General forum for:

• Disambiguating discussion,
• Wiki policy
• Other [tba]

[Note: Didn't proofread this, so please point out any inconsistencies you may find and I'll update it, thanks]

Forum link:
forum #187716 - Mammary tags discussion: (Mar. 2016)

--
SHORT VERSION:

These tags need a lot of work, and probably the wiki entries as well; Since so much confusion is arising from their usage

-

• Nipples are a type of teat. Usually used to refer to human papillae
• Nipples can be present, but not breasts: flat chested, teats

• Breasts are not teats in common usage. teats are usally for non-humans. No animal tmk only has one pair of teats, especially mammals ( never mind )
• Breasts and nipples are usally simutaneously present, but not always: post #854155

• teats are a type of nipple, usually used for non-humans, and in >1 pairs (mammals)
• Teats can overlap with multi_nipple, and somethimes crotchboobs if on a pregnant/nursing feral (but they rarely, if ever look like rounded human breasts)

• Characters can have multiple nipples, but not all multi_nipple posts are examples of multi_breast (see examples below)
• Overlaps with teats on non-human/feral characters

• multi_breast is not related to teats, although they can share similar locations

• multi_nipple isn't always for teats (see above). The latter is usually used for non-humanoids only

• udders are not breasts. breasts are usually used for human mammaries. Bovids don't have humanoid breasts irl

• udders are not teats. They refer to the whole organ, not just the nipples. The nipples can be considered teats though

Links to Other Discussions

• forum #187583 - Regarding the "Multi_nipple" tag (Mar. 2016)

• https://e621.net/forum/show/156983

• forum #59642 - Tag alias: crotchboob, crotchboobs -> teats (Jan. 2013)
• p.forum #204871 - more examples of the differences between teats, breasts, crotchboobs, and udders

forum #20968 - Tagging of Breast Sizes - a new Forum (Jul. 2011)

----

------

Mammary glands are modified sweat glands and are not the same as the mamillae (nipples or teats) through which most young mammals obtain the milk secreted by the mammary glands. Though all mammals have mammary glands and produce milk, not all mammals have teats. The exceptions are the two monotremes the Echidna and the Platypus.

-[source]

udders

about that... where might this fall under the "udder" category? post #853684

The boobers

You forgot to list featureless_breasts. Which is pretty much no_nipples, except not ambiguous.

treos said:
udders

about that... where might this fall under the "udder" category? post #853684

That's a rare example of udder_balls.

TheHuskyK9 said:
The boobers

BOOBS!

Genjar said:
You forgot to list featureless_breasts. Which is pretty much no_nipples, except not ambiguous.

I wish I knew about/remembered that tag while looking for an example of a post with breasts but no nipples

T____T

-
Was gonna propose an alias of no_nipples -> featureless_breasts,

but the former is currently invalidated, so dunno if that would break everything without unaliasing it first

hahahnope

One of the main points I wanted to bring up was:

• Using teats as a catch-all for non-human breasts + nipples

Crotchboobs was used for the former, because most people/artists don't seem to know what teats look like normally, or choose not to draw it that way.

It seriously overlaps with 'anatomically correct teats', and kinda makes the teats tag useless for the latter case

Suggestions: (See the Long Version of the OP for examples of each)

• Either keep teats for both types, while having separate tags for the nipples/breasts,
• multi-breast - teats with humanoid breasts. found wherever
• crotchboobs/other - teats with humanoid breasts, found below the stomach
• ??? (anatomically_correct_teats ?) - for teats with feral nipples/enlarged mammary glands
• (these would correspond to the examples of teats I posted in the Long Version of the OP)

OR

• Split them back up into the following:
• teats - non-human multi-nipple posts only
• crotchboobs/other - human multi-breast posts located below the stomach

Genjar said:
That's a rare example of udder_balls.

ah, so there was an udder_balls tag. i wasn't sure about that.

titanmelon said:
Was gonna propose an alias of no_nipples -> featureless_breasts,

but the former is currently invalidated, so dunno if that would break everything without unaliasing it first

The alias creation tool doesn't accept alias suggestions if one of the tags is already aliased.

Anyway, no_nipples was getting tagged for clothed males etc. I think someone even tagged it for inanimate objects. Best to leave it invalidated.

Also, can we please, please, please have some kind of specific tag for 'regular' medium sized B-C cup sized breasts? Something like medium_breasts maybe

-

Main breast types, in terms of head:breast diameter ratio:

• flat_chested - little to no breasts. <1/4 head

post #542351 post #210407

-

• small_breasts - 1/4 - 1/2 head

post #853780 post #22047

• medium_breasts - 1/2 - 1 head

post #313879
post #315724
post #403970

• big_breasts, huge_breasts etc. - >1 head

post #494070 post #284187

-
I am sick and tired of having to break entire pages by blacklisting breasts, instead of allowing -medium_breasts just to block posts of huge_breasts+ because people either don't bother tagging the sizes, or assume that giant breasts are 'normal' or whatever

this is not an effective method of using the blacklist people D:

Genjar said:
The alias creation tool doesn't accept alias suggestions if one of the tags is already aliased.

Anyway, no_nipples was getting tagged for clothed males etc. I think someone even tagged it for inanimate objects. Best to leave it invalidated.

Oh..wow

<:/

Well, I tried tagging a couple more examples, but medium_breasts are aliased to breasts

Same for average_breasts, which is probably for the best in that case, since it has a rather pejorative tone

The wiki suggests natural_breasts instead, but that's neither indicative of a specific size, nor exclusive to it (large_breasts can be natural)

Hm, maybe we should use both head and body to breast diameter as a measurement instead of just head alone?

A good example of why is post #854972

• left - flat chested
• right top - small breasts
• right middle - medium_breasts
• right bottom - medium to large breasts

-

But if we go from the head size alone, all on the right are small to medium

I'd be fine with unaliasing medium_breasts and using that.

\o/ wheee

I'll start populating it ASA you do then

(If anyone thinks the above definitions should be changed, now's the time to say it)

Well, it's been about a week

Don't think anyone has much to say about dealiasing medium_breasts

Thread about melons, started by a melon.

titanmelon said:
Well, it's been about a week

Don't think anyone has much to say about dealiasing medium_breasts

Deleted and approved implication

:V

yay

Gonna start on these asap, maybe post some more contrasting examples

------------

Another example of head/body ratio disparity

post #219363

Without head: medium/big breasts
With head: small/medium breasts

Seems to be mostly common with the less realistic styles, namely chibi, anime/manga etc, and those inspired from them

There was a really long post about categorizing breast sizes planned (which included talk about big_breasts and considerations for moving the range of the tag up a notch, since most people seem to use it for head+), but that's taking too long

wiki for breasts states

There will always be a few cases that are difficult to place in one category or the other; just do your best to fit them into one or the other.

-

Main idea: Why are so intent on shoehorning something subjective and variable into a single category?

• Instead of trying to only tag one size category for cases that are uncertain, why not use the two closest approximations instead?

Example:

post #865673

the breasts are roughly the size of the character's head, but the character's head is drawn using a smaller proportion to their body
Plus, bovine skull shapes are naturally elongated, which makes the breasts look smaller than they're drawn

In this case, it would get the following tags:

• medium_breasts - higher end of the 1/2 - 1 ratio
• big_breasts - lower end of the ~1+ ratio

Can't really think of a reason this would be wrong, since:

+ It follows TWYS
+ The tags are relevant to what people would search for and find
+ Additional coverage ensures a higher probability of being caught by the blacklist

- Requires extra tagging, but nothing really out of the way that wouldnt've been done anyway (since there's so much overlap)

When we have a fuller set of criteria for identifying the sizes, it shouldn't be too difficult to identify the overlapping/ambiguous cases as well

Just checked the wiki for breasts, and there doesn't seem to be any mention not using the tag on posts where the breasts aren't directly visible

Is this true? (I remember that was a rule some time ago)

e621:tagging checklist doesn't mention this either, afaik

-

So, do posts like post #631825
get tagged with breasts?

Cases where they're not directly visible, but not absent either

Thinking there should be a new tag, if one doesn't already exist for that exposed_breasts

?
clothed_breasts?

A tag search for breast*cloth* shows up nothing

Main reason for tagging breasts under clothes like that is a search for breasts female wouldn't list the above post, despite them being present in the image (albeit under clothing and not exposed)

a search for medium_breasts, or any of the other breast size tags wouldn't work either

Exposed_breasts.

Anyway, it was decided that all breasts get the breasts tag. Because trying to change that would be unfeasible: covered breasts are still seen as breasts, and tagged as such by just about everyone. Trying to exclude those would result in yet an another tag that'd need daily clean up. Not to mention that the subtags and such (breast sizes, etc.) could no longer be tagged for covered breasts.

Genjar said:

Makes sense

Just to be sure, does that mean posts like post #871306 would get the breasts tag?

titanmelon said:
Just to be sure, does that mean posts like post #871306 would get the breasts tag?

Yes.

parasprite said:
Yes.

OK!
Added 'breats to posts with covered breasts over the last couple months, and updated the [[breasts]] wiki about that relatedly, there's the [[exposed_breasts]] tag --- h5. Update Added: * forum #59642 - Tag alias: crotchboob, crotchboobs → teats (Jan. 2013) ** p.forum #204871 - more examples of the differences between teats, breasts, crotchboobs, and udders

Should udders count as teats?

Noticed post #620220 in the examples for teats, which raises a question:

Should udders count as teats?

• teats
• udders

Forgive me for necroing this. If this has already been resolved or is no longer up for debate, feel free to delete this comment or whatever.

I believe we should use the rule34.xxx method of determining breast size discussed somewhat in this thread and this wikia section.

TL;DR They compare breast size to torso size instead of head size to compensate for disproportionate characters like Amy Rose. Their definitions are a little rough but we can hammer them out.

I just found another oddity in the breast tags. Why is hyper_breasts implicated to huge_breasts and huge_breasts implicated to big_breasts when big, huge and hyper refer to 3 different size groups? This means anything tagged hyper_breasts automatically gets the huge_breasts and big_breasts tags even if they don't apply.

Example:
post #1043196

According to the wiki:
- big_breasts: Pretty big, but still smaller than the bearer's head.
- huge_breasts: Still physically plausible to somewhat unlikely. Equal or exceeds the bearer's head in size.
- hyper_breasts: From too large to physically carry and beyond.

So how can a character's breasts be smaller than their head, equal to or greater than their head, and significantly larger than their head all at the same time? Implicating the tags together results in diluted search results (ie. searching big_breasts always finds big, huge and hyper) and requiring extra effort to find images in one specific category when it should as simple as searching the category you want to get the category you want.

Also, in relation to my previous post, something like this...
post #390318
...satisfies the condition of being smaller than a character's head (ie. big) yet are large enough to be considered huge (or possibly even hyper) if her head was a bit smaller. So which size group should it belong to, big or huge?

Looking through amy_rose images, I found a massive range in what qualifies for the big_breasts tag. Breasts as small as post #873218 and as large as post #390318 both fit the definition despite one being several times larger the size of the other just because her head is so huge. This can potentially happen to any macrocephalic (ie. large headed) character.

I recommend an overhaul on the size definitions to prevent situations like this from happening.

BlueDingo said:
I just found another oddity in the breast tags. Why is hyper_breasts implicated to huge_breasts and huge_breasts implicated to big_breasts when big, huge and hyper refer to 3 different size groups? This means anything tagged hyper_breasts automatically gets the huge_breasts and big_breasts tags even if they don't apply.

Example:
post #1043196

According to the wiki:
- big_breasts: Pretty big, but still smaller than the bearer's head.
- huge_breasts: Still physically plausible to somewhat unlikely. Equal or exceeds the bearer's head in size.
- hyper_breasts: From too large to physically carry and beyond.

So how can a character's breasts be smaller than their head, equal to or greater than their head, and significantly larger than their head all at the same time? Implicating the tags together results in diluted search results (ie. searching big_breasts always finds big, huge and hyper) and requiring extra effort to find images in one specific category when it should as simple as searching the category you want to get the category you want.

Actually, we want them to imply downwards. If a person wants to see only big breasts, but not huge, they could blacklist or exclude huge_breasts. Want to see big and hyper, but not huge? Blacklist huge_breasts -hyper_breasts and you'll once more see images with hyper, but not huge (Unless it's got multiple characters, I guess).

But that means you have a situation where you can find images that don't contain the thing you searched for. Searching big_breasts can find thousands of images that don't actually contain big_breasts. For example, searching big_breasts solo gives you images like example 1 in my previous post, clearly too big to just be considered big and clearly not what was searched for, and you shouldn't have to put in extra effort to exclude things that shouldn't be able to show up in the first place.

What if someone wants the big breasts tag to behave like it's supposed to, ie. find all images containing big breasts with or without other sizes present and ignore images that don't have any big_breasts present. Should they have go to the extraordinary effort of setting up an overly-complicated blacklist just to make a tag function properly (and still end up with unwanted results)?

just alias them all to boobery_blops

BlueDingo said:
What if someone wants the big breasts tag to behave like it's supposed to, ie. find all images containing big breasts with or without other sizes present and ignore images that don't have any big_breasts present. Should they have go to the extraordinary effort of setting up an overly-complicated blacklist just to make a tag function properly (and still end up with unwanted results)?

This isn't the correct question. The correct question is "does this [nested size tags] get searchers what they want, or not?".

You have attempted to claim it doesn't ("it's not 'supposed to' work this way"). However, personally my experience with those tags is they work exactly as I want (bigger than X is fine, smaller than X is not); which should at least demonstrate that there are other points of view than yours on what it is 'supposed to' do.

savageorange said:
This isn't the correct question. The correct question is "does this [nested size tags] get searchers what they want, or not?".

You have attempted to claim it doesn't ("it's not 'supposed to' work this way"). However, personally my experience with those tags is they work exactly as I want (bigger than X is fine, smaller than X is not); which should at least demonstrate that there are other points of view than yours on what it is 'supposed to' do.

This is a two way problem, though. Some users may wish to see a specific size of boob, but have to miss out on some images they may like simply because they'd have to exclude the higher size. If we reversed it so they each just straight up implied breasts, then we couldn't search for big_breasts and get them all. The only workaround to solve both problems would be a tag like above_average_breasts that all of the bigger sizes imply to.

I meant the question the way I asked it. The way those tags function now is not the same as how other tags function. It's supposed to be: Search what you want to find what you want, exclude what you don't want to avoid what you don't want. With these implications, you've essentially caused a problem and resolved an inconvenience at the same time.

From what I see, this setup merely reduces some searches by one tag (eg. shortening "big_breasts -huge_breasts -hyper_breasts" to "big_breasts -huge_breasts" and shortening "huge_breasts -big_breasts -hyper_breasts" to "huge_breasts -hyper_breasts") but in doing so, have broken the big_breasts tag's normal functionality and opened up several problems, such as huge_breasts and hyper_breasts showing up in a "big_breasts solo" search and preventing a search that allows you to find post #1039313 (big and huge present) without post #1043154 or post #1042310 (no big present) showing up as well.

I would like to see working solutions to these problems.

BlueDingo said:
I meant the question the way I asked it. The way those tags function now is not the same as how other tags function. It's supposed to be: Search what you want to find what you want, exclude what you don't want to avoid what you don't want. With these implications, you've essentially caused a problem and resolved an inconvenience at the same time.

From what I see, this setup merely reduces some searches by one tag (eg. shortening "big_breasts -huge_breasts -hyper_breasts" to "big_breasts -huge_breasts" and shortening "huge_breasts -big_breasts -hyper_breasts" to "huge_breasts -hyper_breasts") but in doing so, have broken the big_breasts tag's normal functionality and opened up several problems, such as huge_breasts and hyper_breasts showing up in a "big_breasts solo" search and preventing a search that allows you to find post #1039313 (big and huge present) without post #1043154 or post #1042310 (no big present) showing up as well.

I would like to see working solutions to these problems.

"Fixing" this would be a big pain, though. People who like big breasts almost always like huge or hyper breasts, too.

Search for big_breasts -huge_breasts solo to get the images you want.

Furrin_Gok said:
The only workaround to solve both problems would be a tag like above_average_breasts that all of the bigger sizes imply to.

Wouldn't ~big_breasts ~huge_breasts ~hyper_breasts do the same thing?

BlueDingo said:
Wouldn't ~big_breasts ~huge_breasts ~hyper_breasts do the same thing?

There's a limit on how many tags one can put into their search. Fuzzy searches still count.

Furrin_Gok said:
"Fixing" this would be a big pain, though. People who like big breasts almost always like huge or hyper breasts, too.

Search for big_breasts -huge_breasts solo to get the images you want.

This means someone who wants a solo image of a character with big or huge breasts has to add another tag to make sure that they only get thing the explicitly searched for. With just about everything else, you don't have to do this. With just about everything else, when you search for a solo of/with something, you get a solo of/with that something without having to take countermeasures to block other things that shouldn't be able to show up.

Eg. searching lion solo finds solo lions. You don't have to add -tiger to block all the tigers that sneak into the search results because, with the exception of transformation and hybrids, none can.

Edit: And there's still the other problem.

BlueDingo said:
...and preventing a search that allows you to find post #1039313 (big and huge present) without post #1043154 or post #1042310 (no big present) showing up as well.

Furrin_Gok said:
This is a two way problem, though.

Exactly my point. The definition of what is correct in this case is not settled and should not be treated as if it is.

What is mathematically logical is exactly what BlueDingo says -- a solo post should have either zero or one of the size tags, because they are described as a tiered system.

However, in real language use, people tend to nest categories like this (eg. big can also describe something that is huge or colossal), which is relevant to how you may expect people to search.

ie. There is a difference between how we expect people to tag and how we expect people to search. The latter is always going to be more lax, which means that it's invalid to simply assume that mathematically correct == correct in practice.

Some users may wish to see a specific size of boob, but have to miss out on some images they may like simply because they'd have to exclude the higher size. If we reversed it so they each just straight up implied breasts, then we couldn't search for big_breasts and get them all. The only workaround to solve both problems would be a tag like above_average_breasts that all of the bigger sizes imply to.

.. that actually wouldn't be a complete solution. 'above_average_breasts' in your proposition is equivalent to how 'big_breasts' is currently set up. A complete solution would also have a tag that is equivalent to how 'huge_breasts' is currently set up.

Reallly, to me this demonstrates that (big|huge|hyper)_foo is an example of an ugly hack around the lack of tag=value support; it's really an integer scale that is being referred to using symbolic names. Being able to search for eg. breast_size>=3 (equiv to big_breasts [1] as it's currently setup) or breast_size=3 (equivalent to what BlueDingo expects), etc, is the only solution I can see that I would regard as remotely 'correct' in any objective sense.

Of course people don't tend to think in those kind of terms, which is probably one of the reasons tag=values haven't been implemented.

[1] Considering the scale to be 1=flat_chested, 2=small_breasts, 3=big_breasts, 4=huge_breasts, 5=hyper_breasts, per wiki order.

Furrin_Gok said:
There's a limit on how many tags one can put into their search. Fuzzy searches still count.

Feature request: Regexp support in searches, so you can put in ~(big|huge|hyper)_breasts and have it count as one search term.

(Joking; that's a terrible idea)

savageorange said:
Exactly my point. The definition of what is correct in this case is not settled and should not be treated as if it is.

What is mathematically logical is exactly what BlueDingo says -- a solo post should have either zero or one of the size tags, because they are described as a tiered system.
However, in real language use, people tend to nest categories like this (eg. big can also describe something that is huge or colossal), which is relevant to how you may expect people to search.

ie. There is a difference between how we expect people to tag and how we expect people to search. The latter is always going to be more lax.

.. that actually wouldn't be a complete solution. 'above_average_breasts' in your proposition is equivalent to how 'big_breasts' is currently set up. A complete solution would also have a tag that is equivalent to how 'huge_breasts' is currently set up.

Reallly, to me this demonstrates that (big|huge|hyper)_foo is an example of an ugly hack around the lack of tag=value support; it's really an integer scale that is being referred to using symbolic names. Being able to search for eg. breast_size>=3 (equiv to big_breasts [1] as it's currently setup) or breast_size=3 (equivalent to what BlueDingo expects), etc, is the only solution I can see that I would regard as remotely 'correct' in any objective sense.

Of course people don't tend to think in those kind of terms, which is probably one of the reasons tag=values haven't been implemented.

[1] Considering the scale to be 1=flat_chested, 2=small_breasts, 3=big_breasts, 4=huge_breasts, 5=hyper_breasts, per wiki order.

Feature request: Regexp support in searches, so you can put in ~(big|huge|hyper)_breasts and have it count as one search term.

(Joking; that's a terrible idea)

If we could throw in some other form of modifier as the "Regexp" sectioning, that may just work. A lot of the general things are already used, either as tags or as other modifiers, but what about curly braces and square brackets? {} and []? They're hyperlinks in posts, but may be able to work in a search.

Of course, that leaves the problem of how do we link to such searches. We could perhaps use unusual characters such as «» or 「」 (『』 It can vary) and have a secondary search box which will apply those around its contents to the primary one, but that's a heck of a lot of coding just to be able to support these different tags. If we can find a common term and just imply all three to it instead that would be much easier.

Just in case you didn't catch that, I was joking. Regexps are often an impressively terrible idea, and IMO this is no exception. Some limits on abuse could be placed, but yeah, no.

(I'm not sure whether you, or me, or both of us just fell afoul of Poe's Law ;)

Just a thought: Would *_breasts -small_breasts work?

Definitely not -- there are 20-odd reasonably popular *_breasts tags, and many less common ones.

Let's try this from a different angle. Suppose the change I want to enact here (removing the implications and removing inaccurate size tags from images) was approved by staff and actually happened, would any searches break as a result of that?

The 2nd example I mentioned four comments ago (finding post #1039313 (big and huge breasts) without post #1043154 or post #1042310 (huge breasts only) showing up as well) currently doesn't work, unless one of you know a way to make it work. If the change were to happen, this search would be possible. The change will fix a problem, but will it cause any? And no, inconveniences don't count as problems.

BlueDingo said:
Let's try this from a different angle. Suppose the change I want to enact here (removing the implications and removing inaccurate size tags from images) was approved by staff and actually happened, would any searches break as a result of that?

If by break, you mean people would get results different than they were expecting? Then yes.
We've discussed this: the nesting and non-nesting definitions are mutually exclusive. You point out that there are searches you can't currently do without this change. Well, the converse is also true. This remains the case as long as there is a limit on number of search terms.

By break, I mean render the particular search impossible.

Yes. That's necessarily the case in a system that limits the number of search terms to a relatively low number (6 in this case); anything that increases number of terms needed makes some previously-possible searches impossible.

That applies to any overly detailed search. Would the change break any search that the current system enables? From what I can see, those searches will less convenient but still possible. An inconvenient situation is not as bad as a broken one.

I'm still yet to see any possible workarounds to my most recent example.
(post #1039313 without post #1043154 or post #1042310)

BlueDingo said:
That applies to any overly detailed search. Would the change break any search that the current system enables?

Other people may feel this question has not been answered. I do not.

savageorange said:
Other people may feel this question has not been answered. I do not.

Because you haven't explained how it prevents you from performing a search for "big_breasts or larger" which is what the implication chain is meant to achieve. You have explained how it prevents you from performing a search for "big_breasts or larger" plus 4 other things. It only prevents that search if you load it up with other stuff. It doesn't prevent that search altogether.

I'm still yet to see any possible workarounds to my most recent example.
(post #1039313 without post #1043154 or post #1042310)

Until someone either provides a workaround or admits that there is no workaround, this example will not go away. On every other booru site, searching big_breasts (or equivalent) by itself will produce the intended result. How would you get that result here?

I'm also waiting for a staff member to weigh in on this.

I think I've found a solution:

De-alias large_breasts from big_breasts
De-implicate hyper_breasts from huge_breasts

Give the large_breasts tag the current definition of big_breasts.
Define big_breasts as large_breasts, huge_breasts and hyper_breasts collectively.

Implicate large_breasts to big_breasts
Implicate huge_breasts to big_breasts
Implicate hyper_breasts to big_breasts

Start a tag project to clean up inaccurate tags.

For misc. loose ends:
De-alias large_boobs from big_breasts
Alias large_boobs to large_breasts

Individual sizes can be searched and excluded just like any other tag (solving the issues I presented). The implication chain becomes an implication... fork, I guess. Searches that relied on the chain can be adapted to the fork and much of the convenience should be retained. Tag number inflation via implications would be reduced (not an issue per se but it's still something).

Any questions?

titanmelon said:
Also, can we please, please, please have some kind of specific tag for 'regular' medium sized B-C cup sized breasts?

Different art styles have different head sizes (compare Sonic & non-Sonic artists) and therefore breast to head size is not a reliable measuremen.

- - - - -

On my personal art sites I tag all my big boobs "busty" followed by a more precise, non-inclusive size.

That is, huge_breasts doesn't implicate big_breasts in my personal gallery, but both are tagged busty (as would massive_breasts or hyper_breasts.)

I also tag teats ("crotchboobs" is an ugly word and I avoid using it wherever possible) with busty if applicable.

• Users who want big & huge but not hyper can search busty -hyper_breasts.
• Users who want busty without teats can search busty -teats.

FibS said:
Different art styles have different head sizes (compare Sonic & non-Sonic artists) and therefore breast to head size is not a reliable measuremen.

So basically, what I brought up and offered a possible solution to 9 days ago.

Edit 03-03-2017: And still have no response to... I don't know, maybe people like it being horribly inconsistent.