Requesting human on anthro be implicated to anthro

human_on_anthro -> anthro

Reason: There's an anthropomorphic character present (alongside a human)

The anthro tag's only used when there's a feral animal alongside an anthro one.

Really?Could've sworn that applied to humans as well

Never mind in that case,thanks

Necroing because now anthro is used normally, so human_on_anthro should imply anthro.

Unless someone can tell me what was the meaning of forum #34212 If human_on_anthro was supposed to be nuked then why it is still active and not aliased to invalid_tag?

Hmm.. Actually, wouldn't searching human anthro (insert sexual preference here) perform the same function as human_on_anthro now that we're properly using the anthro tag as it should be used?

123easy said:
Hmm.. Actually, wouldn't searching human anthro (insert sexual preference here) perform the same function as human_on_anthro now that we're properly using the anthro tag as it should be used?

human_on_anthro is the same type of tag as anthro_on_feral, or feral_on_feral. If we're keeping them I see no reason to delete it.

Not to mention that if we're going to standardize *_on_* tags to be not only about sexual things then it will be difficult to replace this type of tags with other searches.

Dunno how it's for other member-level users, but I'm often having trouble trying to fit my searches under six tags. And that would be three tags instead of one, so I'm really not keen on that idea. Nor do I like idea of extending the definition to cover more than sex, since again, that'll mean that I'll need more tags to find what I'm looking for.

Genjar said:
Dunno how it's for other member-level users, but I'm often having trouble trying to fit my searches under six tags. And that would be three tags instead of one, so I'm really not keen on that idea. Nor do I like idea of extending the definition to cover more than sex, since again, that'll mean that I'll need more tags to find what I'm looking for.

...What kind of thing do you search for? o.O I mean... I have to try hard to do a search that takes more than four tags that's relevant to my interests at the time.

Also agreed on them, if they're being kept, being expanded to mean more than intimate interaction. If you mean to expand them to kissing and snuggling and that sort of thing, that seems fine to me; If you mean any time an anthro and human or feral interacts, then definitely against. Still prefer removal in favour of usage of multiple tags.

123easy said:
...What kind of thing do you search for? o.O I mean... I have to try hard to do a search that takes more than four tags that's relevant to my interests at the time.

Usually things that are not relevant to my interests: various tag cleanup projects, etc.

But also some things that are. Let's see. Anthro, feral, from_behind, nude, interspecies, cum, -breasts,... Well, that's already seven tags without even including any orientations, species, or minor tags such as blush or eyes_closed.

Anyway, the human_on_anthro tag? That reminds me: could we add a note to the anthro wiki entry, saying that humans shouldn't be tagged as anthros? It's been increasingly common recently and messes up many of the x_on_y tags.

Genjar said:
Usually things that are not relevant to my interests: various tag cleanup projects, etc.

But also some things that are. Let's see. Anthro, feral, from_behind, nude, interspecies, cum, -breasts,... Well, that's already seven tags without even including any orientations, species, or minor tags such as blush or eyes_closed.

Anyway, the human_on_anthro tag? That reminds me: could we add a note to the anthro wiki entry, saying that humans shouldn't be tagged as anthros? It's been increasingly common recently and messes up many of the x_on_y tags.

Anthro feral from_behind nude interspecies cum returns 2 and a bit pages. Anthro_on_feral from_behind nude interspecies cum -breasts returns two pages. Is the distinction so great that you can't look through a bit of another page that might even have more images you might enjoy? I mean, that's already highly specific as is. ._.

Agreed on the anthro wiki bit. Anthros are defined as being 'human-like' so by definition humans cannot become human-like because they *are* human, the defining role against which all others are compared.

Genjar said:
Usually things that are not relevant to my interests: various tag cleanup projects, etc.

But also some things that are. Let's see. Anthro, feral, from_behind, nude, interspecies, cum, -breasts,... Well, that's already seven tags without even including any orientations, species, or minor tags such as blush or eyes_closed.

Anyway, the human_on_anthro tag? That reminds me: could we add a note to the anthro wiki entry, saying that humans shouldn't be tagged as anthros? It's been increasingly common recently and messes up many of the x_on_y tags.

Currently anthro wiki states:

As this accurately describes most furry characters, "anthro" is commonly used to describe a bipedal furry character, ones whose nonhuman-to-human appearance ratio rates about 45% to 75%.

I highly doubt that someone can interpret human character as someone having 75% humanity. Even if it's Sarah Palin.

As for the first part. Did you think about utilizing blacklist in your searches?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Currently anthro wiki states:

I highly doubt that someone can interpret human character as someone having 75% humanity. Even if it's Sarah Palin.

As for the first part. Did you think about utilizing blacklist in your searches?

Eh, sometimes you want to just see gay stuff, sometimes you wanna see boobies. Wh fiddle with blacklist when it's a temporary thing? (on the other hand, if it's not, she makes a good point for negative tags!)

123easy said:
Eh, sometimes you want to just see gay stuff, sometimes you wanna see boobies. Wh fiddle with blacklist when it's a temporary thing? (on the other hand, if it's not, she makes a good point for negative tags!)

Blacklist can be also used as a temporary thing. And it can be used for searching positive tags, just blacklist -tag. There are no rules against using blacklist in your searches. In fact sometimes it is even advised because filtering is done on client side.

Of course blacklist alone has that disadvantage that it only hides pictures on the page. If you try to search gay by simply blacklisting -gay you get a lot of almost blank pages, which isn't good.

But when you've already used 6 tags your results would be rather specific now. With additional tag you would be, probably, only deleting few pics, so there's not much difference between additional tags and just using blacklist. Selecting bigger number of pictures per page might also help.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I highly doubt that someone can interpret human character as someone having 75% humanity. Even if it's Sarah Palin.

One would think so, but I've seen humans tagged as anthros by several top taggers. Which means that either they're not paying attention to the wiki (which is unlikely, since they don't usually mistag), or the description isn't clear enough.

As for the first part. Did you think about utilizing blacklist in your searches?

Nah. It depends on my mood whether I want to see them or not, so it's not something that I can blacklist. And in any case, that was just one example out of many.

Sure, I could use less tags and just browse through the results for things that I actually want. But that's both slower and less convenient than searching for specific tag combos.

And isn't that the whole point of tagging: to make it easier to find what we're looking for?

Genjar said:
And isn't that the whole point of tagging: to make it easier to find what we're looking for?

Yes, but tags are used both by blacklist or normal search. Despite the name the only difference (besides slightly more difficult access which can be bypassed by keeping setting open in other tab) between blacklist and normal search is that search is using server resources. This is why it's limited to 6 tags for normal members. Actually this thread gave me a nice idea for a feature.

Genjar said:
And isn't that the whole point of tagging: to make it easier to find what we're looking for?

Partially; searchability is one part, arguably the biggest part, of the equation. There's also accuracy in defining what the image contains, as well as (attempted) tag standardization so that new images can be tagged concisely with a good-sized tag list that isn't several times longer than the image and all comments itself.

This said, but what is the serious difference between those two long-form search examples that I gave? A few images, maybe a dozen? Is a dozen images really that big ofa deal, when (in this case) they might have bewbs, but are otherwise what you were looking for and so still fit in with the majority of your search concerns? heck, there might be an image that just has a pair of breasts in the background that doesn't really impact the majority of the image that you wouldn't see because of (to me) over-specifying your search that far.

I guess if we get right down to it, if it comes out to 300 images (or less) I see it as a perfect search because it can easily be browsed over a few minutes (at 75 posts a page), and is specific enough that unless a tag is grossly misused the pages are almost completely relevant to your interests. Anything that might be a major outlier (Gideon redicucock, guro, scat, watersports, or whatever else you dislike) pops onto the blacklist in those cases.

It's not about catering to just the absolute specific search trying to narrow it down to only a bare handful of images, but ensuring it's searchable *enough*, I guess would be the best way to explain it, for me. When you go to an art museum to view it, you don''t narrow your search of galleries down to "1891, French artists only from Paris", but a general era, then a more general section for French artists, and then sift through the paintings looking for those that interest you and discarding those that don't. Not a supermarket where you ask where the gluten-free organic podzol-grown barley, rye, and wheat mixed grain flour is and get an exact location, but a supermarket where you ask where the gluten-free mixed grain flour is, get told the aisle, and then look through the aisle for the exact product.

Meeeehhhhh not sure I'm explaining it any better. x_x so I'mma stop here.

123easy said:
When you go to an art museum to view it, you don't narrow your search of galleries down to "1891, French artists only from Paris", but a general era, then a more general section for French artists, and then sift through the paintings looking for those that interest you and discarding those that don't.

We have the advantage of being a digital-only gallery without such disadvantages as physical media that can't be moved around much, limited space, etc. So that comparison doesn't make much sense. If the museum were online, sure you could narrow it down to "1891, French artists only from Paris"; you'd expect to be able to, being online and all.

I'm not entirely sure that art museums allow you to discard their art if you don't like it.

I haven't ever been to one though, so I could be wrong.

tony311 said:
We have the advantage of being a digital-only gallery without such disadvantages as physical media that can't be moved around much, limited space, etc. So that comparison doesn't make much sense. If the museum were online, sure you could narrow it down to "1891, French artists only from Paris"; you'd expect to be able to, being online and all.

It's more about how deep is too deep. http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/current-exhibitions here we see that some collections are based off a single artist, or a specific period, or a type of pose or model. Even loking at the Smithsonian's floor plans http://www.mnh.si.edu/onehundredyears/featured_objects/roosevelt_rhino/TR_animals_NHB_floorplan.jpg we can see that even though they have a vast amount of space their catagorization is still general enough that "things that might interest you" is included in the "things that interest you" bracketting. By not being too overly specific they encourage you to also view other displays that are related, not just the one or two pieces of artwork or fossils or whatnot that you came to view.

Did that help get why I used art museums/galleries as an example? Bleh, probably not. I'm definitely sucking at explaining my views properly. >.<