Unalias bleeding → blood
Link to alias

Reason

There are many images with blood that don't contain bleeding. Because these two tags are aliased together, there is no easy way to sort the ones with bleeding from the ones without bleeding.

With bleeding:
post #1104719 post #89300 post #1033364 post #22259

Without bleeding:
post #720028 post #493830 post #749336 post #83751

I've considered other possible ways to differentiate them but no solid solutions found. Wounded would only work if the wound is visible and not all wounds bleed. Gore only works if the injuries are bad enough to get the tag, and they often aren't. nosebleed only covers bleeding from the nose, with most other areas not having a tag of their own.

I recommend making the following implications:

• bleeding I-> blood
• nosebleed I-> bleeding
• menstruation I-> bleeding

post #493830
This one actually involves bleeding.

If a flora fauna character is wounded and sap start flowing out of the wound, then we would have a case of "bleeding" technically without blood. Also may exist cases of lava, melted metal, dust, mud, sand, oil, gas, smoke and any other fluid or fluid-like compost behaving like blood. Maybe we need a "uncommon_blood" tag.

O16 said:
post #493830
This one actually involves bleeding.

If a flora fauna character is wounded and sap start flowing out of the wound, then we would have a case of "bleeding" technically without blood. Also may exist cases o lava, melted metal, dust, mud, sand, oil, gas, smoke and any other fluid or fluid-like compost behaving like blood. Maybe we need a "uncommon_blood" tag.

If it's aparent that it performs as that entity's "Blood," we tag it as blood.

By the way,
Link to alias
"Link to alias":/tag_alias?query=bleeding&aliased_to=blood
Link to thread
"Link to thread":/forum/show/144551

O16 said:
post #493830
This one actually involves bleeding.

You can't prove that the bandaged wound is currently bleeding.

Furrin_Gok said:
If it's aparent that it performs as that entity's "Blood," we tag it as blood.

But then you could end up in a situation where the same substance both is and isn't blood at the same image depending on where it is. Blood is blood regardless of where it is or what it's doing, a substitute substance like oil or lava doesn't suddenly become blood just because it's coming out of something.

BlueDingo said:
You can't prove that the bandaged wound is currently bleeding.

By that logic nosebleeds aren't bleeding

+1. Someone may think the "bleeding" tag wuold be basicaly the same as blood + wounded; however, it is perfectly possible for a wound to be internal, in addition many illnesses result in bleeding without any visible wound, (e.g. ebola and dengue). Therefore, a separate tag for bleeding, seems appropriate.

Beanjam said:
By that logic nosebleeds aren't bleeding

I agree, the blood flow don't need to be completely visible to a bleeding be noticeable.

Beanjam said:
By that logic nosebleeds aren't bleeding

I would say that if there's a visible stream or spurt from any hole, natural or otherwise, it counts as bleeding. Blood upon a bandage, though, should not.

Furrin_Gok said:
I would say that if there's a visible stream or spurt from any hole, natural or otherwise, it counts as bleeding. Blood upon a bandage, though, should not.

A blood spot on a cloth/bandage (which is placed over the character's body) presumably was caused by a bleeding, it originated from a wound, this one located directly under the aforementioned cloth/bandage; that presumption valid, unless some element in the image induces the contrary thought.

Furrin_Gok said:
I would say that if there's a visible stream or spurt from any hole, natural or otherwise, it counts as bleeding. Blood upon a bandage, though, should not.

I'm with this. If you can't see the blood coming out, you can't see the bleeding.

O16 said:
A blood spot on a cloth/bandage, which is placed over the character's body, presumably was caused by a bleeding, it originated from a wound, this one located directly under the aforementioned cloth/bandage; unless some element in the image induces the contrary thought.

Tagging blood on a bandage as bleeding because you can't think of any other way the blood got there is like tagging a filled condom as ejaculation because you can't think of any other way the cum got there. There's evidence that it happened earlier but not evidence of it happening now.

The only exception I can think of is if it's an animation or a comic and you can see the bandage becoming more bloodied as time goes on. Then, you can claim the character is bleeding without seeing it directly. In a single still image, you can't make that claim unless blood is also dripping/flowing from it.

BlueDingo said:
Tagging blood on a bandage as bleeding because you can't think of any other way the blood got there is like tagging a filled condom as ejaculation because you can't think of any other way the cum got there. There's evidence that it happened earlier but not evidence of it happening now.

The only exception I can think of is if it's an animation or a comic and you can see the bandage becoming more bloodied as time goes on. Then, you can claim the character is bleeding without seeing it directly. In a single still image, you can't make that claim unless blood is also dripping/flowing from it.

The difference is that ejaculations are spurts by nature and therefore the difference between ejaculation and post-ejaculation is generally very obvious. Bleeding wounds and noses on the other hand are rarely distinguishable from recently bleeding wounds and noses. Also, blood turns brown after it has been exposed to air for a while, so it isn't as if there is no way to visually differentiate between old blood and fresh blood.

That mlp image for instance, looks more like residual blood to me, but there is no objective way to tell the difference.

Beanjam said:
The difference is that ejaculations are spurts by nature and therefore the difference between ejaculation and post-ejaculation is generally very obvious. Bleeding wounds and noses on the other hand are rarely distinguishable from recently bleeding wounds and noses. Also, blood turns brown after it has been exposed to air for a while, so it isn't as if there is no way to visually differentiate between old blood and fresh blood.

That mlp image for instance, looks more like residual blood to me, but there is no objective way to tell the difference.

Sure there is: Blood leaking, blood on surface.
Difference found.

Furrin_Gok said:
Sure there is: Blood leaking, blood on surface.
Difference found.

There is literally no way of telling whether the blood is still leaking or if it just still there because they hadn't cleaned it up yet.

By your logic, someone holding a bloody tissue or napkin over their nose doesn't count as bleeding, which is both absurd and breaking the nosebleed → bleeding implication.

Beanjam said:
There is literally no way of telling whether the blood is still leaking or if it just still there because they hadn't cleaned it up yet.

By your logic, someone holding a bloody tissue or napkin over their nose doesn't count as bleeding, which is both absurd and breaking the nosebleed → bleeding implication.

You keep bringing up nosebleeds, which is just silly. Why would you be actively holding a bloodied tissue to your nose if it wasn't still bleeding? That's obviously an exception to the rule for the most obvious of reasons, and therefore cannot be used as an argument against bandages.
And yes, a bandage over the nose is not included in the nosebleed tag, unless there is visibly blood flowing out still.

Furrin_Gok said:
You keep bringing up nosebleeds, which is just silly. Why would you be actively holding a bloodied tissue to your nose if it wasn't still bleeding? That's obviously an exception to the rule for the most obvious of reasons, and therefore cannot be used as an argument against bandages.
And yes, a bandage over the nose is not included in the nosebleed tag, unless there is visibly blood flowing out still.

Okay, just pretend you didn't see my first point and try to change the subject, I'll just restate it: you have no evidence that the blood on that horned horse-thing's face is any fresher than the blood on that rabbit-dog's bandage.

Beanjam said:
Okay, just pretend you didn't see my first point and try to change the subject, I'll just restate it: you have no evidence that the blood on that horned horse-thing's face is any fresher than the blood on that rabbit-dog's bandage.

Looks like you failed to see one of mine: It's visibly originating from her nostrils. It's safer to assume that blood you can see the hole it's coming out of is fresh, unless it's obviously oxidized.
While I cannot tell if it's fresh, you cannot tell that it's not. That's an impossible, back and forth argument. If somebody else wants to back me or you on our sides, then sure, they can voice their opinions, but trying to argue it is pointless.

Furrin_Gok said:
Looks like you failed to see one of mine: It's visibly originating from her nostrils. It's safer to assume that blood you can see the hole it's coming out of is fresh, unless it's obviously oxidized.
While I cannot tell if it's fresh, you cannot tell that it's not. That's an impossible, back and forth argument. If somebody else wants to back me or you on our sides, then sure, they can voice their opinions, but trying to argue it is pointless.

It's red, so it's fresh. Any more than an hour and it'll be more of a brownish black. Oxidation is a lot quicker than most people think.

kamimatsu said:
It's red, so it's fresh. Any more than an hour and it'll be more of a brownish black. Oxidation is a lot quicker than most people think.

I'd be surprised if I saw an artist on this site draw old blood realistically. I'd also doubt that many people would recognise old blood if it was portrayed realistically, bright red makes it pretty obvious.

JAKXXX3 said:
I'd be surprised if I saw an artist on this site draw old blood realistically. I'd also doubt that many people would recognise old blood if it was portrayed realistically, bright red makes it pretty obvious.

Right, but we're seeing fresh blood, whether it's fresh or not, and we tag what we see.

Honestly the two are similar enough that I say we keep them aliased. We don't need to increase the precision of minor tags that really aren't going to have a big impact on how people search, when we already have such issues with posts being undertagged as it is.

To put it another way, what you guys are arguing is whether or not the meaning is technically the same, but what you should be arguing is whether or not the difference in meaning is substantial enough to warrant complicating the tag system further by introducing that nuance of meaning into it. What benefits are there to the two being separate, and do those benefits outweigh the cost of the burden it puts on our already overtaxed tagging system?

To me, I can't help but see the answer as "no".

Clawdragons said:
Honestly the two are similar enough that I say we keep them aliased.

That would probably for the best if people are going to insist that the only difference is whether or not a fucking bandage is involved.

One question. What about blood that isn't seen on the character, but perhaps in a glass, an IV, or a syringe?

kamimatsu said:
One question. What about blood that isn't seen on the character, but perhaps in a glass, an IV, or a syringe?

That's just blood.

But I wish to make a point: would you tag spilled blood as bleeding, if it was unaliased? Or, would you tag it when an orifice or wound is present? You can have clean injuries (the best example: paper cuts. They stop bleeding real quick, and won't continue unless disturbed), and you can have just blood, say from a cough.

I can't say I see use in unaliasing from blood, unless you *the tagger* know when something is bleeding, VS when there is just blood. It can be safely assumed, but there should be a finite line between assuming and seeing.

Siral_Exan said:
That's just blood.

But I wish to make a point: would you tag spilled blood as bleeding, if it was unaliased? Or, would you tag it when an orifice or wound is present? You can have clean injuries (the best example: paper cuts. They stop bleeding real quick, and won't continue unless disturbed), and you can have just blood, say from a cough.

I can't say I see use in unaliasing from blood, unless you *the tagger* know when something is bleeding, VS when there is just blood. It can be safely assumed, but there should be a finite line between assuming and seeing.

I was thinking of maybe the following:

bleeding I-> blood

The three scenarios mentioned above also involve blood going back into a body, in one case back into he bloodstream. Even considering internal bleeding, that's kind of the opposite.

Siral_Exan said:
would you tag spilled blood as bleeding, if it was unaliased?

No.

Siral_Exan said:
Or, would you tag it when an orifice or wound is present?

Not necessarily. There are times when it is very clear that bleeding is happening even when the wound is hidden.

Siral_Exan said:
I can't say I see use in unaliasing from blood, unless you *the tagger* know when something is bleeding, VS when there is just blood. It can be safely assumed, but there should be a finite line between assuming and seeing.

It's pretty easy to tell when the blood is on the ground or a weapon. When it's on a character, more factors come into play.

PS. It would be nice if blood -bandage -wounded -gore -virgin -nosebleed didn't give me 145 pages of results.

BlueDingo said:
No.

Not necessarily. There are times when it is very clear that bleeding is happening even when the wound is hidden.

It's pretty easy to tell when the blood is on the ground or a weapon. When it's on a character, more factors come into play.

PS. It would be nice if blood -bandage -wounded -gore -virgin -nosebleed didn't give me 145 pages of results.

But now, would it be safe to assume that people, taggers or otherwise, know the difference?

Ultimately, will there be problems in the future if unaliased, between the obvious, assumptions, people who don't know better, and any/all context. Furrin brings up that you shouldn't assume bleeding if you can't see bleeding, others are saying that it is obvious, I'm trying to see if people can arguably see the difference; that might be why it was aliased instead of implicated, people used the tag wrongly and didn't know how bleeding/blood works on TWYS.

Siral_Exan said:
But now, would it be safe to assume that people, taggers or otherwise, know the difference?

Ultimately, will there be problems in the future if unaliased, between the obvious, assumptions, people who don't know better, and any/all context. Furrin brings up that you shouldn't assume bleeding if you can't see bleeding, others are saying that it is obvious, I'm trying to see if people can arguably see the difference; that might be why it was aliased instead of implicated, people used the tag wrongly and didn't know how bleeding/blood works on TWYS.

This is generally how I tell if something's bleeding:

• A visible flow of blood from an orifice or wound. post #1103751 (right horse), post #89300
• Blood flying off a character via methods other than spitting or throwing. post #1103751 (left horse)
• Blood dripping from a bandage. This suggests more blood is being supplied to the bandage than it can possible hold and the excess is dripping off which in turn, suggests bleeding. post #124568 (arms and legs)
• For animations and comics, any instance of a bloodstain on clothing or bandage covering a wound getting larger as time goes on.

Siral_Exan said:
But now, would it be safe to assume that people, taggers or otherwise, know the difference?

Ultimately, will there be problems in the future if unaliased, between the obvious, assumptions, people who don't know better, and any/all context. Furrin brings up that you shouldn't assume bleeding if you can't see bleeding, others are saying that it is obvious, I'm trying to see if people can arguably see the difference; that might be why it was aliased instead of implicated, people used the tag wrongly and didn't know how bleeding/blood works on TWYS.

This is why I suggested implication rather than alias.

kamimatsu said:
This is why I suggested implication rather than alias.

My point is "there has to be a reason why it was aliased in the past. Instead of thinking how it will work or what it wouldn't work with, let's come up with why it was aliased."

Or, let's try to get away from that bandaged wound and come up with practical uses, like what BlueDingo listed.

Siral_Exan said:
My point is "there has to be a reason why it was aliased in the past. Instead of thinking how it will work or what it wouldn't work with, let's come up with why it was aliased."

Or, let's try to get away from that bandaged wound and come up with practical uses, like what BlueDingo listed.

Does it have to be one idea or the other?

kamimatsu said:
Does it have to be one idea or the other?

One can solve the other, and vice versa. Mind, I emphasize "come up". It might be aliased because of flaws, or laziness, one specific user, et cetera. Solutions might come by making lists and defining bleeding, outlining uses in a plural sense. One post ain't gonna make the tag's entire point.

Siral_Exan said:
My point is "there has to be a reason why it was aliased in the past. Instead of thinking how it will work or what it wouldn't work with, let's come up with why it was aliased."

Here's the original thread. The opening reason was "One really doesn't function a whole lot differently than the other." and the thread didn't progress much from there.

I feel like it'd fit with other bodily fluid tags- cum vs ejaculation & cumshot, saliva vs drooling, urine vs peeing, etc. The only difference is that with other fluids there's (typically) only one orifice that it'll come from. There's still arguably the same grey area though with the other tags- visible soiled/wet clothing obviously involve urine and/or feces, but won't on it's own show whether or not peeing/pooping is happening. Cum through clothing can be especially ambiguous whether or not ejaculation is currently taking place at the moment depicted. See:
post #949207
post #1125958
post #1096456
post #832171
I don't see why the twys rules for 'bleeding' would be more difficult to figure out than 'ejaculation' in images like those above. I'll note it's a bit inconsistent with wet clothing, but I noticed a lot of maintenance needed there in general (like lots of untagged 'young' characters).

BlueDingo said:
Here's the original thread. The opening reason was "One really doesn't function a whole lot differently than the other." and the thread didn't progress much from there.

That just raises more questions. But like you said; we're making more progress here.

But I didn't bother citing the thread because it wouldn't illuminate the reason. I'm almost tempted to find out who made the alias, that would say more on reasoning.

BlueDingo said:
Here's the original thread. The opening reason was "One really doesn't function a whole lot differently than the other." and the thread didn't progress much from there.

I guess a lot of people assumed it must involve wounds and/or the blood belonging to the subject. As suggested, blood can be going into the body instead. There's also bloodstains on floors or walls with nobody wounded in the room.

Siral_Exan said:
I'm almost tempted to find out who made the alias, that would say more on reasoning.

Very first post.

kamimatsu said:
I guess a lot of people assumed it must involve wounds and/or the blood belonging to the subject. As suggested, blood can be going into the body instead. There's also bloodstains on floors or walls with nobody wounded in the room.

Exactly. The "blood going in" images would likely be covered by injection and intravenous (Not a guarantee, though). We have "blood_on_*" tags for blood simply being on something (very undertagged right now) and some tags for what the blood is doing (eg. blood_splatter). All we need now is bleeding to be taggable so it can be searched/blacklisted just like ejaculation, peeing, etc.