So one frustrating thing that has become all to common is the concept of a fully swollen knot to be crammed inside of the partner, as opposed to the actual manner of having it swell up inside of them.

For those of us trying to find said swelling-up knotting, I propose the tag "true knotting". Would this be acceptable or will it just be deleted and "knotting" will be forcefully applied instead, making such images vanish into obscurity again?

That's true, having a tag for "true knotting" would be nice, but I fear that it may ultimately go unused/underused since you will need to see the knot in the progress of swelling which doesn't really show up in posts that often (at least for me).

Also, there is a underused tag for "false knotting"s, see inaccurate_knotting.

Good concept, not sure about the name. Not that I have better ideas for it.

It'd be more likely to catch on than inaccurate_knotting, since that one covers... well, vast majority of knotting. Would be simpler to tag the 'accurate' ones instead.

An internal_knotting tag or something might clarify usage and be value-neutral, but I could see it being confusing as well ("isn't all knotting internal!?).

Perhaps something along those lines with a more clear name.

clawdragons said:
An internal_knotting tag or something might clarify usage and be value-neutral, but I could see it being confusing as well ("isn't all knotting internal!?).

Perhaps something along those lines with a more clear name.

Maybe it'd be clearer if the tense was changed, "internally_knotted"? I agree with Genjar that inaccurate_knotting is too broad (might as well alias that to knotting for how common it is).

While I agree with the sentiment, this does feel a bit awkward to have a true_knotting tag to indicate a pre-formed knot wasn't shoved into an orifice. Same for internally_knotted or internal_knotting. Pictures like these:
post #2316979 post #2314676 post #2306724
(and many other examples on the first page alone of knotting results) have no indication of whether the knot was forced in afterward or not. Declaring them true_knotting or some such seems wrong since we don't see how it got to be like that (violating TWYS), and you can't say it's inaccurate_knotting either for the same reason.

Could just be tagged whenever it's apparent, and default to knotting otherwise (similar to ambiguous penetration)

The idea of accurate needs an asterisk attached, because the penis isn't supposed to be fully erect if the knotting was accurate. The knot will start to inflate when the penis becomes erect, not some arbitrary period afterwards. If the swelling is actually visible, you could include the tag knot_swelling, swelling_knot, knot_expansion.

I feel there could be a tag for realistic animal sex. But even that tag would need an asterisk next to it. Hell realistic_knotting sounds like a nice intuitive tag to me.

strikerman said:
Could just be tagged whenever it's apparent, and default to knotting otherwise (similar to ambiguous penetration)

As far as I understand, the point of this thread is to get some way to identify when knotting wasn't the result of an already-swelled knot being pushed into an orifice, as that's not how knotting normally happens. TheGreatWolfgang pointed out the inaccurate_knotting tag could be used to exclude posts with that kind of knotting, except it's woefully under-utilized. If true_knotting or accurate_knotting became a tag but could only be used where the accuracy is visually apparent, it puts us back at square one. Posts like the above, which aren't apparently inaccurate and are fine, would not be found by true_knotting tags, while the knotting -inaccurate_knotting would find them but still be flooded with inaccurate knotting posts.

thevileone said:
The idea of accurate needs an asterisk attached, because the penis isn't supposed to be fully erect if the knotting was accurate. The knot will start to inflate when the penis becomes erect, not some arbitrary period afterwards. If the swelling is actually visible, you could include the tag knot_swelling, swelling_knot, knot_expansion.

I feel there could be a tag for realistic animal sex. But even that tag would need an asterisk next to it. Hell realistic_knotting sounds like a nice intuitive tag to me.

thevileone said:
The idea of accurate needs an asterisk attached, because the penis isn't supposed to be fully erect if the knotting was accurate. The knot will start to inflate when the penis becomes erect, not some arbitrary period afterwards. If the swelling is actually visible, you could include the tag knot_swelling, swelling_knot, knot_expansion.

I feel there could be a tag for realistic animal sex. But even that tag would need an asterisk next to it. Hell realistic_knotting sounds like a nice intuitive tag to me.

The basis here is to show clear indication when a situation indicates that a knot has swollen up inside a partner, as is how it's intended to do. Labeling inaccurate knotting will basically be labeling 99% of all knotting tagged images, hence me choosing to list the ones where it's accurate instead.

IE: the pictures above may qualify for a "tie" but we don't know know if the knotting was accurate. As of this post, I know of three submissions that would qualify for the tag:

post #1283871
post #1901390
post #1786471

I've been thinking about this from different angles.
How about creating a knot_insertion tag for posts that clearly show a knot being inserted? Would be implicated from knot_fucking, and also include content such as post #1579129. Then that, at least, could be blacklisted by those who don't want to see it.

genjar said:
I've been thinking about this from different angles.
How about creating a knot_insertion tag for posts that clearly show a knot being inserted? Would be implicated from knot_fucking, and also include content such as post #1579129. Then that, at least, could be blacklisted by those who don't want to see it.

It seems like it's just another alias to inaccurate_knotting, the naming sounds better but it would cover the majority of knottings.
And it still doesn't address the main issue - having a tag for 'internally swelling' knots.

From the way I see it, there're mainly 3 types of knotting posts:
1) The ones that are already knotted.
2) The ones where a character is entering an already engorged knot into another character.
3) The ones where a character is naturally letting the knot engorge within another character.

Your tag covers posts found in #2, but it doesn't make searching for #3 easier as knotting -knot_insertion would still give you a mixture of #1 and #3.
We need a tag for #3, but the problem everybody here is facing is the proper naming of said tag.

I named three perfectly valid and usable names for knot swelling earlier.

, swelling_knot, knot_expansion

If that is what you want, then all of these terms mean the same thing. It would also include the knot swelling outside of the character too.

For images featuring a swollen knot being inserted, you could use a tag such as knot_insertion like Genjar mentioned, but knot_penetration would be more in line with the current naming conventions and knot_insertion would be aliased with it.

thevileone said:
I named three perfectly valid and usable names for knot swelling earlier.

knot_swelling

, swelling_knot, knot_expansion

If that is what you want, then all of these terms mean the same thing. It would also include the knot swelling outside of the character too.

The problem with these, like you mentioned, is that they apply equally to knots that swell outside the character. So it's not useful for searching for accurate knotting.

For images featuring a swollen knot being inserted, you could use a tag such as knot_insertion like Genjar mentioned, but knot_penetration would be more in line with the current naming conventions and knot_insertion would be aliased with it.

Recent implications have muddled the group, but *_penetration is usually used when * is being penetrated (vaginal, oral, anal, urethral, sex toy, auto for self-penetration, etc), not when * is penetrating. Whereas *_insertion is for something being inserted (food, egg, knot, etc).

genjar said:
The problem with these, like you mentioned, is that they apply equally to knots that swell outside the character. So it's not useful for searching for accurate knotting.

Recent implications have muddled the group, but *_penetration is usually used when * is being penetrated (vaginal, oral, anal, urethral, sex toy, auto for self-penetration, etc), not when * is penetrating. Whereas *_insertion is for something being inserted (food, egg, knot, etc).

So what if the knot is swelling outside of the character. If they are using the knotting tag, those images wouldn't show up unless the knotting is in another panel. If there is knot penetration at that point, then the second tag would cover that.

Penetration is used for both when it has to do with character anatomy. Insertion is exclusively used for objects.

If these tags do not serve what you want, I suggested realistic_knotting as a tag name, which would include all proper internal knot swelling (that could be a tag as well if you really wanted to be specific about it), and all scenes where the characters are already knotted. Or just call it true_knotting and be done with it. Worry about aliasing it to something else later.

thevileone said:
and all scenes where the characters are already knotted.

Why? The furry-standard default is pre-inflation, so why would you default tagging to assume the other possibility?
When there's no indication of how it got there it should just be standard knotting. Though I'm into the idea of a separate tag for the insertion process and outside -> inside sequences, and knotting being purely for post-insertion.