Hi, I was wondering what people's thoughts are about various ambiguous tagging scenarios where tags end up getting tagged by different artists with different ideas of how the tags apply and are extended, etc.

One question that came to my mind was how much an artist's logo should play a role in the tags of an image. If an artist has a character in their logo, should that get fully tagged out with species etc.? Should the artist's signature count as "text" for the various text tags? If an artist for instance has a black wolf silhouette as a part of their monotone black logo, should it be tagged as having black_fur and a black_body, or is their reasonable doubt as to whether it's just an indescript silhouette?

Another issue that came up was regarding the tones of body parts/areas of the body and what applied to the tone, and I do think there's a lot of room to argue a wide range of what should or shouldn't count regarding tone. With the _fur, _scales, _feathers, _skin tags, it is pretty clear that tags are based on the body of the creature and their canonical (at least to the image itself) colorings minus anything that may be over top, but that could be disagreed upon as well and could even be ambiguous in some cases - maybe a character has markings that happen to look "like" make-up or they have a scar in an art-style where it looks like a simple stripe marking in the image. In these instances I think it might be fair to break away from the "Tag What You See" rule a bit using additional information for context since not doing so will result in varied interpretations and make such tagging potentially impractical or ineffective, or even detrimental. I would also argue that "face" and "head" are too similar to be tagged distinctly as the head encompasses the face anyway in a non-distinct way. The eyes are a part of the face, for instance, but we would never think to include them as part of the face colouring rather than their own thing within. In general, as well, I would think being more restrictive in what constitutes tone would be best otherwise we'd easily get into territory where the vast majority of things are multi-colored. Heads would almost always be multicolored if hair, make-up, lips, scars, noses, etc. were to be included and the multicolored tags would be comparable to the monotone tags at this point.

There are however instances where I think tone needs to be clearly defined and also can't be whittled down by tag aliases, namely with eyes. I've been struggling to work out eye tonality and what it means and how it should be tagged, and I think I can propose a decent idea. I think _iris tags should be unaliased to _eyes, for a start, as it will play into the rest of what I'm proposing. Each element of the eye should be taken into consideration, even the pupil, so monotone_eyes should only cover a limited range of eye types such as "dot_eyes" or monotone_eyes, or rare instances in which each element of the eye (sclera/iris/pupil) is the same tone, two_tone_eyes would typically cover certain animal eyes in which the iris is so big you rarely if ever see the sclera or toony eyes which intentionally exclude an element of the eye for style, and multicolored eyes would probably be the most common for anatomically correct humanoid eyes.

As for when a part of the eye anatomy is excluded I think it would be important to devise a system of guidelines for tagging:
-pupils tend to be relatively small and uniform in character and tone
-irises can vary widely in size and detail
-sclera tend to be white, can vary in detail (can have details to give a "bloodshot" or angry look), can be absent if iris encompasses all we can see.

I propose unaliasing the iris to eye tags, and then aliasing away the following
Pupils: dark_pupils black_pupils, monotone_pupils
Irises: monotone_iris
Sclera: light_sclera, monotone_sclera

pupils_only should, imo, only work for maybe cartoony images or dot_eyes where the eyes are represented by black dots etc. for comedic effect or the stuff of the like. If there is a sclera and pupils, it should just be tagged as no_irises. If however these sorts of empty eyes are detailed with elements of a realistic iris (those weird bands, squiggly lighting in the middle and squiggly dark shading on the edges, dark gradient edges etc.) without any pupils, I think a tag for irises_only could be used. sclerae_only could be useful for say comically empty eyes where the components of the eye have left due to shock or dread or what-have-you, and empty_eyes could encompass any eye that lacks two separate distinguishable components from one another.

eye_tattoo is currently being used incorrectly in the majority of cases. Irl, an eye tattoo is artificial colouring of the sclera by injection of ink. As a result, I don't even think eye_tattoo can work as a tag here at all - I'd have to stretch more than a fox on a Saturday night to find a use case for it in which coloured sclera tags wouldn't already do 99.99% of the work that that tag could do. Maybe in art you could have eye tattoos that don't colour the entire sclera, but I have yet to see this in my perusing of the internet.

I know this all sounds like stupid autistic pedantics, but it's already borked as it stands. Eyes get tagged all sorts of inconsistent ways in large amounts to where the only consistent thing is the lack of consistency itself. The elements I have addressed here are commonly inconsistent and as a result the tags are currently pretty useless for the moment.

I wouldn't suggest going as far to imply monotone_eyes for empty eyes since you could technically make gradient empty eyes or stuff of the like - you could have multiple tones without any discernible eye components.

I would also suggest singular-ifying each plural body part tag and tagging sides individually. I would think that two_tone_eyes would be more useful for finding an eye that has two colors rather than two monotone eyes that are distinct from one another, and I think blind_eye should be excluded from heterochromia (plus it's often very easy to determine a blind eye in art from just being a heterochromatic white eye via context clues - eye scar, white pupils, etc.)

This is a big stretch for sure, but I was also thinking looking_at_viewer should imply offscreen_character. It's considered a fourth wall break addressing the viewer, but I think there are at least a considerable portion of cases in which it's a POV scene from the perspective of an off-screen character. It is especially more clear if the character is interacting with or about to interact with the viewer. In addition, I'd like to say that offscreen characters should be entirely offscreen (some posts list mostly_offscreen_characters as offscreen) and that they should not be included in the scene's count - one on-screen character should be tagged as solo, not duo with solo_focus.

There are maybe hundreds of tags that should be reworked and I'm sure there are many obvious ones I've neglected to mention.

If an artist has a character in their logo, should that get fully tagged out with species etc.?

I'd advise against it for the sake of the tags actually being useful. If someone is searching for "wolf", they're not interested in seeing every single picture by a particular artist that happens to use a wolf in their logo.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
One question that came to my mind was how much an artist's logo should play a role in the tags of an image. If an artist has a character in their logo, should that get fully tagged out with species etc.? Should the artist's signature count as "text" for the various text tags? If an artist for instance has a black wolf silhouette as a part of their monotone black logo, should it be tagged as having black_fur and a black_body, or is their reasonable doubt as to whether it's just an indescript silhouette?

I remember asking something like this before, but I don't remember if any consensus was made. There are pros and cons either way you do it.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
There are however instances where I think tone needs to be clearly defined and also can't be whittled down by tag aliases, namely with eyes. I've been struggling to work out eye tonality and what it means and how it should be tagged, and I think I can propose a decent idea. I think _iris tags should be unaliased to _eyes, for a start, as it will play into the rest of what I'm proposing.

I get what you're going for with this, but I'm not sure it'll be workable in practice. To most people, when they think of eye color they're thinking of the iris. But we don't say "they have brown irises", we say "they have brown eyes", and importantly, people will tag and expect to see brown_eyes for that, not brown_irises. Maybe having <color>_eyes alias to <color>_irises, but that feels weird. On the otherhand, the way it is now does make the *_eyes tags confusing, as sometimes referring to the whole eye and othertimes not. Like, two_tone_eyes indicates two tone irises (most eyes are dual- or tri-colored; black pupils, white sclera, and some color iris), while monotone_eyes and glowing_eyes indicates the whole eye (as monotone_irises is one of the least useful tags imaginable). "*_eyes" is the only thing that makes sense to indicate something that applies to the whole eye.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
pupils_only should, imo, only work for maybe cartoony images or dot_eyes where the eyes are represented by black dots etc.

The question that springs to my mind is, how do you discern it being pupils only, and not sclera only or iris only? I think a more neutral term may be desirable (I would've suggested empty_eyes, but I'm not completely sure).

i'llkogyourmaw said:
This is a big stretch for sure, but I was also thinking looking_at_viewer should imply offscreen_character.

I'm not sure looking at viewer inherently means they're looking at an offscreen character. They could just be looking in a direction the image viewpoint happens to be from, without intending there to be a character there. But even ignoring that, it doesn't always work:
post #2786849

i'llkogyourmaw said:
It's considered a fourth wall break addressing the viewer, but I think there are at least a considerable portion of cases in which it's a POV scene from the perspective of an off-screen character. It is especially more clear if the character is interacting with or about to interact with the viewer.

The *_pov and first_person_view tags should only be for when some part of the viewer character is visible. If some part of the viewer character isn't visible, it can easily get ambiguous and subjective as to whether an onscreen character is acknowledging the viewer as an offscreen character. And I see it being heavily misused by people who see themselves as a self-insert-viewer instead of trying to objectively determine if the onscreen character is doing something to an offscreen viewer.

crocogator said:
I'd advise against it for the sake of the tags actually being useful. If someone is searching for "wolf", they're not interested in seeing every single picture by a particular artist that happens to use a wolf in their logo.

On the flip side, if someone doesn't want to see Vault Boy and has it blacklisted, they shouldn't be subjected to posts with Vault Boy clearly visible because an artist has it in their watermark (which they don't have on every picture, so blacklisting the artist isn't a great option).

watsit said:

I'm not sure looking at viewer inherently means they're looking at an offscreen character. They could just be looking in a direction the image viewpoint happens to be from, without intending there to be a character there. But even ignoring that, it doesn't always work:
post #2786849

The *_pov and first_person_view tags should only be for when some part of the viewer character is visible. If some part of the viewer character isn't visible, it can easily get ambiguous and subjective as to whether an onscreen character is acknowledging the viewer as an offscreen character. And I see it being heavily misused by people who see themselves as a self-insert-viewer instead of trying to objectively determine if the onscreen character is doing something to an offscreen viewer.

I suppose there is an issue with this suggestion. I was thinking there is ambiguity as well - in The Office, for instance, it is a fourth-wall break. Characters make eye contact with the camera for reaction shots. One could argue that the camera, or the audience is a character in the scene, but it's not exactly the same as there being an actual person there that the character is interacting with in the same scene. One wouldn't say a drawing of a character streaming is a group image, for instance, or is the same as the character interacting in the same way as they would with a character who is physically present in the scene.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
One question that came to my mind was how much an artist's logo should play a role in the tags of an image. If an artist has a character in their logo, should that get fully tagged out with species etc.? Should the artist's signature count as "text" for the various text tags?

I ignore signatures, watermarks, etc if they don't interact with the actual image (distracting_watermark) or if they convey information we already know (artist name). When I started tagging, I did consider tagging detailed watermarks, but they just aren't important. They don't contribute to character count, so they shouldn't contribute any related tags either. Tagging those things will only cause confusion and worsen search results. I gave the picture_in_picture tag its identity (before it got noticed, a wiki, and populated) to mark annoying "multi-layer" posts that can break standard tagging when the different levels are tagged. I don't want to introduce similar situations to our tagging scheme because our tagging is not advanced enough to support that, and normal users wouldn't want that polluting search results.

maybe a character has markings that happen to look "like" make-up or they have a scar in an art-style where it looks like a simple stripe marking in the image. In these instances I think it might be fair to break away from the "Tag What You See" rule a bit using additional information for context since not doing so will result in varied interpretations and make such tagging potentially impractical or ineffective, or even detrimental.

I try to not tag against artist intent anymore if the tricky case is very minor. I used to, but the responsibility of uploading has forced me to confront a lot of tagging situations I avoided and reassess others that weren't agreeable. I still won't tag whatever the intent is if I think the art doesn't present a somewhat convincing depiction of that thing, but I've largely stopped tagging alternative interpretations to minor cases of poorly represented intent.

We know the userbase isn't clever enough to figure out why posts are tagged "strangely" (and random users are likely to remove such tags), nor are 99.99% of taggers likely to figure out the alternative tagging logic quickly, so... what is really being accomplished by being technically right? Also, those cases are usually very close between intent and appearance (40% represented intent vs 60% actual appearance), meaning interpretation in favor of either case was weak and that thing is simply a poor representation of either tag, begging the question of search relevance. We don't have to tag anything non-vital if the artist did a poor job with it, and not tagging those things might be the least evil.

I would also argue that "face" and "head" are too similar to be tagged distinctly as the head encompasses the face anyway in a non-distinct way.

After making such a broad statement you go on to talk about color tags, but this isn't really correct. When I do have to choose between head or face tags--usually a grab/hold/touch--I just ask if the taggable thing is done to the face. If yes, then only use face tags. If not, then it was still done to the head. I do avoid redundant head tags when using a face tag.

In general, as well, I would think being more restrictive in what constitutes tone would be best otherwise we'd easily get into territory where the vast majority of things are multi-colored. Heads would almost always be multicolored if hair, make-up, lips, scars, noses, etc. were to be included and the multicolored tags would be comparable to the monotone tags at this point.

I strongly advise against attempts to set up tagging rules that require users to read wikis to figure out. If the rule is not guessable, then it's bad. If the tag requires the rule to function, then the tag is bad. Wikis are good for clarifying what a tag would seem to suggest from just reading the tag's name, but saying "while technically true, don't use the tag for these situations" is a tacit admission that the tag will be mistagged (and is a poor idea). Pissing into the wind. Instead, orient your tagging efforts around the path of least resistance (and maintenance) wherever possible.

There are however instances where I think tone needs to be clearly defined and also can't be whittled down by tag aliases, namely with eyes.

Even though I always tag iris/sclera color, they aren't worth making a big deal of.

I think _iris tags should be unaliased to _eyes, for a start, as it will play into the rest of what I'm proposing.

I might even be in favor of reversing the alias, if only to make it more obvious to taggers when the *eyes tags are incorrect for sclera. Something for the site to choke on for a few days.

As for why eyes -> iris. The sclera is normally white, and the pupil normally black. White and black technically aren't colors (we don't care), but they are the least "color-like" colors anyway. The iris gets different colors most often, so when someone thinks a character has "[color]_eyes" they are probably thinking about the iris--without even knowing what the iris is.

I know this all sounds like stupid autistic pedantics, but it's already borked as it stands.

Maybe like 10 people will read this far. It's hard to talk about this without someone maybe misconstruing it as ableism or whatever, but it's been my observation that pretty much every massively productive tagger has "something" they were born with (autism, OCD, etc) that predisposes them to the task. I've seen a lot of them disclose, eventually, that they have something to that effect. Others show it in their other behaviors and speech patterns. It's not a surprise anymore. We're pretty much all like that. Elephant in the room. Hell if I know what I have.

The crucial thing is maintaining perspective of what's important while harnessing that energy. Most people with that necessary perspective don't have the energy or desire to impart it to those who need it, who are rarely receptive to it anyway (very stubborn, need constant guidance, and are inherently bad it). Admins have a hard time stepping in too because they don't understand all the very niche tag issues caused by bad actors (and exceedingly few people can spot and report such niche tag issues), so such people have been allowed to run roughshod on the site.

I would also suggest singular-ifying each plural body part tag and tagging sides individually.

I'd rather tag asymmetry than break up plural tags where multiple [noun] is expected. I'm very much against anything like tagging left_*/right_*. It does suck that things like narrowed_eyes + one_eye_closed happen. And heterochromia. Maybe heterochromatic_green_eye wouldn't be too offensive.

This is a big stretch for sure, but I was also thinking looking_at_viewer should imply offscreen_character.

The offscreen character needs to interact with the scene in some way to exist in the art, not vice versa. Characters in a scene don't "speak the viewer into existence." The viewer isn't a "character" unless the artist makes them interact with the scene somehow (*_pov). And with no input from the viewer-character, it's impossible to make any positive assertions that they even are characters and not cameras or god.

There are maybe hundreds of tags that should be reworked and I'm sure there are many obvious ones I've neglected to mention.

Shit's fucked. I would say there's exactly one user who's been trying to unfuck mass scale mistagging on the site, but I could probably multiply their workload 10x without looking hard. These problems are unmanageable outside spot corrections (so set up tags smartly in the first place!). People just don't have the capacity for maintaining consistent tagging everywhere, and we are probably the best at it on the Internet. Still, it's much better to spread a user's tagging capacity across many posts, adjusting a few tags on each, than inundating a few posts with unused tags.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
One question that came to my mind was how much an artist's logo should play a role in the tags of an image. If an artist has a character in their logo, should that get fully tagged out with species etc.? Should the artist's signature count as "text" for the various text tags? If an artist for instance has a black wolf silhouette as a part of their monotone black logo, should it be tagged as having black_fur and a black_body, or is their reasonable doubt as to whether it's just an indescript silhouette?

Please no, this is not useful, all it does is water down tags. Just tag it as artist_logo, signature, watermark, or whatever

cloudpie said:
Please no, this is not useful, all it does is water down tags.

Unless the logo contains elements that are worth looking for or blacklisting. E.g. someone's logo containing a cub with their genitals shown, or scat or something. Letting those get through peoples' blacklist on a technicality of it being part of the artist logo doesn't seem right.

watsit said:
Unless the logo contains elements that are worth looking for or blacklisting. E.g. someone's logo containing a cub with their genitals shown, or scat or something. Letting those get through peoples' blacklist on a technicality of it being part of the artist logo doesn't seem right.

Oh, yes I suppose so. I've never seen any logo that includes that though.

*sees wall of text* I guess I'll read it later.

looking_at_viewer could also mean they're just looking at "the camera" we can't assume that the viewpoint that we're seeing is a chatscter's view and not an inanimate object or just totally non-diagetic. there needs to be some actual evidence that another character exists in the, like, universe of the post (dialogue, shadow, etc.) in order for offscreen_character or unseen_character to apply. (which are maybe different tags even though their definitions seem nearly identical)

_{also, just in general for everyone: if you're going to be talking about tag definitions could you please use the wiki link DText formating thing so people don't have to manually look up the definitions of the tags you're talking about.}

Sorry for snarky reply earlier but the formatting didn't exactly help me read it. I read through it, though. Think I'll just reply to later posts that cover the parts of it.

abadbird said:
I try to not tag against artist intent anymore if the tricky case is very minor. I used to, but the responsibility of uploading has forced me to confront a lot of tagging situations I avoided and reassess others that weren't agreeable. I still won't tag whatever the intent is if I think the art doesn't present a somewhat convincing depiction of that thing, but I've largely stopped tagging alternative interpretations to minor cases of poorly represented intent.

We know the userbase isn't clever enough to figure out why posts are tagged "strangely" (and random users are likely to remove such tags), nor are 99.99% of taggers likely to figure out the alternative tagging logic quickly, so... what is really being accomplished by being technically right? Also, those cases are usually very close between intent and appearance (40% represented intent vs 60% actual appearance), meaning interpretation in favor of either case was weak and that thing is simply a poor representation of either tag, begging the question of search relevance. We don't have to tag anything non-vital if the artist did a poor job with it, and not tagging those things might be the least evil.

https://e621.net/posts/3193955 Case in point. I have confidence of around 40-60% for that cervical_penetration tag being valid but would not have tagged it myself. Left it alone since for some people this might be what they wanted.

I strongly advise against attempts to set up tagging rules that require users to read wikis to figure out. If the rule is not guessable, then it's bad. If the tag requires the rule to function, then the tag is bad. Wikis are good for clarifying what a tag would seem to suggest from just reading the tag's name, but saying "while technically true, don't use the tag for these situations" is a tacit admission that the tag will be mistagged (and is a poor idea). Pissing into the wind. Instead, orient your tagging efforts around the path of least resistance (and maintenance) wherever possible.

Yeah, this is why I sooooooo need to create a reference diagram for stuff like eyes. Maybe some visual examples instead of just "LOL, read this stuff that no one does". If it's not intuitive with common use like "green_eyes" meaning the irises, then it will get tagged wrong over and over and over and over.

Even though I always tag iris/sclera color, they aren't worth making a big deal of.

Yeah, if we need an entire flowchart and debugging to tag eyes, something's wrong! XD

I might even be in favor of reversing the alias, if only to make it more obvious to taggers when the *eyes tags are incorrect for sclera. Something for the site to choke on for a few days.

As for why eyes -> iris. The sclera is normally white, and the pupil normally black. White and black technically aren't colors (we don't care), but they are the least "color-like" colors anyway. The iris gets different colors most often, so when someone thinks a character has "[color]_eyes" they are probably thinking about the iris--without even knowing what the iris is.

Maybe like 10 people will read this far. It's hard to talk about this without someone maybe misconstruing it as ableism or whatever, but it's been my observation that pretty much every massively productive tagger has "something" they were born with (autism, OCD, etc) that predisposes them to the task. I've seen a lot of them disclose, eventually, that they have something to that effect. Others show it in their other behaviors and speech patterns. It's not a surprise anymore. We're pretty much all like that. Elephant in the room. Hell if I know what I have.

The crucial thing is maintaining perspective of what's important while harnessing that energy. Most people with that necessary perspective don't have the energy or desire to impart it to those who need it, who are rarely receptive to it anyway (very stubborn, need constant guidance, and are inherently bad it). Admins have a hard time stepping in too because they don't understand all the very niche tag issues caused by bad actors (and exceedingly few people can spot and report such niche tag issues), so such people have been allowed to run roughshod on the site.

I'd rather tag asymmetry than break up plural tags where multiple [noun] is expected. I'm very much against anything like tagging left_*/right_*. It does suck that things like narrowed_eyes + one_eye_closed happen. And heterochromia. Maybe heterochromatic_green_eye wouldn't be too offensive.

The offscreen character needs to interact with the scene in some way to exist in the art, not vice versa. Characters in a scene don't "speak the viewer into existence." The viewer isn't a "character" unless the artist makes them interact with the scene somehow (*_pov). And with no input from the viewer-character, it's impossible to make any positive assertions that they even are characters and not cameras or god.

Shit's fucked. I would say there's exactly one user who's been trying to unfuck mass scale mistagging on the site, but I could probably multiply their workload 10x without looking hard. These problems are unmanageable outside spot corrections (so set up tags smartly in the first place!). People just don't have the capacity for maintaining consistent tagging everywhere, and we are probably the best at it on the Internet. Still, it's much better to spread a user's tagging capacity across many posts, adjusting a few tags on each, than inundating a few posts with unused tags.

I try to use the OR/AND thinking, I guess. If I'm wanting to exclude something in a search, then I definitely want (likely) blacklisted tags working in AND mode. If I'm tagging a color that is both almost white and blue, then I want to make sure searches for either light OR blue (Or both, non-exclusive) show up. TBF, I grew up with search engines that were designed around that method. We're not really using "touch face" to imply "touch head" so not sure where the head/face problem is. Maybe OP should provide examples?

Some people with high levels of confidence are paradoxically very bad at evaluating their own confidence. Like, today, I had to step back and notice I was likely jumping the gun on the showing_teeth situation. I might end up undoing a lot of that. :( The niche tag thing reminds me of having to replace all the *_electrode tags that were incorrectly specific to the type based on use when in fact, some types can be used for multiple purposes. Hopefully, the electrode_* tags aren't too fuxored now! There is probably all of 5 people on the site that even look them up? (joke)

cloudpie said:
Oh, yes I suppose so. I've never seen any logo that includes that though.

Yeah, common sense there. Hopefully someone with even a little bit of brains would know to tag objectionable tags regardless while uploading. Sadly, I have to prepare to be disappointed, and then get surprised? Hehe.

darryus said:
looking_at_viewer could also mean they're just looking at "the camera" we can't assume that the viewpoint that we're seeing is a chatscter's view and not an inanimate object or just totally non-diagetic. there needs to be some actual evidence that another character exists in the, like, universe of the post (dialogue, shadow, etc.) in order for offscreen_character or unseen_character to apply. (which are maybe different tags even though their definitions seem nearly identical)

_{also, just in general for everyone: if you're going to be talking about tag definitions could you please use the wiki link DText formating thing so people don't have to manually look up the definitions of the tags you're talking about.}

Yeah, I try to, at least once. It's like Wikipedia - at least the first or notable instances where a reader is likely to want to be able to just click. It's a one-time effort that makes your own life easier when revising at topic. Win-win, usability for everyone!

alphamule said:

Yeah, common sense there. Hopefully someone with even a little bit of brains would know to tag objectionable tags regardless while uploading. Sadly, I have to prepare to be disappointed, and then get surprised? Hehe.

Yeah, I try to, at least once. It's like Wikipedia - at least the first or notable instances where a reader is likely to want to be able to just click. It's a one-time effort that makes your own life easier when revising at topic. Win-win, usability for everyone!

I feel like most posts I see on the main page (recent) lack some of the most fundamental tags - There are so many pics with genitalia without the genitalia tagged. Sometimes people will just tag artist, characters, gender, and then call it a day. Any post imo should at least tag contentious content, visible genitalia, sexual fluids, and sexual acts, but a lot don't even bother with that.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
I feel like most posts I see on the main page (recent) lack some of the most fundamental tags - There are so many pics with genitalia without the genitalia tagged. Sometimes people will just tag artist, characters, gender, and then call it a day. Any post imo should at least tag contentious content, visible genitalia, sexual fluids, and sexual acts, but a lot don't even bother with that.

I'll admit that I did a 'lot' but not 'extensive' number of applicable tags on my recent uploads. I still haven't added positions and some other things that I have to research to be sure of the correct name. I often go back through in those cases when rested so I can focus. Not everyone tags types of tags equally, either. Some will not do eye colors but pick up on sex positions or something?