Topic: Tag Implication: reverse_cowgirl_position -> straddling

Implicating reverse_cowgirl_position → straddling
Link to implication

Reason:

What you do in the position, see also cowgirl_position

It's been suggested before, and will have to be denied for the same reasons. [See forum #130208]

The reason is because it's possible to be in the reverse_cowgirl_position without actually straddling your partner. While straddling is very common, there are also plenty of pictures where the top partner's legs are braced on top of the bottom partners legs, or in front of both of them. Neither of which is what the straddling tag is for.

post #618773 post #586155 post #570292 post #571675 post #552951 post #633520 post #627938 post #620298 post #632744

So the straddling tag won't always fit reverse_cowgirl_position, and that means this implication cannot work. The ones it does fit will have to be tagged manually instead.

furrypickle said:
It's been suggested before, and will have to be denied for the same reasons. [See forum #130208]

The reason is because it's possible to be in the reverse_cowgirl_position without actually straddling your partner. While straddling is very common, there are also plenty of pictures where the top partner's legs are braced on top of the bottom partners legs, or in front of both of them. Neither of which is what the straddling tag is for.

...

So the straddling tag won't always fit reverse_cowgirl_position, and that means this implication cannot work. The ones it does fit will have to be tagged manually instead.

My bad (also thanks for fixing a few(?) of my mistaggings ;) )

However, in that case, while perhaps not as common, couldn't the same be said about cowgirl_position as well? Especially with a smaller person on top? E.g.:
post #629091 post #626298 post #624223 post #621879 post #614516 post #603783 post #582551 post #561046

Chessax said:
My bad (also thanks for fixing a few(?) of my mistaggings ;) )

However, in that case, while perhaps not as common, couldn't the same be said about cowgirl_position as well? Especially with a smaller person on top? E.g.:
[snip]

That's actually a very good point. I don't know much about the position, but if those characters are considered to be in that position, then the straddling implication isn't valid and should be deleted.

It looks like it was done in forum #130209 but there was no discussion on it.

Chessax said:
My bad (also thanks for fixing a few(?) of my mistaggings ;) )

However, in that case, while perhaps not as common, couldn't the same be said about cowgirl_position as well? Especially with a smaller person on top? E.g.:
post #629091 post #626298 post #624223 post #621879 post #614516 post #603783 post #582551 post #561046

That is a good catch. It really shouldn't have the implication either. So older implication of cowgirl_position to --> straddling is now deleted.

----

Although, while I was poking around back there I discovered that straddling is implicated to --> on_top. But straddling doesn't require being on_top and can just as easily be done from the side, like in many stand_and_carry_position images. All of these:

post #596666 post #588195 post #584292 post #270357 post #281314 post #339193 post #379683 post #127893 post #267029

...are all examples of straddling but not examples of being on_top. But because of that implication of straddling to --> on_top they are currently stuck with both tags. And I suspect that this implication is causing many to go untagged with straddling because the on_top tag clearly wouldn't fit so they just go without. So I'm going to go ahead and delete that implication right now as well. It's just one of those implications that works for a large percentage of the images, but unfortunately it doesn't work for all of them. So it just has to go.

Thanks for speaking up. I'm always sad to delete an implication. But if it isn't working, then it's always better to get it straightened out.

parasprite said:
That's actually a very good point....

furrypickle said:
That is a good catch. It really shouldn't have the implication either. So older implication of cowgirl_position to --> straddling is now deleted.

Just didn't make sense if one tag implied straddling and the other didn't and figured since one was approved this one would be to, but boy, was I wrong.

furrypickle said:
Although, while I was poking around back there I discovered that straddling is implicated to --> on_top. But straddling doesn't require being on_top and can just as easily be done from the side, like in many stand_and_carry_position images. ...

...are all examples of straddling but not examples of being on_top. But because of that implication of straddling to --> on_top they are currently stuck with both tags.

I'll go sweep out the bad on_top tags in stand_and_carry_position in a bit (as long as the implication is indeed gone).

furrypickle said:
It's just one of those implications that works for a large percentage of the images, but unfortunately it doesn't work for all of them. So it just has to go.

Thanks for speaking up. I'm always sad to delete an implication. But if it isn't working, then it's always better to get it straightened out.

I've said it before and gonna say it again: Love the implication system, but on few occasions I've had to scratch my head trying to figure out why a tag is appearing which shouldn't be there.

My pleasure, just trying to do some proper tagging :)