Aliasing bee_humanoid → humanoid
Link to alias]

Reason:

Bee humanoids are humanoids with bee features.
(oops, meant implication)

Additionally, bee.

It's hip to fuck bees

+1

-1.
insect_humanoid.

Genjar said:
-1.
insect_humanoid.

Fair point, but it should still straight up imply bee.

What about bee_humanoid I-> insect_humanoid?

-1 to bee. I doubt anyone is searching bee to find things that are way more human than bee. They search for bees because they want bees, not humanoids with bee bits.

BlueDingo said:
What about bee_humanoid I-> insect_humanoid?

-1 to bee. I doubt anyone is searching bee to find things that are way more human than bee. They search for bees because they want bees, not humanoids with bee bits.

bat_humanoid
dog_humanoid
tiger_humanoid

all implicated to their animal species

most tags found under animal_humanoid are, only a handful default to the kingdom rather then species.

And the same argument could be applied to anthros as well they usually have a human like torso hands and human head with a small muzzle. People searching for bees might also not want to see human bodied bees none the less they are there.

Advised Implications
bee_humanoid -> insect_humanoid
bee_humanoid -> bee

Ruku said:
bat_humanoid

"He's here."

"Who?"

"The bat_humanoid."

I am with Ruku; not only 'bee_humanoid' should imply 'insect_humanoid', but imply 'bee' as well.
'Bee' is the name given to members of multiple families within the order hymenoptera, what makes it "higher" than subfamilies like caninae. You can even argue if 'dog_humanoid' should imply 'dog' (species) or just 'canine' (subfamily); but say that 'bee_humanoid' shouldn't imply 'bee' (>family) is illogical.

My argument is that none of the animal_humanoid tags should imply animal tags because they are not those animals nor a type of those animals. Like I said, people don't search an animal tag to find something that is up to 98% something else.

See forum #217960 for another discussion about this.

BlueDingo said:
My argument is that none of the animal_humanoid tags should imply animal tags because they are not those animals nor a type of those animals. Like I said, people don't search an animal tag to find something that is up to 98% something else.

See forum #217960 for another discussion about this.

If someone doesn't want to see 'x_humanoid' while searching for 'x', then they can use a simple and easy to type subtraction symbol (-). Promoting such change in the way species implications are made, based on the principle of "people don't want this" without doing an actual opinion search isn't accurate.

O16 said:
If someone doesn't want to see 'x_humanoid' while searching for 'x', then they can use a simple and easy to type subtraction symbol (-). Promoting such change in the way species implications are made, based on the principle of "people don't want this" without doing an actual opinion search isn't accurate.

That's not a practical solution. Would you expect someone to search canine -dog_humanoid -fox_humanoid -wolf_humanoid (and this is assuming we don't create a coyote_humanoid or dingo_humanoid tag later) because they want canines to appear when they search canine? Furthermore, the problem is not animal_humanoid images appearing in the animal search, it's animal_humanoid exclusive images appearing in the animal search when the user didn't search for them.

post #1194824post #1250961post #1185204

Image 1: dog
Image 2: dog + dog_humanoid
Image 3: dog_humanoid

When a user searches dog, the first two should appear and the third one should not. Having dog on ALL dog_humanoid images causes problems.

• You can't search image 2 without image 3 also showing up (dog dog_humanoid finds both.)
• You can't exclude image 3 without also excluding image 2 (dog -dog_humanoid excludes both).
• You can't exclude dogs from a dog humanoid search (dog_humanoid -dog returns nothing. dog_humanoid -feral -anthro sorta works but excludes way more than just dogs.).

If a user searches for something and gets images that don't contain the thing they searched for then something has gone wrong.

BlueDingo said:
That's not a practical solution. Would you expect someone to search canine -dog_humanoid -fox_humanoid -wolf_humanoid (and this is assuming we don't create a coyote_humanoid or dingo_humanoid tag later) because they want canines to appear when they search canine?

No, but this isn't what I said either. I said "x" and "x_humanoid", suiting this to your example would be 'canine - canine_humanoid' and it would work well¹ (after the proper implications be made, of course)

¹ Ok, there would be some imperfections; the same imperfections seen in basically any excludent search.

BlueDingo said:
Furthermore, the problem is not animal_humanoid images appearing in the animal search, it's animal_humanoid exclusive images appearing in the animal search when the user didn't search for them.

Regarding anthropomorphization, we have a clear ladder:

• feral
• semi-anthro
• anthro
• animal_humanoid

If I am not wrong, all those should be tagged with the tag for the animal in question. Since 'humanoid' is simultaneously species and body-type tag, 'animal_humanoid' ended up receiving some "special treatment", therefore having more specific variations.

If a user searches for determined species and does not specify which body-type he/she/it wants to see, then the posts will be shown without specification.

BlueDingo said:
post #1194824post #1176581post #1185204

Image 1: dog
Image 2: dog + dog_humanoid
Image 3: dog_humanoid

When a user searches dog, the first two should appear and the third one should not.

If a user searches for something and gets images that don't contain the thing they searched for then something has gone wrong.

^{The text above was altered (underlined excerpt).}

So you believe a dog humanoid is so anthropomorphized that no longer can be considered a dog, I understood that. But is this the belief of the majorty, or merely yours?

O16 said:
So you believe a dog humanoid is so anthropomorphized that no longer can be considered a dog, I understood that. But is that the belief of the majorty, or merely yours?

I don't believe a dog humanoid is so anthropomorphized that no longer can be considered a dog, I believe a dog humanoid is a humanoid with a few dog features attached to it. Adding dogs' ears and tail to something doesn't suddenly turn it into a dog.

You didn't suggest any solutions to the three search problems. No surprise, considering it's currently impossible.

BlueDingo said:
I don't believe a dog humanoid is so anthropomorphized that no longer can be considered a dog, I believe a dog humanoid is a humanoid with a few dog features attached to it.

Sorry for the misinterpretation (although the concepts are still practically the same).

BlueDingo said:
Adding dogs' ears and tail to something doesn't suddenly turn it into a dog.

This is a question of view point. An anthropomorphized dog technically isn't longer a dog either (dogs are quadruped, haven't thumbs etc).

BlueDingo said:
You didn't suggest any solutions to the three search problems. No surprise, considering it's currently impossible.

• search for dog_humanoid ~anthro ~feral ~semi-anthro.
• blacklist dog_humanoid -anthro -feral -semi-anthro then search for dog.
• #

As I previously said, imperfections like the aforementioned ones tend to happen when doing excludent searches, this isn't an issue specific of searches involving '[species]_humanoid' tags.
This happen due our current impossibility of doing searches like the following:

I) tag_A -~tag_B -~tag_C
II) tag_A -(~tag_B ~tag_C)
III) tag_A -(-tag_B -tag_C tag_D)

Note 1: I = II.
Note 2: III would solve #.

BlueDingo said:
That's not a practical solution. Would you expect someone to search canine -dog_humanoid -fox_humanoid -wolf_humanoid (and this is assuming we don't create a coyote_humanoid or dingo_humanoid tag later) because they want canines to appear when they search canine? Furthermore, the problem is not animal_humanoid images appearing in the animal search, it's animal_humanoid exclusive images appearing in the animal search when the user didn't search for them.

post #1194824post #1176581post #1185204

Image 1: dog
Image 2: dog + dog_humanoid
Image 3: dog_humanoid

When a user searches dog, the first two should appear and the third one should not. Having dog on ALL dog_humanoid images causes problems.

• You can't search image 2 without image 3 also showing up (dog dog_humanoid finds both.)
• You can't exclude image 3 without also excluding image 2 (dog -dog_humanoid excludes both).
• You can't exclude dogs from a dog humanoid search (dog_humanoid -dog returns nothing. dog_humanoid -feral -anthro sorta works but excludes way more than just dogs.).

If a user searches for something and gets images that don't contain the thing they searched for then something has gone wrong.

We could easily start up a humanoid_only tag if you really want to exclude images that don't contain any anthro or feral.
Of course, you could alternatively add anthro or feral to your search.

O16 said:
This is a question of view point. An anthropomorphized dog technically isn't longer a dog either (dogs are quadruped, haven't thumbs etc).

It's a lot closer than something that looks almost human. I'm not going to call something a dog if it looks human.

O16 said:

• search for dog_humanoid ~anthro ~feral ~semi-anthro.
• blacklist dog_humanoid -anthro -feral -semi-anthro then search for dog.
• #

As I previously said, imperfections like the aforementioned tend to happen when doing excludent searches, this isn't an issue specific of searches involving '[species]_humanoid' tags. This happen due our current impossibility of doing searches like the following:

I) tag_A -~tag_B -~tag_C
II) tag_A -(~tag_B ~tag_C)
III) tag_A -(-tag_B -tag_C tag_D)

Note 1: I = II
Note 2: III would solve #.

So basically:

• Needlessy long search for something so simple. Also, image 1 would be excluded by this search.
• Needing to use the blacklist in order to make a search work. Do you expect users to repeatedly add/remove the blacklist term or repeatedly disable the blacklist so it doesn't potentially affect other searches? Also, would you expect them to have an entry for every animal_humanoid tag?
• Reprogramming the way the site handles searches.

Instead of just dropping one implication.

BlueDingo said:
It's a lot closer than something that looks almost human. I'm not going to call something a dog if it looks human.

As I said, this is a question of viewpoint.
You see them as too human, and I don't; but our opinions aren't truly relevant in this case, the opinion of e621 users in general is (it or the opinion of their representatives, a.k.a. janitors and moderators/administrators).

BlueDingo said:
So basically:

• Needlessy long search for something so simple.

I) The kind of post you wanted was specific (showing animal_humanoid, but also other body-types rather than animal_humanoid).; more specificity, more tags needed.

II) the inverse also would be true.
Supposing that I am a user who simply wants to search for a determined animal species regardless the body-type, I would need to add an additional [species]_humanoid tag for each species I am searching for (and a simple search like that one is way more common than the ones you demanded).

BlueDingo said:

• Needing to use the blacklist in order to make a search work.

The reprogrammation also make this simpler (blacklisting wouldn't be necessary).

Note: Any user can modify his/her/its blacklist when he/she/it wants and how many times he/she/it wants.

BlueDingo said:

• Reprogramming the way the site handles searches.

This would benefit the site searching as a whole, also solving similar issues rather than just fixing this one.