Implicating hyper_penis → huge_penis
Link to implication

Reason:

Hyper_breasts appear to implicate huge_breasts, but the penis side does not seem to match.

I could explain why this is not a good idea but I'd just be repeating myself so instead, I'm gonna sit back and do nothing while you guys break and bloat yet another tag.

Consistency is good, but I dislike how hyper/huge/big is handled with breasts. At the very least, while huge/big has some blurry territory, but 'hyper' is... pretty specific.

And again i dont get why the other chains that are used as reasoning here are still not disconnected so these chain requests dont keep popping up...

-1
Hyper tags should not be mixed with more realistic sizes. Chaining the breast sizes was one of the worst decisions made, and the implications should be removed.

yeah I'll take some of the blame for that. Everyone at the time really liked the idea except for one guy (who was probably right) who was abrasive as hell, and couldn't 'get' a basic part of the whole thing and kept arguing about THAT part and... well, it was messy and he was the type (like me) who could argue with a brick wall.

The rest of the blame? I dunno. I"ll blame Riversyde since he's not here. Obviously, it didn't work out as we'd hoped at the time :(

I feel really bad about that.

I wish fixing that was a tagging project I was capable of doing--unfortunatly, I'm REALLY bad at comparing things like size.. :/

I like the chaining because it allows blacklisting all "bigger than average" tits with one single tag instead of having to blacklist every single titty tag from big to hyper. Though this could be also done by creating some sort of "bigger than average" blanket tags.

Commander_Eggplant said:
I like the chaining because it allows blacklisting all "bigger than average" tits with one single tag instead of having to blacklist every single titty tag from big to hyper. Though this could be also done by creating some sort of "bigger than average" blanket tags.

I mean, tbh small_breasts is pretty much what you'd want in that case. (Though that tag seriously needs some maintenance, there's a LOT of untagged young pics. :|)

regsmutt said:
I mean, tbh small_breasts is pretty much what you'd want in that case. (Though that tag seriously needs some maintenance, there's a LOT of untagged young pics. :|)

small breasts do not cover average breasts or flat chest.

I still don't get it. Why do you guys oppose something when you can just block it out with huge_penis -hyper_penis?

Furrin_Gok said:
I still don't get it. Why do you guys oppose something when you can just block it out with huge_penis -hyper_penis?

Could just as easily flip that question and ask: what's wrong with searching for ~huge_penis ~hyper_penis if you want to see both?

Anyway, negative searches do not work if there's a mix of sizes. Huge_penis -hyper_penis excludes all multi-character posts that contain a single hyper penis, even if rest of the penises are of the size that the searcher would want to see.

Chaining the sizes is as bad as chaining group -> duo would be. "There's at least two characters in group, so anyone who searches for duo won't mind seeing groups."

Note that wiki entry for big_breasts says 'Breasts that are above average in size, but no bigger than the character's head'. Yet the chain means that it actually gets tagged for all sizes above average, no matter how large.

It's no wonder that the size tags are such a mess: it's hard to tell which size belongs where when multiple sizes are mixed into a single tag.

Big -1 from me for the aforementioned reasons by the users above.