[REJECTED] Tag implication: soles -> feet

create implication soles -> feet

Link to implication

You have to have feet visible for there to be soles.

Once this is done, the tag can be cleaned of posts mistakenly tagging the soles of shoes by searching "soles shoes"

There are 200 pages of posts tagged with soles, but not feet.

EDIT: The tag implication soles -> feet (forum #145036) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.

-1
The feet need to be in the focus of the image.
That's not given in post #3074673 (Explicit) for example.

Imo, the feet tag is overused, anyway. It gets added as soon as a feet is even remotely visible in the picture. That's not really good.

(That's btw. the same reasn why toes isn't implying feet.

Related: topic #14889

Unbreakable said:

Related: topic #14889

Which is still not approved, despite multiple call-outs towards the Admins...

I personally think that tags meant to revolve around what the image focuses on usually have _focus on the end (i.e. male_focus, female_focus, solo_focus, etc)

The [[feet] tag seems more like broad tag. To get more specific, you could use barefoot, pov_feet, footjob, or even soles.

I feel like in terms of focus tags for feet, you're looking at toes

Feet don't need to be front and center to earn a tag. I totally agree that posts that just have feet included but don't actually fetishize them probably shouldn't be tagged as feet, but I would argue that if a picture includes soles, it's 99% of the time to put focus on the feet, however subtle it may be.

Even in the pic you referenced, however poorly drawn they may be, it's hard to argue that the artist didn't intentionally make sure the whole foot was visible in that pic.

Have some feet as thanks for reading my reply
post #3028150
post #3001903
post #3020065 (this one also kind of proves my point that feet don't need to be the focus to warrant a tag)

c.dan said:

post #3020065 (this one also kind of proves my point that feet don't need to be the focus to warrant a tag)

I say barefoot alone fits here.
The foot isn't really emphasized in this image. It's just there because it would look weird if she wouldn't have feet. That's exactly what I meant: There are tons of tags that don't necessarily need the feet tag, but a barefoot, soles, toes etc. tag.
It waters down posts where the fot is truly the focus of an image.

c.dan said:

I totally agree that posts that just have feet included but don't actually fetishize them probably shouldn't be tagged as feet, but I would argue that if a picture includes soles, it's 99% of the time to put focus on the feet, however subtle it may be.

There are over seventeen thousand posts tagged soles, so even in the (IMHO highly unlikely) case that this statistic is anywhere near accurate, that still means there are roughly a couple hundred posts here with visible soles that shouldn't be tagged feet. This alone is reason enough to deny an implication.

A quick skim through soles rating:s finds plenty of images that fit the definition of soles but where the feet aren't remotely prominent. I won't claim to understand the mind of the foot fetishist, for whom feet is presumably intended, but I can't imagine any of them would be particularly enthused to find these in their search results:

• post #1002790 If the artist had intended to show off the feet, wouldn't at least one of them be entirely within the picture?
• post #1623670 So many details present that no particular body parts are especially noticeable.
• post #2266079 Common pose for showing off feet, but they're all the way at the edge of the image and washed out by lighting effects.
• post #2846558 The feet aren't just cropped, they're blurry too.

The tag implication soles -> feet (forum #145036) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.