Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: heavy_blush -> blush

The tag implication #64040 blushing_profusely -> blush has been rejected.

Reason: Heavy blushing is still blushing

EDIT: The tag implication heavy_blush -> blush (forum #409344) has been rejected by @spe.

Perhaps this should be aliased? There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction between a heavy_blush and a normal blush, and I'm seeing a lot of posts tagged heavy_blush that I'd say is just a normal blush.

watsit said:
Perhaps this should be aliased? There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction between a heavy_blush and a normal blush, and I'm seeing a lot of posts tagged heavy_blush that I'd say is just a normal blush.

I’d argue that it’s a separate thing, but maybe that’s just me. I just noticed it didn’t alias or have an implication while tagging an image and wanted to point it out.

watsit said:
Perhaps this should be aliased? There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction between a heavy_blush and a normal blush, and I'm seeing a lot of posts tagged heavy_blush that I'd say is just a normal blush.

I think there's some utility in it, for blushes that cover half or more of the face. Might get mistagged a lot, but so does huge_breasts and huge_penis.

The tag implication heavy_blush -> blush (forum #409344) has been rejected by @spe.