The tag implication #32121 looking_back_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer has been approved.

Reason:

EDIT: The tag implication looking_back_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer (forum #292050) has been approved by @Millcore.

This combo tag seems unnecessary, and would need to be tagged for tens of thousands of posts.
+1 for alias instead, looking_at_viewer rear_view works well enough.

This would save me having to add this tag combo to the hundreds of images that contain it.

Are we going to have looking_up_at_viewer, looking_down_at_viewer, looking away_at_viewer, and every other combo? +1 to Genjar's suggestion.

Fair point. I would still argue that looking back at viewer is vastly more recognized as a posing standard than any other direction.

• looking_up, looking_at_viewer 22 pages
• looking_down, looking_at_viewer 39 pages
• looking_aside, looking_at_viewer 39 pages
• looking_back, looking_at_viewer 750+ pages

Also rear view may not be an adequate alternative.

• looking_back, looking_at_viewer rear_view 270 pages
• looking_back, looking_at_viewer -rear_view 509 pages
• looking_back, rear_view 411 pages
• looking_back, -rear_view 750+ pages

Hell, adding solo to the looking back, and at viewer combo returns 226 pages with rear_view and 386 pages with -rear_view.

But it would take a very long time to fill this tag for it to be useful though. If it is aliased, then there is no chance for it to be useful and anyone searching for it gets sent to looking_at_viewer which would contain lots of images they did not want to see.

genjar said:
This combo tag seems unnecessary, and would need to be tagged for tens of thousands of posts.
+1 for alias instead, looking_at_viewer rear_view works well enough.

Same. I realized that would be the superior approach after submitting the implication request.

The tag implication looking_back_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer (forum #292050) has been approved by @Millcore.