So... I was looking and noticed that some of the tags I'm putting on things are being aliased away. Normally, that's great. But I do have to wonder about the *_fur aliases..

For example... right now, If I tag "white_fur purple_fur blue_fur" on a picture, it will alias it to "white purple blue"

This is... okay, I guess. But I'd rather see the tags as blue_fur, black)fur etc. That way 'blue' and similar can be used for other images where they might be more appropriate: sketches drawn in blue ( post #110507 ) , images where a prominent shading color is blue ( post #8629 ), images with an over all blue coloration ( post #8266 ) or posts where a primary color in the image is blue ( post #2499 ).

Further, blue_fur is more 'descriptive'.. we use blue_hair, blue_skin, blue_eyes, blue_pussy, blue_nose, blue_penis, blue_tongue, and Blue_nipples... why the hell aren't we using blue_fur?

I'm all for changing some of the more 'flowery' coloring words down to basics colors (amber, is yellow, gold is yellow, silver is gray, etc), but... just because we're a furry website, I don't think we can 'omit' the 'fur' :P

thoughts?

(thanks mysterious double-post remover!)

I'd have to agree. The tags should make it easier to search for something specific instead of making the searches vague and filled with unrelated pictures.

Agreed.

What about scales or feathers? Would you segregate them?

... Stuff.

I'm not sure that the separateblue_skin and such are even a good idea -- the others are all branched off as specific body parts (with common, or even expected color change on them compared to the character's dominant color{s}), whereas roughly the same function is served by 'blue skin', 'blue fur', 'blue scales', 'blue feathers', and whatever else you could think to branch from there.

Further, the primary contents of this site being essentially fantasy, well... Shit can get weird. Would a picture of an oddly-colored ent merit a 'blue bark' tag? What about some undead thing that doesn't even have skin? 'Blue muscle tissues'?

Basically, I'd say that whether the character's 'surface' is skin/scales/fur/feathers/etc is more readily implied from other specie grouping tags (such as scalie or avian or such -- although, admittedly, that's hardly a complete and reliable method of inference), whereas the 'body' color tags should be used in a somewhat-general manner in order to avoid a useless clusterfuck of mostly-redundant tags.

Hm. yes, actually. I know I've tagged one character with purple_scales. there's a picture with blue_scales and another with black feathers.. so, yes.

The 'hard' one will be creatures that aren't exactly scaley, but aren't furry either.. creatures with leathery hides, etc... but I'd think blue_hair, blue_scales, blue_feathers and blue_skin should cover all appropriate situations with a lil stretching. Since we don't have a cover all word for skin/fur/feathers/scales.

anyway, yes, I would. ther'es no harm in having extra tags, as long as all tags server a clear purpose.

You raise a fair point, acct, but, my initial point was more that blue is not anywhere near specific enough.

If there was a catch all word for 'surface', I'd advocate using that, but unfortuantely, we don't have one... surface is the best I've seen. "flesh" also came to mind, but flesh doesn't really describe feathers scales or fur.

In any regard, no, it's not perfect, but I'd rather have blue_fur/skin/scales/feathers rather then have blue_fur aliased to 'blue'.

hmm.. what about blue fur/scales/skin/feathers being 'blue body'?

but, that doesn't work so well for multicolored creatures... but.. it's an alternative that might cut down the number of body-color related tags by 75%...

Still, I'd rather have the more specific versions, but that's me.

Just as long as blue_fur doesn't change into blue any more. blue should have many other applications.

Hm. Well, yeah, I suppose reasonably that the color tags ought to be distinguishable as 'body surface' / clothing / whatever / miscellaneous... But yeah, not really sure what would work for 'body surface' if it's not assumed to be the default (and, yeah; the 'miscellaneous' would reasonably be the default, I guess).

I don't really have a proper solution, given that no reasonable term really pops to mind, and for how 'common' a thing it is it should really have an equally obvious name for tagging purposes.

*Shrug*

Blue_body_surface?

I dunno... it's not really intuitive.

Oh... maybe blue_fur, blue_skin, blue_scales, and anything that doesn't fit into those three could be blue_body_surface?

Or maybe a series of implications might be 'suggested' instead..

blue_feathers implies feathers, implies blue_body_surface
Blue_scales implies scales, implies blue_body_surface

(I'm tempted to add 'implies scalie' also, but I can think of a few circumstances where a creature might have scales but might not be a scalie... that said searching "scales -scalie" mostly seems to have scalies that don't have the scalie tag... mostly.)

Blue_fur and blue_skin could just imply blue_body_surface without any additional implications...

and so forth.

That way, 'blue body surface' acts to declare that this thing is blue in color, in case the viewer just wants a blue thing to fap to. Everything else would pretty much be to just 'neaten up' the tagging a bit.

I 'unno.

Needless complexity. Since virtually every picture here centres around characters, there's no reason to assume a colour indicates anything but main body colour.

What else would you use it for?

Hat said:
Needless complexity. Since virtually every picture here centres around characters, there's no reason to assume a colour indicates anything but main body colour.

What else would you use it for?

This.

SnowWolf said: That way 'blue' and similar can be used for other images where they might be more appropriate: sketches drawn in blue ( post #110507 ) , images where a prominent shading color is blue ( post #8629 ), images with an over all blue coloration ( post #8266 ) or posts where a primary color in the image is blue ( post #2499 ).

This. Blue shouldn't be used as a tag period. it's ambiguous.

we have tags for eyes (blue_eyes, green_eyes) but we don't generally tag every single image that HAS eyes with eyes, or nose or ears. Those are too vague.

Blue, likewise, is too vague. and it's clearly NOT being used just for fur colors, else I wouldn't be suggesting it be changed.

I've just been using blue + (body covering), like if there's a blue gryphon, I'll use blue + feathers.

If you search for feathers + blue, you might get about 30 results. Ideally it'd return every image with blue feathers, plus some extra (like, an image of a red gryphon with a blue scalie).

Do we really need to be so thorough that we get ONLY the 30 images with blue gryphons, or can we live with getting 30 blue-gryphon images, then another 10 or so that happen to have blue and gryphons in the same image (but not blue gryphons)?

well, the thing is, featheries and scalies get by alright with the current system.

It's the furries that kinda get screwed because most images contain some sort of furry critter. So, unless we specify blue + fox or blue + Tiger, we're just searching... blue.

Right now, 'blue' nets me..

blue themed image, a blue shaded image, a... e621 100K mockup screenshot, two pictures that have no blue anywhere in it, and one interesting image with a red/blue background And that's just on the first page.

The second page is arguably worse, with a full row of straight black and white images, some charcters who are wearing blue clothing and so forth.

Maybe we don't need complicated blue_feathers and Bllue_scales implications, but I'd argue very heavily that blue and blue_fur should be two separate things.

You know, implications could allow for people to tag the specifics and still get all the general faff as well. For example "blue_feathers" would imply "blue" and "feathers" while still allowing for people to search for specifics. After all, the whole point of tags is so that people can find what they're looking for, not matter how vague or specific.

agree

Hat said:
Needless complexity. Since virtually every picture here centres around characters, there's no reason to assume a colour indicates anything but main body colour.

What else would you use it for?

Read the first post again

i think it´s a good idea that these two tags get separated, it would just look nicer. and the tag could just cover the main fur color. like take this pic http://e621.net/post/show/79681/, it should not be tagged white_fur but blue_fur because there is more blue than white, and if the case is a creature with billions of colors just tag it multi_colored_fur/skin/feathers/ etc...

skub.jpg

slyroon said:
and the tag could just cover the main fur color. like take this pic http://e621.net/post/show/79681/, it should not be tagged white_fur but blue_fur because there is more blue than white

It could be tagged both; there's no real penalty for tagging every significant thing in a picture.

I'd go ahead and tag both white_fur and blue_fur for that one. As long as both cover a fair bit, why not? I wouldn't bother if it was just, say, a white patch over one eye or something.

As for multicolored... there's already a rainbow_hair tag... did a quick look and there doesn't seem to be a 'rainbow_fur' (until I tagged a few that, anyway (getting rid of 3 or 4 'redundant' tags in the process)) but I think rainbow_fur would be a good one for that.. and it could server for any asdfamgthecolors furs, even if it might not be red orange yellow blue green indigo violet exactly ;)