Unimplication of hair length tags

BUR #41274 has been rejected.

remove implication absurdly_long_hair -> very_long_hair
remove implication very_long_hair -> long_hair
remove implication very_short_hair -> short_hair
mass update very_long_hair solo -> -long_hair
mass update absurdly_long_hair solo -> -very_long_hair -long_hair
mass update very_short_hair solo -> -short_hair

Why does very long hair imply long hair?
The reason listed for the implication—though it’s unclear when it was originally written—is simply:

“Anyone with very long hair has long hair.”

But is that really a valid reason?

In my opinion, hair length tags should be treated the same way as breast size tags. Because hair length, like breast size, describes a specific state—it doesn’t inherently include the previous stage. Just like how a post tagged huge breasts isn’t automatically tagged large breasts as well, very long hair should not imply long hair.

But this BUR is limited to solo posts (and even that already covers over 700K posts). I’ve intentionally excluded non-solo posts from this mass update, as applying the same logic there could risk significant confusion.

Do you think very short hair should be separated from short hair as well then?

Anyways, related: topic #8813, topic #8423

Ylimegirl said:

Do you think very short hair should be separated from short hair as well then?

Anyways, related: topic #8813, topic #8423

Sure. The same logic that applies to long hair should also apply to short hair, It’s just like how flat chest should be kept separate from small breasts.

Anyways, in terms of an actual rebuttal now that I'm at my laptop instead of typing on my phone touchscreen--trying to explain to someone why something like post #9307035 shouldn't show up in a long hair search feels kinda... stupid? On the other hand, people do actually care about the distinctions between large and huge breasts, since gooning material filtration some people find breasts larger than, err, large to be grotesque. I think you'll find it difficult to find people with similar opinions regarding hair length, especially in the world of anime where hair is already kinda nonsense anyways.

Ylimegirl said:

Anyways, in terms of an actual rebuttal now that I'm at my laptop instead of typing on my phone touchscreen--trying to explain to someone why something like post #9307035 shouldn't show up in a long hair search feels kinda... stupid? On the other hand, people do actually care about the distinctions between large and huge breasts, since gooning material filtration some people find breasts larger than, err, large to be grotesque. I think you'll find it difficult to find people with similar opinions regarding hair length, especially in the world of anime where hair is already kinda nonsense anyways.

The criteria for each hair length tag are clearly defined in each tag wikis. In fact, I’d say the standards here are even more clear-cut than those for breast size tags.

Even if people tag hair length based on their own vague standards, they’re choosing just one tag in the end. If someone tags multiple lengths just because they’re unsure which one to choose, I want to make it clear — that’s incorrect tagging.

i believe that most people searching for very long hair are going to want to also see absurdly long hair in that search (even without going into situations other than hair being down where the line might be somewhat vague)

A simpler approach than splitting up long hair would be to simply keep the tag for all hair lengths longer than shoulder-length hair and simply make a subtag for hair from longer than shoulder-length to waist-length that implicates the long_hair tag.

AkaringoP said:

Even if people tag hair length based on their own vague standards, they’re choosing just one tag in the end. If someone tags multiple lengths just because they’re unsure which one to choose, I want to make it clear — that’s incorrect tagging.

Could not disagree with this more- like, next you're gonna suggest that people should edit war over which tag to apply to ambiguously colored pink/purple hair. The point is that people are seeing what they expect when they make a tag search, and if someone wants to see long hair, they're almost certainly gonna be fine also seeing very long hair as well

Wyrmmidon said:

Could not disagree with this more- like, next you're gonna suggest that people should edit war over which tag to apply to ambiguously colored pink/purple hair. The point is that people are seeing what they expect when they make a tag search, and if someone wants to see long hair, they're almost certainly gonna be fine also seeing very long hair as well

This comparison doesn't make sense. Hair length tags are specifically argued to be an exception, but in most other instances you should not be tagging both options if it's ambiguous. Common instances of this include colors and breast sizes. Hair that is "pink but kinda purple-y" should nto be tagged with both just because one builder is colorblind and the other has the worst monitor calibration imaginable, instead a consensus should be found for a single color to apply to that post.

The bulk update request #41274 (forum #356315) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

These tags are the way they are because to do otherwise would be confusing. If you're searching for long hair you obviously want to see people with any kind of long hair. The tag is long hair, not long hair up to waist length. Similarly, very short hair is obviously short hair. To do otherwise would go against our users' expectations and common sense.

Wyrmmidon said:
next you're gonna suggest that people should edit war over which tag to apply to ambiguously colored pink/purple hair.

Nah, I’m actually about to propose a mass update splitting the rainbow tag into seven separate color tags.

But anyway, the issue here is fundamentally different: hair length can be clearly distinguished based on body parts (like shoulder, waist, floor, etc.), making it far more objectively measurable. So when we can tell precisely what the hair length is, it’s difficult to understand why tags for other, different lengths are also being included. That’s the point.

AkaringoP said:

But anyway, the issue here is fundamentally different: hair length can be clearly distinguished based on body parts (like shoulder, waist, floor, etc.), making it far more objectively measurable. So when we can tell precisely what the hair length is, it’s difficult to understand why tags for other, different lengths are also being included. That’s the point.

Because the vast majority of people on this site searching for long hair don't want to filter out hair that's longer than an arbitrary metric. Those who care can exclude absurdly long hair and very long hair from their search, but that's a highly niche case that the average user does not care about.

ANON_TOKYO said:

This comparison doesn't make sense. Hair length tags are specifically argued to be an exception, but in most other instances you should not be tagging both options if it's ambiguous. Common instances of this include colors and breast sizes. Hair that is "pink but kinda purple-y" should nto be tagged with both just because one builder is colorblind and the other has the worst monitor calibration imaginable, instead a consensus should be found for a single color to apply to that post.

Directly from the pink_hair wiki:
> Due to the subjective nature of color judgment and other factors (such as the lighting on the characters) there is an overlap between this tag and the purple hair and red hair tags.

Wyrmmidon said:

Directly from the pink_hair wiki:
… there is an overlap between this tag and the purple hair and red hair tags.

I understood that the word “overlap” in that context is pointing out that people might mistag due to color confusion — not that it’s okay to use both tags together. If I’m wrong about that, feel free to correct me.

nonamethanks said:

Because the vast majority of people on this site searching for long hair don't want to filter out hair that's longer than an arbitrary metric. Those who care can exclude absurdly long hair and very long hair from their search, but that's a highly niche case that the average user does not care about.

Hold on — by that logic, wouldn’t that mean we don’t really need to separate or even have any of the very_* tags at all? It’s a bit confusing me. I’ll just get back to doing what I do.

Wyrmmidon said:

Directly from the pink_hair wiki:
> Due to the subjective nature of color judgment and other factors (such as the lighting on the characters) there is an overlap between this tag and the purple hair and red hair tags.

AkaringoP said:

I understood that the word “overlap” in that context is pointing out that people might mistag due to color confusion — not that it’s okay to use both tags together. If I’m wrong about that, feel free to correct me.

What Akaringo is saying is correct. That clause isn't telling you to tag both, it's telling you that there's many mistags and ambiguous cases.

AkaringoP said:

Hold on — by that logic, wouldn’t that mean we don’t really need to separate or even have any of the very_* tags at all? It’s a bit confusing me. I’ll just get back to doing what I do.

Someone who wants to see long hair also wants to see very or absurdly long hair because they're still long hair. Someone who just wants to search for absurdly long hair only wants to see absurdly long hair and not hair any shorter then that. The tags are perfectly fine as they are.

Even with unlimited tag searching as a builder, I'm in the same park of not wanting to think any further than just a single length tag. Tagging an upload is a different story and of course I'll use the right measurements but when I'm searching I'm not and don't want to think about all the different combinations. If these were unimplied then I'd had to add more tags to my search just to cover all the cases. It's not ergonomic.