Topic: Tag Alias: male_on_anthro -> male/anthro

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Versperus

Janitor

Aliasing male_on_anthro → male/anthro
Link to alias

Reason:

anthro_on_male -> male/anthro
anthro/male -> male/anthro

female_on_anthro -> female/anthro
anthro_on_female -> female/anthro
anthro/female -> female/anthro

Anthromorphic related tags

male_on_feral -> male/feral
feral_on_male -> male/feral
feral/male -> male/feral

female_on_feral -> female/feral
feral_on_female -> female/feral
feral/female -> female/feral

Feral Related

Grouping and simplifying gender related tags

EDIT: The tag alias male_on_anthro -> male/anthro (forum #270264) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

Updated by auto moderator

MoonlitSoul

Member

Vote against on the grounds that male-on-feral implies the male is topping, just as feral-on-male implies the feral is topping, so while similar, the tags are not exactly the same thing and can provide some specificity.

Updated by anonymous

user 22273

Member

MoonlitSoul said:
Vote against on the grounds that male-on-feral implies the male is topping, just as feral-on-male implies the feral is topping, so while similar, the tags are not exactly the same thing and can provide some specificity.

we do not use in these tags different tags to distinct who is topping what. most of the different versions have already been aliased away into one version long time ago. here we are talking about aliasing the whole mess to simpler and more compact form.

Updated by anonymous

ImpidiDinkaDoo

Former Staff

+1, this would make things so much simpler imho, for both taggers and search results. Imho this should also apply to tags like anthro_on_anthro, which would get a reverse alias to anthro/anthro, for ease of use and consistency.

Here are some more suggestions for the rest of these:

Related implications

Related aliases

Updated by anonymous

ImpidiDinkaDoo

Former Staff

Ruikuli said:
i gotta say, i really admire your dedication with this stuff

daww thank you

I suppose you could blame my adhd and other stuff, since that all makes me just absolutely focus the hell out of organizing random things like these lmao

anyways that aside I rly do like this idea, and think it would benefit the site quite a bit in terms of searchability, exclusion, and ease of understanding and use

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

There should also be a set for taur, since that's one of the core form tags.

But is this tag group even necessary?
Unless I'm overlooking something, it's already possible to search for the same thing with combos, assuming that the more common <form>_on_<form> and orientation tags are already tagged. There's also the whole *_penetrating and *_penetrated group.

Doesn't feel worthwhile to tag those, considering how often those would need to be tagged to have a decent coverage.

Updated by anonymous

ImpidiDinkaDoo

Former Staff

Genjar said:
There should also be a set for taur, since that's one of the core form tags.

But is this tag group even necessary?
Unless I'm overlooking something, it's already possible to search for the same thing with combos, assuming that the more common <form>_on_<form> and orientation tags are already tagged. There's also the whole *_penetrating and *_penetrated group.

Doesn't feel worthwhile to tag those, considering how often those would need to be tagged to have a decent coverage.

Ahhhh u rite, I missed taurs completely lmao. My bad. Will edit that in in a little bit.

I originally thought of them being a bit repetitive as a tag type, but other mods have found valid use of *_penetrating_* tags and have told me they do seem to serve some sort of useful purpose in searching and excluding, and I can understand their points on that. So, personally, though I find them maybe slightly redundant if a lot of mods see a use for it I missed then perhaps it does serve a useful function.

Updated by anonymous

SnowWolf

Former Staff

Genjar said:
There should also be a set for taur, since that's one of the core form tags.

But is this tag group even necessary?
Unless I'm overlooking something, it's already possible to search for the same thing with combos, assuming that the more common <form>_on_<form> and orientation tags are already tagged. There's also the whole *_penetrating and *_penetrated group.

Doesn't feel worthwhile to tag those, considering how often those would need to be tagged to have a decent coverage.

I think it helps out more in group pictures. Two ferals and two anthro are in this picture. The anthros are having sex and so are the ferals. feral_penetrating anthro_penetrated finds this picture when anthro_on_feral would not.

I think it adds something to the ability to search. :)

Updated by anonymous

Clawdragons

Member

Genjar said:
There should also be a set for taur, since that's one of the core form tags.

But is this tag group even necessary?
Unless I'm overlooking something, it's already possible to search for the same thing with combos, assuming that the more common <form>_on_<form> and orientation tags are already tagged. There's also the whole *_penetrating and *_penetrated group.

Doesn't feel worthwhile to tag those, considering how often those would need to be tagged to have a decent coverage.

As the person who originally pushed for the [gender]_on_[form] tags, I will once again explain my reasoning.

The thing is, you CAN'T get good results using only [form]_on_[form] and [gender]/[gender] tags. This is because those tags ignore who is who in the pairing, and that is an incredibly significant aspect of interest/orientation related to cross-form interactions.

In effect, there is a massive difference between the people looking for, say, female-human-with-male-animal content, and people looking for male-human-with-male-animal content, and being unable to specify between the two is effectively similar to if we didn't allow for searching for specific gender pairings.

I actually got thanked multiple times after having gotten those tags okayed.

Anyway, I stand by their existence and their use, very strongly.

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

Clawdragons said:
The thing is, you CAN'T get good results using only [form]_on_[form] and [gender]/[gender] tags. This is because those tags ignore who is who in the pairing, and that is an incredibly significant aspect of interest/orientation related to cross-form interactions.

Not with those tags, right. But what about form_on_form + form_penetrating, such as human_on_feral human_penetrating?

Updated by anonymous

Clawdragons

Member

There are several problems with that.

First and foremost, not all sex is penetrative. So naturally this ignores any form of non-penetrative sex. There's also not-sex-but-still-relevant content to consider, such as kissing / intimacy.

As an aside, it's also possible to have females penetrating, or, say, intersex individuals penetrating, so that needs to be accounted for.

Second, human_penetrating is massively undertagged, something on the order of 1/100th of the posts that male_on_feral has, so would require a major tagging project to bring up to par.

Third, the human_on_feral human_penetrating tag combination is less immediately obvious to users and typically requires more tags to get effective results, which for something as basic as orientation, is a bad area to impair ease-of-use. Tags like female_on_feral and male_on_feral are easier for users to get the hang of and are usually pretty effective even on their own for finding relevant images, and even more so when combined with other extremely common tags.

I would also say that it is my experience that users who are looking for content in the general realm of zoophilia content are primarily interested in the gender of the more-human partner, and there is typically more willingness to see content of other gender pairings, or involving anthros rather than humans, compared to seeing content which involves someone of a different gender.

To sum up: the [gender]_on_[form] tags are more inclusive and accurate regarding different types of sex, require fewer tags overall to give good results, are better tagged, and are more intuitive in their usage and relevant in their results for how users typically use them.

Updated by anonymous

jackson22222

Member

Apologies for the length of the post, I was discussing this topic with someone else the other day, so several thoughts are still on my mind. I also apologies if I misunderstand anything at any point. I have been rather busy with life lately, so my mental processing isn't at its best lately.

For Dice's suggestion, I can't say that I am a fan of bundling all of the various non-male/female sex classifications into just intersex. After all, while they may be classified the same in a linguistic sense, at the end of the day, when someone is searching for explicit images, I feel most are looking for specific things. Someone who is looking for a feminine figure with both a vagina and a penis may not be looking for a masculine figure with a vagina and no penis, and vice-versa.
While proper terminology is important, I feel that the primary focus of search function on an image and animation index, is to bring people what they want to see, and requiring everyone who wants to see a specific thing to sort through all the various things that are not what they are looking for, simply because they are medically referred to as the same, seems counter to that idea.

I completely agree with Clawdragons. While I love this site, I would be lying if I denied that many uploaders don't use every tag that matches their upload, such as this example https://e621.net/post/show/1893396/
I hold no ill will to users who don't. I am grateful for every post on this site, but it does demonstrate my meaning.

I imagine that a wide variety of tags can be a pain, but personally, I am really only into a human male or hermaphrodite penetrating a female or hermaphrodite anthro/feral. It was really annoying searching something like human_on_anthro and sorting through all the human females, and I have to say, I am glad that I recently discovered the human on anthro tag.

For me, it would be kind of a step back for both myself, and I imagine many other users, to then have to sort through a large amount of x_penetrating results that come up when one just searches human or male on anthro; which I personally do because of all the times I have stumbled across something I like months later, that didn't pop up in my usual search because it didn't have all of the proper tags.

Additionally, again as Clawed said, what about instances where there is a clearly explicit scene, but no direct penetration, such as this post? https://e621.net/post/show/47674/age_difference-anthro-balls-bdsm-big_breasts-blind

In short, again, I agree that many tags can be annoying, but at the same time, so is having to sift through dozens of images you don't want to see because they fall under the same tag you are looking for, as is having to search the most broad of terms simply because you don't want to miss something due to someone missing at least one of several different tags that could have simply been covered by just one.

Updated by anonymous

leomole

Former Staff

male/anthro makes more sense than male_on_anthro, but do we really need these cross-category gender/form tags? There are more than 83,000 male/female anthro only pictures on e6 for example. Tagging all of them with male/anthro and female/anthro does not add meaningful information to them, it's just tag bloat.

Clawdragons argues convincingly for the benefit these gender/form tags pose to zoophiles, but does that outweigh the (minor) cost it poses to the majority of users? If we're going to implement cross-category tags, I would sooner reintroduce stuff like female_fox and male_lion. We get threads about that all the time. And it would actually solve this issue just as easily. Zoophiles could specify human/feral human_male.

e6 just isn't designed for cross-category tags like this. We're implementing three dozen tags here that will mostly provide redundant information.

jackson22222 said:
many tags can be annoying, but at the same time, so is having to sift through dozens of images you don't want to see because they fall under the same tag

Yes, e6's lack of specificity can be annoying. It would be nice to be able to search specifically for a voluptuous_vixen_receiving instead of sifting through voluptuous female fox penetration -solo (actual yield 45%), but until we develop character-specific and interaction-specific tagging, sifting is just part of the search experience.

Updated by anonymous

Clawdragons

Member

leomole said:
male/anthro makes more sense than male_on_anthro, but do we really need these cross-category gender/form tags? There are more than 83,000 male/female anthro only pictures on e6 for example. Tagging all of them with male/anthro and female/anthro does not add meaningful information to them, it's just tag bloat.

Clawdragons argues convincingly for the benefit these gender/form tags pose to zoophiles, but does that outweigh the (minor) cost it poses to the majority of users? If we're going to implement cross-category tags, I would sooner reintroduce stuff like female_fox and male_lion. We get threads about that all the time. And it would actually solve this issue just as easily. Zoophiles could specify human/feral human_male.

e6 just isn't designed for cross-category tags like this. We're implementing three dozen tags here that will mostly provide redundant information.

Yes, e6's lack of specificity can be annoying. It would be nice to be able to search specifically for a voluptuous_vixen_receiving instead of sifting through voluptuous female fox penetration -solo (actual yield 45%), but until we develop character-specific and interaction-specific tagging, sifting is just part of the search experience.

Quite a few things to say to this.

If we're talking tag-bloat, why would you think it's a better idea to add thousands of tags for all the [gender]_species possibilities rather than the much more minor thing here. It's weird to me to say "this is tag-bloat. A better solution would be a hundred times worse tag-bloat."

Second, these tags are only meant for cross-form interactions - which you would see if you looked at the wiki. So if we look at the male/female anthro ~human_on_anthro ~taur_on_anthro ~feral_on_anthro ~humanoid_on_anthro we can see we're not talking about 83000 posts but rather 21000 or so.

However, even so, this is far bloated from my original proposal. My original proposal was for these tags to be used minimally, which meant that for any cross-form interaction, it would be [gender_of_more-human_form]_on_[form_of_least_human_form], which cuts down the required tagging substantially. Assuming a heirarchy of human -> humanoid -> anthro -> taur -> feral, this cuts things down to this search for male/female images involving [gender]_on_anthro: male/female anthro ~human_on_anthro ~humanoid_on_anthro. We're down to 16000 posts now, and half as many tags per post necessary. Of those, 6000 already appear to have been tagged properly.

So the problem is much less substantial than you seem to suggest. These tags are specifically only used when they do provide non-redundant information, and the wiki makes that clear.

Also, you miss something pretty major. Someone searching for bestiality content couldn't specify human/feral human_male because this entirely fails to find a massive amount of content from the tag - anthro_on_feral content, which your suggestion is totally incapable of addressing.

Finally, I would agree that yes, sifting through irrelevant content is part of the search experience in some cases. But we're not talking about someone who wants to see something super specific like in your example, we're talking something general and broadly applicable. Everyone I've met who searches for cross-form interactions has a preference on the gender of the different forms, so I would consider these much more "basic functionality" rather than "niche use" tags.

I would like to point out that I still occasionally get people sending me messages thanking me for getting [gender]_on_[form] tags implemented because it made searching so much more effective, and I can bet you that's not the case for most other tags that get implemented - if we want to actually address tag-bloat, let's not start on the tags that people find incredibly useful.

Updated by anonymous

leomole

Former Staff

Those are some good points.

Clawdragons said:
If we're talking tag-bloat, why would you think it's a better idea to add thousands of tags for all the [gender]_species possibilities rather than the much more minor thing here.

Considering the regular demand for gender_species tags, I would consider those useful rather than bloat. More useful than gender/form, at least. They could be tag bloat too.

Clawdragons said:
these tags are only meant for cross-form interactions - which you would see if you looked at the wiki

Oh I see. Sorry, I didn't look at the wiki, I just made the natural assumption. I think most taggers would see the male_on_anthro or male/anthro tag and use it whenever there's a male character interacting with an anthro character.

Well your original suggestion of 16,000 tags seems reasonable to me. But it also seems that people making natural extensions of it have brought us to discussion about 166,000+ redundant tags. This would have to be carefully monitored and moderated to work.

Clawdragons said:
this entirely fails to find a massive amount of content from the tag - anthro_on_feral

That's true. My suggestion, while more broadly useful, does not address the specific issue of specifying gender within anthro/feral posts.

Clawdragons said:
we're talking something general and broadly applicable

I don't doubt that there are people find it incredibly useful, I'm just not sure its useful to the majority of users. Or that the usefulness outweighs the cost. If we can keep it contained to posts that benefit substantially, then I support it.

For one thing I think that means keeping it as gender_on_form instead of gender/form. The latter's congruence with gender/gender and form/form tags suggests that it should be used whenever applicable regardless of what the wiki says. Keeping it use restricted as you suggest would be a constant uphill battle. gender_on_form is a bit better at least.

Updated by anonymous

Versperus

Janitor

I just wanted simplifications for pre-existing tags on site for uniformity and ease of tagging / searching.

Updated by anonymous

Clawdragons

Member

leomole said:
For one thing I think that means keeping it as gender_on_form instead of gender/form. The latter's congruence with gender/gender and form/form tags suggests that it should be used whenever applicable regardless of what the wiki says. Keeping it use restricted as you suggest would be a constant uphill battle. gender_on_form is a bit better at least.

My way of thinking was that [gender]_on_[form] was more analogous to how other tags involving cross-forms interactions were used (ex. human_on_feral), so yeah we agree here.

I think users in general have been applying the tags correctly, as far as I've seen. It could be made more clear by adding bestiality implications to tags to the [gender]_on_[form] tags because then the addition of the implicated tag would help people realize when they were using the tag incorrectly.

More generally, a tag for sexual interaction between different bodystyles - a supergroup which includes but is not limited to bestiality - might be worth having and implying from all [gender]_on_[form] tags, which would help clarify usage for variations of that tag structure which don't fall under bestiality. Users would never need to tag it directly, so it doesn't add additional difficulty, but it might be useful for searching and clarifying usage (similar to how bestiality implying feral sometimes helps people realize when they are using the bestiality tag incorrectly).

Updated by anonymous

Versperus

Janitor

Clawdragons said:

I think users in general have been applying the tags correctly, as far as I've seen. It could be made more clear by adding bestiality implications to tags to the [gender]_on_[form] tags because then the addition of the implicated tag would help people realize when they were using the tag incorrectly.

The tags aren't always used for sexual interaction though, I imagine something like.... a dog licking a girls face could still acquire human/feral tagging without it being bestiality.

Updated by anonymous

Versperus

Janitor

watsit said:
Might be better to alias to anthro or male. male/anthro currently has no uses, while anthro/male had 4, 3 of which (now fixed) were anthro_on_anthro and not mixed-form like male_on_anthro is for.

I'd much rather have male/anthro aliased to male_on_anthro, considering the naming practices on things like male/female have me instinctively writing it out when tagging. It would make manual tagging much more convenient. Not to mention female/anthro already follows this alias practice.

Fliphook

Member

i am not one who knows about BURs and alias and implication stuff, but this may seem unneccessary as the 'male' part to me is just suggesting that its human(male) on anthro therefore human_on_anthro

or did i miss something here

Watsit

Privileged

fliphook said:
i am not one who knows about BURs and alias and implication stuff, but this may seem unneccessary as the 'male' part to me is just suggesting that its human(male) on anthro therefore human_on_anthro

or did i miss something here

male_on_anthro is for any non-anthro male on an anthro, so it also applies for male humanoids and ferals on an anthro too. Similar for male_on_feral applying to any non-feral male on a feral.

Fliphook

Member

watsit said:
male_on_anthro is for any non-anthro male on an anthro, so it also applies for male humanoids and ferals on an anthro too. Similar for male_on_feral applying to any non-feral male on a feral.

ok so one post could have the tags:

male_on_anthro
male/female
anthro on feral

all on one post

so this post #4683492 could have male_on_anthro added to it.
but it still feels redundant somehow, mainly with the anthro_on_feral already stating whats going on. maybe i need another example

Tarrgon

Janitor

. anthro_on_feral this states action between two forms

. male/female this between two genders

and male_on_anthro to denote that the male is the feral, and the female is the anthro of the two, which is impossible to decipher without the tag as neither of the previous give any indication of which is which.

Watsit

Privileged

fliphook said:
but it still feels redundant somehow, mainly with the anthro_on_feral already stating whats going on. maybe i need another example

anthro_on_feral would also apply to female/female, gynomorph/female, ambiguous/ambiguous, etc. While male/female+anthro_on_feral could also apply to a male anthro on female feral (and particularly in the case of bestiality, 'male anthro or human on female feral' vs 'female anthro or human on male feral' can be important distinctions for some people; similar for human+anthro pairings).

Tarrgon

Janitor

cloudpie said:
Would like to point out that we have male_feral and female_anthro now as well

While, yes, we do have these, it does not technically do the same thing as what I stated. As there can be more characters in the image that aren't interacting with each other. Meaning this blacklisting, say, male_on_anthro, does not accomplish the same thing as blocking male_feral female_anthro anthro_on_feral unless you were to add duo to it, but again it false-positives a lot of posts that contain other characters in it, though non-interacting.

Fliphook

Member

I may want to view more information as this pops up but with the info definitelynotafurry last put I may want to just say something before I sit and watch.

Like how interspecies is a tag used for contrasting species that are interacting

What about something with intermorph for creatures of different stages of 'furries' whether they be quadruped, biped, digitigrade, plantigrade or humanoid

I'll sit and watch now, if I am derailing anything or missing the point please ignore

Updated

  • 1