I'm starting this thread for the purpose of discussing tags -- old tags, new tag suggestions, etc., in the hope that those of us interested in this sort of thing can come to a consensus on some of the tagging issues we all have. This topic is aimed primarily at those of us who are interested in correcting improper tags, further tagging images that need it, and introducing new tags that we don't have. The latter, especially, is an important issue because of the number of clearly-incorrect tags we have here (I brought up the misspelling "hart" for "heart" in a different thread, for instance), so I'd like this thread to become a sort of clearing house for new tags, where we can all take a gander at suggestions and throw in our comments.

I'm going to start out with a few of my own, and I'd like to begin with a tag I've been correcting, today:

Cameltoe: This is a cameltoe -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=490005 . This is not a cameltoe -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=500367 , although it was tagged as one. The proper tag, at least on this board, is "pussy". From Wikipedia (and it agrees with all other definitions of the term I can find) -- "Cameltoe is a slang term that refers to the outline of the female labia majora when seen through tight form-fitting clothes." In other words, an uncovered vulva should never be tagged "cameltoe".

Bukkake: I'd really like to restrict this tag to the use of images in which ejaculation is on the face/head. This was the original use of the term, in fact, replacing the first instance of this practice in Japanese pornography, when it was called gansha (顔射), which I think roughly translates to "ejaculation on face". It's only the American porn industry, with it's weeaboos, that adopted the term "bukkake" and started applying it to ejaculation on any part of the body. There's a niche fetish for ejaculation on the breasts, although I have no idea whether or not it has a name. However, when you see a girl's body covered in semen (a common theme in hentai) the term in common usage is "cumbath".

Cervix: This is a cervix -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=500207 . I don't see one here -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=486611 . Or here -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=32621 . Or here -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=24643 . The cervix is at the very end of the vagina and you'll usually see it depicted with a small hole. Somewhere on this site somebody had tagged an intact hymen with a single perforation as "cervix". I can't find it, now, so maybe someone corrected that tag. My point is that if you can't see the hole you probably aren't looking at the cervix. The first image is a reasonably-good depiction. The next two just show part of the vaginal canal. The fourth one merely shows the "introitus" (entrance to the vagina).

Creampie: I'm not sending you to Wikipedia for this one. The article there is inaccurate in that it defines "creampie" in a very general sense (ejaculation into the vagina or rectum). That's not the way the term is actually used IRL. "Pie" comes from a slang term for "vulva". "Cream" comes from a slang term for "semen". The crucial factor is that semen must be visible in the vulva for the image to be tagged "creampie", and the term is almost always used for semen dripping from the vagina after intercourse is over. With that in mind ... this is a creampie -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=464724 . This is not -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=419098 . "after_sex" is almost a prerequisite tag for "creampie". It can't happen during sex. So what is that second image, anyway? I call that a "cum explosion" -- funny term for an impossible situation. A guy doesn't ejaculate all over his partner when his penis is still buried in her vagina. Real Life doesn't work that way, and real guys don't produce enough semen for it to spurt out like that, anyway.

Cumbath (new tag): See my comments on "bukkake", above. We have the tag "cum_bath", although it has only 12 images associated with it. Most people spell this as one word, though, and I think that should be the official form of the term, here. I'd also like to see instances of "bukkake" which are not consistent with the strict definition of the word changed to "cumbath".

Feet! I love feet. No, I don't have a clinical fetish for this body part, but they're fun to play with. The problem on this site is that we have numerous foot-related tags (at least 16) and that they aren't being used at all consistently. I'd like to offer some suggestions. First of all, almost every image here could be tagged with "foot" or "feet" because humans (and that's what most of our images contain) have feet -- with very few exceptions -- and those feet are frequently shown. So, to have a "foot" or "feet" tag and image should display a foot or feet prominently and they should be an important part of the theme of the image. Just because there are feet at the ends of a character's legs doesn't mean the image should be tagged "feet". So, with all that in mind, here's my analysis of all the foot-related tags I could find. There may be more but we don't have a master list of tags to check.

Foot: "foot" should be used to indicate an image where a single foot features prominently. This is an example -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=425822 . Here the single foot is clearly the focus of the image. Here's another example -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=295304 . In this case I consider the "foot" tag applicable because the foot is prominent because of an accident of perspective, even though the artist isn't trying to draw attention to the foot in question. This one is different -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=426886 . Yes we have a single visible foot, but except for a few people, most of us are probably not going to see this as a "foot" image. I don't think this one should have the "foot" tag. The same can be said for this -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=346972 . Yes, there's a foot shown, but it's incidental to the theme of the image because the artist had to show a foot on the end of that leg or draw the character as an amputee. Again, it shouldn't have the "foot" tag. And this one is way off the mark -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=109553 . I see two feet, not one, and we already have a "feet" tag.

Feet: Like "foot", this tag should be used only when feet play a prominent part in the theme or presentation of the theme of an image. Here's a good example where the artist is attempting to draw attention to the feet -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=492693 . Here's an example of "accident of perspective" -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=499090 . Again, I consider this a valid use of the tag since the feet are clearly in the foreground and attention is drawn to them whether you really want to or not. This one, on the other hand is not a valid use of the tag -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=500659 . Sure they have feet. So do most of the other characters in most of the other images we see on this site. And this image is so badly mis-tagged it's pathetic -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=500323 . No cameltoe, no hair pin (those are barrettes), no thigh highs, the eyes look purple and not red to me, and ... there's only one foot. I guess the poster had a bad day on this one. Anyway, as I see it, this one gets "foot", but not "feet".

Barefeet/barefoot: The term in common usage is "barefoot". Very few people walk around with one shoe on and one shoe off, so we don't need both tags. When people are in bed having sex of course they're likely to be barefoot. If they're in swimsuits, or nude, we'd expect them to be barefoot. Such images don't need that tag. Here's one that does -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=500290 . So does this one -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=499663 . Here -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=493803 . OK, and what's your point? That she didn't leave her shoes on to give this guy a footjob? Sorry, but in my book this one doesn't deserve the "barefoot" tag because bare feet are implied in the theme. Now, if she was wearing shoes ... "nude" and "shoes" would give a very different impression to me if I see those tags come up.

Footjob: Since we're on that issue, this seems a popular tag, but let me clarify something. I remember seeing an image on Danbooru tagged "footjob" that showed someone licking someone else's foot. That's not a "footjob". I'm not searching through the 1067 images with that tag to try to find it, here. Somewhere on this site there's an image showing a guy's toe penetrating a loli's vagina. Is that a footjob? Yes, I think it is. Basically, "footjob" means masturbation using the feet (or just a single foot) -- it shouldn't matter what genders are involved or, for that matter whether or not more than one person is involved. If you can do yourself, more power to you. No images linked for this tag, since I think it's all pretty self-explanatory.

Foot_lick: OK, last one was about pleasuring with feet. This one is about pleasuring feet. It should be pretty clear what this one is about, so I won't link to images. The only issue I have is with this tag, the "foot_worship" tag, and the "foot_fetish" tag. There's not a clear distinction between how these are used on this site. I'll clarify ...

Foot_fetish: This can be about licking feet. It can be about smelling feet. It can be about anything that has to do with feet in a sexual situation. However, it's only used for 4 images, and is redundant with "foot_worship". I don't consider this a proper tag, for that reason, and the fact that we can't know, from the image, whether or not there's a sexual content involved in all images where foot worshipping is taking place. "foot_worship" is a much more useful tag.

Foot_worship: See my comments, above about "foot_lick" and "foot_fetish". This tag is not synonymous with "foot_lick", since I'm proposing that it involve any form of giving special attention to a foot or feet in any context at all. Here's a non-sexual example -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=449243 . It doesn't mean that this won't develop into a sexual situation, but we can't assume that from the image (hence, not a "fetish" picture). Here's another -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=145201 . In this image it seems, to me, more of a dominance thing, although I could be wrong. Regardless, the key factor for "foot_worship" is that someone is attending to someone else's feet with at least some degree of reference. Is that what's happening here? gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=6783 . No, I don't think so. This guy probably has a foot fetish, to be sure, but he's likely just getting off by licking her toes. That's not "worship". Not all images that get the "foot_lick" tag should get the "foot_worship" tag. It's a matter of context.

Foot_lick: OK, semi-shitty Western art, but this is the best example I could find of an image which clearly gets this tag and equally clearly does not get the "foot_worship" tag -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=372184 . These are a couple of girls having fun with each other's feet. Nothing more. Basically any image which shows tongue on foot gets this tag. There are a few tentacle images where the tentacles have tongues, but I don't know right off the top of my head if any show them licking feet. Would these get the "foot_lick" tag? I'm not sure, although tentacles with tongues are so rare maybe they should have their own tag, then when you see that and "foot_lick" you'll know what you're getting.

Foot_insertion: What can I say? Niche fetish, 2 images, both showing anal insertion. I have seen more images of this sort of thing, though. Even though it has limited use, I think this is a good tag.

Smelly_feet: Again, what can I say? 8 images, but this is actually fetish that comes up on /d/ on 4chan occasionally, so I know there are more images out there than this. Not my bag, but I'm trying to include all the foot-related tags I can find. I did notice that some of these images are tagged "smoke". There's no "smoke" coming from the feet. That's how the artist depicts foot odor.

Foot_odor (new tag): This is to replace "smoke" which is being used to tag images in which the artist is attempting to show that the feet he drew have an odor. The "odor" tag doesn't necessarily cut the mustard, here, since that can be used for a lot of different situations. "foot_odor" has enough representations in hentai to have its own tag, I think.

Foot_sniffing/foot_sniff/foot_smelling: The meaning is self-evident, and these all mean the same thing. I don't think I have to link to images.

Soles: I didn't go through all 768 tagged images to see if anyone used this for the soles of shoes, but from what I saw it's being used to indicate the bottoms of (usually) bare feet -- at least one image has a foot with a stocking, though. Frankly, I don't see the point of this tag. Just as most images can be tagged "feet", and shouldn't be, most of those tagged "feet" (and nearly all of them tagged "foot"), at least by the criteria I indicated, above, would also be tagged "soles". It's therefore redundant, and not a good tag in my book.

Toes: gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=492919 . Yes, she has toes. What's your point? Most feet have these things, so if there are bare feet depicted in an image you'll see toes. Just as with the "feet" and "foot" tag, this one should be used only if a toe or toes have a prominent role in the image. Here's one where they do -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=451139 . Why? The emphasis is upon the toes being used, and not just the sole of the foot. Here's another -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=407208 . Obviously, the toes are the entire focus of this image. This should be a very rare tag, but it's used 1487 times. By my criteria, if you use virtually any foot-related tag there will be toes in the image. It's redundant to use it that way.

Toe-sucking: Just two images, but I've seen more of this stuff out there -- just not on this board, so I think this is a valid tag.

OK, that's it. I've included some of my "pet peeves" with regard to tagging, and did a more-or-less comprehensive run-down on one "genre" of tags. I'd like to hear anyone's opinions on this stuff, and I'd like to see some of you do more of the same. Then we need to agree on some tag-fixing, for those of us with a little time to spare.

Notice: Inside the "-" marks indicate your input and the outside part is my response to the inside. Hopefully that format isn't too confusing, since I know not what is the proper code for multi Quoting.




Well, we all know how Wikipedia Works; Random users make Definitions and they remain Valid Until Disproved by objections from other users backed with Solidified Evidence to overrule the current and perhaps invalid Definition. That's not to say that This Applies to Every definition on Wikipedia, Just the ones that don't have a Solid/Established Reference from a dependable/reliable source, perhaps Webster? However, When it comes to slang (particularly with regional or Sexual in context), It gets a bit foggy. Some will claim that it is a term that applies specially towards something and others will claim that it is a general term for whatever that something may involve.

For Argumentational purposes, lets take the word, Balls. Now Primarily, It refers to spherical objects that are usually used in sports and other activities and is the plural of the word Ball; They could also mean, I'm sure you know what. However, the word Ball Could mean different things like a Party or a Spherical object, but is never really used to describe a solitary, I'm sure you know what. Slang changes the rules of the English language, what it was originally meant to mean no longer applies in those situations where slang is used. I understand your concern for accuracy, but Majority Rules when it comes to slang, unless it's applicable regional slang that is understood in a specific area of interest. Know what I mean? It's Regional, that means that the term takes on a different context depending on where and how it's used.

Now as for the Term Cameltoe, It is a General Slang term that Actually Means the Depiction of External Female Genitalia that appears in the form of, what else? A Camels toe. But, Camels don't have toes now do they? That's why It's slang, it changes the rules of the English Language and isn't meant to make any literal Sense. But I May Elaborate, IF you've seen what A Camels Hove Looks like, Directly in front of you, you can make out the resemblances between that and the female form from the same perspective. Makes sense. Why Would it be limited to having garments covering the Vulva in order to qualify as being Cameltoe? It would change the term Cameltoe, which the majority is familiar with. I Believe you primary concern is whether or not a garment is involved. Understandable, but why change an established term just to satisfy that concern?

I don't know about you, but in all the times I've been around the Pr0nz, Whenever the term comes up for me, It's always Uncovered/bare. So what we have here is a direct contradiction to the definition. Wiki says it has to be covered, but everyone else that actually goes and gets that stuff doesn't find it covered. Sometimes, It is covered, Sometimes, it has to have something poking the bottom in order to qualify like a string or a pole. Put the General Understanding is, Despite what the definitions claim, is that Cameltoe is Bare Vulva in a similar shape to that of a Camels “toe”.

So why Don't they change the def to reflect what it actually means? Two reasons:

1. If you have to ask, you'll never really know(Slang Principle).
2. The people that Know it already, don't really bother to tell anyone else cause they're already enjoying it and figure that the only people that should know what it means are already amongst their group of sorts.

To Reiterate, Majority Rules. If they say it's Cameltoe, it's cameltoe. You want to change that? Then start Building a Def Section on this site so users can use your reference instead of the ones they know and are accustomed too. I know it's sounds stupid but, although people are aware that a Wiki Exists, they aren't going to go out of their reach to read up on things. However, if it was more accessible from this site directly, they'd probably be more inclined to check it out; Especially if they had dynamic Examples of the terms; Something like show/hide and Next Example buttons for each term so they can figure it out if the Written Def Isn't enough For them; It's How I learned, Burned a few times but that's how I learned.

By the way, I'd like to know the Sauces/Direct links of these alleged Defs your gathering your information from. You Know about Rule 17, Don't ya? (I'm just making this up, sorta & I hope the Number hasn't already been taken.): If the Ref Didn't see it, It never Happened. Basically what I mean is, if your claiming something IS true with no direct proof of what your claiming that supports it (Other than your educated guess or perhaps prevalent opinion), It's probably not true at all or Only as much as Half as true as your statements make it out to be. In this case, your missing a few things that you backed up very well but we can only verify what you have actually posted; The example pictures are solid, but your statements about other sites and their definitions for the terms aren't present, and therefore are subjected to some form of doubt. Granted I'll take your word for it, but I can't really make a call without direct proof.




Actually, I believe it was the Germans that used it First From the Japanese, not the U.S.P.I.
And I believe it was Primarily used in conjunction with “Gangbangs” and “Watersports”. German Goo Girls Bukkake I Believe was the Full Term Used; I'm Probably mistaken about a lot of it though, but you don't have much info to draw from directly either so I guess it balances out. As for any part of the body, No, Just in such large quantities that it drips all over; From what I understand it, most of it is all synthetic. I have Clips of Girls Literally in a Cum Bath, Synthetically speaking, also carries the reference Bukkake So I guess even the Japanese have changed it as well, Though I can't validate it since I can only draw from what I gathered and whats printed/ the people that printed it.

The term in question regarding The Act of Ejaculating on a Womans breasts is called a Pearl Neckless. Guess Why? And No, the term in Common Usage isn't Cumbath, it's Bukkake, or cum Covered; Some May even claim Glazed. Times change. But to be Honest, I have seen the Term Cumbath come up every now and then, but not as frequently as Bukkake so I gotta side with that one.




The hole has a Name, It's called the (Crap, where'd that Diagram Go?)-Never mind-. That Type of Hymen Also Has a Name, It's Called an Annular Hymen. Yes, Introitus is the correct term for the Entrance of the Vagina.



Actually, from what I understand Real Life to be, That is how it's used. I think your over emphasized in the 'Act' and not the 'Result of' here, But you'd be right. The Act and The Result are one in the same cause you can't have the Result without the act now can you? I think the wiki is quite accurate without having to go into intricate details on the matter.

I Was under the impression that “Pie” Was a slang term for Shitz. Like, Cow Pie; then again, that could just be regional slang. I also understand the term “Pie” to Mean the whole General Area between the Perineum and the Mons Pubes; Something you can stick your face in, XD.

The Way you are referring to a Creampie in regards to the situation is accurate. However, Creampie also carries a sort of missed Connotation. Usually, a Creampie when used in Hentai is unconsensual, By that I mean, The Female did not consent to have the Male Fill Her and Therefore is left with a justified Creampie. However, if Consent Was granted, then it would be considered Afterglow/Aftersex. Strange how that works out, Huh? Of course, that only applies to hentai. In Pr0nz, It could be considered a Creampie as you described it, whether or not consent was granted.



That's Hentai For ya, That's what we love about it! We can exaggerate certain aspects of Sex to reflect a sensation of Illustrated pleasure. Like, IRL, It feels so good, that If I had to draw a picture of how good it was, it would have to be exaggerated in order for others to get an understanding of how Good it felt. Know what'a Mean?

More like, Cum Blast or Cum Expulsion, I mean, if you HAVE to use another tag, I'd go with those. Cum Explosion? Doesn't seem accurate. When I think about it, I imagine 'Vanilla putting' in the Microwave and then it literally explodes and goes all over the place. Cum Doesn't really Explode, Unless maybe you put it in the microwave XD, so the Terms Cum Blast and Cum Expulsion deem more accurate don't ya think?



Hasn't happened yet, don't see it happening anytime soon. But Hell, I don't run this place, and I can't make anyone else's decisions for them so I guess it just depends on the users interests OR the Overruling Site Maintainers if they really want to press the issue. Personally, When I think Cumbath, I think chick (Perhaps in a Tub) and maybe one Guy Involved with the, Hose. When I think Bukkake, I think Many Guys, one Chick getting, Hosed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feet! I love feet. No, I don't have a clinical fetish for this body part, but they're fun to play with. The problem on this site is that we have numerous foot-related tags (at least 16) and that they aren't being used at all consistently. I'd like to offer some suggestions. First of all, almost every image here could be tagged with "foot" or "feet" because humans (and that's what most of our images contain) have feet -- with very few exceptions -- and those feet are frequently shown. So, to have a "foot" or "feet" tag and image should display a foot or feet prominently and they should be an important part of the theme of the image. Just because there are feet at the ends of a character's legs doesn't mean the image should be tagged "feet". So, with all that in mind, here's my analysis of all the foot-related tags I could find. There may be more but we don't have a master list of tags to check
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Question here is, What Qualifies for having a Clinical Foot Fetish; What's the difference between having a Foot Fetish of some sorts and a Clinical Foot Fetish? Heck, Is having a Foot fetish Really a Fetish at all? I mean, It's an attractive Body part just like Genitals, Mammary glans, Hair, Faces, Eyes, Lips, Hips, Ass, and Curves. A Whole Lot of people have this fetish, not just a few pervs out of thousands. I can Understand how an obsession with Shoes more than the Feet waring them would classify as a fetish since it isn't attached to the body or even animate at all. Isn't that what a Fetish is? A Sexual obsession of something that isn't of the natural body? Latex? That's a Fetish. Lingerie? That's a Fetish. Silicone? That's a Fetish. But Barefeet? Comeon! How is that a fetish? If it's a Sexual Obsession of a particular body part then technically, we all have a genitalia Fetish then don't we? Fine, Whatever. If that's the Def, Then I'd say I have a Mild to Moderate Foot fetish. Not a severe or acute one because for some strange reason, I'll get turned off IF I just See Feet for about 12 minutes and nothing else. Also, If it's a guys Feet, Then I'm either not interested or immediately Turned off at that point. Girls with Ugly or Big Feet Don't do it for me either So I guess it's safe to say that I too don't have a Clinical Foot Fetish, provided that I understand what you mean by the use of the word clinical.

Actually, you're thinking outside the box, and in this case, that isn't the way to go. Shoe's maybe shown, and technically we can safely assume that Feet are inside them, but we can't see the feet. Rule 17 again (as I described awhile ago previously hereof). And also, a lot of the images don't show feet or shows at all, they are either not drawn because they are obstructed, or because they are out of frame. Do the characters themselves have feet? Perhaps, but Rule 17 still remains valid, at least as for as the applicable instance goes thereof.

Here are the Tags I Go For Starting with the most Important:
1. Uncensored. (Because Censored = Flaccid, and We can't have that when on the prowl for Pr0nz now can we?)
2. Nude/Naked (Female/Solo Is Implied here as well.)
3. Barefoot (Because your not Entirely Naked if your waring Anything now are you?; Because there's really no avoiding it, Hair accessories will still qualify as Naked, but a Sure Bonus if She's Got her hair down.)
The Rest of the Tags I go for aren't as Important as those three but Are just Bonuses for me (He he, Bonus-es).

Your Proposal for the 'Proper' use of those tags would compromise my search parameters, as well as make a lot of the foot fetish users quite unhappy. By the way, I'm actually quite partial to the toes of the Female's Feet, They're just so intricate and you can really get some assurance from the artists quality of work if they draw them adequately enough or go further by enhancing details like that. Some artists are lazy or don't care and just draw a Socked foot(By that, I mean that the Foot Looks like an Actual Sock, not that they are wearing Socks) or 3-4 toes and call it in, That's a sure sign of poor workmanship, Or maybe they just can't draw feet very well. I know Some artists that Don't draw feet very well and will avoid it altogether. There are those that are bold enough to try and fail but I Give them higher marks for those that don't even bother to try. Well, sometimes they can draw everything exceptionally well, Except for the Feet if at all. That's where I have to make a tough call: Is the picture good enough on it's own without feet to, stand? Sometimes its yes, and there are those that are so good that it would be bad not to acknowledge; but only a few artists that are that good can get away with it under my watch.

Speaking of a Master List, Why Doesn't this Site have a Master List? Wait, does it? I know rule34.paheal.net and A Few other Sites I've Observed have a “Cloud” Tag Structure/Feature, Doesn't this site have one too? IF not, Why Not? Probably the only major inconvenience this site has if so. Maybe when they make it, while they are at it, can start adding Def's with Tags & Illustrated Examples Simultaneously/Dynamically, Take out two birds with one stone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feet: Like "foot", this tag should be used only when feet play a prominent part in the theme or presentation of the theme of an image. Here's a good example where the artist is attempting to draw attention to the feet -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=492693 . Here's an example of "accident of perspective" -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=499090 . Again, I consider this a valid use of the tag since the feet are clearly in the foreground and attention is drawn to them whether you really want to or not. This one, on the other hand is not a valid use of the tag -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=500659 . Sure they have feet. So do most of the other characters in most of the other images we see on this site. And this image is so badly mis-tagged it's pathetic -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=500323 . No cameltoe, no hair pin (those are barrettes), no thigh highs, the eyes look purple and not red to me, and ... there's only one foot. I guess the poster had a bad day on this one. Anyway, as I see it, this one gets "foot", but not "feet"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I understand your concern for accurate depictions & Representations of the Images, I believe that the very reason for the creation and use of tags is to allow users Ergonomic accessibility to images that contain certain criteria and not limited by the main focus of the subjectable images. Your asking for a Hierarchy structure that that would base the results of Queries on the most prominent criteria of Images gathered. That isn't a Bad Idea for a Feature, but I wouldn't Go so far as to make it a permanent Solution that would override the already working scheme; Maybe, If it is at all possible to accomplish, it would be better suited as an Option for users, that is, Users can choose from the Default result structure OR your proposed Hierarchy structure. This way, If one structure doesn't yield the results they desire, then perhaps the other will be better suited for them. The only real obstacle would be to decide the Hierarchy, what should go on the top? The Bottom? I would advise that IF implemented it should go something like this (Each with Five Examples):

Primary Tags:
1. Not_Hentai. (Details to be explained Soon.)
2. Artist Name(s). (If Not Known or Marked, Move on to next Tag.)
3. Character Name(s). (If Not Known or Marked, Move on to next Tag.)
4. Series Name(s). (If Not Known or Marked, Move on to next Tag.)
5. Ecchi.

Secondary Tags:
6. Hair Color.
7. Eye Color.
8. Female.
9. Male.
10. Solo.

Tertiary Tags:
11. Masturbation.
12. Fellatio.
13. Sex.
14. Anal.
15. Footjob.

As for the Badly tagged Image, yeah that did appear to have been hastily tagged. Well, they can't all be professionally tagged, right? Good thing there are edit options in place to fix images improperly tagged like that. Now about tags, You'll notice that I included a Special Type of tag to go Highest on the Hierarchy, I Introduce to you the Not_Hentai Tag. Why? Well, The name should be self evident. There are Many many pictures on Gelbooru that are Just, Not_Hentai, heck, not even Ecchi. I'm Sorry, I was under the impression that this site was created to cater to Hentai Pictures. Now, I understand that it doesn't mean that people Shouldn't post good artwork that Isn't Hentai, But that's exactly what this tag was introduced for. Believe it or not, Some(Most?) users Come here for the Pr0nz and not much else. Do you have any Idea How Difficult it was for me to Find Volcaloid Pr0nz? Nearly 10,000 images to go through and Only about a Quarter of them could even be considered Hentai (Oh, but I did Find a Gem I was very happy with, Still, too much unnecessary work). Eureka 7 had similar Results and Aria, O Man, thousands of Pictures and only about ten of them where Hentai, The only other Remote Exception would be if they where barefoot, but that would be all the erotic content you would squeeze out of them and that is just not acceptable. Lucky Star, At least has Hentai pics to some consistency but Still a whole lot of Non Hentai Pictures to sift through just to find them. The Not_Hentai Tag Solves this by allowing Users to post Non Hentai Pictures without effecting the results for the users, like Myself, That just want the Pr0nz. All I have to say at this point is, Is there any reason WHY we Can't implement the Not_Hentai Tag?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barefeet/barefoot: The term in common usage is "barefoot". Very few people walk around with one shoe on and one shoe off, so we don't need both tags. When people are in bed having sex of course they're likely to be barefoot. If they're in swimsuits, or nude, we'd expect them to be barefoot. Such images don't need that tag. Here's one that does -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=500290 . So does this one -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=499663 . Here -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=493803 . OK, and what's your point? That she didn't leave her shoes on to give this guy a footjob? Sorry, but in my book this one doesn't deserve the "barefoot" tag because bare feet are implied in the theme. Now, if she was wearing shoes ... "nude" and "shoes" would give a very different impression to me if I see those tags come up
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Barefoot need only apply and Barefeet Need not. I wish that were true for all the images I see where a Couple are in bed having sex, But alas, Sometimes(if not most) they ware Stockings, socks, or pantyhose. I don't approve of that but that's just me. For some reason though, the guy's are always(If not, then almost always) completely nude; Personally, I don't like clothes to go with my pr0nr0garphy.
While that may be true about Swimsuits and Nude, Feet might not be present in those Images, that's why they Are necessary tags. Same with the Implication, Footjob could be with Stockings, pantyhose or Socks, and Users like me prefer barefoot so again, The Barefoot Tag IS necessary for the Image. Not to call any negative attention, but You kinda Contradicted yourself a little. Don't worry though, Happens to the best of us; I make it a habit of Not happening to me though the best I can.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footjob: Since we're on that issue, this seems a popular tag, but let me clarify something. I remember seeing an image on Danbooru tagged "footjob" that showed someone licking someone else's foot. That's not a "footjob". I'm not searching through the 1067 images with that tag to try to find it, here. Somewhere on this site there's an image showing a guy's toe penetrating a loli's vagina. Is that a footjob? Yes, I think it is. Basically, "footjob" means masturbation using the feet (or just a single foot) -- it shouldn't matter what genders are involved or, for that matter whether or not more than one person is involved. If you can do yourself, more power to you. No images linked for this tag, since I think it's all pretty self-explanatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, Licking a Foot is Not Considered a Footjob. Keep in Mind that sleepy/lazy(/Drunk?) people tend to make mistakes like that. Actually, It would be more precise to call it Foot Penitration but yeah, I do believe that can also be considered a Footjob, But The Common Use of the term usually Involves Female Feet on Males Genitals. True, that its applicable to both Genders, but it Does Have to involve Feet and Genitals.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foot_lick: OK, last one was about pleasuring with feet. This one is about pleasuring feet. It should be pretty clear what this one is about, so I won't link to images. The only issue I have is with this tag, the "foot_worship" tag, and the "foot_fetish" tag. There's not a clear distinction between how these are used on this site. I'll clarify ...

Foot_fetish: This can be about licking feet. It can be about smelling feet. It can be about anything that has to do with feet in a sexual situation. However, it's only used for 4 images, and is redundant with "foot_worship". I don't consider this a proper tag, for that reason, and the fact that we can't know, from the image, whether or not there's a sexual content involved in all images where foot worshipping is taking place. "foot_worship" is a much more useful tag
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foot Fetish Doesn't seem to be a coherent tag, it's more of a subject for a thread then a tag. I suppose Foot Worship should replace Foot Fetish, but what would be the criteria for the foot to be considered, Worshiped? Would it have to be held, Licked, and Looked upon Lovingly/Lustfully? Or, perhaps The Foot would have to be presented while being received in a worshiping manner, like Kneeling down before it, or holding it up above their heads?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless, the key factor for "foot_worship" is that someone is attending to someone else's feet with at least some degree of reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So uh, Is what I said before Qualify for said Reference? Huh. . . I'm Not Aroused anymore by the details of this, It always seems to happen after about 12 Minutes or Maybe Something like this Triggers it and I get turned off without knowing it. Strange. Could it be that maybe foot worship is a is a turn off for me but Not other foot Related Erotica? Strange, Since I'd Think I'd Want to love a womans Feet and have had premeditative thoughts about the things I would do to their Feet. But after thinking and talking about foot worship, suddenly I lost it. Very strange. Wait, The First part of what I said in the previous paragraph about what would qualify for foot worship kinda brings it back, but the second part just shuts it down again. Did I just Find a Switch? A Phenomenon of a Sexual Aspect? Hmm. . . I think I can figure it out but I'll come back to it later since I got the jist of it now, I'd explain if your interested but I doubt anyone is; Why Do I even type this? O_o.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are a couple of girls having fun with each other's feet. Nothing more. Basically any image which shows tongue on foot gets this tag. There are a few tentacle images where the tentacles have tongues, but I don't know right off the top of my head if any show them licking feet. Would these get the "foot_lick" tag? I'm not sure, although tentacles with tongues are so rare maybe they should have their own tag, then when you see that and "foot_lick" you'll know what you're getting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footlick, Could it be anymore obvious? But yeah, Clearly Not Foot Worship. Tenti-tongues Eh? I'd like to see that. I think I recall their use was Tickling Feet but tongue on foot would still be considered footlick.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foot_insertion: What can I say? Niche fetish, 2 images, both showing anal insertion. I have seen more images of this sort of thing, though. Even though it has limited use, I think this is a good tag
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Do I. It is a good tag, All we need now is more Content.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smelly_feet: Again, what can I say? 8 images, but this is actually fetish that comes up on /d/ on 4chan occasionally, so I know there are more images out there than this. Not my bag, but I'm trying to include all the foot-related tags I can find. I did notice that some of these images are tagged "smoke". There's no "smoke" coming from the feet. That's how the artist depicts foot odor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are more images about Many things that aren't on Gelbooru that deserve to be, unfortunately. That's not my Bag either but whatever, others seem to like it for some reason. Not Smoke, Foot Stank.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foot_odor (new tag): This is to replace "smoke" which is being used to tag images in which the artist is attempting to show that the feet he drew have an odor. The "odor" tag doesn't necessarily cut the mustard, here, since that can be used for a lot of different situations. "foot_odor" has enough representations in hentai to have its own tag, I think
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, It should replace Smoke tag for those images depicting Foot_odor. No, The Odor Tag Doesn't Necessarily Cut the Mustard(Although, it Might, Cut the Cheese). It does? Then again, I've seen some pretty weird things on that there Internet so, I guess I could believe that.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soles: I didn't go through all 768 tagged images to see if anyone used this for the soles of shoes, but from what I saw it's being used to indicate the bottoms of (usually) bare feet -- at least one image has a foot with a stocking, though. Frankly, I don't see the point of this tag. Just as most images can be tagged "feet", and shouldn't be, most of those tagged "feet" (and nearly all of them tagged "foot"), at least by the criteria I indicated, above, would also be tagged "soles". It's therefore redundant, and not a good tag in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think I went through all of them though, but I didn't recall seeing anything there that had to do with Shoes at all. Bare feet usually goes with soles. Although it isn't a good tag in your book, a lot of users like this tag, otherwise there wouldn't be nearly a thousand images for it would there? Another thing I learned while on the Nets was that there isn't only a general 'foot fetish', there are specifics or sub fetishes that go with it. I think, IF I have one, mine would be toes, since I'm partial to the intricate details and toes requiring the most attention to detail on the foot would suit my general preferences accordingly. Go Figure, there are also sub foot fetishes that go at Heels, Ankles, Soles, Toe bottoms, Toe nails, and even the top part of the foot who's name escapes me. By eliminating the Soles tag, you'll upset the users that are searching for their preferenced foot fetish criteria. I Heard, though I haven't researched it to be sure, that a quarter of all the bones in your body reside in your feet. I would imagine it's true because they have to take all the weight of your body + the force of the ground as you move.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toes: gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=492919 . Yes, she has toes. What's your point? Most feet have these things, so if there are bare feet depicted in an image you'll see toes. Just as with the "feet" and "foot" tag, this one should be used only if a toe or toes have a prominent role in the image. Here's one where they do -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=451139 . Why? The emphasis is upon the toes being used, and not just the sole of the foot. Here's another -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=407208 . Obviously, the toes are the entire focus of this image. This should be a very rare tag, but it's used 1487 times. By my criteria, if you use virtually any foot-related tag there will be toes in the image. It's redundant to use it that way
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already explained twice why removing the foot tags you think are unnecessary is a bad Idea. Do you wonder WHY the tag is used 1487 times? Users Like Me rely on those tags to get our prefered Pr0nz. It's redundant? Maybe you need to look outside the box a bit, But By this time, I'm sure you have come to the conclusion of Why we need those tags to be there, thanks to me. Unless, you are mentioning it perhaps because of your personal beliefs. A little, Megalomanic of you, Don't ya think? I guess we have our moments when we are biased in opinion and feel the need to suede others into our ways of thinking. But it's a little selfish and short-sided and may end up with Very negative results down the line. IF money is the Root of Evil, This would be the stem of Evil. I believe that their aren't any bad/negative Ideas, Just Ideas that can be manipulated in a bad/negative way. Some of your suggestions are an example of that. Before you act, you really have to think of how it may impact the entire structure of what is already known to work. It's O.K. to Test, but I mean don't just jump the gun on things, that's how accidents and Mistakes happen. It's O.K. To make Mistakes, but it isn't at All O.K. to make the Wrong Mistakes. Good thing I have the users interests in Mind and am open to pertinent discussion, as are you I presume?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toe-sucking: Just two images, but I've seen more of this stuff out there -- just not on this board, so I think this is a valid tag
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a valid Tag, So, Why isn't there MOAR on this Board? I love that part in Moonlight Lady where Susana is Getting her Toes Sucked, Heck, I like a lot of scenes from Moonlight Lady Though I haven't seen it yet, the parts I did see are great; I just hope that when I get around to it, it doesn't jump the shark on me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, that's it. I've included some of my "pet peeves" with regard to tagging, and did a more-or-less comprehensive run-down on one "genre" of tags. I'd like to hear anyone's opinions on this stuff, and I'd like to see some of you do more of the same. Then we need to agree on some tag-fixing, for those of us with a little time to spare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed you did. Well, you Heard it. More of the same? A bit later, It took me two nights to do a thorough Inspection and Clean up for my responses to your Responses. Time to spare? Perhaps. If your all so lucky, I'll have both weeknights of time to spare for you.


It's been a Pleasure responding Ferryt, but I don't think I can Keep up consistently with you from night to night. But I'll try my best, just don't wait up. I'll Probably do better if you respond in a couple of short paragraphs then in many paragraphs. Not that I don't appreciate it, but It's just a hassle on my end to respond to so much all at once. I type fast but thinking of what to type and refining it really slows me down. Why Must I be an Idealist/Perfectionist? I'd like to talk about other things with you, Ferryt. But I'll have to take a few breaks from time to time since I'm Sorta New to this Forum Atmosphere. Well, Technically, I have been on forums before but that was a While ago and I need to re-accustom my self to Suit the Pr0n Format. I have other things I'm doing but I'll see if I can come by maybe once or twice a Week; maybe Biweekly, but for Sure once every three weeks. Brace for delays, and we should do fine.

I have been lurking on this site for about a year and finally decided to join a few days ago. I think many of the tags are pretty good, so far, and I have been filling in many missing tags for pictures.

Anyways... I have a recommendation for a new tag.

costume_swap
This should be used when two (or more) characters from the same series are wearing each other's clothes. I think that it's a better fit than cosplay because cosplay implies that it is a fan dressing up as his/her favorite character.
Here's an example, where Echidna and Tomoe (from Queen's Blade) are wearing each other's clothes.
www.gelbooru.com/index.ph...&s=view&id=103039

EDIT: Also, if I fix an artist tag (by adding "artist:" to the front of the name), will the image board change all tags with that name, or will I have to manually fix all of them myself?

Oh, my ... someone who puts as much effort, time ... and energy ... into long posts as I do. This should be fun ...

Wikipedia: I'm aware of the vagaries of Wikipedia. It's a publicly-edited database, subject to the same problems we have with allowing just anybody to fiddle with tags, here. There are people who don't know what they're doing. When I make a reference to a Wikipedia article it's because I *know* that article is accurate, and I sometimes don't refer to Wikipedia articles because I *know* they *aren't* accurate. As for my references, Google is your friend. There is a wealth of information to be found there. You just have to be discerning enough to distinguish between the good, the bad, and the ugly, and much of that has to do with the veracity of the individual sites. I didn't get two college degrees without being able to "ferret out" stuff, and be able to discern when information being presented is inaccurate. You have to already know something about a subject before you can make such a judgment, though -- which is why a lot of the stuff you see on Wikipedia (and especially in WikiAnswers) is just plain garbage. The people who wrote it didn't know what they were writing about.

Slang: I'm aware of what you're trying to say. Local and regional slang is no longer that much of an issue, now that we have the Internet, though. Slang terms spread rather quickly, so regional differences in the use of terms tend to disappear. You will see, though, I'm not using regional slang, here.

"cameltoe": Your use of the term to apply to an uncovered vulva actually is not in accord with the way most people use the term, Thref. Google "cameltoe". Make a list of all definitions that require the presence of a tight garment and all definitions that refer to the bare vulva. Tally them up. You'll see what I mean. For that matter, search for "cameltoe" on YouTube. Again, compare and contrast. You'll find that the popular understanding of "cameltoe" is that it's the outline of female genitalia underneath a tightly-stretched garment. Now, actually do a Gelbooru search for "cameltoe" and, guess what? You'll find most of the images are properly tagged, as per the inclusion of a garment. Finally, try searching some online dictionaries. Again, you'll find I'm right.

Now, why would we have "pussy", which is being used to tag images in which the vulva is visible, *and* "cameltoe" to refer to the exact same thing? It's one or the other, and we currently have 21,599 references to "pussy" and only 3,129 references to "cameltoe", most of which are being used correctly. You claim that most people who are into porn use the term to refer to an uncovered vulva. Why, then, are most of the images tagged with "cameltoe", here on this site, consistent with the way I use the term? One of us is wrong, my friend, and I think the evidence supports my stance.

Now, for specific sources. Understand that when I say something *is*, I'm implying that there is a general consensus among people who know about that thing regarding it. Otherwise I'll make it clear that I'm stating an opinion. I don't always have access to my authorative sources. Much of my technical knowledge is from my college education, for example. All my textbooks were destroyed in the fire that destroyed our house, so there's no way I can refer someone to "my" source for information -- you'll run into that below, by the way, with reference to camel's toes. You can take my word for it, or do a little research, yourself, and discover that I'm right. I imagine that within two minutes of typing "artiodactyl" into Google you'll have your evidence.

Urban Dictionary: Of the seventeen definitions, thirteen agree with mine. One is a "samefag" post. Three have absolutely nothing to do with the female genitalia. In other words, not counting the three that are clearly not applicable, 100% accord.

Slangsite.com: "The same as a wedgie, except it only happens to females, and is a front wedgy. " Again, accord.

The Online Slang Dictionary: eleven definitions (including under "camel's foot" and "camel toe", spelled as two words). Not counting one "samefag" post, 100% accord.

The Source: Slang Dictionary: no entries for "cameltoe".

Peak English-Slang : no entries for "cameltoe".

A Dictionary of Slang: camel's hoof ("Noun. An impression of the female genitals/vulva as seen through tightly worn clothing. Cf. 'camel toe'") and camel toe ("Noun. An impression of the female genitals/vulva as seen through tightly worn clothing. Also camel's toe and camel toes. Cf. 'camel's hoof'. [Orig U.S./poss. 1970s]").

I'll stop there. These are the first hits on a Google Search for "slang dictionary", and not a "pick and choose" method to stack the deck in my favor. Nowhere was it ever mentioned in any of these sources that the term could apply to an uncovered vulva and all the definitions very clearly referred to fabric covering the vulva.

Other points with regard to this term: Actually, yes, camels have toes. Eight (functional) ones, to be exact -- two on each foot. They belong to the order "artiodactyla", which even means "even-toed", referring to the fact that there are two functional toes on each foot.

Now, why should "cameltoe" be limited to images in which the vulva is covered by clothing, ignoring the obvious answer for the moment, which I've delineated, above? Simple. This is a fetish. Some guys get off more on this than they do on a nude female body. When I search for "cameltoe", and I'm one of those guys (I'm not -- this is hypothetical), I do not want to see an uncovered female crotch. It's the same reason you give, below, for not nixing the "toe" tag.

Bukkake: No, the term is quite Japanese, and the Germans didn't invent it. In the Japanese language "Boku ha kanojo ni mizu wo bukkaketa" means, "I splashed her with water." That's all the word actually means -- "spash". The actual first use of the term to refer to a sex act is a point of contention, I'll admit, and I can't point you to any actual sources. Attempts to find sources on the Internet result in multiple, mutually-exclusive, results for this, including one which is clearly in the urban legend category, but is presented as fact. I do know that the term didn't come into use in a sexual connotation until around 1990, or perhaps a few years before that, and I'm familiar with it's use in American pornography at that time. Seeing that the Germans are as fixated on Japanese culture as Americans seem to be, though, you may be quite right in saying that they were the first to use the term in a sexual manner, although the practice of a bunch of guys drenching a sitting girl's face with semen was happening in Japan long before it became popular in Western pornography. They just never used the term "bukkake" for it, as far as I know.

"bukkake" vs. "cumbath": It depends upon the circles you frequent which one of these you're more likely to hear, and even within circles where both terms are used there are varying definitions. I tried to give the ones that, in my experience, both in Real Life and in my search for porn on the Internet, seemed to be the most common. I grew up on the streets. I was, in fact, a prostitute for a number of years. I've had my share of gangbangs and "cumbaths", and that's what they were called. I never even encountered the term "bukkake" until I discovered hentai. The average Joe on the streets knows what a "cumbath" is. Say "bukkake" and he's going to look at you like you're speaking a foreign language, which you sort of are. In the furry community, "bukkake" is used mostly by those people who also are into hentai. The majority of furries prefer the term "cumbath" because it *doesn't* sound Japanese, and there's almost as much hatred among furs in general for weeaboos, as there is for furs in the hentai community. Now, add to this the fact that there are nearly 400,000 references to "cumbath" or "cum bath" on Google, and tell me again how little known this term is. :)

Pearl Necklass: Yes, that's the word. I remember it, now that you mention it, but since external application of semen is a turn-off for me, this isn't exactly the kind of thing that I would go out of my way to commit to memory. The only reason I know anything at all about bukkake is that I'm involved in a couple of role-plays that involve this, so I did my homework before starting them. By the way "pearl_necklass" is not an existing tag on Gelbooru. It should be.

The visible hole in the cervix is called the "external os", as contrasted with the "internal os" that is the opening into the uterus, itself. I wonder if it would be useful to introduce the tag "external_os" to indicate this. I have seen some "cervix"-tagged images in which the "floor" of the vagina was clearly being presented, but the os, itself, was tucked up out of the way because of the angle.

"Pie" as slang term: "Pie" is used as a slang term for quite a few things, including cow droppings, yes. Like many slang terms, its meaning has to be construed from the context. "Here, have a taste of my pie" would, if I said this to my SO, clearly indicate an invitation to cunnilingus, since everyone who knows me knows that scat, in any form, is a tremendous sexual turn-off for me. Oviously, the use of "pie" in reference to a "girl" will almost always refer to the vulva ... unless she has a bowel problem, and we won't go there.

You say that "creampie" is usually used in hentai in a non-consensual context. I'm not seeing that ... not in the tagged images on the boorus, and not on the chans. Check out any creampie thread on 4chan. You'll get a lot of rape images, but you happen to have a lot of rape images in hentai, so that's no indication of a preference, here. It's like arguing that there's something mysterious in the Bermuda Triangle because so many planes and ships disappear there. The reason is *because* there're so many planes and ships there, and the *chance* of disappearance is no higher there than in any other shipping lane or flight path. It's just a matter of the relative abundances of non-consensual vs. "happy sex" images, but you see a *lot* of the latter in which creampies are clearly depicted. I think where you're going with this is the tremendous number of rape images and mangas, and they almost always have that "bad end" where the girl is dripping semen from all her orifices. That's just one part of the whole picture, though. You obviously don't hang around on 4chan and peruse all the "happy sex" and "romance" threads like I do.

"after_sex" vs. "creampie": I see these as two different things. There are quite a few images where "aftersex" is a valid tag, but no semen is actually visible -- therefore, no "creampie".

"cumblast": I like that -- as one word and not two. It's actually one of my peeves with hentai. I've seen series of images where the guy ejaculate inside the girl, and the next image shows them, with his penis still buried to the hilt, but with cum all over her -- even up to her face. Now where in the Hell did that come from, anyway? I don't like bukkake, anyway -- not in art and not in Real Life. I prefer my images "clean". Creampies are OK. That happens in Real Life. Cumblasts don't. Maybe it's just a difference in gender point of view. I don't really know. I'd like to see "cumblast" as a search term. That way I could put it on my blacklist and just find the realistic images I usually look for.

You are, of course, correct. Pornography, at least that intended for male consumption (there is really very little of it out there that appeals to the female sector of society, in spite of the fact that much of Japanese hentai is drawn by females), is about exaggeration. Breasts twice the size of a girl's head, dicks the size of my forearm, semen in quarts, cervical penetration ... these are all indicative of the need for at least some people to see an exaggeration of the real thing to get a charge out of it. You might love that. I hate it. Gender difference? Perhaps, but I know some guys that agree with me, too, and we can actually find porn that appeals to our tastes. That's what I love about hentai -- there's something in it to please, or disgust, just about anyone.

"cum_bath": There are actually twelve images tagged with "cum_bath" on Gelbooru, some of them like you envision it, and some of them like I envision it. As I propsed the term (one word) it means something very specific, and not "taking a bath in semen". As two words the implication, at least the way my mind works, is that it means "taking a bath in semen". And, no, "correcting" images tagged "bukkake" to accord with what I'd like to see isn't going to happen, and I wasn't suggesting that it happen. It's what I'd *like* to see, to make the tags more specific so that people could do more focused searches, but I know I'm in the minority.

Clinical Foot Fetish: In the clinical sense of the term a "fetish" is an object or body part (occasionally extended to include situations) which must be present in a sexual situation for sexual arousal to occur. This is the way the word is used in the medical/psychiatric profession, and indicates a sexual dysfunction in the form of what is known as "transference neurosis". If you have a true, clinical foot fetish, you can't become sexually aroused unless a foot or feet are somehow involved. This is why I coined the term "minor fetish" years ago to refer to fetish objects in the sense that they enhance sexual arousal but aren't required for it. If you have a true fetish there's something wrong with you. If you have a "minor fetish" you're just more fun than the average vanilla person. The key point to "fetish", though, is the object, body part, or situation involved isn't, of itself, sexual in nature. Thus, if you have a sexual obsession over feet, that's a fetish. Even a breast can be a fetish in this sense, since it isn't, actually, a sexual part. So, no, there probably isn't a "genitalia fetish", like you suggest. On the other hand, virtually anything not overtly sexual in nature can be a fetish, from red rubber balls to bare feet to vomit.

As for yor three most important tags, that might be an interesting topic for a different discussion, but probably not on this site. There aren't enough people using the forum to make it much of a discussion. I don't use those tags. I learned a long time ago that I'm not going to get my favorite images in uncensored form in all likelihood. Until the Japanese quit censoring their work we're not going to see much uncensored work from them. And, no, to my knowledge it's not required by law to censor their work anymore. Indeed, one Japanese furry artist, Comet, specifically releases uncensored works to his Japanese audience, but anything we, here in the States, buys from him will be those exact same images with censorship -- just because he's butthurt because his works are so badly pirated over here. "nude/naked"? That's not all that important since when I'm searching for porn I usually use the tag "-rating:safe". I don't have to have my characters in my porn fully nude to appreciate the images. "Barefoot"? I only use that one when I'm looking for something that *isn't* pornography, and even then I have to wade through tons of images that are.

I very much doubt that "proper" use of the various foot-related tags would upset any foot fetish users on this site. If anything, it would help to focus the searches on what they're really looking for. When you're looking for some foot fetish porn is this what you want to find?

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=502682

Likely not, unless you're just so hung up on feet that they're all you can really see in an image. No, you want something more like this:

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=492693

Or even this:

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=474824

In the first image, which is the case for almost all images tagged "feet", the presence of feet is simply incidental to the fact that the characters are human and have feet. In the second two you see a foot being presented as a major focus in the image. That's what most foot fetish users are likely to be looking for.

You do make a good point about toes, though. I've seen those images where the artist clearly couldn't (or wouldn't) draw feet correctly. It's one of my biggest gripes about furry imagery, as well. Most furry artists have no concept of how to draw feet an on anthropomorph. I like toes. They're one of my favorite parts of the foot to play with (or have played with) in fact, but I think the "toes" tag should be restricted only to those images in which the toes are actually *important* to the theme of the image. By your logic almost every single image tagged "foot" or "feet" would have to be tagged "toes", as well, and that situation tells me exactly nothing that "feet", all by itself, tells me. Now, if I saw "feet" and "no_toes", that would mean something to me.

Definition Section, tag cloud, etc., for Gelbooru: I've already suggested that we need a comprehensive list of tags with definitions. I can't build such a section because I don't run this place, but I'd be happy to help with the job of adding definitions if there was one. I've also suggested that anyone attempting to use a tag for the first time (this would require taggers to be logged into their accounts and for the software to track the tags they've used) to be referred to the "official" definition so that they'd have to read and understand it before applying the tag to an image. All this would require some programming effort, though. Gelbooru is proprietary software. It doesn't use the same engine as those other sites, and it's still a WIP. I think a simple alphabetical list of tags, associated with their aliases, if any, would be fairly simple to implement, though.

Hierarchical tag structure: I don't see where in the quoted part of my post I implied I wanted this. I was suggesting that a tag that becomes ubiquitous because the thing it's referring to is ubiquitous is a useless tag. The "feet" tag is the most abused tag I've come across so far. There are 6,047 images tagged "feet". There could easily be many times that many using the same critera for tagging them as were used on those images. At that point (indeed, at the current point) when I'm trying to find foot-related images, the "feet" tag gives me an avalanche of images that have nothing foot-related in them, save for the fact that virtually every single human depicted on this site (save for a few amputees) has feet. It's useless, and I still have to wade through tons of bland images to find those like the two "good" ones, I linked, above. That said, I wouldn't mind a hierarchical tag structure. I'm working on a programming project right now, in fact, that would implement a hierarchical tag structure on a local image browser. It's not going to happen on a booru, though, because there are too many cooks trying to make the broth.

Your suggestions for hierarchical tags are good ones, but I'm not really seeing the hierarchy to which you're alluding. It just looks like three groups of tags with primary, secondary, and tertiary "importance". I see no nested structure or "class inheritance", here. It would be nice for some of these "generalized" tags, though, to have easy ways to attach to an image. Upload an image. The software displays your image to the left. On the right is a "toolbar" with selections. Select "Hair Color" and you get a drop-down menu with some standard colors, as well as an option to enter a color of your own. Do this with each selection (or at least the ones you want to do), click "Done" and your image is entered into the data base and automatically tagged for you.

"not_hentai": I have no idea if it was lozertuser's intention to specifically cater to hentai. "vocaloid" = 9768 images. "vocaloid -rating:safe" = 1559 images. That's how I do it. That doesn't filter out all the straight, safe anime, but in this case it gets rid of 84% of it in one fell swoop. The simple fact is that a large amount of the Gelbooru data base deals in work-safe material. That's why we have the rating tags, even if they aren't always properly applied. If you're coming here only for porn, then put rating:safe in your blacklist and you'll miss most of the stuff you don't want to see that way. If we have a "not_hentai" tag then people are going to be arguing about what is and is not "hentai". It's inevitable that someone will tag someone else's uploads with that and the firestorm will begin. I think that the "rating:explicit" tag pretty much defines what the porn-seekers want to see. The problem, of course, is the spotty implemention of the rating tags on this site. A "not_hentai" tag would fare no better.

Use of "barefoot" tag: I suppose I could sort of agree with you regarding the use of "barefoot" with couples having sex in bed, but there are other tags that already apply and are pretty widely used. Add "-stockings" for instance, and you'll eliminate a lot of what you don't want to see with just that one tag. I don't think it's unusual for people in bed to be barefoot. It *is* unusual for them to have stockings, shoes, pantyhose, and other such things on, though. Again, it's about the ubiquitousness of a tag making it mean nothing. A search for "nude sex" gets you images in which the girl is wearing stockings or thighhighs, since some people seem to think that "nude" can include those items of apparel (I don't). You eliminate them with "sex nude -stockings -thighhighs".

"foot_worship": If you're not actually into Real Life foot fetishism (the minor kind or the clinical kind) you might find this one difficult to understand, and I realize that a lot of guys just playing with their fantasies by downloading foot fetish pornography are in that category. Everything you suggested applies, in part, or in whole, or not at all. It's about the attitude of the "worshipper" -- not any special stance or even action. It's one of those "you know it when you see it" sort of things. There's frequently a D/S element, and you see a lot of femdom stuff that involves foot worship, especially when the sub is a male, but it can be a quite loving situation involving no dominance/submissiveness at all.

Yeah ... you discovered a switch. I'll let you figure it out on your own, though, since I really don't know what's going through you head.

"soles": Just because a lot of users like this tag doesn't mean it's actually serving a "purpose". It's like the "feet" tag. There are a great many images tagged "feet" that likely have no interest to anyone specifically seeking out "foot-related porn". Similarly, almost every image tagged "feet" or "foot", that is tagged "properly" (meaning that the appendage in question is a focus of the image or situation the image is about) is going to show a sole to one or more feet. "sole" then becomes redundant since it's conceptually included in the "foot" or "feet" tag. When you search for "soles" are you looking for this?

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=16933

Or this?

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=219526

See my point? The first image has little or no appeal to the foot fetishist, or to anyone, in fact, trying to find pictures featuring the sole of the foot. The only reason the tagger tagged it "soles" is because a small part of the girl's left sole was showing. Why not also tag it "teeth"? Some of her teeth are showing -- for all you tooth-fetishists. Or, maybe, "thumbs" since both of her thumbs are showing. Or ... no, I don't think I'll drive this one into a totally reductio ad absurdum argument. The simple fact is that I could take almost any reasonably complex image and give it more tags than anyone would ever want to see -- just to thoroughly describe it. A tag should represent something that's somehow "important" in an image -- not something you'd expect to be there. Why not tag almost every image "hair" because the girls all have hair? "bald" makes much more sense because that's the exception to the rule, rather than the rule. So if the sole is important, OK, keep the "soles" tag, but make its use actually releveant to a search and not just a virtual synonym for "foot".

Bones in the human foot: Actually the normal adult human body has 206 bones, total. Counting the sesamoid bones, a normal adult human foot has 28 bones, so the feet make up 25.7% of the human body in number of bones. The hands, by the way, make up another quarter of the total bones.

"toes": Actually I don't wonder why this tag is used 1487 times once I peruse all the images in which it's used. It's for the same reason the "soles" tag is used for images in which the sole of the foot is so minor a part of the image as to be, in many cases, easily overlooked unless you're going over the image with a fine-toothed comb. The simple fact is that many of those images aren't going to appeal to people looking for "toe porn". I look for this stuff, too, you know, so I'm not coming out of left field with this one. *If* the "toes" tag were being used to actually bring attention to images in which toes were prominently featured, and not just becuase they're on feet which are prominently featured, it would be a valuable tag to me. As it is, it isn't. I can find just as many "vanilla toe" images by searching "feet" or "foot" as I can find by searching "toes". If I'm looking for a "toes image" I want the toes to be somehow unique -- being licked, being used to grasp a guy's penis ... that sort of thing, and not just sticking out the front of some girl's foot. I can find those by looking for feet.

You see, I *am* thinking outside the box. People who tag images just because they can see something in it that any sane person would *expect* to find in the image, given other features which are present, are the ones trapped inside the box. The mentality is simple: "Hey, there's 'x'!. *eyes glaze over* Must ... add ... 'x'." No, you mustn't -- not unless it actually improves my chances of finding "x" in a meaningful situation in an image. I'm looking at this whole tag issue from the perspective of utility. Tags are there to be a tool to enable us to find something quickly and efficiently -- not to spam us with a lot of unwanted images.

Megalomania? I don't think so. I created this thread for *discussion* of tag issues, not to demand that my ideas be implemented. Everyone uses this site differently, but we all use it for the same purpose -- to find things relevant to our interests. My suggestions are based upon my experience using the tags in question to find things relevant to my interests, and in many cases the implemention of those tags has been less than stellar. Your experinence trying to find Vocaloid hentai is a similar example for you. That search term turned up lots hits that were totally irrelevant to your search. Why? It's not focused enough. Tags such as "feet", "toes", and "soles" are not focused enough, not even for your interests, unless you're the type that just saves every single image where one or more people happen to have a foot showing. I suppose there could be one or two of those around.

I'm here to discuss the issues -- not to unilaterally make tagging policy decisions for this board. I hope to hash out those issues, and not just mine, but other people's, as well, come to a consensus, and then those of us actually interested in a cooperate tagging effort, rather than the random, un-directed tagging going on right now, can begin working together to "do it right". I have no fantasy that what I think is "right" will be acceptible to anyone else. My agenda on this board is to find things I like with a minimum of effort. That requires tags to be used efficiently and not just because they *can* be used. If everyone else prefers having to wade through pages of "vanilla hits" to dig out the gems they're looking for, then so be it. I haven't made one change to this board's tags, except for the cameltoe issue in which I *know* I'm right and don't just *think* I'm right (because virtually all the documentable evidence supports me). Nor will I. If someone wants to see a bare vulva then they can search for "pussy" like everyone else does, but in this case "cameltoe" needs to be corrected because it's simply wrongly-applied to many images. I don't *know* this about a lot of other issues, because some of them are subjective and not supported by any documentable sources.

I really hope you're not the only one who will be using this topic, Thref. I don't want it to be just between the two of us. If that's the case then we accomplish nothing, because two people do not make a consensus. I understand about the long posts. I'm looking at the clock right now. I've been working on this post for about four hours (no, I don't have anything better to do this time of the night, sitting here at work holding down the fort until we open up tomorrow morning). I'd rather not have to do something this epic every day. If you want to discuss a tag issue, then maybe one issue per post, and save up everything else for later.

Welcome to the forum, th8827! I'm delighted to see you in this thread, and feel free to participate in the ongoing discussion.

"costume_swap": How prevalent is this situation in imagery, here? If we have only one single image in which this happens I don't see the point. And I do see the point. That's the problem. I have mixed feelings about the tag. On the one hand, it seems to me to have very limited utility, but on the other, even two or three images in which this is happening could be a strong argument for it. Why? Simply because this is so rare!

Regarding your question, I think this was answered in another thread. Read the more recent ones, especially any involving board suggestions or tagging. Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer that was given.

Frivolous tags: I'm seeing tags like the following ...

:3
;o

The first one actually has 1415 references (the second only 4). Shouldn't these be removed? In fact, shouldn't any tag that consists only of symbols like this be actually *blocked*, at the point of attempted entry? As I see it this is an abuse of the tag system, since these images have nothing in common, save for the reactions of the people tagging them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia: I'm aware of the vagaries of Wikipedia. It's a publicly-edited database, subject to the same problems we have with allowing just anybody to fiddle with tags, here. There are people who don't know what they're doing. When I make a reference to a Wikipedia article it's because I *know* that article is accurate, and I sometimes don't refer to Wikipedia articles because I *know* they *aren't* accurate. As for my references, Google is your friend. There is a wealth of information to be found there. You just have to be discerning enough to distinguish between the good, the bad, and the ugly, and much of that has to do with the veracity of the individual sites. I didn't get two college degrees without being able to "ferret out" stuff, and be able to discern when information being presented is inaccurate. You have to already know something about a subject before you can make such a judgment, though -- which is why a lot of the stuff you see on Wikipedia (and especially in WikiAnswers) is just plain garbage. The people who wrote it didn't know what they were writing about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People not knowing what they are doing can be taken as in understatement in some situations. As for Wiki's Accuracy, the structure has changed. Possibly since you where there back in the early development of it's implementation. Let me see if I can make a long story short, The Wiki Panel Decided that they weren't going to be a laughing stock and placed all sorts of protocols in place to avoid at the very least, Misleading Information. One of these protocols include a magical box near the top of the terms that State How reliable, if at all, the Term being defined thereof IS. Other things include sauce sections, and accuracy debate sections. After all that, the panel gathers information on the more prominent terms and checks them for accuracy. When the term becomes an established fact or at least a coherent solidified one that no one has objected too, the box will up it's status from Rumor to Truth, IF unknown, The box will state that, if requiring sauce, the box will state that; Like I said, it's a magical box that helps to to at least be aware that what your reading is as accurate as or as about as accurate as what it tells you about the term to be. And as I stated before, with slang, It's pretty much regional.

Google is EVIL!! I wouldn't go there to find yahoo(Even though we Already know where it is, I'm just expression how repulsed I am By it). Google's Claim to fame is Ad Sense, and A Huge Database. They destroyed my favorite Search Engine, And filled the Net with so much crap, That I had to gear up with a few Addon & Extensions to thwart it. And now, They destroyed my favorite browser, or at least desecrated it. It slows down sites with their damn Analytics and Ad's. How can it be your friend? It bought friends. I don't wish to discuss my disgust of Google any further. All I can tell you is, If you have any sanity, use a Meta Search Engine that Uses their Database as well as others to get your links from. I use Search.com, it's basically Yahoo Running Google's Database. So to Summarize, Google's Database is Unmatched, Google Itself is Evil. I really don't want to discuss this anymore than I need too, Just Know that I have my justified reasons for hating it, and I pity those that are unaware of it's malice.

Well, you can have all the degrees available and still be wrong. Hell, People thought Pluto was a planet for, what 800 years?, then finally realized it wasn't. Or maybe their wrong about Pluto NOT being a planet. Buffalo Springfield, People. By the way, the only reason Wikipedia is Unreliable is because most of those people are idiots anyway. The blind leading the blind. Non of it is Wiki's Fault, it's the unread people on it and I'm glad the panel has taken steps to avoid being known as a joke for the history books. I once thought just like you about Wiki, and closed my mind for a while, but when I gave it a second chance, I'm glad I did; because it showed that with the right tude and thinking, they could turn it around for the better. There will always be idiots running around with more power then they deserve, its up to us with a mind to come together and correct them for the sake of truth.

Again, you failed to provide sauce for the allegations of Inaccurate Information on the part of Wikipedia. Direct me to an Inaccurate term and I'll see if I find the Magical box there.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slang: I'm aware of what you're trying to say. Local and regional slang is no longer that much of an issue, now that we have the Internet, though. Slang terms spread rather quickly, so regional differences in the use of terms tend to disappear. You will see, though, I'm not using regional slang, here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On the Contrary, It still is. You would think because we have the net that it would no longer be a matter of regional because the net is global. Wrong, Other languages still have regional slang. AND, Although it may appear that slang ISN'T Regional, It really is. Take a Sheerly Temple for example, When I say Sheerly Temple, What am I referring too? I have Three possible definitions but it won't mean squat unless you know which Region I am using it in. The Sexual Region? The Actress Region? The Beverage Region? If the Sexual Region, Which One Specifically? See? The region must be known IF you want the correct representation to transfer. What about a Dirty Sanchez? I have Heard about 15 Iterations of that term, all but about a couple of them in the sexual region. They have some consistency, but not enough to know what A Dirty Sanchez Really IS.





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"cameltoe": Your use of the term to apply to an uncovered vulva actually is not in accord with the way most people use the term, Thref. Google "cameltoe". Make a list of all definitions that require the presence of a tight garment and all definitions that refer to the bare vulva. Tally them up. You'll see what I mean. For that matter, search for "cameltoe" on YouTube. Again, compare and contrast. You'll find that the popular understanding of "cameltoe" is that it's the outline of female genitalia underneath a tightly-stretched garment. Now, actually do a Gelbooru search for "cameltoe" and, guess what? You'll find most of the images are properly tagged, as per the inclusion of a garment. Finally, try searching some online dictionaries. Again, you'll find I'm right
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There's your problem, you used only 1 restricted Database Source for your info.
No, I won't use Google; I'll use a better Search engine Thank you. There's Cameltoe on YouTube O_o?, well so much for adult Filters. . . Hold on a Sec, Let me try a direct approach.

O.K., After about 15 Minutes I have figured it out: We're both right for different reasons. Half of the Cameltoe Pics were mature women with a garment to wedge between their's to make the effect realistic. Now, some of the younger women had a Natural Cameltoe, meaning that they didn't require the wedge effect of a garment to yield Cameltoe. I have Saucy Sauces, but I don't know if I am allowed to post them up, and Who Knows if they may offend you anyone else IF I do, but I guess if you really need proof, we'll have to do that via the send message option, and is ONLY to be done out of purpose of reference and nothing more. Let's do this instead: Keep Your proposed(or default?) Cameltoe tag, but add a New Tag perhaps for Natural_Cameltoe. That way, we know where we stand and They won't collide with Each other; If Garment, Cameltoe, If Not, Natural_Cameltoe, But Never Both unless two Girls are involved(or something like that). There, Now we don't have to fight about it anymore hopefully.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, why would we have "pussy", which is being used to tag images in which the vulva is visible, *and* "cameltoe" to refer to the exact same thing? It's one or the other, and we currently have 21,599 references to "pussy" and only 3,129 references to "cameltoe", most of which are being used correctly. You claim that most people who are into porn use the term to refer to an uncovered vulva. Why, then, are most of the images tagged with "cameltoe", here on this site, consistent with the way I use the term? One of us is wrong, my friend, and I think the evidence supports my stance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pussy could mean more than one thing as well. Octopus, Wussyman, Kitty, a type of tree, and Female Genitals. Cameltoe ONLY IF the Pussy resembles a Camel's “Toe”. Used correctly? Perhaps out of “divine intervention”? You can't really make everyones discussions now can you? again, that sounds a little megalomanic of you. Why are they considered consistent on this site with your term? Well, I can put two and two together, but this would be an example of some sorts of regional slang generally speaking. Is it always about you? Why does one of us have to be wrong? Buffalo Springfield, People.

Anyway, Fine. If you want to believe that Cameltoe MUST include a Garment NO Matter What, then that's you. Besides, there isn't a solid established proof of origin that we can draw from that hasn't been corrupted by the populous now is there? All we know for certain, as certain as it can be drawn from, is that it involves the vulva and a Shape of what it is referring too.

What evidence? You didn't provide any excerpts or links. You just told me to go look, I did, and I found that neither of us is wrong or right. Let's just drop this, but if you must insist; There you go, your majesty. Everyone says your right? Yes, Your majesty. Steely Dan, Everybody.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for specific sources. Understand that when I say something *is*, I'm implying that there is a general consensus among people who know about that thing regarding it. Otherwise I'll make it clear that I'm stating an opinion. I don't always have access to my authorative sources. Much of my technical knowledge is from my college education, for example. All my textbooks were destroyed in the fire that destroyed our house, so there's no way I can refer someone to "my" source for information -- you'll run into that below, by the way, with reference to camel's toes. You can take my word for it, or do a little research, yourself, and discover that I'm right. I imagine that within two minutes of typing "artiodactyl" into Google you'll have your evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Still, Rule 17 Stands Valid. Which People? People that Agree with you, or other People? It's O.K., I'll always consider whatever you say to be opinion until you can provide direct sauce. And I just won't do it for you, but for anyone I feel I need too, Your Welcome in advance. What Exactly qualifies for, Authorative Sources? If you really meant what you said about your house, sorry to hear that; But don't see me as harsh if I have to take Rule 17 on that. All I know is that, you didn't provide sources. Our Teacher(when I was still in school that is), Doesn't give a Dam What your excuse was; If the work wasn't there, You got an F on it, Case closed. Likewise, If you can't provide Sauce, You can't Claim Stake(Haha, Awsome ^_^.). But, I will allow you a partial piece because of your merit. Wiki Now has a Merit System of some sorts in place, by the way. Yes, you would be correct by context, but not Transparent Context. We have Digits on our hands too, but we don't call them toes, we call them fingers. So Technically, Forelimbs would mean arms, and those would be fingers. Again, Does the Universe Revolve around you, or What? BTW, In Spanish, Toes don't have a Name, they just bar it from Fingers.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban Dictionary: Of the seventeen definitions, thirteen agree with mine. One is a "samefag" post. Three have absolutely nothing to do with the female genitalia. In other words, not counting the three that are clearly not applicable, 100% accord.

Slangsite.com: "The same as a wedgie, except it only happens to females, and is a front wedgy. " Again, accord.

The Online Slang Dictionary: eleven definitions (including under "camel's foot" and "camel toe", spelled as two words). Not counting one "samefag" post, 100% accord.

The Source: Slang Dictionary: no entries for "cameltoe".

Peak English-Slang : no entries for "cameltoe".

A Dictionary of Slang: camel's hoof ("Noun. An impression of the female genitals/vulva as seen through tightly worn clothing. Cf. 'camel toe'") and camel toe ("Noun. An impression of the female genitals/vulva as seen through tightly worn clothing. Also camel's toe and camel toes. Cf. 'camel's hoof'. [Orig U.S./poss. 1970s]").

I'll stop there. These are the first hits on a Google Search for "slang dictionary", and not a "pick and choose" method to stack the deck in my favor. Nowhere was it ever mentioned in any of these sources that the term could apply to an uncovered vulva and all the definitions very clearly referred to fabric covering the vulva.

Other points with regard to this term: Actually, yes, camels have toes. Eight (functional) ones, to be exact -- two on each foot. They belong to the order "artiodactyla", which even means "even-toed", referring to the fact that there are two functional toes on each foot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Redundancy at this point. Gosh, if it MEANS that much to you fine. On Gelburoo, Cameltoe MUST Include a Garment, No Exceptions(All Violators will be taken to the stockade and later shot). Talk about beating a dead camel. Again, you relied on Google and said you didn't have a pick and choose method, but whatever. Timex Social Club, yo.

Again, Fine fine, Cameltoe = necessary wedge, Natural_Cameltoe = A Cameltoe with no Wedge Necessary.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, why should "cameltoe" be limited to images in which the vulva is covered by clothing, ignoring the obvious answer for the moment, which I've delineated, above? Simple. This is a fetish. Some guys get off more on this than they do on a nude female body. When I search for "cameltoe", and I'm one of those guys (I'm not -- this is hypothetical), I do not want to see an uncovered female crotch. It's the same reason you give, below, for not nixing the "toe" tag
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I almost redid the double take when I read the line about you being a Dude. The Beetles, Jet, is that you? Mixing past with present tenses on the use of the term Hypothetical?

Ah HA!(No, Not making a band/song ref with this one), so This is what it's all about. Again, it seems consistent. The phrase I gave, a little megalomanic, might not have been misused. So, Your into Cameltoe then? By that, I Will undoubtedly assume With Garment and therefore a bonified(no pun intended by any aspect.) Fetish. That might contradict what you said about you not having a foot fetish. UNLESS, that was all included in the Hypothetical, in which case, disregard what I have stated that is prevalent to that in this paragraph herein.

So, is that a double negative I see? Does that mean, your for or still against the use of the toe tag? Wouldn't that be a bit, hypocritical in a way?




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bukkake: No, the term is quite Japanese, and the Germans didn't invent it. In the Japanese language "Boku ha kanojo ni mizu wo bukkaketa" means, "I splashed her with water." That's all the word actually means -- "spash". The actual first use of the term to refer to a sex act is a point of contention, I'll admit, and I can't point you to any actual sources. Attempts to find sources on the Internet result in multiple, mutually-exclusive, results for this, including one which is clearly in the urban legend category, but is presented as fact. I do know that the term didn't come into use in a sexual connotation until around 1990, or perhaps a few years before that, and I'm familiar with it's use in American pornography at that time. Seeing that the Germans are as fixated on Japanese culture as Americans seem to be, though, you may be quite right in saying that they were the first to use the term in a sexual manner, although the practice of a bunch of guys drenching a sitting girl's face with semen was happening in Japan long before it became popular in Western pornography. They just never used the term "bukkake" for it, as far as I know
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never said they invented it. . . I Guess you didn't read what I said Correctly.
I said, that The Germans Might have been the first to take it From the Japanese, Not the US; Japanese first, Then Maybe the Germans, then the US from, the Germans who took it from the Japanese. Is that any clearer?

So, again I ask, Are you really a chick? Boku, is the Masc. form of I. Kanojo means girlfriend. Mizu is water, so I take it bukkaketa means Splashed. Luckily, or unluckily, for you I know some Nihon-ese, so no need for sauce on that part.

Hmm. Well, whatever, No need to say more here.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bukkake" vs. "cumbath": It depends upon the circles you frequent which one of these you're more likely to hear, and even within circles where both terms are used there are varying definitions. I tried to give the ones that, in my experience, both in Real Life and in my search for porn on the Internet, seemed to be the most common. I grew up on the streets. I was, in fact, a prostitute for a number of years. I've had my share of gangbangs and "cumbaths", and that's what they were called. I never even encountered the term "bukkake" until I discovered hentai. The average Joe on the streets knows what a "cumbath" is. Say "bukkake" and he's going to look at you like you're speaking a foreign language, which you sort of are. In the furry community, "bukkake" is used mostly by those people who also are into hentai. The majority of furries prefer the term "cumbath" because it *doesn't* sound Japanese, and there's almost as much hatred among furs in general for weeaboos, as there is for furs in the hentai community. Now, add to this the fact that there are nearly 400,000 references to "cumbath" or "cum bath" on Google, and tell me again how little known this term is. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, that was a little too personal. Didn't need to hear that, but Then again, I did remember you mentioning some form of abuse when you were younger. How your mind was broken and how you managed to come out stronger for it. Yeah, I've been to your forum not looking for text, but it still caught my eye. So then, I can't understand why you would contradict Regional Slang when you know dang well it is applicable. And the only reason for the amount of hits on Google is because of Keyword densities. You do know what keyword densities are, right? Ruined the Internet for me. Thank goodness I have Alt Metasearch engines to draw from.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl Necklass: Yes, that's the word. I remember it, now that you mention it, but since external application of semen is a turn-off for me, this isn't exactly the kind of thing that I would go out of my way to commit to memory. The only reason I know anything at all about bukkake is that I'm involved in a couple of role-plays that involve this, so I did my homework before starting them. By the way "pearl_necklass" is not an existing tag on Gelbooru. It should be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute, In all the time you where, Ehem, You never heard the term, Pearl Necklass? What about, Cleavland Steamer? (Sorry, I'm horrible. I'm Just curious if you know what that word means, or if you have ever encountered it, Let's hope the answer is no.) Let's hope Cleavland_Steamer Doesn't become a Tag on Gelbooru, unless there are enough pervs out there browsing with a fetish for scat in Hentai.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The visible hole in the cervix is called the "external os", as contrasted with the "internal os" that is the opening into the uterus, itself. I wonder if it would be useful to introduce the tag "external_os" to indicate this. I have seen some "cervix"-tagged images in which the "floor" of the vagina was clearly being presented, but the os, itself, was tucked up out of the way because of the angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of Course, I must have forgot that term because it was replaced in my mind as OS_Tan. And I could have sworn I had a Diagram that depicted it and was labeled. Ah, but whatever. We now have a new tag to use then.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pie" as slang term: "Pie" is used as a slang term for quite a few things, including cow droppings, yes. Like many slang terms, its meaning has to be construed from the context. "Here, have a taste of my pie" would, if I said this to my SO, clearly indicate an invitation to cunnilingus, since everyone who knows me knows that scat, in any form, is a tremendous sexual turn-off for me. Oviously, the use of "pie" in reference to a "girl" will almost always refer to the vulva ... unless she has a bowel problem, and we won't go there
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, I Wonder if there's a picture of a Hentai Chick out there in a Nude(Perhaps Transparent) Apron Holding a Pastry pie and she looks to the viewer and asks, “Would you like some of my pie?”.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that "creampie" is usually used in hentai in a non-consensual context. I'm not seeing that ... not in the tagged images on the boorus, and not on the chans. Check out any creampie thread on 4chan. You'll get a lot of rape images, but you happen to have a lot of rape images in hentai, so that's no indication of a preference, here. It's like arguing that there's something mysterious in the Bermuda Triangle because so many planes and ships disappear there. The reason is *because* there're so many planes and ships there, and the *chance* of disappearance is no higher there than in any other shipping lane or flight path. It's just a matter of the relative abundances of non-consensual vs. "happy sex" images, but you see a *lot* of the latter in which creampies are clearly depicted. I think where you're going with this is the tremendous number of rape images and mangas, and they almost always have that "bad end" where the girl is dripping semen from all her orifices. That's just one part of the whole picture, though. You obviously don't hang around on 4chan and peruse all the "happy sex" and "romance" threads like I do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, your wrong about one thing. I do peruse all the “happy sex” and “Romance” Threads, Well maybe not exactly like you do but still. Happy Sex, Sex is Happy. Besides, 4chans is full of trolls and jackasses. At least, now were seeing it like that. I feel bad for the good users who go there and have to put up with all that crap looking for some(Hehe, Forsome.) meaningful conversation and leaving burned to a crisp. Ychan is actually very nice by comparison, if not, just very nice.

Wait a minute, So, um, sex Does or Doesn't have a better chance of creampie than Reap? I only mentioned it cause you seem to want to get rid of all the creampie tags that didn't match up and replace them with cum drip tags. Again, Since images are frames, there is only one chance of either creampie or cum_drip, and since the final effect has to stand in the image, they are usually cum_drip. I don't know how I can explain that too you. Whatever, It's not worth going into since both pretty much are dependent upon each other and there's no garment for the most part involved to say the least.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"after_sex" vs. "creampie": I see these as two different things. There are quite a few images where "aftersex" is a valid tag, but no semen is actually visible -- therefore, no "creampie"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, Right, Your Bloody well Right.(Don't know band name or song.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"cumblast": I like that -- as one word and not two. It's actually one of my peeves with hentai. I've seen series of images where the guy ejaculate inside the girl, and the next image shows them, with his penis still buried to the hilt, but with cum all over her -- even up to her face. Now where in the Hell did that come from, anyway? I don't like bukkake, anyway -- not in art and not in Real Life. I prefer my images "clean". Creampies are OK. That happens in Real Life. Cumblasts don't. Maybe it's just a difference in gender point of view. I don't really know. I'd like to see "cumblast" as a search term. That way I could put it on my blacklist and just find the realistic images I usually look for
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hmm, Never noticed that. Probably a lazy anime tactic to avoid Drawing all the details. I know in Hentai OVA's, they have sometimes a Transition Sequence, a flash of light and boom all wet. So if that makes any sense to you. I like my Images Clean as well. Though, I do Enjoy an Occasional Somewhat Justified Reap every now and then, But Only between a Straight or Lez Couple. I Hate Gangbangs and 3ways. That is to say, I hate there being more than 1 guy directly involved in the session. I don't like Buddy's taking on a girl at the same time, switching, or taking turns during the session. I also don't like Multi Girls on One or more guys. Although, I do like an all girl on girl thing. I Like Strap ons but not Futa, unless it's a tenti device like in Ride of the Valkyrie which I didn't fully Enjoy but it Did have a few hot looking babes; I had to bite the bullet hard on that one for so many reasons. Still, I was just looking at the babes, Specially when They were bathing. The Tenti's I tolerated, but The Reap and Monsters I didn't. No Story but it didn't need it, since it was practically one big extended Reap Session. So much plot holes If there where A Story to it.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are, of course, correct. Pornography, at least that intended for male consumption (there is really very little of it out there that appeals to the female sector of society, in spite of the fact that much of Japanese hentai is drawn by females), is about exaggeration. Breasts twice the size of a girl's head, dicks the size of my forearm, semen in quarts, cervical penetration ... these are all indicative of the need for at least some people to see an exaggeration of the real thing to get a charge out of it. You might love that. I hate it. Gender difference? Perhaps, but I know some guys that agree with me, too, and we can actually find porn that appeals to our tastes. That's what I love about hentai -- there's something in it to please, or disgust, just about anyone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Naturally. I don't like Big Boobs either, believe it or not. Baby got back, Brick House(26, 34, 26, Only if she's 5'3. That's one Bad Mamajama in My book, and Oh How I love Bad Mamajamas, She's slick, She's Tight, She Got all the Curves a Man like). I would Love to be able to milk Quarts, Maybe Science Might Goof up and create a pill that will do just that. Cervical Penetrations, Yes, but that's my dominant/sadistic Side Taking over in the spur of the moment, I would clearly apologies afterwards. Now you know of another guy that agrees with you to some degree.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"cum_bath": There are actually twelve images tagged with "cum_bath" on Gelbooru, some of them like you envision it, and some of them like I envision it. As I propsed the term (one word) it means something very specific, and not "taking a bath in semen". As two words the implication, at least the way my mind works, is that it means "taking a bath in semen". And, no, "correcting" images tagged "bukkake" to accord with what I'd like to see isn't going to happen, and I wasn't suggesting that it happen. It's what I'd *like* to see, to make the tags more specific so that people could do more focused searches, but I know I'm in the minority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Um, Uh(What to say, what to say...). Combath in cum is bath. IDK.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinical Foot Fetish: In the clinical sense of the term a "fetish" is an object or body part (occasionally extended to include situations) which must be present in a sexual situation for sexual arousal to occur. This is the way the word is used in the medical/psychiatric profession, and indicates a sexual dysfunction in the form of what is known as "transference neurosis". If you have a true, clinical foot fetish, you can't become sexually aroused unless a foot or feet are somehow involved. This is why I coined the term "minor fetish" years ago to refer to fetish objects in the sense that they enhance sexual arousal but aren't required for it. If you have a true fetish there's something wrong with you. If you have a "minor fetish" you're just more fun than the average vanilla person. The key point to "fetish", though, is the object, body part, or situation involved isn't, of itself, sexual in nature. Thus, if you have a sexual obsession over feet, that's a fetish. Even a breast can be a fetish in this sense, since it isn't, actually, a sexual part. So, no, there probably isn't a "genitalia fetish", like you suggest. On the other hand, virtually anything not overtly sexual in nature can be a fetish, from red rubber balls to bare feet to vomit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I'm still A little Confused. Do I or Don't I have foot Fetish? At First I was, Hurray!, Until I read that last part you said about bare feet. . . Also at Minor Fetish. So, A Dong would Be considered an object to minor Fetish? What about, Pegging? That has a Minor Fetish, but would it be compromised because you also require the act, and not just the object? So, if you enjoy any form of Footjobs at all be it visual or physical, you have a foot fetish? So, Technically, Anal/Sodomy would also be a fetish since it isn't sexual in nature? Am more confused. Vomit? Actually I Like the Act of Vomit, Not vomit Itself. But I think it's my sadistic/dominant side Talking, I'd feel bad afterward and I'd have to apologies.

O.K., Well, What I don't understand is IF I do have a Fetish, Why does it go away after a few minutes of just focusing on it directly? No Orgasm or Pre Platue, just, gone.

So, What your saying is, There's nothing Sexy about a womans Feet? Not when they dance or polish their nails? Or Move them around in such seductive ways? Pointing, Scrunching? Tip Toes? Leg Lift? Leg Wrap? Jilting? That isn't supposed to arouse me in any way at all? Their just, Feet?
Well, I am not at all aroused by Males feet(95% of them). But Womans Feet when they are pretty and small and curvy really rocks my socks. I can get Aroused and Orgasm without it, but it just doesn't feel as satisfying as it could be. So, A Tongue Isn't considered Sexy Either? Kissing shouldn't arouse you?
????????? Just so Confused Right now, and telling me that there could be something wrong with me is very reassuring either.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for yor three most important tags, that might be an interesting topic for a different discussion, but probably not on this site. There aren't enough people using the forum to make it much of a discussion. I don't use those tags. I learned a long time ago that I'm not going to get my favorite images in uncensored form in all likelihood. Until the Japanese quit censoring their work we're not going to see much uncensored work from them. And, no, to my knowledge it's not required by law to censor their work anymore. Indeed, one Japanese furry artist, Comet, specifically releases uncensored works to his Japanese audience, but anything we, here in the States, buys from him will be those exact same images with censorship -- just because he's butthurt because his works are so badly pirated over here. "nude/naked"? That's not all that important since when I'm searching for porn I usually use the tag "-rating:safe". I don't have to have my characters in my porn fully nude to appreciate the images. "Barefoot"? I only use that one when I'm looking for something that *isn't* pornography, and even then I have to wade through tons of images that are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Just you is enough, Believe ME! Really? Why is it that you give up so easily on some simple things and press on more harder things to tackle? I got a Grip of Stuff you might want, thanks to me not using Google. But Whatever.

I'm gonna hit everyone here with a heavy blow who doesn't see it coming, Brace yourselves.
It isn't the Japanese's Fault that their Pr0nr0garphy is Censored, it's the U.S.'s.
(Dun Dun, Dun Dun Dun, DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!) That's right, I forgot the exact article Name(145 or something) BUT, During WWII, or at the end of it, The U.S. Included a Clause that prohibited Japan From Distributing Porn. Epic, WTF!! As if Dropping two Nuke's wasn't enough, right? Well, I guess it came back and bit them HARD in the ass, but We are the ones that suffer deeply for it now. So, the only way to distribute Pr0n was to Make it censored. They had to run propagandas about how it being censored made it more sexually appeasing(LIES!!!), and like the idiot desperate public that there was/is, they bought it. It took me a good two YEARS to figure it out and it all makes perfect sense, there was even sauce that cleared any shadow of doubt that was left and I found a guy with direct vague; _. Other sources where derived from Cable Television Episodes that didn't hold consistency but aided in finding the truth because of it. Sex and Videogames, and Dave Attel Goes to Tokyo. In Sex and Video Games, Hentai is Mentioned Very Briefly, and they did have 1 sentenced that stated something along the lines of IF a US production Company bought the Japanese Pr0n Product/License, they could distribute it in the US W/O Censorship. In Dave goes to Tokyo, When asked the very crucial question, the guy responds, in English hesitantly, the reason is because we feel shame in showing pubic hairs. They feel shame alright, so I guess it wasn't a complete lie, though again, that helped tie everything altogether, that and the Penis Parade that Wasn't Censored, Strange eh? Yeah, things didn't match up consistently until I heard the truth and then everything just fell into place from there. Nothing we can really do about it without calling attention to ourselves. So the Closure question to ask IS, Do Uncensored versions of all Hentai Exist?

I found some closure of that in the Furry Sector with the Very Prominent Krystal Pic that Matt “GunMouth” Burt Drew and J. “Jeff” Axer Colored. The Original Line Art by Matt Burt Was Initially all Naughty Bits Included. Matt Later confirmed that it was J's Decision to color it the way he did. On J's Side, He plays a MAJOR Role on Deviant Art, and one of their strict rules is, No Pr0nz. J Fallows all rules with a finely toothed comb, and so he Ommited the Naughty bits from the Final Release product, SO that he Could post it on Deviant Art; Same reason why Leigh, Axers Exclusive Character, doesn't have naughty bits exposed either. Afterwards, feeling a bit obligated himself, Matt Drew the naughty bits into the final Release but only really served as an insult to injury on that part. Some time later, Matt Gets recruited by Club Stripes, and Learns to color better with the help of Aja “KamiCheetah” Williams. Some sort of a Lady Macbeth Relationship as it appears, since Matt's Current Comic for Club Stripes, “Bad Company”, Is turning heads, Jumping Sharks, and Breaking Balls with the inclusion of a digimon(or some crappy thing like that) character that Aja(as well as other Yiffers, For what reason I care not to know) seems to enjoy. At first it was thought as an April Fools Gag, but knowing Matt's pranks going farther then it should, didn't really surprise much followers, and at this point, Meme's are out, and 4chan is now Trollercoasters. So Where was I. Oh, right.

If that served for any example, the answer is a Probable yes. Here's the thing: It is Illegal to Distribute, but not create or possess outside of Japan. So, Technically, if they are well read or have big balls(Which according you are mostly women so I suppose not on th balls portion), they do hold on to originals that Aren't Censored, But it doesn't help us any cause they can't distribute them for us to see. I have at least 1 Completely Uncensored Hentai Pic which I am very pleased to have in my possession, created by a very talented and clever artist; they figured out how to distribute it censored, while at the same time making it possible for the viewer to see it Uncensored. Basically, it's distributed in such a way that it doesn't violate the broken law, but the viewer can still fully enjoy it. It's a strategic use of Censorship Objects like Black Bars, Mosaic, SemiBlack Bars, Mirrors, and Inverted color Schemes. Unfortunately, that artist is the only one that has implemented it, So far. I've noticed more manga that is less censored as time progresses. Hopefully by 2010, it will be abolished Completely, and we hope to see a Deluge of Uncensored Hentai Pics, New and Old.


As for Comet Art Uncensored, That's what you get for using Google. I have Loads of Uncensored Comet Art I've gathered from Various Places. A Favorite from the Top of My Head, is a Furry Feline Couple Having Sex, Completely Uncensored and Quite Nice by many aspects. I hate the Flesh on Fur Ones though, So I don't have any of those.

Wow, your missing out on a lot of Good Pr0nz by relying on filters. I have a very special Mind Filter that helps me out nicely. It allows me to see all that I want and Nothing I don't care to remember or will be able to recall anyway. I'm smooth like that. It beats regular filters cause filters may just filter out the very thing you are looking for. Have I used Filters for looking for Vocaloid Pr0nz, I would probably have never found that gem. But eh, that's the price you pay for playing it 'safe'.

So, No Pr0nz for you? That's not me, Except for a few Images that can stand cool on their own. But Primarily, as Most of the users here are, I'm here for the Pr0nz. But I find myself lately here talking to you for Hours on end.

So much for going easy on me. . . You asked for an Opinion, any opinion and you attack me with a book of reading material. I felt a little sad when no one responded to your thread, Felt happy that someone came after I did and expressed there feelings to join Gelbooru, and this is the thanks I get from you? Well, Here comes another sleepless night thanks to you, Ferryt.

Not that I don't appreciate what you have to say, I do. I just don't appreciate that you have to say so much for me to respond back too. Couldn't we keep it simple and just Respond in a couple of paragraphs instead of a whole Moonlight Scroll?




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I very much doubt that "proper" use of the various foot-related tags would upset any foot fetish users on this site. If anything, it would help to focus the searches on what they're really looking for. When you're looking for some foot fetish porn is this what you want to find?

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=502682

Likely not, unless you're just so hung up on feet that they're all you can really see in an image. No, you want something more like this:

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=492693

Or even this:

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=474824

In the first image, which is the case for almost all images tagged "feet", the presence of feet is simply incidental to the fact that the characters are human and have feet. In the second two you see a foot being presented as a major focus in the image. That's what most foot fetish users are likely to be looking for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that what I want to find? That's Nearly EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO FIND!!! THANKS!!
She's happy, Nude, Barefoot, and Solo! Just the kind of Pics I'm looking for, again Thanks!!
Oh wait, you mean if I have a Foot Fetish, Is that what I want to find? Um, Uh, Is that a Trick Question? Oh, NOes, >_<! Loaded Question.

I don't know how to answer this. . .
You really hit below the belt with that pic, It has Everything I am looking for Including Bare feet.
It's Uncensored, She's completely Naked Except for hair down, Those Hand gestures, Those Lucius long Legs, That look, that smile, Those Tiny Feet, it's all there!!! Well, almost, She doesn't have a visible, Lower Insert Slot, But that's the only thing it doesn't have. But at least it's better then looking at Digimo. Hmm, The boobs are a little hangy, I prefer them Round with a little slant, her figure could have used a little more in curve. But still, great pic.

Well, If I keep getting results like that with the tags you are so objective about, then I must FIGHT to KEEP Them!! Dam it! I'm gonna have to take this personally to board leader and see what he has to say. Why did I respond to this thread? I should have let it Die. I have opened Pandora's Box! I thought I'd be helping you, but now it appears that it might have been a mistake. Well, I guess it was not all in vain, at least now I know where we stand. But to be fair, I should give another chance and maybe look the other way on a few things; be the better man. No Offense, even though it appears you are offensive to me for some reason when I only wanted to help.

I want something more like that? Wrong, kinda. Artist Speaking, yes, I love the Artists Renditions and enjoyed much of what was drawn by them. But although The Image does show some very nice Feet, I find myself struggling whether or not I should go for it. The Ball Breaker is Digimo, But the artist could make up for it for the talent in the overall Image, and she's covering up the rest of her body. I know I would go for it for sure if it wasn't Censored. But alas, I don't know. I'll probable just go for it out of preparedness; Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. But as a major general rule for me, with Seldom Any Exceptions, the Images I go for Have to be Uncensored, because Censored = Flaccid, and we can't have that. My Balls have been broken many times because of that Fag Digimo, but what can you do? That bitch Digimo ruins everything.

That Third Image does Absolutely Nothing for me. She's sad, Fully clothed, and although you can see her toes, the pantyhose ruins it for me. This is one of those images where I say, Nice Toes... *Clicks the Close Tab button and moves on*. So far it was a Yes, A Maybe, and a Dead NO.

The Feet are within Frame, You've basically just ignored or didn't even bother to read what I stated about that. I am starting to get mixed feelings about you now. . .

On behalf of all the foot Fetish Users out there on Gelbooru, I just have to say, No Foot Should be left behind, and we cannot stand for this. If a Foot is there and bare, It should be tagged so we may see it. To hell with precise tags if it means that we'll be missing out on pics like 1, and 2. Sorry, but how could you? Why are you so cruel to us? To me? I showed sympathy and you acted like the snake and bit me.
I'm a little hurt by that, especially after spending a whole Sleepless night Responding to you. Then later I find you stating that if it's just between us two that our whole conversation was meaningless.

I'm just gonna call it, bad timing on my part. IDK. Maybe I should just drop it. We should just drop it. Your probably right about that. Let's move on to something else. Maybe I should start something myself.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do make a good point about toes, though. I've seen those images where the artist clearly couldn't (or wouldn't) draw feet correctly. It's one of my biggest gripes about furry imagery, as well. Most furry artists have no concept of how to draw feet an on anthropomorph. I like toes. They're one of my favorite parts of the foot to play with (or have played with) in fact, but I think the "toes" tag should be restricted only to those images in which the toes are actually *important* to the theme of the image. By your logic almost every single image tagged "foot" or "feet" would have to be tagged "toes", as well, and that situation tells me exactly nothing that "feet", all by itself, tells me. Now, if I saw "feet" and "no_toes", that would mean something to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All I have to say about that is, Why Would we Need to create a tag called, no_toes? Couldn't we just not have the Toe's tag applied the the image at all? All I am saying, Is that IF any of it Exists In the frame, It should be tagged accordingly. The way you want it would constrict many Foot related Images that certain users may otherwise be looking for. It's not all about you, you know. It's true, there are other users feelings/beliefs to consider.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Section, tag cloud, etc., for Gelbooru: I've already suggested that we need a comprehensive list of tags with definitions. I can't build such a section because I don't run this place, but I'd be happy to help with the job of adding definitions if there was one. I've also suggested that anyone attempting to use a tag for the first time (this would require taggers to be logged into their accounts and for the software to track the tags they've used) to be referred to the "official" definition so that they'd have to read and understand it before applying the tag to an image. All this would require some programming effort, though. Gelbooru is proprietary software. It doesn't use the same engine as those other sites, and it's still a WIP. I think a simple alphabetical list of tags, associated with their aliases, if any, would be fairly simple to implement, though
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You don't feel like you have enough merit in this place to build a Def Section? Maybe it's the Tude then. I would like to help with the defs two, but Then that wouldn't be a good Idea. Like this Discussion it would probably not go any whare productive if we keep rambling on the way we do.

Yeah, We need a Master Tag List. I hear it's a milestone/an Important priority.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hierarchical tag structure: I don't see where in the quoted part of my post I implied I wanted this. I was suggesting that a tag that becomes ubiquitous because the thing it's referring to is ubiquitous is a useless tag. The "feet" tag is the most abused tag I've come across so far. There are 6,047 images tagged "feet". There could easily be many times that many using the same critera for tagging them as were used on those images. At that point (indeed, at the current point) when I'm trying to find foot-related images, the "feet" tag gives me an avalanche of images that have nothing foot-related in them, save for the fact that virtually every single human depicted on this site (save for a few amputees) has feet. It's useless, and I still have to wade through tons of bland images to find those like the two "good" ones, I linked, above. That said, I wouldn't mind a hierarchical tag structure. I'm working on a programming project right now, in fact, that would implement a hierarchical tag structure on a local image browser. It's not going to happen on a booru, though, because there are too many cooks trying to make the broth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Feet Tagged Images Contain Feet. Contains. The word is Contains. Your saying(analygically speaking) something like: Cornstarch, Ingredient: Cornstarch. Basically what I mean by that is, your proposing that if it ISN'T the main particle of the Image, that it shouldn't be tagged at all. Like Say, There's an Image of girl sitting on a stool Looking across the room, in the background all the action is going on(all sorts of naughty stuff people would be very interested in looking at), you would mark the tags at Stool, Girl, and Looking and that's it. Why? Because you feel that the other stuff in the image is negligible. That's the same way you feel about feet. Feet, Contents: Feet. Well, no, Feet Contain Toes, Heals, Soles, Angles, bones, skin, nails, etc. What's really messed up is that you want to generalize all Foot related tags into one tag, then remove that one tag from images where it isn't the primary focus, and I as well as others believe that is wrong, Except I'd think I'd be the only one with the balls to make that statement herein.

Really? Is nuking about half a dozen related tags going to make your day? Will you be happy with yourself that you spent over 4 hours talking to me, when you could have looked through about 7000 Pictures for things you would want? Do you really want to be the one that messes it up for the rest of us? Sorry, you'll have to excuse me, I'm a little grouchy/groggy for having not slept the whole night. You'll understand, right?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your suggestions for hierarchical tags are good ones, but I'm not really seeing the hierarchy to which you're alluding. It just looks like three groups of tags with primary, secondary, and tertiary "importance". I see no nested structure or "class inheritance", here. It would be nice for some of these "generalized" tags, though, to have easy ways to attach to an image. Upload an image. The software displays your image to the left. On the right is a "toolbar" with selections. Select "Hair Color" and you get a drop-down menu with some standard colors, as well as an option to enter a color of your own. Do this with each selection (or at least the ones you want to do), click "Done" and your image is entered into the data base and automatically tagged for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow, way to say my Specifics are Crap, then quickly through your own Idea and Call it Genius when I first suggested it. What's Not To Know?

Primary: Which Tags are most important to you?; Which Tags should the results Primarily Focus on?

Secondary: Which Tags are Not as Important, but Would be Appreciated in the Results?; Which Gender and/or Composition/Orientation would you like the results to focus on?

Tertiary: Anything Else You would like to add to the search parameters?; Which types of Sexual Acts(Or Other Criteria) would you like the search to focus it's efforts on?

You completely Blew me off on that one. Again, Sleepy. Sorry.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"not_hentai": I have no idea if it was lozertuser's intention to specifically cater to hentai. "vocaloid" = 9768 images. "vocaloid -rating:safe" = 1559 images. That's how I do it. That doesn't filter out all the straight, safe anime, but in this case it gets rid of 84% of it in one fell swoop. The simple fact is that a large amount of the Gelbooru data base deals in work-safe material. That's why we have the rating tags, even if they aren't always properly applied. If you're coming here only for porn, then put rating:safe in your blacklist and you'll miss most of the stuff you don't want to see that way. If we have a "not_hentai" tag then people are going to be arguing about what is and is not "hentai". It's inevitable that someone will tag someone else's uploads with that and the firestorm will begin. I think that the "rating:explicit" tag pretty much defines what the porn-seekers want to see. The problem, of course, is the spotty implemention of the rating tags on this site. A "not_hentai" tag would fare no better
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Humor Me. And at this point I would say, Byte Me. But that's just the sleep deprivation taking; that and all the mixed fillings I have for you know at this point.
People are going to argue what is Hentai and What Isn't Hentai? Hentai is Hentai. Either it's sexual, or it isn't and shouldn't they really be arguing about what is Ecchi? There's a freakin' Ecchi tag so I figured that a Not_Hentai tag Wouldn't be to far fetched. I'd believe you on that if there were a Sexy Tag, but luckily there isn't, least none I've seen. I'll have to find posts From Board Leader that contradict your statements Gelbooru's standing as Not really Hentai Oriented. What the Hell Am I saying? Froyd's Even Screaming it in my ear from beyond the Grave, and IF I don't get yelled at by all the users for being a complete moron in believing this Tripe your telling me, I'd Be Dammed. I'm Standing Firm on this implementation of a Not_Hentai Tag because I believe I speak for the majority of the users here that are here solely for the Pr0nz. Heck, How did you think I found this place? Wait a Minute, I think Even you Said this was a Hentai Board on your own site. Man, If I wasn't so sleepy right now. . .

Ah, Why Do I even Continue? It's no use. I gotta Sleep.
Sorry It didn't turn out the way you liked it, your Majesty.

Sorry, Ferryt, But I Got to Hit the Hay.
Talk to you later. And Don't be surprised If my Next few responses to your other posts consist of Solitary sentences. After tonight, I don't have time for crap anymore. Again, Sleepy and Sorry.
Excuse Me.

Fucking hell that's a lot of text. I mean really.



:3 - common emoticon, depicts mouth with suggested shape. Describes facial expression in succinct fashion. Increases search resolution and is consistent. Not frivolous.

Although I, myself, am not a big fan of those types of tags, they are pretty useful for finding facial expressions. I also feel that they should stay and be applied to pictures appropriately.

;o would refer to expressions like the one on the girl on the right. (One eye closed, usually from shock, and mouth open)
www.gelbooru.com/index.ph...&s=view&id=103039


I've seen a couple. They are not as prevailent as characters from different series wearing each other's clothes, but can be found if you look.
Maybe I should generalize the description to "One or more characters wearing the outfits of other characters from the same series." That way, pictures like this would also count.
www.gelbooru.com/index.ph...&s=view&id=423821
Although most people probably won't care, it will make it easier for some of us to find specific kinds of images.

Also, in response to the cameltoe discussion... It is my understanding (although I may be wrong) that it is considered a cameltor if you can see an impression of the vaginal slit on the clothes. It is most commonly seen when characters are wearing bikinis, school swimsuits, bicycle shorts, or panties, but can also be seen when they are wearing very tight clothes.
Cameltoe:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=300287
Cameltoe:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=437563
Cameltoe:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=303263
Not cameltoe (swimsuit is technically not covering vagina)
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=332066
Not cameltoe (Not wearing panties, swimsuit, etc)
www.gelbooru.com/index.ph...&s=view&id=491206

Finally, although I have seen tags for when the vagina is open, or spread, but is there one for when it is specifically closed?
Loli (easiest to find) example:
www.gelbooru.com/index.ph...&s=view&id=503239
Non-loli example:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=502146

Thref, first let me say that you need to take a breath and step back and distance yourself from your ideas. I get the distinct impression that you're taking this way too personally. We're discussing ideas ... that's all, and there's no need to get that defensive, especially to the point at which you attack my veracity or attempt to belittle me. Please. Just don't do that.

Google: You may dislike it. I've used Yahoo and other search engines. I don't care how "evil" Google is, but I still use their search engine. They have the best, most comprehensive, most extensive data base available for general material. If I had to pay to use their services, I wouldn't, though, because I know some of what's behind that company and their agenda, but the Google search engine is free.

Back to cameltoe, which seems to be an issue for both of us: We may have to have to agree to disagree. I have yet to see a single source, anywhere, to contradict the notion that a garment must be involved for it to be a "cameltoe". You didn't supply a contradictory source, yourself. As far as I know, the evidence is still overwhelmingly in my favor. Can you come up with citable definitions from your search engines that contradict the ones I found on the first page of a Google search that Google won't also show on its search? If so, please link them so I can read them. So far the preponderance of evidence (namely *all* the evidence I can discover) cites the requirement for clothing. I'm not going to spend four hours digging through thousands of Google hits to try to find what might be only one contrary definition, and I don't believe there's a conspiracy at Google to define cameltoe as requiring clothing, so they put all those sites at the top of the search. Yes, I know how they order search results. I've ranted about their rating system, myself, so I'm being facetious, here. I have an open mind, but I'm not going to change my mind about any issue without some evidence. I see no such evidence.

Pussy: Doesn't matter how many ways the word is used outside of Gelbooru. This thread is about tagging and the "pussy" tag is used for the bare, visible vulva, here, and I don't see it being used for any of those other things, although I'll admit to having not looked at every single image so tagged. I see no need for "natural_cameltoe", but if you feel one is warranted then by all means use it. I'll assume, from your comments, that it would apply to a vulva where only the labia majora are visible. Is that a fetish? Probably -- mostly among the loli lovers who prefer the appearance of an "immature vulva" that has yet to develop a "frill" of the labia minora showing through. If this is an important distinction, then OK. I can buy that. But in that case some of the tags I've suggested that you disagreed with are just as valid by the same logic. The bottom line is that both tags might be useful, but to different people -- an argument I've used already for more specificity in the way tags are used on this site. After all, most people looking for "cameltoe" images are not going to be interested in a "natural cameltoe" image, and the converse is likely also true. Oh, and I did provide exerpts in the form of direct quotes and you could have easily found the links, yourself. I did say those were the first hits on a Google search for "cameltoe" -- eight letters, hit the enter key and you have all the links that I cited, and more. I figured that was easier on the eye that long urls. Sorry.

Wikipedia: I know what they've done to alleviate the inaccuracies in their articles. The fact remains that there is still a lot of garbage in Wikipedia. They try to let you know what's good and what is questionable, but sometimes you run across articles that just haven't gotten their attention, yet. It's a self-correcting machine, though, and that's why I go to Wikipedia for many things -- then check out other references for comparison. You want an inaccurate term written up on Wikipedia? Try "creampie".

Local/Regional Slang: I never said it wasn't an issue. I said that it is "no longer that much of an issue". Sure, you can always find examples of obsure local slang that hasn't been distributed all over the English-speaking world by the Internet, but the simple fact is that much slang that had it's beginnings in a single region has now become ubiquitous. We have no real disagreement here on the facts -- only upon the importance of the facts.

Which people?: I *did* say "consensus". That doesn't mean just people who agree with me. I *did* supply sources -- names of online sites. If you don't like Google you can plug them into Yahoo, or whatever. You'll get the same sites I looked at -- sites that agreed completely with the definition I gave you, and I repeat -- those were not hand-picked. They were just the first ones that came up, and if one of them had a definition that disagreed with mine I would have indicated it. So, I did provide sources ... therefore no "F". I know. I didn't provide a complete url to those sites. That's what search engines are for, after all, aren't they? Sometimes I wonder whether the WWW has made people lazy and unable or unwilling to do a little typing and use their brains. I'd very much appreciate it if you would quit trying to put me on a pedestal of my own making because that pedestal isn't there. Your own steely adherence to your own ideas could be interpreted exactly the way you're interpreting mine. My ideas are based upon the information I have available to me -- not on any notion that I know all the secrets of the Universe and that I have to be right just because I'm me. I very much resent that implication. If you want me to change my opinions then *you* have to supply me with evidence, just as I've supplied you with evidence which is contrary to your own opinions. It's that simple.

"toe": Am I for or against this tag? Good question, although the quoted statement didn't imply one way or the other. I simply mentioned that if I'm looking for a "cameltoe", and expect to find what I'm looking for, it's for the same reason you're searching on the tag "toe". The only implication you can draw from that is that I'm conceding that if I want "cameltoe" to yield the results I'd like to see then you have a right for the "toe" tag to do the same for you -- not that I agree with the "toe" tag. On the other hand, below you'll see that I'm listening to your arguments and have shifted my viewpoint regarding the "toe" tag accordingly. None of that is hypocritical. Have you been trying so hard to get me to change my opinions just to accuse me of that? I hope not, because I reserve the right to change my opinions when the evidence warrants it.

Contradiction of regional slang: Where did I do that? I've never, to my knowledge, contradicted a regional slang term. I just don't feel that regional slang is even appropriate on the Internet, or within communities which draw most of their input from the Internet. Now, to be fair, there are "regions" within the Internet which are defined by its communities and they frequently have their own slang terms, so that's not an all-or-nothing notion, either. Your comment was in reference to the comparison of the terms "bukkake" and "cumbath", both of which are in wide use on the Internet and which are more-or-less synonymous. I don't even know what this has to do with regional slang.

Pearl Necklass/Cleveland Steamer: I said I heard the term (pearl necklass), but forgot about it -- easy to do when you have no short-term memory and no interest in the subject of the new word. As for Cleveland (or Cleaveland) Steamer, now why would I even be interested in something that pertains to scat, seeing that I've already mentioned that it's a huge turn-off for me? By the way, there are at least four definitions of the term, but yes, I would bet that there are already images of that sort of thing on Gelbooru. If "cleaveland_steamer" ever becomes a tag, then it's a valid one because it refers to a real fetish that some people might want to look up. Not my bag, but then I don't search on the term bukkake, either, but I agree that's a good tag.

4chan: You hit it on the money, although some boards, there, are better than others. I pretty much only visit /d/ and /h/ and /d/ is much more likely to help someone out who has a question. Basically, though, 4chan is for images -- not discussion, and if you try to start a discussion thread those trolls and jackasses will come out of the virtual woodwork in droves. Never been to Ychan. Maybe I'll try it out.

"Wait a minute, So, um, sex Does or Doesn't have a better chance of creampie than Reap?" Your quote. "Reap" = "rape"? Sorry, but my shattered brain sometimes doesn't make connections like that, if that's what you're trying to ask. If so, then the answer is obvious. "Rape" is "sex" -- just non-consensual, and the issue of consent has nothing to do with whether or not there's a creampie involved after the fact. What matters is how much semen is in the vagina and how well the vagina holds that semen in place, as well as whether or not the guy's penis scooped out any of his or anyone else's semen. And, no, I'm not trying to convert all non-matching creampie tags to "cum_drip". I'd rather "creampie" mean what most people expect it to mean. "cum_drip" is an entirely different beast. A "cum drip" can occur during sex or after sex. Now, is visible semen during sloppy seconds a "creampie". Ummm ... grey area there involving a technicality, I suppose -- whose semen is it? :) Frankly, it's not worth the trouble to be that specific. However, there is a valid fetish among hentai fans for semen visible in the vulva after sex, and that's the usual way that "creampie" is defined -- except by Wikipedia, it would seem, which has taken the definition from the American porn industry's re-definition of the term.

Cumblasts in hentai: No, I don't think it's laziness on the part of the artist. The Japanese seem to have this really overwhelming cum fetish. They *like* to see girls drenched in semen, so they draw images like that even though it wouldn't be possible from the actions involved. You see this a lot in CG sequences where one image will be "clean" and the next will be the exact same image (perhaps with penis still buried to the hilt), but with the girl having a full-body coating of cum -- even when there are no other guys in the scene to supply the stuff. It's what the audience wants to see whether it makes sense or not. I usually keep the clean images and toss the ones involving a "cumbath" unless I really want the entire series just for completeness.

Male prefs in porn: Interestingly, quite a few tags used on Gelbooru are mostly about male prefs in porn, just to have an illusion that we're still on topic for this thread. I think most bisexual/lesbian women would not have the same fixation on certain oversized body parts (and that includes breasts, buttocks, and even the vulva) that are common in hentai. We tend to look toward the female figure as beautiful just like it is. Strangely, porn with similar enhancements of the male anatomy (not so much the penis but the musclulature, by the way) seems to be especially attractive to a lot of women. Those are all stereotypes, though. There are exceptions to nearly every rule, and I know guys that aren't enamoured of out-of-proportion women. I'm actually happy to find out you're one of them. You'd apologize for a cervical penetration after the fact? You're talking about in fantasy, right? Because cervical penetration isn't possible IRL. First you have to get the angle right, which is almost never possible because during intercourse the cervix isn't lined up with the vagina. Even if it was, penetration would require the cervical opening to be at least 4cm in diameter, which is what happens during the first stages of active labor. You'd injure yourself during such a penetration attempt and, if successful, cause the woman such agonizing pain that she'd probably be gouging your eyes out with her fingernails. Now you know why I'm a little contemptous of the cervical penetration fetish that pervades hentai -- contemptous, but tolerant enough to just look away and go on to the next image.

Do you have a foot fetish? I don't know. Can you get sexually aroused *without* having feet involved? If the answer is "no" then you have a clinical foot fetish. If the answer is "yes" but feet definitely enhance your sexual experience, then you have what I called a "minor fetish". The whole concept of "fetish" is hopelessly confused. The technical definition of the term is all the medical community is interested in and at least in cases of actual sexual dysfunction is a good one. However, there is that issue regarding "fetishes" that aren't required for sexual arousal but which contribute to it, as well as some grey areas. Pegging? Not sure what the medical community thinks of that one. Are there guys who can orgasm only if they're being pegged? Maybe. If so, that would be a true clinical fetish. Do you just enjoy getting a dildo in the butt? I'm not sure if that would be a minor fetish or not, since a lot of people look at anal sex the same way they look at vaginal sex. I'm not sure the medical profession has quite come to grips with that, yet. Footjobs? Depends on what you mean by that term, first of all. Would a guy enjoy being masturbated by a girl's feet? Probably, unless feet are a turn-off for him, but is that necessarily a "fetish"? Not unless the inclusion of feet in the act has a special significance to him.

"O.K., Well, What I don't understand is IF I do have a Fetish, Why does it go away after a few minutes of just focusing on it directly?" Absolutely no idea. That might be something to take up with your shrink. I have, personally, never heard of this problem.

Feet and arousal: I'm not saying there's nothing sexy about a woman's feet. People have foot fetishes, so obviously there is. However, *most* men are not sexually aroused by feet, women's or otherwise. If you are, this is a case of the transference phenomenon I mentioned in my last post. Understand that "sexuality" in the medical community is defined in terms of what we evolved, as a species, to ensure that adults make babies. Feet are not directly a part of that process, so any transference of sexuality to the feet is seen as an aberration. It's not what *I'm* saying -- it's all about the official, technical definition of "fetish". I think that's only applicable in a psychiatric situation where the fetish gets in the way of having a normal sexual relationship. Minor fetishes are OK in my book, and I doubt that many mental health professionals would disagree with that.

Why do I "give up" so easily on simple things and press on harder things to tackle? That should be easy to figure out, actually. Simple things are generally easier to come to a consensus on. Debate isn't about proving one side or the other -- it's a search for truth, and if not truthm then a search for consensus. You'll find it easier to change my mind on some simple things ... less easy on other simple things that are close to black and white in their resolutions. You'll find the same to be true of complex issues. Some are so complex that I can't come to a personal consensus on them. I might just concede the argument and declare that there can be no resolution because I honestly can't make up my mind. On the other hand, some complex issues are difficult for the typical guy to understand. One of the differences in the genders is that women see bigger pictures than men and men are much more capable of ignoring obscuring details and cutting to the chase. You guys think we're being wishy-washy. We think you're missing the facts.

Japanese and censorship: Actually, I think it's reasonably well known, at least among those of us who have been partaking of Japanese pornography for any length of time, that the U.S. is at fault for the Japanese pornography laws. We're constantly hearing newbs on the chans complaining about it, though. Frankly, the issue of creation vs. distribution is a non-issue to me. If the artists wanted to distribute their works, they could easily do so. The Japanese government isn't doing packet interception on every single transmission over the Internet. And ways of censoring images that make it easy to uncensor them have been around for a long time. I've seen a few of those images -- very effectively censored. Run them through a program and in a fraction of a second you have the uncensored version of that image. Do uncensored version of all hentai images exist? No. I recently ran across a discussion of this very topic on a chan where several images were known where the naughty bits were never put in and then, believe it or not, a censorship technique was used to obsure the area where they would exist had they been there in the first place. I'm not sure what I'd prefer -- blatant censorship or androgenous characters.

Uncensored Comet art: Oh, trust me. I have it. You seem to think I find all my stuff through Google just because it's my search engine of choice. To be fair, I've found some of that artwork using Google, too. The Google crawlers are everywhere and their machine is much larger than anyone else's. That's why I use Google -- not because I like the organization behind the search engine.

Tag filtering on Gelbooru: No, I don't think I'm missing out on "a lot" of good pornography. Most of what I'm interested in is easily found with a few simple tags. My interests are much more focused than "Vocaloid Pr0nz". If I'm interested in rape pics the simple tag "rape" is going to show me almost everything on Gelbooru that depicts rape ... and then some, since a lot of the people in the online hentai community don't seem to be able to properly judge a picture on the basis of the situation and reactions of the person allegedly being "raped". Or, maybe I'm just interested in pictures of Ranma, and I'll happily sort through explicit, questionable, and safe images to get what I want. Filters are tools, and are only as good as your ability to combine them meaningfully (and the ability of the taggers to tag images meaningfully), but this is why I don't actually have a "blacklist". I don't want to globally filter out anything because I know I'll probably miss some things I want. A good example is "guro" which, frankly, sickens me, but many amputee pics which show no blood or gore, or even implied blood and gore, are considered "guro". I don't mind these. My problem is that I seldom have several hours to sit at the computer on the Internet and browse a hundred pages of thumbnails looking for just the ones I want. I'm not playing it "safe". I'm expediting my search, knowing that I might miss something, but I simply don't have the time that a lot of other people have for this sort of thing.

"Not that I don't appreciate what you have to say, I do. I just don't appreciate that you have to say so much for me to respond back too. Couldn't we keep it simple and just Respond in a couple of paragraphs instead of a whole Moonlight Scroll?"

Well, short of calling issues closed and not revisiting them, it would appear that both of us are quite willing and able to express ourselves. When you're ready to drop something drop it, or just have your final say and indicate that you have nothing more to say about it. At that point the issue is closed, whether we're in accord or not, and that shortens the next post.

"Is that what I want to find? That's Nearly EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO FIND!!! THANKS!!"

Then, maybe the "feet" tag is useful to you in that sense. It's certainly not useful to me, because that kind of image has no appeal to me, erotic or otherwise, at all, and it's mostly images where feet are incidental to the "theme" of an image that has that tag. Were I to introduce the tag "foot_focus" I'm sure some vigillante would come along the next day and remove it, but that's what I'm looking for when I search for "feet" -- images where the foot, and not the whole person, is the "focus" of the image. Our major disagreements with regard to tags bear on that one concept -- focus. I feel that tags should indicate important and/or unusal aspects of an image. Does the girl have hair? Of course she does. But it's blue. "blue_hair" is a valid tag because it helps me to find just those girls with blue hair. "Feet" just helps me to find girls with ... well ... feet. Which is most girls, and that makes the feet tag, used ubiquitiously, like you want it to be used, absolutely usesless to me. It finds ... girls! I can find those with other, more specific tags just fine, thank you. I know my girls all have feet. Except for the amputees, and I can find them with "amputee". It's a difference in the way we use the board, and I doubt either of us are going to change in that respect.

"Then later I find you stating that if it's just between us two that our whole conversation was meaningless." I'll ignore the remarks you've made that indicate that you think I've somehow been hateful toward you and just chalk it up to a sleepless night on your part. That I disgree with some of your opinions is not something you should be taking personally. If I was attacking you, rather than disagreeing with your ideas, you'd know it. Trust me on that. As for things being meaningless if it's just between the two of us, put it into context before you judge what I meant by that. This entire thread is about arriving at consensus about tag usage on this board. We, two, do not make "consensus", and in that sense just the two of us agreeing or disagreeing on something *is* without meaning with respect to the Big Picture which is this board -- which is bigger than either or both of us.

"All I am saying, Is that IF any of it Exists In the frame, It should be tagged accordingly." And, therein lies the problem with this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can see it and name it, then by this logic you should tag it. If you think we have useless tags, now, then wait until we apply that reasoning to every single complex image that gets uploaded to Gelbooru. What if someone has a "thing" for toenails. Shall we have a "toenail" tag? And "hands". Did you know there's a hand fetish? We have "feet" for foot fetishists. I propose then, that (by your logic) we now begin to tag every image in which a hand is visible with "hand". And since we have "toes", then we should also have "fingers". Almost every single image on Gelbooru should have the feet and hand tags, now. And how does that help, exactly? Once something means everything it ceases to mean anything.

Def Section: Well, I've already been told off for daring to discuss an issue related to tags just because I have only eight tag alterations to my name, so, yeah ... maybe I don't feel I have enough merit to do something like that. Actually, though, I don't have the resources to do it -- namely a list of tags. Besides, it shouldn't be the work of one person. I'm not about to sit down and try to define every tag in use on this board. In fact, there are some tags that elude me completely as far as what they might mean. It would have to be a community effort, and our decisions would have to be approved by the administration to be included in a master tag definition list. I'm not even sure that the Gelbooru community would want something like that.

Tag inclusion in complex images: No, I'm not suggesting that in that hypothetical image that only the tags "stool", "girl", and "looking" would be used. Tags need to describe the unique qualities of an image. As a user, here, I'm probably not going to be using those search terms unless I'm actually looking for an image for which those tags might lead me to it. What I'm saying is that incidental elements that can be inferred from other elements do not need to be included as tags. The naughty things going on in the background are important to the theme of the image and need to be tagged. It's all quite subjective, as any study of tagged images will show. Different people focus on different things when they're tagging. That much should be obvious. I doubt we'll ever agree on the use of the tag "feet". I'm coming at this as a person with a minor foot fetish. They turn me on, but not just because they're there. They do so because of the way they're presented. You, clearly, don't care about the presention -- only that they're bare. Two very different perspectives that are at odds with each other with regard to tagging priorities. What works for you works against me. What works for me works against you. You type in "feet" and you get dozens of images right off the bat that you're going to like. I have to wade through dozens of (to me) useless images to find the one that I like. And it's all because we have one tag ("foot") that just tells us that there are people in the image with feet. Sure I'd like to see additional foot-related tags, but the tag nazis are going to be all over them in a heartbeat if I ever try to use them, and we both know that.

"Really? Is nuking about half a dozen related tags going to make your day?" Where did I say anything about that? We're talking about foot-related tags, here, right? I never proposed getting rid of them. I think they're important -- well, most of them, since some of them are redundant. They're the only thing that makes it even possible for me to find foot-related images I really want.

"Wow, way to say my Specifics are Crap, then quickly through your own Idea and Call it Genius when I first suggested it." I beg your pardon? I did nothing of the kind. You started talking about hierarchical organization and then presented a suggestion that wasn't hierarchical at all. I pointed that out. Then I suggested an implementation of automatic tagging that could be applied to your scheme or any other scheme. I never took credit for your idea because my idea included none of the elements of your idea. It had to do with implemention and not organization. If you were referring to my programming project, no I didn't steal the idea from you. I've been in the planning stages on that for months and it's a true hierarchical structure with class inheritance, and not a simple ordering of priorities. It's not about "hair" as, say, a secondary priority, but about "hair" as a general class of tags, that class containing other attributes like "color", "length", and even "ornament" or "style". Apples and oranges, here.

"Hentai is Hentai. Either it's sexual, or it isn't" It's not that simple. I can think of a number of mangas, or even just series of images, which contain both sexual and non-sexual themes. Is the opening frame of that manga, which simply shows a very work-safe color image of the main character not "hentai" when three pages down the line she gets gang-raped for the next fifteen pages? And what if an image is just "suggestive", but is related to the next image in the line which shows the girl unclothed and with a dildo crammed up her quim? Not "hentai"? There are grey areas I don't think you were seeing, here, and that's where the arguments are going to start. There are clearly works which are "ecchi". Most hentai works which aren't simply individual images begin with no questionable content at all, progress to ecchi, and then on to explicit sex. It might not be important to you, but I'd like to see such works labeled appropriately (which means the most "extreme" tag available for the work as a whole). To know that what appears to be an ecchi image on Gelbooru is actually part of a hentai manga might lead me to further look for that manga. If it's labeled "ecchi" I probably won't bother.

So, given the "ecchi" tag, which tells us what the image *is*, wouldn't it be more logical to have a "hentai" tag, rather than a "not_hentai" tag that tells what the image *isn't*? After all, every ecchi-tagged image would have to have the "not_hentai" tag, as well, since the former implies the latter. Tags which exclude are, I think, less useful than tags which include. If images were all appropriately tagged, then "not_hentai" would be the equivalent of having neither the "ecchi" or "hentai" tag -- assumed, therefore, to be "worksafe". As it is, though, your "not_hentai" tag actually covers two entire classes of images -- ecchi and worksafe material.