So. A good topic was raised in another thread, and I'm airing it over here so it can get a bit more attention... posts are as posted in the original thread, with mild editing in the event that anything 'specific' to that other thread popped up:

Murmulos: I have a question; black_nose

Seems would fit about 90% of the athro animals drawn, yet is only used 950 times. I'd say keep the other colored noses as they are non normal - thus something to keep if searching for.

I know whe should tag what we see, but isn't some tagging such as "black_nose" over tagging? Or is that a massage project of going thru 130k images for adding of "black_noses"?

RedOctober: I had once thought such specific tagging seemed overtagging, and used the example of "lamp." Turns out, we have a tag for "lamp," and it's used whenever...well, when there's a lamp in the pic. So, tag what you see. If you see a black nose, by all means feel free to tag it! If you see a white nose, tag it as that! This does not mean that you absolutely have to tag every image you come across that has a black nose in it, but it's always preferable to have an image tagged as thoroughly as possible to make sure it can be found upon searching, or not seen upon blacklisting.

The lovely Princess Luna: As the person who created the Wiki Page for that tag, I would like to give my opinion:

The only reason I believe this tag has appeared is because there was a certain lack of tags on an image, and someone started to get really nit-picky with colors and body parts. Thus spawning (Color)_Eyes, (Color)_Hair, (Color)_Nose, (Color)_Penis, etc.

Now, if an image really is lacking in tags, go ahead and tag them accordingly. The more tags an image has, the more likely it can be found in an image search, or grouped together with similar images. If there are sufficient tags otherwise, without tagging colors..? Tag the more important ones, like Hair and Eye color! It's just a matter of how much effort and time you want to put into tagging.

But boy would it be sweet if every image would one day be tagged to the most minute detail!

Princess Luna: ALSO! On the note of Color Tags, I have added three new tag groups to the index!

tag group:colors
tag group:species
tag group:clothes

Go ahead and poke around at them. They're practically a rough draft at the moment and could use some better organization and more content. So please do your part and help out by either creating/editing Wiki pages or tagging pictures accordingly!

SnowWolf: I started to have one opinion on this matter--that black nose was silly and shouldn't be tagged... but then I started thinking about it...

I ALWAYS try to tag fur, eye, hair, and other colors when I can. When I upload ponies, I have a LOT of tags. I also dare say that I'm responsible for most of purple_scales, and I STILL think that the discussion proposed over at forum #12082 is a good one, except that the scale of that tagging project would be mind blowingly huge (tl;dr version: blue_fur aliases to blue right now. Blue_fur is a better and more specific tag. Unfortunatly, it would involve retagging almsot every single picture in the database D: and then there's the issues of *_fur, _feathers, _scales, _skin, _hide etc.) and perhaps unneedfully conveluted.

that said, I am all about tagging black_stripes, silver_markings, rainbow_hair, flame_markings, and so forth. When we think about art, we might remember it as 'that blue wolf with the silver socks and the green hair' rather then female blue wolf sitting' ... being able to look for blue silver_markings green_hair is MUCH better.

So, yeah. tag those black noses. :D Actually, we should come up with standardized phrasing for markings -- spots, stripes, 'markings' socks, etc. so that we don't end up with amber_ivy_markings or weird shit like that XD

Also, <3 Luna! I fixed your spaces for you. Hopefully, your moon is a nicer place now :D

So. Presuming that the rest of the world's opinion isn't that these tags are horribly pointless, let's come up with some 'acceptable' things to tag...

Right now, we have blue_eyes, blue (refering to fur), blue_hair, blue_penis, blue_nipples, blue_skin (used for blue-all-over people) blue nose, blue_tongue, blue_pussy, blue_markings, blue_claws, blue_anus, blue_spots, blue_stripe blue_lips. blue_tail, blue_scales (damn, blue doesnt' look like a word anymore...) blue_flesh blue_mane blue_stripes blue_waffle/wagffles

*pant* okay.

blue.

this is kinda split up into two categories.. body parts, and markings.

Here are my thoughts:

Body Parts:

• eye

fur/skin/scales color ("blue") (I wish it wasn't go overwhelming to go back through and differentiate between blue_body_color and blue_color_theme (for images with a 'blue' theme)
hair
penis
pussy
anus
nipples
tongue
nose

That covers all of the 'sexy parts,' and the other 'skin colored' parts.

Alternatively: penis, pussy, anus, nipples, tongue, nose could all alias to _flesh instead, but I'd rather see implications for those, rather then aliasing.

Markings:

• spots

stripes (tigerish/zebra stripes)
skunk_stripe (one big stripe down the back)
mask (substantial face markings -- or: could be blue_face_markings)
sock/gloves (These could be two separate tags for hand paws and feet paws?)
belly (for characters who's under side is a color... which means we will have a lot of white_belly or white_underside tags)
markings (for "everything else)

but I think that would cover everything... what do you guys think?

and yeah, this means a new tagging project c_c;

Personally I think we should leave colored "Bits" as they are, but the rest could be aliased. Since I sometimes like to search for people with blue bits or green bits.

well, I was more trying to come up with 'official' tagging standards.. as in, "use these"--as opposed to whatever the tagger happens to come up with... :) (there were a lot of bluenose blue-nose blue-nipples-and-eyes glowing-blue-nips and other weird combinations)

the aliasing/implicating was more half an idea... though I still think the 'skin' areas might be nice to have implicating *_flesh (or blue_bits? :P), just so someone can search for blue 'bits' in general without having to specifically search nipples or cock or whatever.

And here I thought I was being progressive by tagging eye color >_>

I think all should implicate blue_(colour) and blue_(skin_or_fur_tone) in the cases of the various bits, and leave the bits as they are.

123easy said:
I think all should implicate blue_(colour) and blue_(skin_or_fur_tone) in the cases of the various bits, and leave the bits as they are.

That wouldn't be a bad idea, and would a a GREAT deal of tags onto every image...
What would we do about multi-toned skin/fur, though?

...multi_hued_(skin_and_fur_tone)?

well, here's the thing. The presence of a color in an image shouldn't earn a tag just for that. A image with a STRONG color theme should:

post #2499
post #146276
post #133709

But not just because there's a bit of the color in the image.

I would LIKE to differentiate between blue colorations and blue color themes, but this brings up the fact that there are 4 *thousand* images tagged blue. and that's JUST blue. Needless to say, that's... a tagging project of a massive scale.

So, basically, it can't happen. So for now, blue covers both instances, and is primarily used as a fur color.

This is mostly about what words to use as 'standard'.

As in... should blue fur, feathers, skin, and scales all be covered by 'blue'? is there enough benefit in separating them? are they easily distinguishable? Should blue_feathers implucate blue?

should blue sexy bits implicate blue_flesh?

Are the markings listed sufficient to cover most animal markings we'd encounter on a day-to-day basis without being too specific or too vague?

idealy, multi-hued characters would be covered well by the combo of color and markings.

post #146919 - blue, black_spots, white_underbelly, blue_hair white_socks pink_pussy, pink_nipples, black_pawpads
post#134196 - white. black_underbelly, black-stripes, blue_hair, two-tone_hair blue_nipples red_eyes blue_pussy white_markings
post #126121 - pink, green_underbelly, white_hair green_nipples. green_pussy. green_markings green_socks, green_tailtip, green_nose, green_tongue
post #75370 - black green white_hair white_faicial_markings blue_eyes color_fade purple_penis white_markings

and so forth/

Snow, that is RIDICULOUSLY specific.

... Lets make it happen.

I know! and it makes me want to cry just thinking about it. But, I mean, damn. we already have tags for a lot of this, a lot of this is interesting stuff. I know there are times I'd like to search for specific sorts of markings as well as exact fur colors....

So... despite it being a tremendous amount of work... well.. I mena.. if we have a face for cum on someone's face, can't we at least describe the face too?

Let's see... I think I'm currently thinking:

Standard Body Parts:

• eye

fur/skin/scales color ("blue" -- I think.. people can tag blue_scales, if the want, and blue_scales implies blue?)
hair

Parts that imply *_flesh

• penis

pussy
anus
nipples
tongue
nose
pawpads

Markings:

spots (do rosettes count? :) )
stripes (tigerish/zebra stripes)
skunk_stripe (one big stripe down the back)
face_markings
socks - for feet/toes
gloves - for hands/fingers
belly (belly? underbelly? underside? These should cover everything from throat to inner thighs)
markings (for "everything else")
tail_tip
ear_markings

Whew. Anythign else? before I start wikifying? any objections? any.. other.. thoughts?

No objections, but thoughts? Oh plenty of those.
How in all of creation will we possibly tag every image in this entire archive with this VERY specific tagging scheme? It would take years, especially at the rate images are being added.

*gets her abacus* Let me do some math...

Simpley, we can't, honestly. but we can add them as we run around and tag other things. we can develop standards, at least, for the future. And so forth.

Maybe it IS too big.

Okay, here's what I got:

The most reasonable plan I could come up with is if we had a team of exactly 200 taggers, each of which would be responsible for 4 pages, and if each page consists of about 160 images I will assume it would take about 15 minutes to tag a single image with every specification...

The average Tagger would spend 9600 minutes. 160 hours of work. That's almost a FULL week of work, non-stop. So, lets assume the average tagger would work for about... 6 hours a day. That is almost 27 days. Almost a full month.

And that is only FOUR PAGES. Now, if we pull off a miracle and get 200 users online and working at the same time, this project could be completed in a month or two.

Now, since pictures flood this site at ridiculous speeds, we would need an entirely separate team to keep up with the new images. I'd give another 100 users, if the uploaders don't do it themselves.

The main problem I see in this plan is simply gathering, and keeping the 200 users. What sort of incentive could we give them to do this form of work? We couldn't possibly pay them, and I don't think a "Privileged" account would be enough.

We could take the German approach, and force users to tag a full 4 pages of images in order to keep their accounts, but that's absolute tyranny! It would get the job done, and that would put a great number of workers at our disposal, as well as make users more active and involved in the website... but it's still a VERY VERY wrong approach. I simply say this as a hypothetical... PLEASE IGNORE THIS.

I *really* don't like how *_flesh ~sounds~ as a tag. I dunno... it's the 'flesh' part of it. Even then, I think just making it so the bits attach to *_(fur_or_skin_tone) and have that imply the colour would be fine, and take a lot less work.

In the case of looking for specific markings- Unless it's a common marking like tiger stripes or zebra stripes or whatever, i don't think we need anything quite that specific, as it'd end up with one or two posts per tag, which would look good on the page itself for fleshing it out, but would do little to actually provide searchability.

wow. you actually did the math luna o_o

ON theo ther hand... 15 minutes an image is a little over much.. but.. yeah.

I dunno. c_c I'll think about this a bit.

123easy said:
I *really* don't like how *_flesh ~sounds~ as a tag. I dunno... it's the 'flesh' part of it. Even then, I think just making it so the bits attach to *_(fur_or_skin_tone) and have that imply the colour would be fine, and take a lot less work.

That's... not less work and makes things more complicated T_T

if I understand you right, anyway.

You would like to see:

blue_penis implies blue_(fur_or_skin_tone)
blue_(fur_or_skin_tone) implies blue (which... already covers fur or skin tone?)

and it's not really any more work then:
blue_penis implies blue_flesh

rather.. it's less work.

People already use *_flesh as a tag to describe this same idea... so maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying

In the case of looking for specific markings- Unless it's a common marking like tiger stripes or zebra stripes or whatever, i don't think we need anything quite that specific, as it'd end up with one or two posts per tag,

Didja actually look at the list I came up with?

spots - spots has 1000+ tags, there are several *_spots already.
stripes - 1700ish, plus 115 [[striped_tail], 93 striped, 61 stripey, 14 striped_fur, 11 black_stripes and so on from there.
skunk_stripe - this may be over specific.
face_markings - this covers any find of face markings. nose spots, cheek ruffs, eye spots, racoon masks... hell, face_markings already has 966 tags... in this case, as with all others, it's a case of adding colors to the tag.
socks - already have 11 posts here. Could lump it in with gloves though

and so forth. all of these things ARE common. ear markings already has over 100 posts.

which would look good on the page itself for fleshing it out, but would do little to actually provide searchability.

I think it provides a LOT more search ability on the images that have been "covered" already.... c_c;

I did in fact see your list; I was simply stating my opinion that if it's a weird marking it shouldn't get used as a tag- In short, agreeing with the list you made, with the caveat that there's probably a few more that we both didn't think of that might apply. Searchability would be impacted if we did use weird/non-standard markings individually as tags is all I meant by that last bit. If we did non_standard_markings for the ones that are marked but in an obscure/unusual manner, but doesn't specify the type, that would be a good way of narrowing down the search even for those types.

As for flesh: there's very few tags that use it, and I'd still rather see (fur_or_skin_tone) or something similar attached instead for a few reasons: I've already noted my distaste for the term flesh in description first; secondly, there are a number of pictures where there is no skin/flesh visible, only fur, and as such, flesh is an inappropriate tag for them; thirdly, the blue_(colour) tag (example here) would cover EVERYTHING that's blue- it'd be the metatag. Then for blue_penis, blue_pussy, blue_anus blue_fur, etc. we have them all under blue_(skin_and_fur_tone) to illustrate that they are parts of a character that are blue, not just a primary colour in the image.

Or, simpler (i think); If you want to see blue stuff, blue. blue body parts but don't care which, blue_(fur_or_skin_tone) or blue_(body_tone) or something (the original name was spur of the moment, something simpler is fine) and if you only want to see blue penises, you can just search blue_penis.

That would follow the same setup that was made for Hyper with the additional metatag of 'blue" that would have blue_(body_tone) (or whatever it gets called) and blue_(image_colouration) (or whatever IT gets called if anything; could see it left blank and then a search of blue -blue_(body_tone) for finding those) beneath it.

Well of course I did the math. When the site has over 130,000 pictures, a tagging project like this can become overbearing very quickly. Honestly, in theory... this is a great idea and it would make the site pin-point accurate when searching for specific images. But in practice, it's a huge project without any backing.

I did even more math on the IRC not too long ago.
With the given amount of users at current, should we force them to tag images in order to keep their account, every registered user would have to tag EXACTLY 4 images. No more than one hour's worth of time, given the size or content of the images. And once they do four, they don't have to do any more, unless they choose to. If this were the case, it WOULD take only a week to tag every image.

but again, I can't stress how unfair and absurd that is of us to ask of the users, especially since this project is of no vital importance to the site.

I'm not saying we should drop it, and I hope you can forgive me for making this terrible pun... But it's a Moon-Shot.

Sorry if I was snippy in my reply before: I reached that point where i SHOULD have gone to bed but kept flailing at the keyboard anyway.

123easy said:
I did in fact see your list; I was simply stating my opinion that if it's a weird marking it shouldn't get used as a tag- In short, agreeing with the list you made, with the caveat that there's probably a few more that we both didn't think of that might apply. Searchability would be impacted if we did use weird/non-standard markings individually as tags is all I meant by that last bit.

well, the markings I brought up were supposed to cover the 'basic' common markings. Almost every character has under belly color variation, for example. Or facial markings. I was and am trying to cover *more* then just... hair/eye/fur color.. stripes and spots are pretty basic things.

that said..

If we did non_standard_markings for the ones that are marked but in an obscure/unusual manner, but doesn't specify the type, that would be a good way of narrowing down the search even for those types.

That's actually what I was trying to suggest, though I realize now that my phrasing was poor. Blue_marking is "supposed" to cover "everything else" but it'll end up being used for anyone with blue.... markings. of any sort. and that's bad c_c

((or is it? if _underbelly _spots _tailtip etc all imply blue_markings, then someone could search more vaguely for black blue_markings for anyone with blue-on-black of any sort...))

I was trying to find a 'catch all' word for characters like post #143263 who has... unusual markings. or post #123745 post #125446 post #115396 where they don't quite count as stripes or spots or anything like that.

As for flesh: there's very few tags that use it, and I'd still rather see (fur_or_skin_tone) or something similar attached instead for a few reasons: I've already noted my distaste for the term flesh in description first;

But. "flesh" isn't supposed to be used to describe *fur*.. it's supposed to describe the color of ones "pink bits".

post #140747 for example, has black fur, but the places where her skin underneath shows through--her anus, pussy, nipples, nose and tongue-- are all blue. (or post #116542 -nose +pawpads) Blue_skin would work as a tag there, but then there is confusion: post #146501 is clearly a dragon. They probably don't have fur. But do they have scales? What if they have a thick hide instead? or even just skin? it's impossibly to tell because of the art. post #136519 probably has skin, just like post #139963 LOOKS like skin, but hen there are posts like post #146599 where... well, I think he's had skin, fur and hide all depending on what source material you draw from. You can make an assumption, based off of the art style, but... all we really know, for ALL of the above.. is that their dominant coloration is blue. Which is, ultimatly, why we... should.. use only one word for the color of a creature, despite my earlier arguements that we should have blue_scales and blue_feathers and so forth.

secondly, there are a number of pictures where there is no skin/flesh visible, only fur, and as such, flesh is an inappropriate tag for them;

Hopefully, I explained this adaquately above, but. Yes. blue_flesh in this circumstance would only be used in places where you can see the 'fleshy bits', and not used to describe the over all body color,

thirdly, the blue_(colour) tag (example here) would cover EVERYTHING that's blue- it'd be the metatag. Then for blue_penis, blue_pussy, blue_anus blue_fur, etc. we have them all under blue_(skin_and_fur_tone) to illustrate that they are parts of a character that are blue, not just a primary colour in the image.

But then...

we'd have blue_penis, blue_(skin_and_fur_tone), blue_(color), AND blue all one one picture.. we don't need to imply so tightly for EVERYTHING. and blue_(color) would apply to ANY picture that had a spec of blue in it. Plus, this would require massive retagging too... because right now "blue" is used to describe blue fur/scales/feathers/etc. we'd have to repurpose the tag, effectively.. and tha'ts more then I'm willing to do. I'd rather come up with complimentary tags that don't involve retagging many thousands of images.

I mena, maybe I'm still understanding you, but I feel like I"m not explaining this adaquatly :( let's leave this part --implications etc--alone until we're both on the same page about what i'm.. thinking about.

Or, simpler (i think); If you want to see blue stuff, blue. blue body parts but don't care which, blue_(fur_or_skin_tone) or blue_(body_tone) or something (the original name was spur of the moment, something simpler is fine) and if you only want to see blue penises, you can just search blue_penis.

The problem with this... that stops me from agreeing with this idea. is that blue is blue fur, AND images with a heavy blue color theme.

Blue_fur is aliased to blue. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

I would like to unalias them, so that 'blue' can refer to the color theme of an image (or something else) and so we could use 'blue_fur' to cover fur and fur only, but it would involve far more retagging then I feel we can adaquatley muster.

Past that, if one wants blue_penis, they search blue_penis, but what if they would be happy with blue nipples, or blue anus, or blue noses? or otherwise 'strange' colorations of skin compared to fur color? that's why the idea was _flesh, as flesh is not--should not-- be used as a general "body covering' word like skin, hide, fur, etc would be.

That would follow the same setup that was made for Hyper with the additional metatag of 'blue" that would have blue_(body_tone) (or whatever it gets called) and blue_(image_colouration) (or whatever IT gets called if anything; could see it left blank and then a search of blue -blue_(body_tone) for finding those) beneath it.

But, again, that requires a lot of retagging, and if we were going to go through THAT much retagging, I would rather break things apart entirely into blue_(body_color) (which has blue fur, scales, feathers, etc aliased to it), and blue_(color_scheme/theme/whatever) and leave blue as an 'ambiguous' tag or something.

it's just... far more work then we can muster, which is why I was trying to add to the system, rather then replace it.

Maybe this will help... but here's a breakdown of what I was thinking, using 'blue' as an example:

blue_eyes
blue_hair implies hair (if it doesn't already and it should)
blue_fur is aliased to blue (or blue_body_color in a magical perfect world.)
blue_skin is aliased to blue (or blue_body_color)
blue_scales is aliased to blue (or blue_body_color)

blue_penis implies blue_flesh (if you can think of another word other then 'flesh' that better describes the idea without being confusing (blue_under_tones) or overly long and awkward to type (blue_(Under_fur_color)) then that would be good, but most character sheets seem to refer to these parts as 'flesh' or 'skin' as well.
blue_pussy implies blue_flesh
blue_anus implies blue_flesh
blue_nipples implies blue_flesh
blue_tongue implies blue_flesh
blue_nose implies blue_flesh
blue_pawpads implies blue_flesh

blue_flesh does not imply anything, as it is a 'meta' tag for blue body parts

blue_spots implies blue_markings
blue_stripes implies blue_markings (also, includes skunk stripes)
blue_face_markings implies blue_markings
blue_socks implies blue_markings (includes hand and feet markings)
blue_underside implies blue_markings
blue_tail_tip implies blue_markings
blue_ear_markings implies blue_markings

blue_markings does not imply anything, as it is a 'meta' tag for minor markings. For example post #118055 has a character with a pink spot. It's a very minor marking and shouldn't get the whole image tagged with 'pink fur' or anything like that. Someone seeking something like post #147189 shouldn't get characters with a tiny spec of color :)

this way, a user may search for, for example, black blue_markings red_hair and perhaps get a very specific character (A black wolf with a blue belly and red hair. Or a skunk with blue stripes and red hair. Or..)

Or they can get really specific and spell out black blue_spots blue_flesh red_eyes rainbow_hair or just the big vague blue_pussy.

though the poor I look at this, the more discouraged I get. it's a lot of work... and a lot of tags.

At the same time.. I dunno.

I think the blue_nipples, etc should still all imply blue_flesh for easier searching. Even if all of the 'markings' are utterly pointless wastes of time to bring up. :(

Instead of flesh, I almost want to use bits.

Flesh kind of creeps me out, like some Silence of the Lambs creeps..

but bits make me feel like I'm 8 years old in trying to decribe the "essential" body parts.

I like blue_bits XD But it doesn't make a very good search term.. especially as 'bits' makes me think of sex organs--thus excluding paw pads and noses and such.

Unfortunatly there's not really a good other word.

blue_fleshy_bits? :p

using a housing term: _trim

hahah... that's a wonderful idea... but I would have NO clue what a "blue_trim" is. ;)

Princess_Luna said:
Well of course I did the math. When the site has over 130,000 pictures, a tagging project like this can become overbearing very quickly. Honestly, in theory... this is a great idea and it would make the site pin-point accurate when searching for specific images. But in practice, it's a huge project without any backing.

I did even more math on the IRC not too long ago.
With the given amount of users at current, should we force them to tag images in order to keep their account, every registered user would have to tag EXACTLY 4 images. No more than one hour's worth of time, given the size or content of the images. And once they do four, they don't have to do any more, unless they choose to. If this were the case, it WOULD take only a week to tag every image.

but again, I can't stress how unfair and absurd that is of us to ask of the users, especially since this project is of no vital importance to the site.

I'm not saying we should drop it, and I hope you can forgive me for making this terrible pun... But it's a Moon-Shot.

How do we make sure they're all tagging different images?

Honestly? If you want flesh to reference the colour of the exposed bits, skin would work fine- After all, it is the skin of the character that's being shown, not scales or fur or whatever. I stated before that I think all the bits need to fall under a metatag just for the bits- pussy anus penis etc- for the body colour and then that under a further metatag of just the colour (which would be the penultimate tag regarding that colour, in all things). then a separate metatag under the penultimate tag for non-body colour images; thus, you have example: blue_(body_colour) and blue_(background) and both imply blue (at the uppermost level, not doing sublevels). Hope that makes sense?

I disagree with *_socks implying *_markings because there could be actual *_coloured socks in a picture.

I much prefer your *_(body_colour) instead of my *_(fur_or_skin_tone).

And yes, this is a huge tagging project that's probably about equal or more than all the other projects combined.

Murmillos said:
Flesh kind of creeps me out, like some Silence of the Lambs creeps..

This is my feeling with an extra dose of "ew". >.<

RedOctober said:
How do we make sure they're all tagging different images?

Well that in itself would require another system.
I see it as a sort of "Evaluation" period. We assign them 4 images to tag-- in which someone will have to keep track of. They send a message to one of the people heading this crazy project and they determine whether they've done a good enough job... and if so, the images are given a "Completed" tag.

It would be easy to see if someone was messing with those too, since I'm pretty certain that we can track down who changed the tags on any given image.

Honestly, like I said. This project is of no importance to the site :\ So it's already unnecessary and backwards as is. So I'm just assuming you're playing along with this crazy, confounded hypothetical.

123easy said:
Honestly? If you want flesh to reference the colour of the exposed bits, skin would work fine- After all, it is the skin of the character that's being shown, not scales or fur or whatever.

But what about characters that have SKIN? Draenei and demons, and elves and so forth? They have blue_skin. Even if blue_skin is just for exposed bits, people will miss tag it because it's SOUNDS like it should be a tag that covers .. well.. blue skin.

and if the tag is used for both blue bits, AND characters that are blue all over, then the tag's failing because it's inspecific.

I stated before that I think all the bits need to fall under a metatag just for the bits- pussy anus penis etc-

yes, we agree here. blue_bits_or_whatever..

for the body colour and then that under a further metatag of just the colour (which would be the penultimate tag regarding that colour, in all things).

I might agree except for the massive retagging issue or several 10s of thousands of images.

And also that if blue_bits implies blue_body_color (ie, what 'blue_fur/blue' is now) then more specific searching becomes *harder*--someone who wants a mostly-blue character will not want to see the black skunk with a blue nose. (which is what they would get if they searched for blue_body_color, as well as other more 'legitimate' images.

Honestly, in that hypotetical situation, I'd rather blue_penis imply blue_bits implies blue_(color) and skip the body color aspect all together, but then it becomes harder to search for just blue-themed images... asking people to search blue -blue_body_color is awkward and not as intuitive as just searching 'blue'.

we could always make wiki pages for 'blue' that cover all the things that CAN be blue

I mean, I understand why you suggest it, honestly, but it'd make some things really hard to search for sometimes :(

then a separate metatag under the penultimate tag for non-body colour images; thus, you have example: blue_(body_colour) and blue_(background) and both imply blue (at the uppermost level, not doing sublevels). Hope that makes sense?

.... maybe. I'm honestly at that 'too late, shouldn't be posting' stage again. I do like the blue_body_color and blue_theme/background/scheme/whatever all implying blue... but then, again: massive tagging undertaking.

I disagree with *_socks implying *_markings because there could be actual *_coloured socks in a picture.

There could be, but the current uses of, say, black_socks or Blue_socks are very few. and socks shouldn't be being labled by color anyway. they should just be 'socks' or what have you.

I much prefer your *_(body_colour) instead of my *_(fur_or_skin_tone).

♥♥♥♥♥♥

And yes, this is a huge tagging project that's probably about equal or more than all the other projects combined.

Naw.. this is.. more so, sweets.

4090 - blue
1746 - red
1412 - green
2677 - black
2098 - brown
1646 - purple
1359 - orange
1783 - yellow
1292 - grey
3719 - white
1596 - pink
--------------
23,418

to put this into perspective, we have 23,490 images tagged pussy. only 18,585 tagged sex.

If you could quickly determine, and tag an image every 2 seconds.. it would still take over 13 straight hours without blinking to tag all of those. a more realistic (but still overly optimistic) 5 seconds per says 32.5 hours of tagging. And considering if someoen was already going through ALL of those? The'd probably do good to check out a few other tags and add them while they're there. Needless to say, the time builds up QUICKLY.

this... is a bit beyond huge.