Butt grabs don't always prominently show the butt, which should happen for a post to be tagged with butt.

Examples: post #79754 post #432844 post #587315 post #847710

+1. The butt tag is for when it's prominent or featured which isn't always the case with butt_grab.

The tag technically states that it's to be used when a butt is "visible", but +1 because at that point, it's no better than tagging "arm" or "eyes".

-1. Explanation below:

I) The butt wiki states "This tag is used if a butt is visible or, more usually, prominently featured", hence a butt doesn't always needs to be "prominently featured".

II) This removal would cause more harm than good.
Currently it isn't causing mistags; in a few posts the butt isn't prominently featured, but the tagging is still valid (barely). The absence of such implication, however, would result in hundreds of posts missing the 'butt' tag in the future.

III) Some of those examples appear to be mistags by themselves. The first posts shows no grab at all, the character's anatomy even seems to be compatible with this action; the fourth post looks more like a thigh grab.

O16 said:
-1. Explanation below:
[...]

I) Perhaps. I don't feel the butt tag would be as useful if it were tagged any time you can technically see a part of a butt. The butt wiki quote in question is about 7 years old, and recent forum discussion (e.g., forum #230842, forum #234113) seems to lean toward using butt for obvious cases only.

II) Agreed if the butt tag is considered valid in the "barely there" cases. If it does get decided that butt should only be tagged in prominent cases, then leaving the butt tag on the "barely there" posts would be mistagging. And hundreds of posts missing a tag definitely seems to be preferred here over even a few mistags.

III) Eh, I tried to find the best examples I could in a few minutes. If, for example, the hands grabbed higher on the butt in my fourth pic, the problem would still apply.

Regardless of what the wiki says, butt gets tagged for anything where it is at least partially visible. And with nearly 200000 posts, trying to restrict the usage is pretty much a lost cause at this point. It's honestly a pretty pointless tag, because users tend to search for something like presenting_hindquarters, big_butt, or rear_view instead of just butt.

Hence the addition of new tags such as butt_focus, which are actually useful for searches.

engageforth said:
I) Perhaps. I don't feel the butt tag would be as useful if it were tagged any time you can technically see a part of a butt. The butt wiki quote in question is about 7 years old, and recent forum discussion (e.g., forum #230842, forum #234113) seems to lean toward using butt for obvious cases only.

I see.

engageforth said:
II) Agreed if the butt tag is considered valid in the "barely there" cases. If it does get decided that butt should only be tagged in prominent cases, then leaving the butt tag on the "barely there" posts would be mistagging. And hundreds of posts missing a tag definitely seems to be preferred here over even a few mistags.

This doesn't seems to be totally true, though.
Some tags have been aliased during e621 history (including recently) despite of don't being "perfect synonyms", merely close enough. So a little imprecision apparently is something acceptable; also isn't like there was no visible butt in these cases.

Genjar said:
Regardless of what the wiki says, butt gets tagged for anything where it is at least partially visible. And with nearly 200000 posts, trying to restrict the usage is pretty much a lost cause at this point. It's honestly a pretty pointless tag, because users tend to search for something like presenting_hindquarters, big_butt, or rear_view instead of just butt.

Hence the addition of new tags such as butt_focus, which are actually useful for searches.

It doesn't seems that useless to me. The majority (≥ 80%) of the posts within 'butt' already show well visible butts.

Also glutes is a body-part attributed with strong sexual character, in such way that invalidating or even disambiguating the tag would be out of question (in my opinion).