Let me first say that I love the tag system. I have not yet found some detail that doesn't have its own tag. Maybe I can't think of the tag immediately but knowing that it's there is good enough. Wiki is easy to search through. Basically if you have a specific taste in your material you can construct a search term that matches it. For me it's simple, I don't like looking at guys and I don't like when characters have a backstory.

But then there's the 'female' tag. Sounds simple after reading the wiki: Images featuring only female characters. So anything *girl and not *boy should be in there. That's what I thought and was using "original female -censored rating:explicit" for my search term. But today I looked at images without using a search term. I quickly found some images with 15+ tags where 'female' would have been appropriate but there was no female tag.

While tagging there's some obvious stuff you can do. Like when you see a 'condom_wrapper' you are sure to also tag 'condom'. Or when you see 'mosaic_censor' you are also going to tag it with 'censored'. This should also go other way around. When you tag 'panties' you should try to go into detail. Are the considered 'lingerie'? Are the 'panties_around_leg'? What color are they? etc.

But this is again where 'female' falls short. There are related tags like *girl but you would still need to check if there are no males in scene. That is what I think makes it easy to forget.

Everything above also applies to 'male_focus'.

tl;dr: Please tag appropriate images with 'female'. There's people out there who don't wanna look at males...

lmao what

You can blacklist tags, you know?

forum #1706 is for tagging discussion.

I'd say this is a bitching thread, more than it's a tagging discussion. Asking us (taggers) to consider your needs? Sure, I wouldn't mind, but I've checked your (short) tagging history*. Aside from the fact that you completely ignore (leave untagged) images with males (important to me, because the "sex" tag kind of involves males), how about you at least contribute more than "female" & "censored" tags? Your contribution is so laughable, I wonder what made you think you deserved a favour. I mean, to save time, you only contribute (tag) what's important to you, so this whole request is very hypocritical.

* gelbooru.com/index.php?pa...ag_history&id=3871815 (tag history of gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=3871815)

And last, but not least:
tl;dr: Please tag as many images with as many tags as possible. There are people out there who wanna look at images including males (because that's what sex happens to involve)...

FIXED

I don't think it's the taggers that are being asked anything, since we don't really have a word on how tagging works.

You (and I) aren't even Unofficial Gardener.

Op's request was to increase the use of a certain tag, not to change it's definition. Therefore it's a request to taggers in general (especially since not specified). You always misunderstand and twist things.


Implying I'm unqualified to speak on the matters of tagging, because I haven't been assigned a pointless title, because I don't post in the gardener's thread? Actions matter. I think my contribution is a significant one. Not just the number of manual tag edits, but also the quality of each single one. Do you need a title to tell you who you are? Others may not know it, but you do. The way I see it, I have been an unoficial gardener for the longest while now.

It's not about the title. It's more about, even the Unofficial Gardeners don't decide most stuff, and you're not even that, so why do you always give yourself so much credit?

...Doesn't seem so.