proper tags to every image on the site the minute it's implemented. We could just simply add the proper tags to whatever images we happen to look at, and eventually, people will catch on and start doing it themselves, and the whole system will be set up in a number of months, at the most.

Second of all, thumbnails are often deceptive, and often make characters look like they have body parts they don't. I've lost count of all the pictures I clicked on thinking I was seeing a busty anthro girl with sexy legs, until I saw the full image and realized that what I thought was her leg was actually her dick.

Third of all, yes, it IS a big deal, especially when I'm searching through a couple HUNDRED images per page just to find maybe 5 or 6 images that fit what I'm looking for, if even that many. The very reason I'm suggesting this to begin with is because it takes so freaking long just to find the content I'm after among all the images that don't fit what I'm searching for. I wouldn't be suggesting this if it weren't taking me as long as it does to find my desired pictures.

Fourth, and finally, like I already said in the OP, if doing it all on my own is what it takes for the mods to allow this system to be implemented, THEN I WILL DO ALL OF THE TAGGING ALL ON MY OWN, no matter how long it takes me. And yes, I am that desperate for this to be done. All the mods will have to do is set up the tag implications I need, and I'll handle the rest myself. So everyone can stop bitching about how much work this would take.

Let's go at this from the other angle, we do have something planned in the far future to have character specific tags, but not soon and not your system, for a very simply reason: the sheer amount of tags people have to memorize.

We have 7 gender tags and ambiguous_gender, further we have 5268 species tags at the moment, but most of that is probably redundant because overlap, lorespecific names and what have you.
However, let's say 50% of those tags are useful, we now need to make designations for those 2600 tags, for all 8 possible genders (male, female, herm, maleherm, dickgirl, cuntboy, neuter, ambiguous), we are now looking at 20,800 new tags with 2 implications each, so 41,600 implications.

Even if we assume you have 100% determination to get this done, and you make no mistakes with suggesting them, we still face issues of the tag names themselves. Do we go with "normal" names like cow? Or uniform with bovine_female to accept things like bovine_dickgirl?

Personally I would love to have a filter like that where you can make sure that only a specific gender of a specific species shows up, or specific character of a specific gender, but your system is simply nonviable with the sheer amount of work required for the initial setup as well as prolonged upkeep.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
Parasprite, if you see this thread, for the love of taco night

PLEASE weigh in!

> Vixen, bitch, cow, bull

God no. Many species don't have terms for this, those terms are obscure, or they apply to multiple species (doe, hen, etc.). Also, having to remember which term to remove when someone mistags gender would be a pain in the ass, and since intersex would complicate it, we couldn't actually do any implications. Without implications, we'd likely have people tagging "vixen" without tagging gender, which isn't going to work well in the long-term

> male_fox, female_equine, intersex_squirrel

The implications for this would be pretty easy and it's more sensible than the other approach. However, I think they would definitely be too undertagged to be reliable for searching. Also, even though implying gender would be simple, they would be generally annoying to retag when the gender isn't tagged properly* (albeit it would be more straightforward than "vixen"). For instance, if you remove female to add dickgirl, but forget to remove female_fox, it would still end up mistagged as female.

*This is one of the reasons why I'm hesitant to imply any tag to a gender. For instance, knowing to remove pegging when it's mistagged as male is really not very obvious.

Crispix said:
The few extra seconds or minutes people might save on their searches under your proposed system are not worth the ongoing and continuous extra workload and headache that it would simultaneously cause taggers and mods, not even including the ridiculous amount of work the initial implementation would be.

This summarizes my thoughts.

Edit: Also what Nimmy said.

parasprite said:
*This is one of the reasons why I'm hesitant to imply any tag to a gender. For instance, knowing to remove pegging when it's mistagged as male is really not very obvious.

Wait, what?
post #438665 post #682343 post #108960
These look female/female to me.

parasprite said:
> Vixen, bitch, cow, bull

God no. Many species don't have terms for this, those terms are obscure, or they apply to multiple species (doe, hen, etc.). Also, having to remember which term to remove when someone mistags gender would be a pain in the ass, and since intersex would complicate it, we couldn't actually do any implications. Without implications, we'd likely have people tagging "vixen" without tagging gender, which isn't going to work well in the long-term

> male_fox, female_equine, intersex_squirrel

The implications for this would be pretty easy and it's more sensible than the other approach. However, I think they would definitely be too undertagged to be reliable for searching. Also, even though implying gender would be simple, they would be generally annoying to retag when the gender isn't tagged properly* (albeit it would be more straightforward than "vixen"). For instance, if you remove female to add dickgirl, but forget to remove female_fox, it would still end up mistagged as female.

*This is one of the reasons why I'm hesitant to imply any tag to a gender. For instance, knowing to remove pegging when it's mistagged as male is really not very obvious.

This summarizes my thoughts.

Edit: Also what Nimmy said.

... *sigh* ...God f**king dammit...

In that case...

NotMeNotYou said:
(1)
Let's go at this from the other angle, we do have something planned in the far future to have character specific tags, but not soon and not your system, for a very simply reason: the sheer amount of tags people have to memorize.

[...]

(2)
Even if we assume you have 100% determination to get this done, and you make no mistakes with suggesting them, we still face issues of the tag names themselves. Do we go with "normal" names like cow? Or uniform with bovine_female to accept things like bovine_dickgirl?

(3)
Personally I would love to have a filter like that where you can make sure that only a specific gender of a specific species shows up, or specific character of a specific gender, but your system is simply nonviable with the sheer amount of work required for the initial setup as well as prolonged upkeep.

(1) Exactly how far off is this system you say you're planning? Months? Years? Decades? Am I even going to be alive still when it happens? (Not trying to be a smartass here, I'm serious-- I have no clue how long the mod team's to-do list is, or how far down on said list this 'system' is placed, so I would like to know when I can expect to see some kind of system put into effect)

(2) Not that it probably matters at this point (seeing how both you and Parasprite are giving this idea the ax), but isn't that what the forums are here for? Deciding on what tags to use for things like this?

(3) Would it really be necessary to apply genders to ALL the species tags, assuming this system were hypothetically implemented? I was thinking more that it would just be applied to the more global taxonomic family, sub-class, and class tags (fox, dragon, reptile, alligator, dog, cat, snake, rabbit, lizard, bird, yadda yadda yadda), not the super-specific actual 'species' tags (by which I mean tags that specify actual species like border collie, american alligator, red-tailed hawk, apatosaurus, etc.). Also, the most general tags wouldn't need to be remembered when tagging more specific ones if they were implicated by the tags that ARE added (Let me explain this: If you simply tagged an image as "female_reptile", that'd be all there was to it; but if you tagged it "female_alligator", then "female_reptile" would automatically be implied as well).

Please note I'm not trying to keep pushing for this idea at this stage-- you guys have made it clear it won't happen. I'm only asking out of my own curiosity.

Furrin_Gok said:
Wait, what?
post #438665 post #682343 post #108960
These look female/female to me.

Check the definition of pegging: The first two are actually a misuse of the tag BECAUSE they're female/female. Due to the implication of male from pegging there's also now an incorrect male tag on both of them. The third is fine because that's a male between them in the last panel.

I'll go ahead and fix them if someone else hasn't by the time I post this.

edit: Wodahseht got them

Furrin_Gok said:
Wait, what?
post #438665 post #682343 post #108960
These look female/female to me.

That's the problem Parasprite commented on. Pegging is specifically fem w/ dildo pounding a male...

People will remove the male tag and pegging readds it.

(And that last one...the last panel has the male being pegged, so it's accurate.)

The_Masked_Newfag said:
(1) Exactly how far off is this system you say you're planning? Months? Years? Decades? Am I even going to be alive still when it happens? (Not trying to be a smartass here, I'm serious-- I have no clue how long the mod team's to-do list is, or how far down on said list this 'system' is placed, so I would like to know when I can expect to see some kind of system put into effect)

Absolutely no idea, we hope to get a site overhaul this year, but even that isn't fully squared away if it's possible to do, or if system is going to be a part of it at all.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
(2) Not that it probably matters at this point (seeing how both you and Parasprite are giving this idea the ax), but isn't that what the forums are here for? Deciding on what tags to use for things like this?

The problem is that we don't know which tags to use, or how far down we want to go with implications. They would all have drawbacks once they are implemented.

The_Masked_Newfag said:
(3) Would it really be necessary to apply genders to ALL the species tags, assuming this system were hypothetically implemented? I was thinking more that it would just be applied to the more global taxonomic family, sub-class, and class tags (fox, dragon, reptile, alligator, dog, cat, snake, rabbit, lizard, bird, yadda yadda yadda), not the super-specific actual 'species' tags (by which I mean tags that specify actual species like border collie, american alligator, red-tailed hawk, apatosaurus, etc.). Also, the most general tags wouldn't need to be remembered when tagging more specific ones if they were implicated by the tags that ARE added (Let me explain this: If you simply tagged an image as "female_reptile", that'd be all there was to it; but if you tagged it "female_alligator", then "female_reptile" would automatically be implied as well).

Personally I hate nested implications because there is no quick indication what implicates what, and having things like female_alligator & female_reptile on the same image, with both implications to alligator, reptile, female, would offer a lot of room for errors.

We'd very much rather have a way to add tag groups, for example based on characters, where you add tags to a specific character in the image, then go through all characters and have the server "add" the proper tags to the full tag-list. Once the database and site actually are able to handle a system like that we wouldn't require any additional upkeep with implications and aliases at all. (Ignoring the initial start where we'd have to actually make those character tags on a million old posts.)

NotMeNotYou said:
Absolutely no idea, we hope to get a site overhaul this year, but even that isn't fully squared away if it's possible to do, or if system is going to be a part of it at all.

The problem is that we don't know which tags to use, or how far down we want to go with implications. They would all have drawbacks once they are implemented.

Personally I hate nested implications because there is no quick indication what implicates what, and having things like female_alligator & female_reptile on the same image, with both implications to alligator, reptile, female, would offer a lot of room for errors.

We'd very much rather have a way to add tag groups, for example based on characters, where you add tags to a specific character in the image, then go through all characters and have the server "add" the proper tags to the full tag-list. Once the database and site actually are able to handle a system like that we wouldn't require any additional upkeep with implications and aliases at all. (Ignoring the initial start where we'd have to actually make those character tags on a million old posts.)

Dammit... is there any way-- ANY WAY AT ALL-- for us to somehow 'tie' gender tags to respective species tags on an image without creating new tags, then? (I'm grasping at straws here, so don't be surprised if I suggest things that just sound stupid at this point)

I only skimmed this thread.

I remember reading a few times from admins and/or devs that, in an ideal e621, tags could be linked on a per-picture basis, so that a multi-character picture could have, for example, horn linked to dolphin, colby linked to deer, or female linked to tiger, if that were depicted. Likewise, search would have a syntax that permits queries for linked tags, so perhaps male,bear,-muscular. As I recall, such a system would require migrating to a new or redesigned database framework, which would presumably require far more planning and investment than goes into e621's occasional site improvements. Then again, I'm given to believe the recent upgrade was a significant undertaking itself, so perhaps migrating to a database system that's suitable for tag-linking isn't quite as distant as once thought.

The project of linking tags on pre-existing posts would be tremendous and likely never completed, of course.

abadbird said:
The project of linking tags on pre-existing posts would be tremendous and likely never completed, of course.

It definitely wouldn't. Most posts are missing even the basic tags. I've been working on adding the penis tag to relevant posts; on estimate, that's missing from at least third of the posts that should have it. Here's an example: post #56669, which was rated questionable for six years.

I've got about 2% done in a month. And that's just one basic project out of hundreds: for instance, while I've been doing that, the number of posts that are missing all species tags has grown by about 5000. The amount of posts that are lacking the form tags (anthro, feral, humanoid, etc) is at 120000 and growing rapidly. At least half of all posts are missing the background tags. Gender and orientation are missing from vast number of posts. And so on.

Nobody's got time to even keep up with the already existing tags. Starting to tag things per character will only take time away from tagging the basics, and therefore it will make the overall tagging worse.

We could stem the tide of new undertagged posts by changing the upload page to include checkboxes, like one set for anthro/feral/humanoid and another for nude/clothed/partially_clothed and one for solo/duo/group.

Genjar said:
It definitely wouldn't. Most posts are missing even the basic tags. I've been working on adding the penis tag to relevant posts; on estimate, that's missing from at least third of the posts that should have it.

I've got about 2% done in a month. And that's just one basic project out of hundreds: for instance, while I've been doing that, the number of posts that are missing all species tags has grown by about 5000. The amount of posts that are lacking the form tags (anthro, feral, humanoid, etc) is at 120000 and growing rapidly. At least half of all posts are missing the background tags. Gender and orientation are missing from vast number of posts. And so on.

Nobody's got time to even keep up with the already existing tags. Starting to tag things per character will only take time away from tagging the basics, and therefore it will make the overall tagging worse.

Good thing my current tagging project involves species.

leomole said:
We could stem the tide of new undertagged posts by changing the upload page to include checkboxes, like one set for anthro/feral/humanoid and another for nude/clothed/partially_clothed and one for solo/duo/group.

Okay, now THAT could potentially streamline the tagging process to a massive extent. If it were combined with this idea:

abadbird said:
I only skimmed this thread.

I remember reading a few times from admins and/or devs that, in an ideal e621, tags could be linked on a per-picture basis, so that a multi-character picture could have, for example, horn linked to dolphin, colby linked to deer, or female linked to tiger, if that were depicted. Likewise, search would have a syntax that permits queries for linked tags, so perhaps male,bear,-muscular. As I recall, such a system would require migrating to a new or redesigned database framework, which would presumably require far more planning and investment than goes into e621's occasional site improvements. Then again, I'm given to believe the recent upgrade was a significant undertaking itself, so perhaps migrating to a database system that's suitable for tag-linking isn't quite as distant as once thought.

The project of linking tags on pre-existing posts would be tremendous and likely never completed, of course.

...then it could, theoretically, be possible to link gender and species tags. I imagine the tagging page could have some kind of setup for adding species where a collapsible checkbox selection of all the different gender tags would pop up next to a species tag whenever one is entered, and then one could simply check the appropriate gender prefix's checkbox, and it could be automatically appended to the beginning of the species tag.

Obviously, this still would leave the issue of all the pre-existing images on the site that would need to have their tags modified. It might be possible to set it up so that the "Edit Tags" box that opens when we click the "Edit" button on an image could automatically show the aforementioned gender prefix selection as a pop-up simply by clicking on a pre-existing species tag in the tag-editing field... maybe? Possibly?

Got any thoughts on this idea, mods?