Implicating clothed_gynomorph_nude_gynomorph → clothed_intersex_nude_intersex
Link to implication

Reason:

Several implications are missing for the clothed_*_nude_* set of tags.

The below lists are condensed for brevity and overlap with one another, but overall focuses on the various intersex tags. Many of the tags below are also not currently populated.

Tag Implication:

When these clothed_*_nude_* tags were first added I remember it was argued that it was just the one because it played to a specific fetish. I didn't think that's how things would remain, but it went forward anyway.

And of course it ended up having every permutation like this. Honestly, it seems like massive tag-bloat to me. These tags are way too specific. If we include gynomorph, andromorph, herm, and maleherm, we've got 64 variants of this tag, including the base clothed/nude tag.

It seems kind of ridiculous to me, and it makes things harder to maintain.

Seems to be a simpler solution would be to have clothed_* tags that imply clothed/nude, with the wiki (and implication) making it clear they are only to be used only when an image fits into the clothed/nude fetish. This brings it down from 64 tags to 8, with almost no loss in search functionality (because, for instance, clothed_male male/female would return basically the same results as clothed_male_nude_female does now.

Pretty sure users could figure it out pretty quickly. They managed with the [gender]_on_[form] tags, and I haven't seen many mistags or expansions of use with those. The implication would help make the usage clear pretty fast.

Alternatively, to make it even more clear, the tag could be [[clothed_[gender]_on_nude]].

I'm generally against tag groups that have quadratic growth.

I personally just went through with it so tag implications would apply and have posts properly tagged, I've done similar with other complex tags. It's not necessarily that I approve of them existing, but rather I wanted them to be properly tagged for now until we figure a better solution for them. I'm definitely not against simplifying/reducing them in number.

A format like clothed_[gender]_on_nude doesn't sound like a bad idea, tbh

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
I personally just went through with it so tag implementations would apply and have posts properly tagged, I've done similar with other complex tags. It's not necessarily that I approve of them existing, but rather I wanted them to be properly tagged for now until we figure a better solution for them. I'm definitely not against simplifying/reducing them in number.

A format like clothed_[gender]_on_nude doesn't sound like a bad idea, tbh

I get that. As long as they are in use they should be properly in use, but I'm all in favor of cutting them down to a more manageable level.

Clawdragons said:
I get that. As long as they are in use they should be properly in use, but I'm all in favor of cutting them down to a more manageable level.

Agreed! Just gotta come to some general public agreement on how it should be formatted, really. Your suggestions aren't too bad really, as I can see something like clothed_male having a similar useful purpose that tags like male_penetrated also have.

Aww man, all my hard work has been fur nothing... post #618400

Honestly though, the simplified clothed_[gender] system sounds a whole lot easier to tag and manage than the clothed_[gender]_nude_[gender] system. And I do think that something like clothed_[gender]_on_nude could work even better, since simply keeping those tags as clothed_[gender] could cause some tagging confusions (such as tagging a solo clothed character, or a group of only clothed characters).

However, I think something like clothed_[gender]_with_nude would be better worded, as it merely implies a clothed/nude situation. The wording of clothed_[gender]_on_nude seems to insinuate some degree of promiscuity between the clothed and nude characters.

Additionally, there's the question of what to do with the clothed_[gender]_nude_[gender] tags. Should they be aliased to invalid_tag or to their clothed_[gender] equivalent.

I've personally been against this whole clothed_<gender>_nude_<gender>, it's getting way too big, and we have always often steered away from gender specific tags IIRC.
My personal opinion would be to invalidate all of the tags.

Clawdragons said:
-snip-

I don't like intentionally bloating the tag search limit, but I do see your point. I also think that we should have a [[nude_[gender]_on_clothed]] equivalent.

Chaser said:
I've personally been against this whole clothed_<gender>_nude_<gender>, it's getting way too big, and we have always often steered away from gender specific tags IIRC.
My personal opinion would be to invalidate all of the tags.

While gender specific tags are definitely steered away from normally, we've utilized them for specific descriptor tags (overweight_male, smaller_female, etc.) which I feel this falls under

I don't necessarily think we should invalidate, but I'm all for simplification, something along the line of things like "clothed_female", "nude_ambiguous", etc

I'm generally against increasing the tag load for all images. I would generally be against clothed_female or nude_ambiguous if it would apply to all images, because it would be a massive tag project to manage it for all the images we've got, and would only be effective if highly tagged. That's why my own suggestion was to specifically limit it to images of this type.

I'm not a fan of tags like overweight_male and I think they should be aliased away. Tags like smaller_female are fine because they help define which half of an asymmetrical pairing the user is looking for, rather than just being a combination of two tags for no particular reason.

Combo tags should be used sparingly and only in those cases where there is clearly some distinction that needs to be made that can't be mostly managed by existing search terms. The overweight_male tag fails that criteria, and will return largely the same results as overweight male.

Now, if there were some sort of fat/skinny pairing combination tags, then okay sure, I could see a very limited application of the tag specifically for those images.

This gets into the quadratic growth problem again.

Clawdragons said:

I'm not a fan of tags like overweight_male and I think they should be aliased away. Tags like smaller_female are fine because they help define which half of an asymmetrical pairing the user is looking for, rather than just being a combination of two tags for no particular reason.

Combo tags should be used sparingly and only in those cases where there is clearly some distinction that needs to be made that can't be mostly managed by existing search terms. The overweight_male tag fails that criteria, and will return largely the same results as overweight male.

That's true. However, if you search for multiple tags like overweight male male/female, the false positives start to ramp up rather quickly. Which is why the overweight_male tag exists.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
That's true. However, if you search for multiple tags like overweight male male/female, the false positives start to ramp up rather quickly. Which is why the overweight_male tag exists.

Yeah but that applies for anything.

Say you want to see a female fox. male/female fox is going to have a lot more false positives than male/female female_fox but that doesn't mean the existence of a female_fox tag is justified.

You can take practically any two tags make this argument, but squaring the number of tags we have is a bad idea.

You're looking at this one specific example, not the tens of thousands of other examples that would need to be tagged through millions of posts, and maintained, given aliases, given wikis, and so on. While, of course, plenty of posts are missing the "bare minimum" that I would consider key to basic searching.

I'm not blanket objecting to new tags, but any new set of tags should be able to justify the amount of work they create, and the amount of load on uploaders and other users, and should be feasibly able to be applied to past images such that they actually are useful for searching rather than being undertagged messes, and of particular note, shouldn't be completely arbitrary in what is acceptable and what isn't.

Yes. False positives will happen. But making users go through some false positives when they are looking for something specific is a far, far better solution than putting so much load the users trying to tag images that they collapse under the weight of it all.