Posted under General
I have never made a topic before, so i'll be brief
First of all i would like to point out that the different breasts tags go from limes to grapefruits to melons too suddenly. what i mean by this is you have
Flat_chest>Breasts>Large_Breasts>Huge_Breasts
Where is small breasts,the size encompassing small breasts that are smaller than normal, but larger than flat?
can i make a movement that we change the scale to something more specific? or at least have a Small Breasts tag?
Updated by jxh2154
It's been brought up before.
Well, I missed that thread last time, but here's what I think:
1) flat
2) small
3) large
4) "breasts" <-- this should be implied by both small and large, but not flat.
I don't see any point in having more than 1 "large" breasts tag, because very large breasts are against the TOS, and the rest of it is a matter of such granularity that it's basically just personal preference. But there is a definable difference between having breasts and not having them (ie. flat vs. small).
This way you can search "breasts -small -large" to get "normal breasts", whatever their nebulous definition may be. So you have every somewhat predictable size covered with one tag.
That wouldn't work since there is a small_breasts → flat_chest alias in place. I can sort of see why people would want a distinction between the two, but I'm happy with the status quo, and don't see much benefit to adding even more granularity to our plenitude of breast size tags.
Every borderline causes issues with which tags to use, and the more borderlines there are, the more confusion and disagreement will ensue. Furthermore, the more granular tags we have for similar concepts, the more dilute and difficult to search those concepts get.
As for huge/gigantic_breasts, I agree that they are mostly unnecessary due to TOS violations, but for that very reason I think we should keep them. They (and other tags, such as lowres) are helpful because they provide an easier way to find such TOS violations and flag them when appropriate.
Shinji, i understand what your saying, but i feel that your position is incorrect. where we are right now, as it stands, in order for anyone to find "small_breasts" they would hafto sort through the general "breasts" tag and find, (amongst the "large", and "huge" breasts) the small breasts. making a specific rule deciding the difference between "flat" and small is a matter of making it easier for people to find what they need with as few search tags possible
defining the difference between "Large" "huge" and "Gigantic" as it were, means were focusing too much on the specific kinds of large breasts and thus were polluting the pool with redundancies as opposed to my proposition of generalizing (even if we had to make a chart) the standards for minimizing the amount of un-needed tags.
fivepercentsure said:
... in order for anyone to find "small_breasts" they would hafto sort through the general "breasts" tag and find, (amongst the "large", and "huge" breasts) the small breasts.
Searching breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts works at the cost of two tags for negation.
スラッシュ said:
I don't see any point in having more than 1 "large" breasts tag, because very large breasts are against the TOS, and the rest of it is a matter of such granularity that it's basically just personal preference.
I see a clear enough gap between large and huge breasts (perhaps not useful enough to warrant separate tags but still), but so do I between smaller breasts and flat chest.
It's more of a fairness issue than anything else since you can't search for smaller breasts at member level.
r0d3n7z said:
Searching breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts works at the cost of two tags for negation.
Well, technically average-sized breasts might be another category...
I can see arguments for and against. The main argument against it, I think, is that the distinctions might be too blurry.
On the other hand, though, given the number of breasts on the site, I don't think it's that odd to have a bunch of tags for them.
I still stand by my head-size rule: sizes should be judged based on the size of the depicted character's head, when a semblance of "normal" body proportions can be assumed to apply (i.e. when not chibi or otherwise deformed).
Since, generally, the size of the head is a good standard upon which to base the proportions of the entire human body, I feel this is appropriate as an at-a-glance unit of measurement.
The metric is thus:
By the time you get to "small", the difference between "small" and "flat" depends only on how literally you want to apply the term "flat". At that point, applying the head-size rule without putting a measuring stick up to your screen is difficult, so conflating the terms makes sense.
EB said:
lowres is not a TOS violation.
It's not per se, but can be a good indicator of poor quality, which is why I mentioned it.
sgcdonmai said:
...
I basically agree with this system, and if we did have a "small but not flat" category, I can see us ending up with a lot of overlap between the two categories. In usage, "flat chested" doesn't necessarily mean "flat as a board" it also simply mean much smaller than average.
I think it depends on the image's layout and format, for things like oekaki, lowres is typical and fine. Where it's a resize of a larger and more detailed image or an obvious thumbnail it's a red flag.
Replace jpeg_artifacts for lowres in my example, that's a more unambiguously negative tag that we maintain.
What about using the amount of skin from the areola to the contact of chest. if thats the case "flat_chest" would have minimal, if not, any at all,(it would be just the nipple, and areola) than you gradually go up from there with rough estimates...
or we could use the most accurate, the fruit scale where flat, again is just nipple and areola, than you have small being limes, lemons, oranges, grapefruits, melons, and much bigger than that is deletable content
Problems with that:
1. Fruit are not uniform in size, and do not scale as well.
2. Overall size affects proportion. "Orange-sized" breasts look significantly smaller on a woman who is six feet tall than they do on a woman who is five feet tall.
In both cases, going by heads as a measurement solves the problem.
lol sounds like you just want your idea to be used ;) lol but i understand what your saying... but as you stated above, you combined Small and Flat, and thats what i'm trying to change...i want there to be a distinguished idea dividing None, Small, and Average in fact "Flat_Chest" should not even be considered in all this. and should thus not have any tag related to breasts. and than we work up or down in sizes
This is a bad idea. We don't need any finer resolution than we have already; in fact, it would *lower* the overall quality of the tags. It's called the Laffer curve — basically, if you try too hard, you end up getting less in return. And breasts are simply too common to have expect anything better than a certain baseline of tagging; it's not possible to have something present in every other picture divided into five or more tags and expect everyone to apply them consistently and exhaustively. And you can already query pretty much everything:
1. Non-existant to small: flat_chest
2. Small to average: breasts -flat_chest -large_breasts -huge_breasts
3. Large (aka in the range you'd call "large" on a real woman): large_breasts
4. Humongous (larger that could be reasonably expected in reality): huge_breasts
This is enough granularity for any general-purpose tagging system. And as for #2 being 4 tags: albert has stated he's actively not interested in making it any less attractive for people to upgrade their account, and it's been consistently our policy to reject tags which can be satisfyingly emulated with queries, both because it's messier, and because it's albert paying for the site after all, so he's got a lot to say in this regard.
葉月 said:
2. Small to average: breasts -flat_chest -large_breasts -huge_breasts
It doesn't really work very well at all for doing that kind of search, though, as I can already see looking at the first page. "Breasts" is used a lot and I think users tend to tag it for the larger breast sizes (where they're more noticeable) without thinking about using the large_breasts tag. Also, this doesn't work at all if a girl with small to average breasts happens to be in with other characters tagged with different breast sizes.
There is absolutely no way that flat_chest should ever imply breasts. No way. That would be the worst.
EB--your secondary objection is a problem with every image with more than one person in the image, and a known limitation of the current tag system.
I stand by my opinion that there's a notable difference between a flat chest and small breasts, but I am certainly willing to let that go. The main crux of my argument is that there should be only one large breasts tag, not several. A "too large" (ie. huge_breasts) tag could theoretically exist but it shouldn't imply anything.
