post #585240

Yesterday I uploaded this, and tagging the thing made me realize that we appear to be missing a penis/vagina/nuts equivalent of the foot_focus tag. A small discussion ensued, someone opted to use the existing crotch_shot instead, but I came to the conclusion that it really isn't the same thing. Perhaps close to the ballpark, but nothing more.

In fact, turns out crotch_shot currently has a few posts rather similar to this one, that almost seem mistagged next to the extremely focused and crotchy pictures (or inserts in a full scene) that are purely about showing the genitals themselves. Those make up 99% of the tag, so I assume that's what it's for.

Not that you can blame anyone for it, since that brings us back to the problem of having no specific tag for a semi- or full-body character shot with the camera closed in on that character's privates. And I think we should, since this is clearly a thing:

post #524188

post #135040

post #556612

See, that's not really the same as:

post #557868

---

So yeah, is this a decent idea according to you? Y'know, instead of me just going ahead without asking.

Consistent with the other tags, unambiguous, and easy to tag?

I'd be okay with this.
...as long as someone writes a wiki entry for this (and crotch_shot), so they won't get confused by users who don't follow the forum.

Yeah, I think it's a good idea. The tag would fit those posts perfectly and it definitely seems like something that people would want to search for. +1

This doesn't seem like a bad idea for a tag. +1

Splendid. And good point about those wikis, I'll see what I can do.

If you don't hear from me in a month, send Parasprite. :|

Jugofthat said:
Splendid. And good point about those wikis, I'll see what I can do.

If you don't hear from me in a month, send Parasprite. :|

Too late. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Feel free to change whatever since it may need some tweaking. I don't use a lot of the *_shot tags so the wording may be a little bit off.

Edit: Oh, I was hoping to get a crotch_focus for just the pussy for a thumbnail. As a visual way of saying "yes it can be for pussy too".

It would also probably be a good idea to stick this tag in a few related wikis, but I'm actually not that sure of where it would go.

You amaze me sometimes, you know that?

Crotch_focus, huh? I quickly changed that to genital_focus when I saw it, but now I'm not sure which of the two is better. :/

Crotch_focus does sound a bit more consistent with crotch_shot, but on the other hand, does it need to be? Perhaps it'll just end up making things more confusing by sounding so similar.

Jugofthat said:
You amaze me sometimes, you know that?

I am the night.

Jugofthat said:
Crotch_focus, huh? I quickly changed that to genital_focus when I saw it, but now I'm not sure which of the two is better. :/

Crotch_focus does sound a bit more consistent with crotch_shot, but on the other hand, does it need to be? Perhaps it'll just end up making things more confusing by sounding so similar.

I kind of agree with this, however I think both will probably get confused with each other either way. I can think of cases where the crotch might be the focus but there are no genitals present where this would probably fit well (such as a bulge in a macro shot). I think using genital* as the tag would leave a hole for posts that don't have genitals explicitly visible, but are clearly the focus.

I almost want to suggest implicating crotch_shot to crotch_focus/genital_focus to help clear things up, but I'm not sure how much that would. Just a thought.

An implication? I don't know... that way you'd end up cramming the crotch_shot index full of pictures that aren't full-on crotch shots (but focus shots), and people looking specifically for those would have to start doing searches like "crotch_shot -genital_focus" to get what they're after. That can't be good, it's certainly not what I intended.

By the by, created a genital_focus wiki entry.

Jugofthat said:
An implication? I don't know... that way you'd end up cramming the crotch_shot index full of pictures that aren't full-on crotch shots (but focus shots), and people looking specifically for those would have to start doing searches like "crotch_shot -genital_focus" to get what they're after. That can't be good, it's certainly not what I intended.

By the by, created a genital_focus wiki entry.

Your entry looks good. I'm going to move everything to there instead.

Oh, right, a few example pics are always a helpful addition indeed. Good call.

You can see I'm sorta new to this. >_>

Also:

I think using genital* as the tag would leave a hole for posts that don't have genitals explicitly visible, but are clearly the focus.

This is true. Damn it, now I'm really not sure anymore.

Jugofthat said:
Oh, right, a few example pics are always a helpful addition indeed. Good call.

You can see I'm sorta new to this. >_>

No worries. Most of the articles don't have them, but for ones like this it's really helpful to be able to have good examples that you can see without having to click on them.

Nice job with this. I'll have to remember to tag this when I come across it I like it a lot.

You guys make so many edits per day, and i'm here with my measly couple uploads and a couple of tags edits.

You guys contribute so much.

parasprite said:
No worries. Most of the articles don't have them, but for ones like this it's really helpful to be able to have good examples that you can see without having to click on them.

Nice job with this. I'll have to remember to tag this when I come across it I like it a lot.

Thankies! Anyway, I'm off to bed, just going to let this simmer for a while, see what the admins think of it. Perhaps it's actually better if we were to implicate genital_focus to crotch_focus and move that new wiki over to it, with a few small alterations to have it include bulges.

Just_Another_Dragon said:
You guys make so many edits per day, and i'm here with my measly couple uploads and a couple of tags edits.

You guys contribute so much.

Aww, but you've been here for what, a month? Over a hundred uploads and 900 tag edits is actually impressive in such a short amount of time. I'd say you're doing perfectly well!

It's more about the quality you've put behind the numbers than just the numbers themselves, anyway. Not that I don't like seeing mine go up.

But hey, it also took me the better part of two years to get to where I am (been here for four, but I mostly just lurked and shitposted at first), so again, what you've accomplished in a month isn't bad at all. It's more than tons of users manage during their whole stay here.

Not sure how this fits in, but we also have pussy_close-up and penis_close-up for this exact thing. I don't think many people know they exist though.

Aw geez, that's... mildly annoying. :/

You're right though, they're the same thing.

I'm probably biased because I got all excited, but It might be worth using the tag still.

For one thing, but penis/pussy_close-up doesn't apply to intersex (herm specifically) very well. I suppose you could use both, but that might not always apply, however I don't know that dumping them in genital_focus would be very appreciated.

On the other hand, genital_focus pussy and genital_focus penis would give you pretty much the same thing and allow for cloaca and slits and potentially pictures like post #688862 and similar could be addressed (though they aren't technically genitals).

• genital_focus
• anus_focus? Occasionally seen but not technically correct (it's not technically genitalia but we still don't have a "genitalia +anus" term we can use so I'm not sure)
• cloaca_focus? I've rarely seen this.
• penis_focus/penis_close-up
• pussy_focus/pussy_close-up

Or

• genital_focus <-alias- penis_close-up, pussy_close-up

The latter I think is...dubious.

Jugofthat said:
Aw geez, that's... mildly annoying. :/

You're right though, they're the same thing.

I know. I felt bad bringing it up because you guys had done a great job and come up with a workable plan. But I have no doubts we can figure something out. And Parasprite has some good points about how there's a lot of cases (cloacas, genital slits, balls, anus, etc) where neither penis_close-up nor pussy_close-up fit but it's clearly the same type of thing. So maybe we need all three of them to cover everything.

parasprite said:
For one thing, but penis/pussy_close-up doesn't apply to intersex (herm specifically) very well. I suppose you could use both, but that might not always apply, however I don't know that dumping them in genital_focus would be very appreciated.

Not sure I agree there, since these aren't really gendered tags and we still tag it normally as pussy and penis when it's a herm, so tagging it pussy_close-up and penis_close-up if it's a herm with the genitals as the focus or closer to the camera, etc should be fine by the same logic. Neither one is implicated to any gender tag, so they're just about the body part itself. And that's probably better that way since there's no reason to limit them further.

parasprite said:
On the other hand, genital_focus pussy and genital_focus penis would give you pretty much the same thing and allow for cloaca and slits and potentially pictures like post #688862 and similar could be addressed (though they aren't technically genitals).

I think the link you meant was post #68862 , but either way this is a good point. The biggest limitation of pussy_close-up and penis_close-up has always been that there wasn't a place to stick the image if the penis or pussy were off screen and it was mainly an anus or balls that was visible. But it always felt like there should be a way to tag those cases as well, just didn't have a tag for those. Plus slits and cloacas, which run into the same problem. So having genital_focus as some kind of umbrella tag for these might be a way to still be able to tag those other ones. It's definitely worth considering.

I should point out that pussy/penis_close-up are really begging to be mixed up with close-up tags (I removed two things that were cutaway close-ups onto a larger pictures), not to mention things that do not belong in any versions of the tags or even in crotch_shot (post #572248, post #516293, post #512232, post #569009). The very presence of "close-up" in the tag causes inappropriate mistagging from close-up, whereas, as pointed out much earlier in the thread, genital_focus meets our need well and connects with tags (foot_focus, solo_focus...) that makes it a lot harder to mistag this than _close-up, which is already ambiguous in the first place if you happen to not know about cutaway.

Perhaps...

• genital_focus
• pussy_focus <-alias- pussy_close-up
• penis_focus <-alias- penis_close-up
• anus_focus - Fancy new tag

Granted as Circeus pointed out already, it will definitely need a bit of a cleaning.

Personally I always found mixed underscores and hyphens in a tag to be really confusing to keep track of, so for going with this route just because of that. >.>

As someone who uses this site mainly for reference, this is a tag I've been wanting for a while

parasprite said:

• genital_focus
• pussy_focus <-alias- pussy_close-up
• penis_focus <-alias- penis_close-up
• anus_focus - Fancy new tag

Those don't seem necessary.
Searching for genital_focus + penis/pussy/anus/balls/cloaca etc works perfectly, so adding subtags seems like extra work for no benefit.

Though the subtags would be easy to add with tag scripting, so it's hardly a big deal.