The tag implication #64874 cum -> orgasm has been rejected.

Reason: If the object/noun cum exists within the post the verb orgasm very likely explicitly occured.

I do not wish to apply the orgasm tag to off screen orgasms, exclusively orgasms that occur within the post

I request that all posts with cum retroactively receive the implication of orgasm then the implication script/code is removed so that the minority of posts that do not contain an orgasm occuring can be manually edited to not contain the orgasm tag.

This would require substantially less effort than manually applying orgasm to the cum posts that contain an orgasm

This would be particularly effective for animated posts so the implication could be applied exclusively to animated posts.

The main concern is the ambiguity of the tag of cum yesterday i observed a post which contained an orgasm which did not possess the cum tag because no cum was visible due to the cum being within a female. De facto the cum tag is used as a substitute and/or synonym of an orgasm. Which is inaccurate and searching with the cum tag intending the slang use of "cum" as an orgasm is partially ineffective

EDIT: The tag implication cum -> orgasm (forum #419620) has been rejected by @spe.

[...]the minority of posts that do not contain an orgasm occuring can be manually edited[...]

This would be particularly effective for animated posts so the implication could be applied exclusively to animated posts

Implications can't do that; it would have to be some sort of custom made script. Even if we did this, that's over 30k 14k animations to watch in order to clean up all the mistags that are introduced. That's a lot of work. I don't know of any precedent for knowingly introducing mistags to clean up later, and it doesn't sound like a great idea, especially for such a large project.

crocogator said:
Implications can't do that; it would have to be some sort of custom made script. Even if we did this, that's over 30k animations to watch in order to clean up all the mistags that are introduced. That's a lot of work. I don't know of any precedent for knowingly introducing mistags to clean up later, and it doesn't sound like a great idea, especially for such a large project.

It would be less labor than applying the orgasm tag to almost all of the posts because very little cum posts have orgasm

preposedly said:
It would be less labor than applying the orgasm tag to almost all of the posts because very little cum posts have orgasm

The system literally does not work the way you want it to. There is no way to suggest a tag for inclusion based on the presence of other tags except by automatic implications.

There are
402 pages of "animated cum"
214 pages of "animated cum orgasm"
188 pages of "animated cum -orgasm"
22 pages of "animated -cum orgasm"

Half of the posts that contain the cum tag do not contain an orgasm tag which, with animation, is incredibly improbable that it is accurately tagged. Maybe 10-20 percent of the "cum -orgasm" are accurate as an after sex or presenting post

There's many, many instances where cum is present without any sign of an orgasm.

post #5049721 post #5014400 post #5035744

You may be looking for the cumshot or ejaculation tag, but that's still going to have the same problems CrocoGator mentioned.

lafcadio said:
The system literally does not work the way you want it to. There is no way to suggest a tag for inclusion based on the presence of other tags except by automatic implications.

It would be less labor to apply an automatic implication, disable the automatic implication, then allow the orgasm tag to be removed from posts that do contain cum but no orgasm

faucet said:
There's many, many instances where cum is present without any sign of an orgasm.

post #5049721 post #5014400 post #5035744

You may be looking for the cumshot or ejaculation tag, but that's still going to have the same problems CrocoGator mentioned.

Cumshot or ejaculation are more exclusive than the orgasm tag.

faucet said:
There's many, many instances where cum is present without any sign of an orgasm.

post #5049721 post #5014400 post #5035744

You may be looking for the cumshot or ejaculation tag, but that's still going to have the same problems CrocoGator mentioned.

There are very little instances of cum without orgasm on animated posts

preposedly said:
It would be less labor to apply an automatic implication, disable the automatic implication, then allow the orgasm tag to be removed from posts that do contain cum but no orgasm

slapping on an implication for five minutes and then letting everybody else pick up the slack is an awful idea

lafcadio said:
slapping on an implication for five minutes and then letting everybody else pick up the slack is an awful idea

Theres more slack to pick up in the current condition because the majority of those posts are mistagged.

This is not the proper way to use implications.

Reason: If the object/noun cum exists within the post the verb orgasm very likely explicitly occured.

"Very likely" isn't "Always". So this isn't a implication (as Lafcadio mentioned), but a related tag taggers should be aware of.
post #670880

Even if the majority of cum-tagged posts were missing an approach orgasm tag (which I kinda doubt) cum -orgasm can be used to look for them. With this there would be no way to search for incorrectly applied orgasm tags.

The tag implication cum -> orgasm (forum #419620) has been rejected by @spe.