I should’ve written it “Commonly forgotten/frequently used tags quick-menu inclusions”
@Solitude
I have no idea. But both tags were there with different counts, and after checking, I just changed the few images tagged with
erect
changed over to
erection
.
@Keith Mowz
For the
pony thing, see
@SuperSupermario24. Sums up the reason to have it re-focused on. Just because it’s “assumed”, doesn’t make it any
easier to search for certain images. You know, the whole point of tags? Including, but not limited to: screencaps, solo images where the pony is featured, any group images with ponies doing stuff, any sexual situation;
without adding several exemptions or excluding images where a pony may be present, but other species happen to be in the picture. This
@TexasUberAlles only fixes part of the problem. But if you want to search images with ponies in them without adding several exemptions, or excluding images missing the
no pony
tag, it’s not so easy. Even with the
no pony
tag added to the proper images, it’s somewhat counter-intuitive to go “-no pony” when you could instead just type “pony”. And it’s definitely not
convenient.
As for the rest of the tags listed, you may not realize how many images are missing said tags.
hooves using the examples listed
@Brokedownandmadeone, both over and under tagged. Reason with examples already posted -> “[where the shape of the hoof is clearly visible, like in
>>1106735,
>>1091207 and
>>1104434, where the hoof is more clearly defined, and not like
>>1094613,
>>1122875,
>>1126346,
>>1140311, {
>>1138239 >>1115768 although these particular images wouldn’t normally classify, they would be exceptions, as they discusses hooves) The reason behind it being because it would be a grossly saturated tag, and there’s no tag for the more “hoof-like/classic horseshoe shaped hoof” images]” Addendum: Also because any image with a pony in it would technically count as having hooves in it. Another possible usage of the tag could be for non-pony images in which the hooves are not show-like.
frog (hoof) (under tagged) Where the frog is more clearly defined
human coloration (lesser known) I didn’t even know this tag existed when I wanted to tag an image with it (even after thinking it wasn’t a tag when I began to type “normal” for “normal skin coloring”), until I saw it on another image much later.
spread legs (under tagged) This would also apply to safe-rated images, which I doubt gets tagged.
nipples,
clitoris,
erect nipples $,
erection $, (and as someone else pointed out in another thread, which reminded me of others)
mare,
stallion,
male,
female,
plantigrade anthro,
unguligrade anthro,
anthro (unless this one already gets implied by the previous two),
semi-anthro, Obvious helpful above-safe quick-tags.
$ not all that sure why we have these tags, as nipples and penises tend to be considered erect anyway. Not sure we’ve come across an image where the nipple would be considered not erect, and we have the flaccid tag for the penis. Unless erect nipples is intended to be for nipples that show through clothing.
areola (under tagged) The area around the nipple where it’s at least noticeably included. Don’t ask me if the majority of images have areola, making the tag somewhat useless, because I don’t know.
labia (under tagged) Labia is for any female genitals (any species), where labia are present. Not all of them have that part present. Unless someone isn’t familiar with human anatomy (or just isn’t educated about human genitals, thanks ‘murrica!
I live in the USA. The lack of fully informed sex ed is shamefur. Unless it was changed since I graduated.), people that tag images should know what that part is, and tag appropriately. There are people who do or don’t want to see images with labia in it (hence, the already existing tag), so it should be tagged when necessary. In case one doesn’t know, see
https://en.wikipedia.org
puffy areola (under tagged) applies to any images where the areola are more noticeably “raised” off the breast, which is under-tagged.
And no. This isn’t about “my fetishes”. This is about getting undertagged tags used as they were meant to be, and other somewhat non-obvious tags (“frog (hoof)” and “human coloration”) more attention.
Any discussion of how tags should be implemented/used/defined should be directed here ->
Tag Discussion