Flipping through the various "opens" (open_shirt, open_jacket, etc), I noticed that none of the ones I checked are set to imply the garment.

Simply put, should they? I mean, it's hard to have an open jacket if you're not wearing a jacket in the first place.

The list, for easy reference:

• open_jacket
• open_shirt
• open_pants
• open_hoodie
• open_coat
• open_robe
• open_shorts
• open_vest
• open_kimono (or just alias this to open_robe? A kimono is a type of robe, and OK has only 11 entries as of this post)

These only have a small handful of images tagged, but are included for the sake of completeness:

• open_bra
• open_dress
• open_top (seems kinda pointless, with the more specific types of tops)
• open_jumpsuit
• open_suit
• open_diaper
• open_zipper (this one definitely seems pointless, given all of the above)

Sigh. Can't even keep up with all the new tags anymore. We're supposed to be pruning tags to the level where they're manageable again, instead of creating subtags for everything imaginable.

Dunno who started those, but most should be aliased to open_shirt and open_pants. With maybe a new tag, something like open_outerwear, for clothes like jumpsuits, robes and kimonos.

+1 to alias them all to open_clothing.

If someone was looking for open jacket, then searching for open_clothing jacket should be good enough.

For now, implicating these tags to their respective garment tag sounds better than aliasing them away. Open_top and open_bottom may serve as good umbrella tags.

Example implication trees:

Genjar's open_outerwear suggestion sounds like a good idea, albeit as an implicated umbrella tag for robes, kimonos, jumpsuits, etc.

I'm not sure about diaper and bra (open_underwear?), but we can talk about how we'll deal with each specific tag later.

If and when the tag search limit gets increased (for the benefit of our less blacklist-savvy users), these nuanced tags will become even more useful for pinpoint searches.

While I understand the need to consolidate certain tags, these tags differ enough from one another that aliasing them all to one or two tags would be counterproductive to the purpose of tags: narrowing searches.

Delian said:
If someone was looking for open jacket, then searching for open_clothing jacket should be good enough.

This would not work for the following reasons:

I know it wouldn't work in some cases. But the added complexity is not worth the extra tags.

In other words, it's better to have less tags, and have some amount of false positives when searching, rather than having more tags and have these tags be rarely tagged. If open_top jacket gives you 20% false positives, it's still better than having open_jacket where you miss 20% of posts due to missing tag.

The problem of false positives in this case would also be removed once character-based tagging is implemented. Where you'll be able to search for (open_top jacket) to indicate that both tags should appear on the same character.

So I'll remain in favour of aliasing the tags away. Anyway, as for umbrella tags, I'm ok with having either open_top + open_bottom, or open_clothing. But I don't think we need all three.

+1 open_top and open_bottom. I've been using open_shirt and open_pants but this is more general.

imagoober said:
open_kimono (or just alias this to open_robe? A kimono is a type of robe, and OK has only 11 entries as of this post)

Some of those aren't even kimonos. Which demonstrates an another innate problem with overly specific tagging.

leomole said:
+1 open_top and open_bottom. I've been using open_shirt and open_pants but this is more general.

Yeah, plus one for open_top and open_bottom. Or open_topwear and open_bottomwear. Those would make the usage clearer.

I'd actually prefer going with topwear/bottomwear, if the open garment tags are to be consolidated, for the reason Genjar notes. I'm kinda ambiguous about whether that consolidation is a good idea, but I can see the benefits of going that way.

(Though I snicker a bit at the mental image of vore enthusiasts trying to apply top/bottom versions to the relevant images.)