Aliasing medium_breasts -> breasts

First off this tag was once aliased away before, why it was de-aliased in the first place seems to not make any since other then being out a former mod's personal bias rather then a objective reason from what i can gather from brief forum discussions regarding this.

The breast wikis spell out this tag as being used for breasts that are normal size or average but those are rather nebulous/ ambiguous terms that dont really mean anything from a objective tagging standpoint. What is normal or average, the wikis of cource dont quantify what that actually is.

Further, in no other tag grouping do we even try defining a average(they are defaulted to the base tag of the grouping), we only have size tags for different levels of quantifiable big(big,huge,hyper) or small(small,micro) tags

Obviously the content is nothing but mostly a random mix of small and big breasts slapped together under the same tag, serving no real propose for searching.

Might add average_breasts does remain aliased away...

PS: I also propose for the removal of all mention of "cup" sizing from the breast wikis, they i are a rather arbitrary(if misleading) measurement that is limited to the American fashion industry and many dont truthfully understand and it does not actually even define breast size but rather the ratio between the chest width and added width from the bust, which would lead to women who have the same breast size but one having a wider overall chest being classified differently.

I prefer having three tiers. I am a supporter of this tag, because all breasts should have a size tag.

If we removed it, then there will be cases where breasts don't fit in the big or small category. So they will get thrown in with all of the posts where people don't give a breast size.

Basically you will have the same issue. You will have a collection of posts intermixed with small, and big breasts posts. It wouldn't really fix the problem, and it would throw all of the edge cases into an even bigger mistagged pool of posts.

TheVileOne said:
I prefer having three tiers. I am a supporter of this tag, because all breasts should have a size tag.

If we removed it, then there will be cases where breasts don't fit in the big or small category. So they will get thrown in with all of the posts where people don't give a breast size.

Basically you will have the same issue. You will have a collection of posts intermixed with small, and big breasts posts. It wouldn't really fix the problem, and it would throw all of the edge cases into an even bigger mistagged pool of posts.

I mean, breasts -small_breasts -big_breasts would solve that problem, with breasts without those tags theoretically being around average/medium

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
I mean, breasts -small_breasts -big_breasts would solve that problem, with breasts without those tags theoretically being around average/medium

As someone who has tagged for a decent amount of time, it is common for me to see images without size tags added. Each time people who are unaware of what category it fits, or are too lazy to check the wiki to come up with more specific tags will just default to breasts. This is a lot of people, and a lot of posts.

At least with the medium_breasts tag, people have had to spend effort to find it, and will be more likely to correctly tag it than people not tagging the size at all.

Besides I just don't understand the logic of reducing the usefulness of breast size tagging for people who try to get the size tagging correct and fix it when people forget to do it. I would be more likely to just not tag something if it falls into a grey area if every size didn't have a specific tag for it.

At least once it has a size tag, people will know that someone tried to put an effort into judging the size.

user 1 -> Is this breast size correct?
-> It is hard to say. Leaves it alone.
user 2 -> Is this breast size correct?
-> It is hard to say. Leaves it alone.

Just repeat the process with everyone who updates breast size tags.

TheVileOne said:
As someone who has tagged for a decent amount of time, it is common for me to see images without size tags added. Each time people who are unaware of what category it fits, or are too lazy to check the wiki to come up with more specific tags will just default to breasts. This is a lot of people, and a lot of posts.

At least with the medium_breasts tag, people have had to spend effort to find it, and will be more likely to correctly tag it than people not tagging the size at all.

Besides I just don't understand the logic of reducing the usefulness of breast size tagging for people who try to get the size tagging correct and fix it when people forget to do it. I would be more likely to just not tag something if it falls into a grey area if every size didn't have a specific tag for it.

At least once it has a size tag, people will know that someone tried to put an effort into judging the size.

user 1 -> Is this breast size correct?
-> It is hard to say. Leaves it alone.
user 2 -> Is this breast size correct?
-> It is hard to say. Leaves it alone.

Just repeat the process with everyone who updates breast size tags.

In this case, how do we go about tagging the similar penis size related tags? Average sizes often get heavily mistagged as small, and often "average" penises really have no equivalent tag. If we go with the above, we need to probably do this to similar tags.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
In this case, how do we go about tagging the similar penis size related tags? Average sizes often get heavily mistagged as small, and often "average" penises really have no equivalent tag. If we go with the above, we need to probably do this to similar tags.

I don't think it is a bad idea to go with medium categories for other things as well. I really haven't tagged penis size often unless it really stands out.

Although part of me wants to argue that breasts are a special situation. I tend to associate breasts exclusively with humanoid physiology. Penis size varies from creature to creature. It is harder to define an average size that everyone would intuitively consider.

Note: Having really nice image examples in the wikis would also help with mistagging for penis size.

Edit: I just realized that the terminology is being changed to "average sized" instead of the size in between small, and large. It just happens to be around average for breasts, but that may not be true for other body parts.

It's annoying that people are too daft to use this one right and put it on what does not apply. I would use the crap out of this tag lol.

Furries like to over estimate what is average, some as when they tried to label dong size. :(

Hi, I'd like to order a #5 combo with a side of medium breasts and a large Sprite

TheHuskyK9 said:
Hi, I'd like to order a #5 combo with a side of medium breasts and a large Sprite

breast machine broke

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
In this case, how do we go about tagging the similar penis size related tags? Average sizes often get heavily mistagged as small, and often "average" penises really have no equivalent tag. If we go with the above, we need to probably do this to similar tags.

A problem with this is what qualifies as average penis size? What is "average" differs according to race. Those of Oriental descent have an average size near 4 inches a consider the Caucasian average of 5½ to be big. Throw in those of African descent with an average size that's over 6 inches, and "average" can cover a lot of ground just among humans.

Throw in other species and the disparity in sizes can really vary, from the dinky lagomorphs to the naturally well-endowed odd-toed ungulates and Cape ground squirrels. Add in anthros, which are purely fictional, and the natural insecurities of males causing them to exaggerate sizes to seem more virile, and trying to nail down what is "average" will likely have it walking off with the hammer. "Average is going to cover a lot of ground.

Personally, I'd rather save the penis size tags for extremes in size, from micropenises to the Winger-esque. I normally would go something similar with breast sizes, although I admit here, the variations are much smaller, so an average breast size might be more feasible.

TheVileOne said:
As someone who has tagged for a decent amount of time, it is common for me to see images without size tags added. Each time people who are unaware of what category it fits, or are too lazy to check the wiki to come up with more specific tags will just default to breasts. This is a lot of people, and a lot of posts.

At least with the medium_breasts tag, people have had to spend effort to find it, and will be more likely to correctly tag it than people not tagging the size at all.

Besides I just don't understand the logic of reducing the usefulness of breast size tagging for people who try to get the size tagging correct and fix it when people forget to do it. I would be more likely to just not tag something if it falls into a grey area if every size didn't have a specific tag for it.

At least once it has a size tag, people will know that someone tried to put an effort into judging the size.

user 1 -> Is this breast size correct?
-> It is hard to say. Leaves it alone.
user 2 -> Is this breast size correct?
-> It is hard to say. Leaves it alone.

Just repeat the process with everyone who updates breast size tags.

average is not a actual size through, and what is correct here? Average for a user from the US is going be something different then a user in say japan or Australia.

And the argument of being a grey area between the big and small tags but were do we draw the line, how many grey areas should we make tags for? A average tag for (other) bodyparts does not exist because it is at the same time too specific as it is too ambiguous to serve as a useful tag for anyone.
Average or normal, anything can be normal or average to someone, should we now make 100's of tags for every single breast size that someone happens to consider normal, just because you insist on all breast sizes needing their own tag instead of grouping in huge/hyper/big/small or defaulting to the base tag? And how would one tag for everything everyone considers average be useful? That would end up looking not much different then the base breast tag if we include every single potential size that someone might consider to be average/normal.

2600+ posts with that tag, considering we are talking about the most tagged bodypart on e621 that number is rather lousy in my opinion it is not even 1/10th of the closest size tag, this and its mismatched content indicates that users don't consider the tag worth it, dont know what to actually do with this tag or both, because again what exactly is average?

And the logic to removing this tag is that there is no usefulness, a tag posing as a size quantifier but is a mishmash of mostly small and big has no usefulness to begin with so removing it would have no negative effect, all it does is remove unnecessary confusion.

"people will know that someone tried to put an effort"

Taking it a bit personal? Users generally dont care about effort, they care about tags that are actually useful in objectively defining content in posts and help getting what they search for. This tag does nether of these.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
In this case, how do we go about tagging the similar penis size related tags? Average sizes often get heavily mistagged as small, and often "average" penises really have no equivalent tag. If we go with the above, we need to probably do this to similar tags.

what mistags are you referring to exactly? content under the penis size tags do seem to be in line with what they specify for the most part. Added again what you consider average may rightfully be considered small by others, and if they fall under the criteria specified by the wiki then they will be tagged small.

CamKitty said:
It's annoying that people are too daft to use this one right and put it on what does not apply. I would use the crap out of this tag lol.

Furries like to over estimate what is average, some as when they tried to label dong size. :(

Probly has to do with the fact that it isnt specified what does and doesnt apply, and that what average yet again is is something very different for everyone.

Darou said:
Probly has to do with the fact that it isnt specified what does and doesnt apply, and that what average yet again is is something very different for everyone.

Your right, common sense is not that common, so stuff like this suffers

CamKitty said:
Your right, common sense is not that common, so stuff like this suffers

what common sence would that be? Common sence is nothing but personal expectations and assumptions in how you think people "should" be acting or thinking. What you expect may not be right/true, expectations and assumption will also be different from person to person.

Darou said:
average is not a actual size through, and what is correct here? Average for a user from the US is going be something different then a user in say japan or Australia.

- It's not supposed to be average size. That's why "average_breasts" isn't being used. It's a size between small and big. I disagree with the terminology being changed to an average size.

Darou said:
And the argument of being a grey area between the big and small tags but were do we draw the line, how many grey areas should we make tags for? A average tag for (other) bodyparts does not exist because it is at the same time too specific as it is too ambiguous to serve as a useful tag for anyone.
Average or normal, anything can be normal or average to someone, should we now make 100's of tags for every single breast size that someone happens to consider normal, just because you insist on all breast sizes needing their own tag instead of grouping in huge/hyper/big/small or defaulting to the base tag? And how would one tag for everything everyone considers average be useful? That would end up looking not much different then the base breast tag if we include every single potential size that someone might consider to be average/normal.

- Again I disagree with this being defined as any kind of average.

Darou said:
2600+ posts with that tag, considering we are talking about the most tagged bodypart on e621 that number is rather lousy in my opinion it is not even 1/10th of the closest size tag, this and its mismatched content indicates that users don't consider the tag worth it, dont know what to actually do with this tag or both, because again what exactly is average?

- Medium breasts is not very well known, and not very commonly used. Not to mention that it hasn't existed for nearly as long as the other tags.
- Correctly tagging breast sizes is tedious stuff. The people who are willing to go through the tedium of deciding whether a breast size doesn't fall into a small or large category are few and far between.

Darou said:
And the logic to removing this tag is that there is no usefulness, a tag posing as a size quantifier but is a mishmash of mostly small and big has no usefulness to begin with so removing it would have no negative effect, all it does is remove unnecessary confusion.

- I don't know your definition of small or big breasts really. Maybe you have a more lenient definition. The size definition is clearly indicated on the wiki for what that tag is used for. It is just sometimes difficult to determine if a post fits that size range.

Darou said:
Taking it a bit personal? Users generally dont care about effort, they care about tags that are actually useful in objectively defining content in posts and help getting what they search for. This tag does nether of these.what mistags are you referring to exactly? content under the penis size tags do seem to be in line with what they specify for the most part. Added again what you consider average may rightfully be considered small by others, and if they fall under the criteria specified by the wiki then they will be tagged small.

Probly has to do with the fact that it isnt specified what does and doesnt apply, and that what average yet again is is something very different for everyone.

- Again, I disagree with this being a representation of an average breast size. This size range just coincidentally happens to be roughly the average breast size.

- I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that people who want to fix breast size tags have to check all of these edge cases over and over. There will be no way to tag them to indicate to others that they are correct. Checking breast sizes and properly tagging them is already tedious enough. Lets please not make it more tedious for little benefit.

2000+ tags that have already been checked by users will be put back into the pool of unchecked breasts posts. People will have to check them again and again.

This tag and a potential medium_penis serve as a means of properly categorizing all sizes. It allows there to be an end goal for users wanting to correctly assign size tags. It wont make sense to me to keep the edge cases which take the most time to check in the pool of unchecked posts. It would just waste the time of people who are trying to give everyone the most accurate tags possible.

TheVileOne said:
- It's not supposed to be average size. That's why "average_breasts" isn't being used. It's a size between small and big. I disagree with the terminology being changed to an average size.

"Breasts that are between small breasts and big breasts in size or in other words average sized."

That is the definition you your self applied to a wiki that previously simply redirected to the breast base tag, basicly says literally for average sized breasts. You do not address what this between or average covers. I did also state the problem of using cup sizing in the OP.

- Medium breasts is not very well known, and not very commonly used. Not to mention that it hasn't existed for nearly as long as the other tags.

This tag also isn't new, it is around 4 years old at least but was promptly aliased away by a former admin only to pop up again in the last 6 months. And of course it is not commonly used because it serves no propose.

- Correctly tagging breast sizes is tedious stuff. The people who are willing to go through the tedium of deciding whether a breast size doesn't fall into a small or large category are few and far between.

- I don't know your definition of small or big breasts really. Maybe you have a more lenient definition. The size definition is clearly indicated on the wiki for what that tag is used for. It is just sometimes difficult to determine if a post fits that size range.

As far as quantifying breast sizes, they would likly be defined the same way as balls, tails or penises for example are, their size in relation to other visible bodyparts like heads or hands within the same image. Yes it is lenient by necessity since we cant do exact millimeter measurements on a 2D image that cup sizing would require but they do generally work and contain the exact content they are specified for. As far as your wiki goes for medium breasts, I do disagree again, no it does not clearly indicate what it is for, the mixed content that clear fit in the big breasts and small breasts present definition, the content does not represent something inbetween as you claim it to be.

- Again, I disagree with this being a representation of an average breast size. This size range just coincidentally happens to be roughly the average breast size.

That again is how you describe the tag in the wiki your self, definition has not changed sence you edited the wiki. And there is no happenstance here, average can simply cover anything depending on the individual.

- I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that people who want to fix breast size tags have to check all of these edge cases over and over. There will be no way to tag them to indicate to others that they are correct. Checking breast sizes and properly tagging them is already tedious enough. Lets please not make it more tedious for little benefit.

As far as edge cases go, that is why no other tag has anything between big and small or for that matter between hyper and huge or huge and big, any more would be too specific with lil to no return on the effort spent, as the content would end up have too many mistags compared to total content amount or undertaged to be of use to anyone. if you arnt certain then don't tag it. Because uncertain tagging is almost gerantied to end up being mistags. mistags only being more common in breast tags because sizing proscribed in the wiki's at present is not based on something you can visually compare with within the same post or entirely unclear.

2000+ tags that have already been checked by users will be put back into the pool of unchecked breasts posts. People will have to check them again and again.

2000+ tags that may in fact be mistags. And checked for what, that they average? but as ive said earlier what is considered average is different from person to person and as such much of the content would fit just fine in the big or small breast tags.

This tag and a potential medium_penis serve as a means of properly categorizing all sizes. It allows there to be an end goal for users wanting to correctly assign size tags. It wont make sense to me to keep the edge cases which take the most time to check in the pool of unchecked posts. It would just waste the time of people who are trying to give everyone the most accurate tags possible.

Thats what you say but i do not consider the content here properly tagged.
A end goal that is misleading, because users using this tag may in fact not be properly assigning content.

I repeat again if you are uncertain("edgecases") in what size a tag belongs in then dont tag the size, let someone else do that. I consider this tag as an excuse to justify mistaging content, 'most' of which that would otherwise be going to ether the big or small breast tag, in a sence you could say that this tag is creating so called edgecases, not resolving them.

I forget why I included that part. If it is causing confusion, then remove it from the wiki (actually I'll do it myself). I figured that anyone who would read it would understand that it is for sizes that fall between the small breast size definition and the large breast size definition.

I don't see how people can misread this.

I remember that the medium breasts wiki was not structured like the others, and I tried to make it consistent with the other breast size tags. People added the image examples after me. I think I was just reiterating from an existing wiki line in the base breasts wiki that used the term "average".

Anyways you can't be lenient past the definition of the wiki. Everyone should not have their own definition for what small or big breasts are. They need to follow the definition in the wiki very carefully.

It is precisely that reason why updating breast sizes is so tedious. It is often difficult to make sure that the size follows what is outlined in the wiki. It can take me minutes of staring at the image to make sure something qualifies as medium breasts instead of a borderline large breasts.

If you want to argue that there isn't any sizes that don't fit in those two categories, then taggers can work with this as well. Although it may result in posts with breasts that people wouldn't typically classify as small or big being added to those categories.

I don't want to argue with walls of text like this. I have stated my reasons why it makes it more tedious for taggers (like me) who want to tag as accurately as possible, and given you my rebuttal to how this is throwing all of the edge cases into a pool of over 700 pages of unchecked breast sizes. What is going to be more inaccurately tagged (in terms of posts being given their most specific applicable size tag)? 2000 posts separated from the base tag that were probably added by someone who checked the wiki at least once or 700 pages of potentially unchecked posts?

Also, it really annoys me when people think that the existence of tags that are potentially non-useful (which is subjective btw), causes some kind of huge issue that needs to be corrected. I have told you why this tag is useful to me, but clearly your opinion of why it is useless is superior to mine.

-1 for me
the tag doesn't hurt anything and I appreciate it.
I'd like to get to a place where breasts -small_breasts -medium_breasts -big_breasts returns nothing with the use of a tag i haven't made/found a name for yet, something having to do with breasts that are present but aren't in full view for a bunch of different reasons. without the medium_breasts tag it becomes hard to do that since you can't tell if a character wasn't tagged with a more specific breast size or just has medium breasts. plus I'm a fan of tag systems where members can use 1 tag to mean something specific instead of having to put in 3 plus tags out of their 6 total search tags to find 1 thing.

the wiki for the tag was on my radar too. as long as no one minds I'd like to take a crack at it at some point soon. I've got some ideas on how to deal with the size boundary issues

p.s. on the issue of size in drawings (penises, breasts, butts, whatever)
I would argue actual size almost doesn't matter. relative size compared to stature does
post #1964386 post #1995226
both of these characters have close to what I would call medium breasts in the context of what gets posted to this site despite the fact that you could probably build a small village on the breasts of the character in the left pic(747 for scale).
most hyper_breasts would be tiny in comparison to that macro pic
post #2002029

as for how that effects tagging I would say it's better to use a bit of "furry scaling" in determining sizes. kinda like saying "small for porn" could mean a penis is average, or even a bit above, the same should probably have an effect on this site's tagging. taking an average of -these- dongs a "medium_penis" on this site is probably at like 7-8 inches or bigger in terms of "irl scaling" (assume every character is about average human height)

everything's relative
post #965095

sneezer22 said:
post #1964386 post #1995226
both of these characters have close to what I would call medium breasts in the context of what gets posted to this site

I dunno, especially if we're going with the idea of "small for porn" or "furry scaling", the one on the right would classify as small (IRL, sure they'd probably be closer to average), in my opinion. It can be smaller, but not by too much before it becomes ambiguously flat_chested.

I'd give my +1 in support of this alias. Without some kind of objective measure we can apply to artwork (especially an image that may not have the best angle or lighting, or be very clear with its perspective and proportions), it would be too much up to personal interpretation where it stops being "medium" and becomes "small" or "large". The inclusion of medium seems to just be trying to set more defined lines to something the wiki states "isn't an exact science".

As a result, medium_breasts would more be for breasts that aren't obviously small enough or aren't obviously large enough for the small or large tags to be applied, even though a portion of users may consider them so. Another source of tagging wars there.

Watsit said:
As a result, medium_breasts would more be for breasts that aren't obviously small enough or aren't obviously large enough for the small or large tags to be applied, even though a portion of users may consider them so. Another source of tagging wars there.

eh, I don't mind that way of tagging. I was going from what already gets tagged as small/medium/big_breasts so that should be close to what the community thinks of as medium_breasts. to avoid conflict maybe tag both for edge cases then. so hard-to-tag posts get tagged with both medium_breasts and either a small_breasts or big_breasts tag. as far as i can tell size scaling on this site follows an odd curve. small breasts are rather small. medium are rather small to rather big(anything that isn't strikingly one way or the other gets put here), big is rather big(like 34f(US sizes) irl) to head sized. etc. penis size seems to follow the same curve.

---

also I made a thing: forum #279080

do either(or a combination) of those scales work for a decent tagging system for breasts? the first is a take on the current breast scale and the second is based on an incremental visual scale. (probably respond in that thread for this topic)

I'm still on the "it isn't hurting anything and it's enjoyed by the people that use it" side of things. all I'm seeing in opposition to that is that the tag could use a clearer definition. unless there's a better reason to alias it than that I hope it remains un-aliased.

sneezer22 said:
I'm still on the "it isn't hurting anything and it's enjoyed by the people that use it" side of things.

It's an issue in the sense that it's inaccurate. Medium is different from "not sure if large or small enough to tag as such". Some posts that could be small_breasts or large_breasts would end up in medium_breasts, and medium_breasts wouldn't be exclusively medium. Less Tag What You See and more Tag To Fit A Scale.

The idea that all breasts should be tagged with a size doesn't really work when you consider clothing or breast constriction. What size breasts are these:
post #2011155 post #2008289 post #2009150
Or another example,
post #1833138
Natani (the darker brown wolf) canonically has pretty large breasts. Having to tag them as medium merely because they're partly obscured pressed up against someone else and doesn't appear obviously large is just going to be a cause of issues and complaints.

I mean, people already get pretty miffed about having to tag characters as ambiguous_gender that they know to be male or female, but it's at least accurate to TWYS. Conversely, tagging ambiguously sized breasts as medium that you know to be small or large doesn't follow the same reasoning. You're not tagging what you see, but tagging a size because a size needs to be tagged. I would be behind an ambiguous_breast_size (or something shorter) for cases like these where you can see breasts but aren't sure if they should be tagged as small or large. But that just further reduces the utility of a medium_breasts tag, as it's trying to add exactness to a scale that's inherently inexact.

Watsit said:

It's an issue in the sense that it's inaccurate. Medium is different from "not sure if large or small enough to tag as such". Some posts that could be small_breasts or large_breasts would end up in medium_breasts, and medium_breasts wouldn't be exclusively medium. Less Tag What You See and more Tag To Fit A Scale.

The idea that all breasts should be tagged with a size doesn't really work when you consider clothing or breast constriction. What size breasts are these:
post #2011155 post #2008289 post #2009150
Or another example,
post #1833138
Natani (the darker brown wolf) canonically has pretty large breasts. Having to tag them as medium merely because they're partly obscured pressed up against someone else and doesn't appear obviously large is just going to be a cause of issues and complaints.

I mean, people already get pretty miffed about having to tag characters as ambiguous_gender that they know to be male or female, but it's at least accurate to TWYS. Conversely, tagging ambiguously sized breasts as medium that you know to be small or large doesn't follow the same reasoning. You're not tagging what you see, but tagging a size because a size needs to be tagged. I would be behind an ambiguous_breast_size (or something shorter) for cases like these where you can see breasts but aren't sure if they should be tagged as small or large. But that just further reduces the utility of a medium_breasts tag, as it's trying to add exactness to a scale that's inherently inexact.

sneezer22 said:
I'd like to get to a place where breasts -small_breasts -medium_breasts -big_breasts returns nothing with the use of a tag i haven't made/found a name for yet, something having to do with breasts that are present but aren't in full view for a bunch of different reasons.

that's what the tag I've been wanting to make solves. if a picture shows a character with breasts that are obscured by: clothing, their own body, someone else's body, an object in the scene,... literally anything that stops the viewer from getting a full view of them, especially if its to the point it makes tagging size difficult, this tag would be used instead of a size tag. lets call it obscured_breasts for now.

the first character on the couch with the white shirt wouldn't be tagged with breasts(and isn't) since breasts isn't applied to clothed characters unless they are reasonably noticeable despite being covered. the other three examples you gave would be tagged with obscured_breasts instead of a size tag.

sneezer22 said:
that's what the tag I've been wanting to make solves. if a picture shows a character with breasts that are obscured by: clothing, their own body, someone else's body, an object in the scene,... literally anything that stops the viewer from getting a full view of them, especially if its to the point it makes tagging size difficult, this tag would be used instead of a size tag. lets call it obscured_breasts for now.

Watsit said:
But that just further reduces the utility of a medium_breasts tag, as it's trying to add exactness to a scale that's inherently inexact.

The tag I'd propose isn't just for obscured breasts, but ambiguously-sized breasts. They may be obscured, or could be in full view but perspective may be wonky, the shadows or line work can throw perception off, or people just can't agree on whether they fall under small or large. A medium tag is just going to add another size tier for people to be unsure about.

Watsit said:
The tag I'd propose isn't just for obscured breasts, but ambiguously-sized breasts. They may be obscured, or could be in full view but perspective may be wonky, the shadows or line work can throw perception off, or people just can't agree on whether they fall under small or large.

huh, "porque no los dos"

A medium tag is just going to add another size tier for people to be unsure about.

probably not if the sizing guidelines are better defined. btw did you get a chance to look at the sizing scales I worked up? -forum #279080- they took a hot minute

sneezer22 said:
probably not if the sizing guidelines are better defined.

As each breast size wiki entry (except medium) states, "This isn't an exact science, these are just boobies we're talking about here so don't stress about it too much." The size definition for breasts is kept intentionally vague because clearer definitions are too problematic given the kind of artwork here.

sneezer22 said:
btw did you get a chance to look at the sizing scales I worked up? -forum #279080- they took a hot minute

The problem isn't coming up with clear examples for what you want tags to be. The problem is the amount of outliers that don't cleanly fall into a defined category and the ease of dealing with them. Here's another way to look at it:

Say there's a picture of really huge breasts, but people can't agree if they fall under hyper or not. Well, they'd still fall under huge (hyper would've implicitly been huge anyway), so they still have some way to be correctly tagged. Similarly, if there's really big breasts but people aren't sure if they qualify for huge, they'd still fall under big (huge would've implied big regardless). This is clean handling since it's all still correctly TWYS even when people aren't sure about specifics.

In contrast, if there's a picture with somewhat big breasts but people can't agree if they're big enough for the tag, that doesn't necessarily mean they're medium sized. Some would say big-not-medium, others would say medium-not-big. Big would not imply medium, as they're distinct categories. The same issue would be there with somewhat small breasts. This isn't clean, and is why ambiguous would fit better in-between small and big instead of medium, in my opinion.

Say there's a picture of really huge breasts, but people can't agree if they fall under hyper or not. Well, they'd still fall under huge (hyper would've implicitly been huge anyway), so they still have some way to be correctly tagged. Similarly, if there's really big breasts but people aren't sure if they qualify for huge, they'd still fall under big (huge would've implied big regardless). This is clean handling since it's all still correctly TWYS even when people aren't sure about specifics.

that sounds like a vote in favor of a system that involves tagging edge cases with two size tags

In contrast, if there's a picture with somewhat big breasts but people can't agree if they're big enough for the tag, that doesn't necessarily mean they're medium sized. Some would say big-not-medium, others would say medium-not-big. Big would not imply medium, as they're distinct categories. The same issue would be there with somewhat small breasts. This isn't clean, and is why ambiguous would fit better in-between small and big instead of medium, in my opinion.

just because you get rid of the medium_breasts tag doesn't mean you've dealt with that problem. you've just swept it under the rug. there will still be medium sized breasts that get tagged small and ones that get tagged big. whether or not medium_breasts remains a tag has no bearing on that. at the very least the tag can be used as a place marker to show what big and small breasts aren't. that does something proactive for the ambiguity problem and gives the tag worth.

---

I agree that at least some amount of overlap is always going to be there when a tagging system involves a gradient, a nature of the beast sort of thing. that doesn't mean the break points can't be well defined as best as possible. afaict the community has naturally shifted these break points to what they feel is appropriate and the size tags and wiki scale need updating because of that.

the new break points can surprisingly be pretty reasonably defined just by looking at what's tagged small_breasts, big_breasts, etc. and looking for the largest and smallest examples in each category(disregarding outliers). each category then helps to define the others by where the two start to clash.

*see scale: forum #279080

sneezer22 said:
that sounds like a vote in favor of a system that involves tagging edge cases with two size tags

Just the opposite, actually. It's just using the implication system as designed, avoiding the need for extra tags when it's an edge case. If you right now tag a post with hyper_breasts, it automatically applies huge_breasts (hyper implies huge) and big_breasts (huge implies big). If people aren't sure whether hyper actually applies, a person who thinks they should be hyper would still agree they're huge. If people aren't sure whether huge actually applies, a person who thinks they should be huge would still agree they're big. These people may disagree with the exclusion of a tag, but the tags it does have would still be correct.

That same logic fails between small, medium, and large. If people aren't sure whether big applies, a person who thinks they're big would say they're not medium, and a person who thinks they're medium would say they're not big. Same for small. In this case, ambiguous better reflects the majority opinion. And if you're going to have ambiguous in between small and big, also having medium will just add complications.

sneezer22 said:
there will still be medium sized breasts that get tagged small and ones that get tagged big.

And that problem will continue to exist as long as there isn't a better way to accurately measure breast size in drawn images. You've given your opinion on specific images for what constitutes small, medium, and large, but was that done using some objective system that others can use on random images to come to the same conclusion independently? Or was it more a matter of looking at the image and guestimating "that looks like X-size to me"? The latter is the system we already have, and an additional medium size is just adding more to the pile of guesses for people to make.

sneezer22 said:
the new break points can surprisingly be pretty reasonably defined just by looking at what's tagged small_breasts, big_breasts, etc. and looking for the largest and smallest examples in each category(disregarding outliers). each category then helps to define the others by where the two start to clash.

That may help if we could guarantee all images were of sufficient quality with breasts shown in a manner that allows for comparing to a reference. But they're not. As it is, we have to rely on individual peoples' judgment, and have a suitable fallback for when there's enough disagreement. Adding another size category like medium would be the source of more disagreements than it attempts to solve.

Watsit said:
And that problem will continue to exist as long as there isn't a better way to accurately measure breast size in drawn images.

forum #279080

I've given some suggestions, I'd like to hear yours.
-------------------------------------------------------

-Edit: should this come up again or this thread get necro-ed in the future-

preference 1:
leave this tag alone and build the new system around it if need be. the tag literally affects nothing and there's a subgroup that likes it. live and let live, let people enjoy things. "it's somewhat subjective and could get mistagged"... just like a bunch of other tags(most really), and again this tag only imply's the breasts tag so... so what? redo the system and just don't make this tag a part of it.

preference 2:
no go on #1? sleep on it and reconsider please.

preference 3:
at the very least medium_breasts shouldn't be aliased to breasts but to ambiguous_breast-size or an equivalent that makes more sense than just the general breasts tag. don't make people retag 2700+ posts please. besides being a breasts size tag, medium_breasts is also used as a tag to say a user has done their best to tag a character's breast size and the post isn't just missing a breast-size tag. it should at least be aliased to a tag that can be used for the same purpose.

sneezer22 said:
forum #279080

I've given some suggestions, I'd like to hear yours.

You've given some examples, but still haven't explained how you came to those conclusions. The problem being discussed here is objectively categorizing images in a useful way, but all your post is saying is that small is equal to "A to large-B/small-C", etc, and that doesn't help when the size itself is debatable. If we could accurately measure cup sizes in drawn images, this wouldn't have ever been an issue.

I don't have a suggestion for improving categorization beyond using personal judgement (the current method), which is why I think an ambiguous size tag would work better than a medium size tag. That's my suggestion.

ok, guess it's back here again since the site doesn't take multiple alias suggestions for a tag at the same time

Suggestion:

medium_breasts
Alias->
reasonable_breasts

also:
medium_penis
Alias->
reasonable_penis

context:
forum #278921
forum #279080 <-(continuation from above-comment here)

Reason:

One part of Watsit's reasoning I think I've come around to is that sizing doesn't really work like this on the site:
non|<-small->|<-medium->|<-big->|<-huge->|<-hyper->

it works more like this:
non|<-small ~|~~ in-between ~~|~ big->|huge->|hyper->

that does make "medium" as a qualifier a bit out of place but not enough to alias it to a generalized tag like breasts or ambiguous* because it's known exactly where medium is. between small and big.

it's like if you ask someone where they are and they say "I'm at home." you know exactly where the person is. there's still a bit of ambiguity to it, what room are they in?, maybe they're in the yard or garage or popped over to the neighbor's for 5 minutes to borrow something, but you know where they are for the most part. it's more "specific" than "ambiguous". it's not like they're out shopping, left the country, or their location is unknowable.

with that in mind I'd like to put forward "reasonable" as a better qualifier for sizes and forms that are in that in-between space or don't stand out enough one way or the other to be strongly tagged something else. maybe not to be thought of as a way of specifying size but a designation that could overlap a bit with the tags it borders, in this case big and small *_breasts. "these breasts aren't really that big or small they seem 'reasonable'."