Danbooru

imply soles -> feet

Posted under Tags

If feet have to be the focus of the image for it to be tagged, then there shouldn't be an implication. If that is the case, though, then what is the point of the separate foot focus tag? If feet don't have to be the focus, then soles should imply since obviously some of the foot is visible if you can see the soles.

EB said:

If feet have to be the focus of the image for it to be tagged, then there shouldn't be an implication. If that is the case, though, then what is the point of the separate foot focus tag? If feet don't have to be the focus, then soles should imply since obviously some of the foot is visible if you can see the soles.

Maybe I do it wrong, but I tag feet when they are detailed and in focus, and only tag foot focus when it is kind of an overt or bordering on foot fetish picture.

pieguy said:

Good example: post #5785442, definitely wouldn't tag feet on this, but soles is obviously relevant.

Is it really? I can't see like 3/4 of them, not very enjoyable imo. It's an ass-centric illustration of no interest to soles and feet enthusiasts, that would explain why the pixiv post lacks feet related tags and then soles was added here to without careful deliberation. I think this is rationalizing bad tagging policy.

EB said:

If feet have to be the focus of the image for it to be tagged, then there shouldn't be an implication. If that is the case, though, then what is the point of the separate foot focus tag? If feet don't have to be the focus, then soles should imply since obviously some of the foot is visible if you can see the soles.

What pie guy said. post #3984029 would be the platonic ideal of a feet post, and post #3936253 reaching the point of foot focus.

pieguy said:

Going through a search of soles -feet, I definitely wouldn't tag feet on all of them, maybe like 1/3.

I concede that there are significant mistags in soles and since I'm not volunteering to clean it up I consider this implication in deadlock.

1