Why do huge breasts

Breasts that are above average in size, but no bigger than the character's head.

Implicate big breasts?

Still physically plausible to somewhat unlikely. Equal or exceeds the bearer's head in size.

from the big breast wiki:

The full range of breast sizes can be approximated using the following tiered system. There will always be a few cases that are difficult to place in one category or the other; just do your best to fit them into one or the other. This isn't an exact science, these are just boobies we're talking about here so don't stress about it too much.

Because nobody bothered to fix it for seven years.

I think if you take another look, you'll see you have the definitions backward. Huge breasts are defined as larger than the bearer's head, not vice versa, according to the site's wiki.

As such, the implication is correct. Huge breasts are also large by default.

I'd say it's probably the same reason absurd_res also implies hi_res

ccoyote said:
I think if you take another look, you'll see you have the definitions backward. Huge breasts are defined as larger than the bearer's head, not vice versa, according to the site's wiki.

As such, the implication is correct. Huge breasts are also large by default.

You're correct that I have the definitions backwards. In my view the definitions and the guidance on the wiki both imply that the categories are mutually exclusive (for a single pair of breasts). For example if huge_breasts imply big_breasts despite being defined differently because huge > big then why wouldn't big_breasts imply medium_breasts because big > medium?

tittybitty said:
You're correct that I have the definitions backwards. In my view the definitions and the guidance on the wiki both imply that the categories are mutually exclusive (for a single pair of breasts). For example if huge_breasts imply big_breasts despite being defined differently because huge > big then why wouldn't big_breasts imply medium_breasts because big > medium?

If someone is looking for huge breasts, they probably won't mind seeing big breasts as well.
However, if someone is deliberately searching for big breasts, they would not be expecting to see small breasts in the results.

bitwolfy said:
If someone is looking for huge breasts, they probably won't mind seeing big breasts as well.
However, if someone is deliberately searching for big breasts, they would not be expecting to see small breasts in the results.

That's a good argument against chaining 4 implications together, but not an argument for having the implication in the first place. Huge_breasts doesn't imply big_breasts any more or less than big_breasts implies medium_breasts or medium_breasts implies small_breasts. I suppose we can always search big_breasts -huge_breasts if we want, but that messes with cases with more than one character.

I agree that most people won't care about the distinction, but if no one cared about the distinction we wouldn't need two separate tags to begin with.

(I'll also throw out that hyper breasts implicates huge breasts and therefore also appears next to big_breasts)

tittybitty said:
That's a good argument against chaining 4 implications together, but not an argument for having the implication in the first place. Huge_breasts doesn't imply big_breasts any more or less than big_breasts implies medium_breasts or medium_breasts implies small_breasts.

I disagree; I think there is a greater connection between big breasts and huge breasts, versus medium and small breasts. I spend time tagging huge breasts so that my blacklist will work. An implication chain between large, medium, and small breasts, though, would break blacklisting. I think the current setup makes sense.

tittybitty said:
For example if huge_breasts imply big_breasts despite being defined differently because huge > big then why wouldn't big_breasts imply medium_breasts because big > medium?

Because the medium_breasts tag didn't start getting used until well after those implications were made, for one. And two, there's a difference between huge/big and big/medium. Huge is a sub-category of big; something that is huge is necessarily (really) big. However, something that is big is by definition not medium. Someone who wants to see or not-see big breasts may not care if a particular post classifies them as huge; they're still big, after all. And given the imprecise way they're measured, as we're dealing with hand-drawn images or pre-rendered video without cup measurement capabilities, different people will have different opinions on what crosses the threshold. As the wiki states, "There will always be a few cases that are difficult to place in one category or the other; just do your best to fit them into one or the other. This isn't an exact science, these are just boobies we're talking about here so don't stress about it too much", so not having hard divisions makes sense (FWIW, I was also against the medium_breasts tag for that reason, as it creates a hard division between the big and small tags where the sizes are otherwise interpreted loosely; if people aren't sure it's big enough for big or small enough for small, the size could be left unclassified without saying it's definitely in-between).

watsit said:
Because the medium_breasts tag didn't start getting used until well after those implications were made, for one. ... (FWIW, I was also against the medium_breasts tag for that reason, as it creates a hard division between the big and small tags where the sizes are otherwise interpreted loosely; if people aren't sure it's big enough for big or small enough for small, the size could be left unclassified without saying it's definitely in-between).

That clarifies things somewhat. At one point there were big_breasts and small_breasts tags (obviously mutually exclusive) and hyper_breasts and huge_breasts where (and still are) subcategories of big. That's a workable system and I don't dislike it. However, it doesn't match what's currently in the wiki. The definitions of big_breasts:

Breasts that are above average in size, but no bigger than the character's head.

huge_breasts:

Still physically plausible to somewhat unlikely. Equal or exceeds the bearer's head in size.

and Hyper Breasts:

From too large to physically carry and beyond.

Are mutually exclusive. The currently implications no longer line up with the documentation. If tag implications and history disagree with the wiki I don't know who should "win". I'm just confused by the current state of things.