This topic is locked.

Official Tags Thread (Old)
We really need one of these, so please pardon my presumptuousness in calling it "official". This thread is for discussing some tagging issues because I posted some comments on images regarding some issues and I realize that the proper place for these discussions are on the forums.

I've suggested some aliases that I think are reasonable on the following basis:
1. I literally couldn't think of any situation where the implication could not hold. Lactation is totally possible without a female because this is the internet, so I was really stretching my brain for any possible counterexamples that could ever exist.
2. All suggestions are from a tag that has at least 121 members (1% of the wiki) to a tag that has at least 121 members. This means that only very legitimate tags are involved.

So I'd like the admins to consider them. I have some more posts to make but I'll make them seperate so quoting is easier.
Second order of business:

The "[animal]_girl" tags (cat_girl, dog_girl, cow_girl, bunny_girl) were going just fine, and then the damn furries had to come and mess everything up.

These tags have a few issues:
1. cat_girl applies to anything with cat animal_ears, but it also applies to straight up furry characters that are cats.

2. bunny_girl is even worse; not only are "furry" and "animal_ears -furry" bunny girls, but often bunnysuits are tagged bunny_girl (either without bunnysuit, or as obviously-not-how-this-is-supposed-to-work double-tagging).

3. This necessitates the spear counterparts [animal]_boy, creating a whole bunch of tags that encode two things simultaneously, when meanwhile straight-up "male" and "female" are not even tags to begin with, and creating combinations of them with an unrelated form of tag seems like the wrong way to start.

No solution is going to do a good job of fixing the problem without auditing the existing tags. Fortunately even the largest categories, bunny_girl and cat_girl, are each smaller than 250, so it's doable. I've been thinking about this a while (and even edited this post many, many times) and here's what I have so far. (Yay, two numbered lists in one post!)
1. Remove animal_ears from all furry images. Explicitly say on the animal_ears page that it doesn't apply to furry or fake_animal_ears images unless there is genuine ambiguity about what's in the image.

2. All animal_ears with a recognizable animal type are also tagged [animal]_ears, as in cat_ears, dog_ears, etc., not [animal]_[gender]. These tags are implied to animal_ears.

3. Furry images are tagged [animal]_furry just how manips are tagged [editor]_(manipper). So dog_(furry), cat_(furry), horse_(furry), etc.
Alernatively: They can just be dog, cat, dragon, shark, etc., and then users looking for genuine animals search for "bunny -furry". This is faster and simpler since genuine animals are so rare, but makes the tag name less specific and explicit, so I don't prefer it.

4. To expedite the process, the [animal]_girl tags (at least the major ones) are checked to see if they are mostly furry or non-furry, and the tag gets aliased to the appropriate version.

What's everyone's favorite garter tag? Should straps be seperate from belts since the straps might be visible when the belt isn't, or is that splitting hairs?*garter*&type=0&order=date&commit=Search

IMO it should all go into one tag since there's not that many images to begin with.
I'm not sure I am seeing quite the imminent problem that you are. The point of the tagging system is not to be an organization nazi, its to provide an easy to use search function.

If a person is offended by furry pics to the point that they don't even want to see thumbnails in search results, but want to go out of their way to search for animal_ears.. well.. they deserve to get truncated search results.

The fact that you called furies "damn furies" also makes this whole post feel bias in the worst possible way. This is a community, almost a refuge, for people who have what most of society would consider a freaky and weird fetish. It goes completely against the nature of such a site to point fingers at certain members and say "you are weird because of another of your fetishes"

(Oh, and there are gender tags actually. They are femdom, maledom, femsub, and malesub. )
Now, now, calm down. This kind of thread is actually good, and many of the things brought up are valid. Also, if you look at greasyi's uploads and favorites, I think it's obvious that the "damn furries" comment was sarcasm (at least of a sort). :P

I'll address the things brought up in this thread soon enough.
There's no imminent problem. I'm a computer guy, we are always trying to optimize systems. Not because we don't like what we already have but because we like things getting even better. It's a weird kind of positivity. ;)

And yes, "damn furries" was sarcasm; my porn collection is at least 70% furry. It just seems to me like when I want to find pictures of girls with cat ears and human noses, or genuinely furry catgirls - both of which I try based on my mood - it's not quite as straightforward as it ought to be.
For furry content, I think that "animal" tags are sufficient, and agree with the proposals above pretty thoroughly.

A non-furry character with natural, or natural-looking, [animal]_ears should get the [animal]_ears tag.

bunny_girl is one that's very easy to get conflicting signals from, and it should be something like "furry bunny female" for a furry character which is a bunny and a female, "bunny_suit" or "bunny_outfit" for a non-furry character wearing part or all of a bunny outfit, and "bunny_ears" for a non-furry with bunny ears fitting the above [animal]_ears rules.

Furry content needs plenty of concern taken, but my personal approach is: "furry" indicates any sort of furry content, from kemonomimi to kemono to "feral" animal characters (to me, "feral" indicates those which are physically the same as an animal, but possess the relative intelligence of a human for their setting). [animal] indicates the primary animal influence in a given character, with no need to mark if the character/animal is anthro, kemono, feral, or kemonomimi -- I use an extra purpose-built tag for all "kemono", "kemonomimi" and "feral" while assuming any other "furry" is in the anthro category.

So, for example,

Just tagging the species content in this picture would be:


On the second issue, of garters and garter belts...

"garter_belt" and either "garter" or "garters" refer to different things, but are partially redundant. I think that "garter_belt" implies "garters", though the reverse is not always true (an image could easily present a garter without showing a garter belt, even if it's unlikely such an image would appear on any given site). I would say that "garter_belt" should be kept to refer to the belt portion, and "garter(s)" to refer to the other portion, but there should be no need for BOTH tags on a single image... if both are present, then one implies the other...

I suppose if it must be narrowed down to one, I would go with just "garter_belt"... but it feels too narrow that way.
It sounds like people might want to only have "femdom" and "femsub" without introducing "female" (which is a completely separate issue from the furry thing anyway). bunnysuit (no underscore) is already a tag, bunny_girl is just being abused by people who haven't noticed bunnysuit.

There's some issues with including kemonomimi in furry: First, that would make the animal_ears tag alias to furry, and leave us without a genuine kemonomimi tag to work from. The mods would have to figure out a way to add a new tag to every "animal_ears -furry" image before expanding the definition of furry, which I'm not sure the software even allows, unless someone wants to try doing by hand. Not including such a new tag is silly because we need to give people a way to find kemonomimi without getting hits on Krystal and Renamon, because the demographic for that is larger on this site than furries.
Second, while you have given yourself as an exception, it doesn't pan out for the furry demographic in general: most furries are not often looking for kemonomimi, as evidenced by what posts are uploaded/popular on e621. So having any of those furries on this site search for "furry -kemonomimi" any time they want to search for something furry seems silly.
While the "feral" tag is valid and useful on e621, it doesn't really seem appropriate here as it's kind of splitting hairs for most of the audience. Just like e621 only has 2-4 MC tags, it only makes sense for us to have so many furry tags (one reason I want to get rid of all the animal_gender stuff). Bear in mind that only 1% of the site's images are currently tagged "furry", and "feral" has a very different meaning outside of the furry fandom; if I saw the "feral" tag in the tag list on this site, without looking at the images in it, I would assume it had characters who had been mind controlled to a regressive, wild, uncivilized state of mind. Our ultimate never-quite-attainable goal is that all tags be easy enough to guess and recognize that a well-meaning person who wants to help tag an image can do so without an encyclopedic knowledge of whatever non-MC fetishes are in the image.

The only reason I support putting all garter stuff in one category is because only 18/12k images have garter stuff and it seems silly to make a distinction in a pool that small which is growing at such a slow rate; people searching for garter stuff can full-res examine the entire collection in less than a minute and easily weed out themselves what they weren't actually looking for.
Sorry, I wasn't intending to suggest that my system be used here for everything -- my own collection caters to my tastes, which do lean rather furry. I think for the purposes of this site, which is not built to cater to furries primarily, having one tage for kemonomimi (animal_ears) and a separate tag (furry) as non-aliased tags is fine, and considering this site's target audience, even preferable.

As far as it goes, for this site I would recommend:

kemonomimi (animal_ears) -- natural animal ears on non-furry characters.
furry -- general "furry" content of anthro/taur/etc.
[animal] -- the animal basis for animal_ears or furry individuals portrayed.
[gender] -- the gender (if obvious) of one or more characters in the image.

This removes the need for distaff counterpart tags (male/female being separate tags) and reduces the number of tags conveying multiple points of data, which dog_(furry) would do. More tags, so long as they remain clear and concise, is good if it helps us reach the goal stated above: That most tags are easy enough to guess that you don't need to know an arcane search term, and that people can reliably tag images without memorizing all the tags on the site.

On the issue of (garter_straps), (garterbelt), (garter), and (garter_belt) I would vote in favor of a consolidation into either (garter) or (garter_belt), with the latter being more preferable given that it is already the most prevalent of the four on the site. perhaps for the time being the other three could all alias to it.
For the furry & animal_ears stuff, I always thought it was kind of silly to use animal_ears on furry pics, since that sort of goes without saying. In fact, the original definition of the "animal_ears" tag that I used specifically said "A human character with animal ears." So, I wouldn't mind going back to that, and removing the animal_ears tag from furry pics. That said, you could also just search "animal_ears -furry" to find kemonomimi stuff right now.

As for ditching the "[animal]_[gender]" tags, we could always try doing what the major boorus do and use the "[animal]_ears" tags. Of course, that would probably also mean using the "[animal]_tail" tags too, which wouldn't really reduce tag bloat.

For "male" and "female" tags, other boorus only use those if every character in the image is one gender. So, for example, "female" means only females. I actually wouldn't mind these tags, as it would allow people to search for (or exclude) pics with only one gender present, but I would only agree to using them if that's what they were for. If "male" and "female" ended up on the same pic, then the tags are useless.

These are all the opinions I have at the moment.
We could use a convention like:

2girls (see: )

to allow gender tagging for multi-subject pictures. A more generic form could just be "male" and "female" for singular cases of that gender, with "multiple_males" and "multiple_females" as tags. Perhaps we could also add "only_male" and "only_female" tags to images with only one gender across multiple characters, or "solo" for images with only one character present -- or both.

I for one, don't see the problem with "female" and "male" both being on the same image, provided that the image has more than one character in it. The system would be blatantly broken if a single-subject image had both tags, I agree, but we do have images with more than one character of different genders, and I think there's no reason to not identify the genders just because there's more than one person or gender present.
I refuse to use 1girl, 2girls, etc., as it makes no sense to me unless you have a numbers fetish. We already use "multiple_girls", so "multiple_boys" would be fine if we're not already using it. We already have gender-specific sub/dom tags, so I don't see why we'd need to tag individual instances of male/female, since that would provide the same data only less detailed. I'd still be willing to support male/female tags for instances where there were no other genders in the pic.
[animal]_tail is not really necessary if we have any kind of ears because there's already a tail tag, and I don't foresee someone being mad that they can't search for cat ears somehow and also shark_tail.

I was initially in support of male/female once upon a time, but I realized it was more a niggling desire for completeness than any actual utility. I suspect most people in this particular audience care almost as much about which gender is the sub/dom as they do about gender at all, so maledom etc. seems to do the job.

I'm putting my support behind kharonalpua's suggested system, minus genders: animal_ears gets purged of furry pics (and preferably aliased to kemonomimi to send the message to furry newcomers about not using it when tagging furry pics), and all relevant pics get straight up animal names so people can search for "dog kemonomimi" or "cat furry" or "bunny fake_animal_ears". I think it strikes a good compromise between clarity and power. Re-tagging wouldn't be too bad because x_ears and x_girl both imply animal "x".
It's possible that fake_animal_ears should have an implication to kemonomimi; it depends on the people who are really into fake animal ears, I guess; I don't know if they usually like real ones too.

I also agree that "x girls" is not a good tag. I use the "that one picture I saw three months ago" test. Can I use the tags and what I remember about that picture I saw 3 months ago to find it if it's on the boory? Maybe "x girls" makes sense for a booru as inclusive as one for all anime-style drawings, because it could well be impossible to narrow many of the pictures down otherwise. Anything less inclusive than, "all drawings are allowed from an entire country and anyone in the world who draws similarly" doesn't need them.

The reason garter_belt is most populous (by 1) is because I just tagged 12875 with it (the image that made me notice the garter tags). I actually want to change my vote to "garterbelt" though. My rationale is some Googling:
I searched for "garters", "garter belts" and "garterbelts". Quotes around 2-term words make sure they appear in sequence, and using plurals meant that hits for "garters" weren't because it was a substring of "garter belt". "garters" had the fewest hits and "garterbelts" the most. When I removed the plurals on "garterbelt" and "garter belt", garterbelt still won. So, since it's just slightly more common according to google, I now favor the one-word version.
I'm prepping to call it a night, and I'd just like to voice my thoughts on this at this moment.

Though I would still prefer to see the gender tags, I can't deny that it may just be a completeness thing, and if the information is encoded somewhere in the other tags, such a tag would be redundant. As long as it's relatively possible to find a picture by the genders in it, I don't see a need for female/male specific tags, which could be too narrow in their purpose for the needs of this site -- since the dom/sub roles being tagged is at least as important, and I see little need to give dom and sub their own tags, it is probably just me being fussy to still want female/male.

The important thing really is that we don't need to search for "catgirl" when the term itself can be confusing, as it can mean anything from "cat fake_animal_ears fem*" to "cat furry fem*", or possibly even the rare case of "cat animal fem*" (though I don't know if we have or will likely have any such soon) when the new forms let people search for what they want easily and with an easy and consistent way to filter undesirable results.

As for the garter_belt/garterbelt -- all I particularly care about is consistency in the name more than which name gets chosen. I've always seen it as a two-word term, and that's probably the only particular reason I prefer "garter_belt" -- whichever is chosen, consistency is the important part of the outcome.
greasyi said:
I've suggested some aliases[...]
Approved. Across the board. Glad to see the implication system finally being put to good use.

Anyway, moving forward to the conversation at hand, I'll start with the garter debate.

It's a simple solution, really. Most boorus use garter_belt (Gelbooru and Sankaku Complex, for example, and Danbooru uses garter_belt mainly, while also allowing the distinction of garters - NONE of them use garterbelt as one word). Given that they're pretty much the booru standard and there's no reason due to our specialization in hypnofetish to go against what they do in this case, we'll consolidate everything into the garter_belt tag.

For now, I'll be merging garterbelt into garter_belt. I'll also add garterbelt as a garter_belt alias.

As for whether to keep the garter_straps and garter tags...

As aforementioned, very few images actually use any variant of any tag with the root garter*. Given that being the fact, I'd like to just throw everything involving garters into garter_belt. In the future, should the collection of applicable images grow substantially, we can expand, then. Otherwise we're creating what is, for now, unneeded tags and complexity in tagging.

As an aside, remember that, when designing a tag system, that your only goal is not to make the tag system easy to use in searches, but also easy to tag (another thing mentioned in another post above). You want searchers to be able to find what they're looking for easily enough while keeping the tag system simple enough to where your average user can properly tag any image with relative ease and without a tagging guide on hand.

greasyi said:
I'm putting my support behind kharonalpua's suggested system, minus genders: animal_ears gets purged of furry pics (and preferably aliased to kemonomimi to send the message to furry newcomers about not using it when tagging furry pics), and all relevant pics get straight up animal names so people can search for "dog kemonomimi" or "cat furry" or "bunny fake_animal_ears". I think it strikes a good compromise between clarity and power. Re-tagging wouldn't be too bad because x_ears and x_girl both imply animal "x".
I support this. Fully. I'd change it now, but I don't want to rush into a decision, so I think I'll let this thread take its course and get some more input first. In the meantime, know that we're keeping a close eye on this thread and will be considering the options and opinions brought to us.

As the final point of current debate: genders are handled quite well with the dom/sub tags. There should be no situation at all in which you cannot use those tags to find the gender you want, in the roll you want, to boot. I see no point in nor do I have any interest in changing the dynamic of how we handle genders. It would be quite the uphill battle if one were to try to convince me it needed doing. ;)

We're always for finding new ways to improve our tags. If you have any ideas, please, don't hold back. Threads like this are awesome for getting things done.

On that note, if you feel there should be a tag alias or implication, you can suggest them on their respective pages. There is no harm in this! They will not become active until approved! Don't hold back! Just try to make sure the alias or implication you're suggesting won't prove problematic or restrictive in the future.

Read the corresponding help files for more information on the tag alias and implication systems.
I petition the removal of the white_thighhighs tag, unless there's something special about white ones that I've never heard of. All I can think of is that the thighhighs being white is standard with some fetish costumes, but that would be covered by tags for those costumes.
greasyi said:
I petition the removal of the white_thighhighs tag, unless there's something special about white ones that I've never heard of. All I can think of is that the thighhighs being white is standard with some fetish costumes, but that would be covered by tags for those costumes.
I'll second this. Garment colors, in general, are probably not going necessary for tagging on this site, and "white_thighhighs" sets a bad precedent in implying that they are necessary. If we don't need, or want, "black_shirt" and "white_shirt", then it's probably best to nip this sort of thing in the bud.
On the topic of how the [animal] tags.

Keep them both. Cat_girl can, and will [in my opinion] refer to ANYTHIG That is humanoid an feline at the same time.

If it's an outright anthro with that, add in the anthro tag as well. Those that don't want to see the anthro pics, but want to see the human cat girls, well.... blacklist anthro.
There, problem solved.

Lunakiri said:
On the topic of how the [animal] tags.

Keep them both. Cat_girl can, and will [in my opinion] refer to ANYTHIG That is humanoid an feline at the same time.

If it's an outright anthro with that, add in the anthro tag as well. Those that don't want to see the anthro pics, but want to see the human cat girls, well.... blacklist anthro.
There, problem solved.

If "cat_girl" defines "anything that is humanoid and feline at the same time" then it would apply, against all intuition, to _males_ that are "humanoid and feline at the same time." To combat this, we need "cat_boy", which puts us more or less in the current situation. We have a tag that can range from "animal_ears" catpersons to flat-out furry catpersons, and the whole point of this discussion is to have a clear distinction. It's like saying

Furthermore, if we're going to have a "furry" or "anthro" tag anyway, it seems redundant, to me, to have to add the "person" or "_furry" suffix to an animal just to identify that they aren't a normal animal -- it seems to me the only normal animal likely to be terribly popular on this site is Kaa, and as pointed out in the tagging rules, people who want Kaa pictures will probably just look for Kaa, not "the_jungle_book" and not "snake."
Lunakiri said:
Keep them both. Cat_girl can, and will [in my opinion] refer to ANYTHIG That is humanoid an feline at the same time.
What you describe, under the proposed system, would basically be the "cat" tag; and "cat_girl" would be aliased to "cat" so that old images get the updated tag and don't lose that information.

The "cat" tag would also apply to images of non-humanoid cats, but since these are in the extreme minority (read: they wouldn't clutter up search results problematically), that's heavily outweighed by the system's benefits.
Vanndril, only one person has chimed in on the animal/furry thing in the last 3 days, and it sounded more like not realizing that what they wanted was in the proposed system. Since I've been on a hypnohub binge this weekend, I've gathered up a bunch of furry MC pics from around the furry internet that I either like or think that other people are likely to like, and I'm just waiting for this issue to come out of limbo before I start adding them.
I talked to Mindwipe about it, and we came to a pretty solid overarching concept on how we could do this, taking ideas from this thread and from our heads and mixing them around.

Here's the gist of it.

We want to add a new slew of tags of various types. I'll go through the list of them and explain the ins and outs of why we need them.

Overarching Classification Tags

First off, the overarching classification tags, like furry.

  • Furry
    • Used for Anthros.
  • Animal_Ears
    • Used for non-anthro non-animal animal-eared characters.
    • Alias: Kemonomimi
    • Furry and animal characters are exempt from the use of this tag. Only to be used if a non-furry and non-animal character with animal ears is depicted.
  • Animal
    • Used for non-anthro animals.
    • Only used if an animal is either a sub or dom in the image. If an animal is not the focus but is rather just in the background, it does not get this tag.
  • Monster(_<gender>)
    • Used for any non-human subject that does not fit the furry, animal_ears, or animal tags (goo_girls), for human-beast hybrids (minotaur, naga, etc), and for monstrous animal characters with just enough humanoid features to not be tagged animal which are also too inhuman to be tagged furry (spider_girls, insect_girls, etc). In addition, it is also used for humanoids with non-human, non-animal traits (demon_girls).
    • This is the only classification tag that has a gender suffix. This is because, very often, there's no species tag (explained below) that can describe a monster_girl. In addition, monster_girl is a tag used on many boorus and it would confuse new members if it were changed to not include a gender.
    • If the monster's gender is ambiguous, leave off the gender suffix and just use the monster tag. In short, you can use one of three tags for this classification: monster_girl, monster_boy, or monster.
These tags will help users separate furries from animal_ears, as is one of the main points of the thread. In addition, animals will no longer be part of the furry tag, since that was a topic of concern brought up in the past.

Monster Girls/Boys are also defined a little more clearly, as to avoid overlap with the other three classification tags. This was done for reasons not entirely obvious until you consider: what tags would you give a spider girl? Furry? Monster_Girl? Both? This was the solution we came up with.

Species Tags

Next, we want to add species tags, like cat and dog.

  • Cat_Girl
  • Cat_Boy
  • Dog_Girl
  • Dog_Boy...
  • Fox_<gender>
  • Dragon_<gender>
  • Snake_<gender>
  • etc.
Note: If a gender is ambiguous, you tag <species>_ambiguous.

These tags will be used alongside animal, furry, and animal_ears in order to find the species and gender of interest.

I know one of the points of this thread was to remove the gender redundancy in tags, but, after much careful consideration, we realized that there is no other way to do this. The fem and male dom and sub tags work well when you are not searching for a specific characteristic. If you just type femsub and search, you're definitely getting a female submissive. However, if you type "furry femsub", you might get a male lion furry domming a female human. This problem of being unable to define what gender is what role exists no matter how you use the tags of the system, unless we keep the polar _<gender> suffixes on species tags. So, we have no other way.

Odd-One Out Scenario Tags

Last up, we want to expand on our scenario tags that might involve animals, in particular.

  • Bestiality
    • Used when a human and animal are sexing.
  • Animal_On_Animal
    • Used when two animals are sexing.
These two tags are to ensure we cover all blacklist grounds. Bestiality is already a tag, but the animal_on_animal one is new. We want to add it because some people may not mind animal doms or subs, but dislike animals having actual intercourse. Alongside the bestiality tag, the new proposed Animal_On_Animal tag will allow users of this variety to blacklist that sort of thing entirely.

Neither bestiality nor animal_on_animal will be used on furry, kemonomimi, or monster_<gender> images. It is only to be used with animals


Naturally, we want out users to be able to search for what they want, but there is another side to deciding what tags we use: blacklisting. Users should be able to blacklist something they want with only a reasonable number of images they would like to see being blacklisted alongside their squicks.

Here's a few examples of how the blacklisting can work with this tag.

  • A user can blacklist any of the individual classification, species, or scenario tags, if they wish. That's simple and doesn't need explaining, really.
Combination Blacklists, By Tag Type
  • "classification -species"
    • Example: "animal -snake"
    • This allows someone to blacklist a species that might be a squick for them (snails? slugs? who knows?). In addition, some people who dislike animal images otherwise may like snake hypnosis (kaa and the like). In this way, they can blacklist all animals other than snakes.
  • "classification -scenario"
    • Example: "animal -bestiality" "animal -animal_on_animal"
    • Those who like animals depicted as having sex, but only with other animals or only with humans can blacklist the scenario they don't like.
The more specific blacklistings that can be done with combinations of species and scenario tags are pretty obvious in effect. You guys get the point.
WHY SO COMPLICATED!? I wish there was an easier way to do this. <.<

Anyway, what we wanna do is let this sit in this thread for a while and get opinions. If any of you can think of a way to SIMPLIFY it or of a reason why this system doesn't work, tell us. We intend to give this conversation another week or so before we decide what to do.

As it stands, now, I'm really iffy on whether or not this should even be implemented. I mean, I know it would be useful, but it seems like a lot of tags and effort for just a subsection of the community's tastes. Not that they're an unimportant subsection, of course, but this seems like a mighty amount of work to expand the search capability for something not really MC-based for a MC image site.

The biggest problem is that it's so damned complicated. With better searchability comes higher tagging complexity, and the more complex tagging becomes, the less people who will be willing to take the time and effort to do it. If it's not always done every time, then the system breaks itself and becomes pointless, in which case we're better off just not implementing this system and keeping things how they are.

I will be very, very annoyed if we implement this only to see a majority of users not religiously tagging all of this properly.
I'd like to clarify that whenever I have ever or continue to say "the furry booru" I really mean e621, because not everyone knows what e621 is by name. While it's true that FurryBooru has almost as many images, I feel like that's more a result of e621's aggressive policies respecting artists who don't want their work reposted than anything else. Anyway, like Gelbooru and Danbooru, they're roughly comparable.

Also, I will not mention rule34 booru, as all of this weirder stuff (even simple cat ears) is way, way rarer there than on Danbooru/Gelbooru, and its way of doing things seems less applicable as a role model than those two.


monster vs. monster_[gender]:
The bigger boorus reserve "monster" for "definitely no overtly human characteristics," and I think we should adopt this policy. Someone searching for "monster" is probably looking for a genuine cthulu sticking tentacles in a lady's ears or what have you. They don't have "monster_girl" imply "monster" and neither should we.


While in theory I support a tag for animals being directly involved while not including incidental animals, good luck enforcing that on a tag called "animal". I think the best solution is to recognize that not a whole lot of unrelated animals appear in drawings (because it's extra work for artists to draw more things) and that they won't really pollute the search results; so whatever, all animals get the animal tag.


Genderized tags:
These don't really add anything.
The incidence of mixed furry and non-furry is extremely low and easily ignored. go ahead, look for them. It adds a lot of complication for extremely little utility for anyone. In addition it doesn't even provide completeness; what if I want to find pictures of human males dominating furry females? I search for "furry femsub *_girl -*_boy maledom" and I have to visually inspect 56 images just to find out there's only one image with a human dom, and it was mis-tagged and isn't even actually furry anyway.

The only solution is to bloat the tags even more to be even more specific about what is what gender, or to admit that maybe we should worry about how usable the site is to someone who doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of our tags.

(weird furry porn link warning)
I've come up with a better way to handle such cases, but I won't bother describing it because I think the kiss of death to the whole idea is that the furry booru doesn't care which gender is human. So furries in general, if you were going to complicate the system for their sake, would apparently much rather more complication go into adding more species specifications (i.e. genus tags like equine and rodent). I don't see any evidence of a furry audience that appropriately benefits from this system. ("Appropriately" meaning "worth having more tags for".)


For non-furries, consider the following:
I want a catgirl being dominated by a human male. First of all, am I going to be grossed out if I find any catboys or human females? (My guess is that almost no users would be.) OK, but will catboys pollute my search results in a meaningful way? Well, let's say we have no [animal]_[gender] tags. I search "maledom femsub (whatever captures anyone having non-furry cat ears)" and I'm done, because currently on the site you only get one page of results, with no catboys, because only 4 images are tagged cat_boy and none of them are maledom.
Again, the real deciding factor in my mind is what other boorus with relevant interests are doing. Gelbooru and Danbooru both appear to officially discourage any use of cat_boy or cat_girl because their numbers are startlingly low, but if you search for cat_ears then boy oh boy stand back.
Based on this, it doesn't seem to serve the non-furry community enough to warrant the tags either.


As an additional point on *_girl tags, especially monsters:
Some *_girl tags are fairly recognized on larger boorus. This is a gray area, since there are quirks, like spider_girl implying insect_girl, and neither of those implying monster_girl. (At least on danbooru; neither even has a wiki page on gelbooru, didn't check implications/aliases.) However, they seem to have naturally sprung up because some things don't actually have... y'know... _ears.


Here's my newest proposal, considering all of the above and pulling together previous ones others have posted:
  • As a concession to people who use the big mundane boorus, animal_ears as well as [animal]_ears are officially recognized, but for non-furry pics only. This is a major reversal of my previous stance but I wasn't taking into account users that come in from gelbooru and danbooru, and now that I've done my homework it seems only reasonable. It's not reasonable to force users to add "-furry" in their search when people doing those kinds of searches seem to outnumber furries on this site. It also shortens awkward searches like "maledom femsub cat animal_ears" to "maledom femsub cat_ears", which is the first thing a gelbooru or danbooru user would try as soon as they see one image's [gender][dom/sub] tags.
  • *_girl and *_boy are valid tags only for non-furry and only when there is no applicable *_ears tag. It's worth considering just aliasing them both to *_person, since *_boy tags of any kind whatsoever make up an astonishingly small fraction of images on the bigger boorus.
  • The "animal" tag is a good idea and I support it, but it will probably have to apply to incidental animals as well out of necessity.
  • Regarding animal_on_animal, yes, add it. If anyone wouldn't care, you'd think the furries wouldn't, but even the furry booru has all kinds of tags for different levels of furriness sexing up different levels of furriness, so there's clearly a demand for that.

Here's my proposed tag set-up, which usually match gelbooru/danbooru but also have e621 aspects where furries might actually care. Deeper nested items "imply" their parents. Bear in mind that tag implications do not negatively effect anyone who's just searching for the more exclusive tag.

Mutually Exclusive (per character) Classifications:
  • animal_ears
    • cat_ears, dog_ears, fox_ears, etc. (Yes, we just have to diligently remove these from furry images as they pop up. No system will be perfect.)
  • furry
  • monster_[gender] (possibly all aliased to [monster]_person)
    • spider_girl, goo_girl, etc.
  • [non-monster]_[gender] (possibly all aliased to [non-monster]_person)
    • bee_girl, shark_girl, insect_girl, plant_girl, etc.
  • monster (as in real ones that probably don't have boobies)
  • animal (includes images that only incidentally contain the animal)
  • animal_on_animal added
  • Simply [animal] of any kind can and should be tagged only on images tagged "furry" or "animal".
Under this setup, everything works as expected for gelbooru/danbooru users, who never fall into an "oops why am I looking at furry" trap. Meanwhile furry users simply need search "dog furry" or "bunny furry", which isn't a huge amount to ask, since we already search for "dog" and "rabbit" (which has alias "bunny") on e621.

The largest disadvantage of this setup that I can see is that there's a furry trap for people searching for "cat" or "dog", but these searches are very rare (I can only see it happening when someone is looking for a specific image that they remember, or maybe some relatively esoteric hypno-cat-eyes kink), and when they do occur, the user can immediately see what happened and try "-furry" on it.
And that is why I posted our idea here before even pretending to implement it. I'm not part of the furry community at large, though I do occasionally enjoy furry images, so I have little to no knowledge of how much detail they want on organizational schemes such as tags. This new "trimmed" system you've thought up seems viable at a glance given the new insight you've provided to that gap in my knowledge on the subject. Let me rewrite it in this post in an attempt to help me more acutely visualize it and to make sure I understand it clearly.

Before that, however, there is one point I want to make. While monster_girl may not be commonly implied by things like bee_girl, they are -very- -commonly- -used- -together-. That's also how we use it now. I figure we'll keep using that as the overarching classification tag for things that fit the definition given to it in my above post. This point will be reflected upon in my below outline of your suggestion.

Besides, the way you suggested handling "non-monsters" leaves them without an overarching tag of any sort, which makes it impossible to globally blacklist them and a nonmonster_<gender> tag seems silly. That's something we don't want to do. Besides, if I saw a plant, insect, spider, dragon, demon, angel, etc. girl irl, I'd see them as monsters, myself. :P

Overarching Classification Tags

First off, the overarching classification tags, like furry.

  • Furry
    • Used for Anthros.
  • Animal_Ears
    • Used for non-anthro non-animal animal-eared characters.
    • Alias: Kemonomimi
    • Furry and animal characters are exempt from the use of this tag. Only to be used if a non-furry and non-animal character with animal ears is depicted.
  • Animal
    • Used for non-anthro animals.
    • Minor drawback: also used on posts where the animal just happens to be on the background. Complexity for fixing that is too high for so little gain.
  • Monster_<gender>
    • Used for any non-human subject that does not fit the furry, animal_ears, or animal tags (goo_girls), for human-beast hybrids (minotaur, naga, etc), and for monstrous animal characters with just enough humanoid features to not be tagged animal which are also too inhuman to be tagged furry (spider_girls, insect_girls, etc). In addition, it is also used for humanoids with non-human, non-animal traits (demon_girls, dragon_girls, etc).
    • Implication: Monster_Person.
    • Only used if the subject's gender is obviously male or female.
  • Monster
    • Used for any actual monsters - non-humanoid non-animal subjects of ambiguous gender.


Species Tags
These tags will be used alongside animal and furry in order to find the species of interest.

  • Cat
  • Dog
  • Fox
  • Dragon
  • Snake
  • etc.
Ear Tags
These tags will be used alongside animal_ears in order to find the animal qualities of interest.

  • Cat_Ears
  • Dog_Ears
  • Fox_Ears
  • Wolf_Ears
  • <animal>_Ears
  • etc.
All <animal>_Ears tags imply the Animal_Ears tag.

<monster>_<gender> Tags
These tags will be used alongside monster_<gender> in order to find the monster qualities of interest.

  • Goo_<gender>
  • Dragon_<gender>
  • Demon_<gender>
  • Plant_<gender>
  • Spider_<gender>
  • Minotaur_<gender>
  • etc.
All <monster>_<gender> tags imply the corresponding Monster_<gender> tag.

Odd-One Out Scenario Tags

  • Bestiality
    • Used when a human and animal are sexing.
  • Animal_On_Animal
    • Used when two animals are sexing.
Neither bestiality nor animal_on_animal will be used on furry, animal_ears, or monster_<gender> images. It is only to be used with animals
Is this more or less how you see it working, minus my change to keep "non-monsters" under the monster_<gender> tag?

Personally, this seems much more reasonable than our (Mindwipe and myself) idea outlined above. I have far less reservation on implementing this system then I did that last one.
good point on monsters and other weird animals. It seems reasonable to put them under the monster_person tag, which makes me feel bad for ones that aren't actually monsters, but whatever.

But anyway, looking over this after a night's sleep, I can't help but notice that the point was to get rid of genders, not to include bee_ambiguous and spider_asexual and demon_herm. the whole issue to begin with was that we were encoding too much information into one tag, just like when you have a yuri image you don't bother tagging whether the dom or sub has boots, you just tag it "boots". Frankly I think I must have been getting sleepy when I wrote my last post.

*_girl and *_boy should not imply *_person, it should alias to it. People who don't know about this specific booru will be able to search just fine in the typical case; and problems are focused on atypical users searching for atypical images, e.g. someone specifically looking for mixed-gender images that have catboys but not catgirls. No system will be perfect, so putting the problems in edge cases that few users are likely to ever want is the best we can hope for.

Given the specific fetish of this site, it makes sense for us to care which gender is the dom; but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to assume that most users care enough about which gender has the cat ears to justify the tag bloat, especially when "dom" and "sub" are only two varieties which can be paired off with genders, while monster types are multitude. We accomplished this simplification on the animals and then almost fell into the same exact trap on the monsters because other non-furry boorus can't figure out how they want to tag that weird stuff.

Also, be careful not to confuse "images" with "characters", especially when writing official wiki pages for these things:
Neither bestiality ... will be used on furry ... images.
There's actually a tag with almost 2,000 images on the furry booru for furry-on-animal sex, where both tags would be appropriate because different characters are responsible for them. (example, if you really need one.)
Wouldn't the rarity of kemonomimi boys be all the more reason to have the gender-specific tags? That way people who DO want to see catboys don't have to dig through all the catgirls to find them?

I really don't see much of a problem with [animal]_[gender] tags.
Hah, I feel like we're going in circles, but Mindwipe brings up a good point. As a lover of kemonomimis, I have no problem finding female kemonomimi characters with gender-neutral tagging merely because they're so much more common than those of the male gender. If I were into males but not females, I'd be annoyed trying to find the male ones hidden amongst all the female ones. Maybe the general furry community doesn't care, but I'd argue that it's not the same for kemonomimi-lovers.

I understand that the point of this thread was to remove the gender redundancy in the tagging, but I'm starting to think that that simply isn't possible without losing something useful.

greasyi said:
*_girl and *_boy should not imply *_person, it should alias to it.
I'm not sure that would work. When you alias something, and someone tags the alias, the alias that was tagged is forced to become the tag it is an alias for. If you make both of them aliases of *_person then searching for either gender will just force a search for *_person, instead. The same goes for setting *_person as an alias to both of them.

To quote the tag alias help files:

When a tag is aliased to another tag, that means that the two tags are equivalent. You would not generally alias rectangle to square, for example, because while all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. To model this sort of relationship, you would need to use implications.
Tag implications, on the other hand, simply add another tag if its predicate is added to the tag list, which seems more in line with what we intend to do.
This all seems sound to me at this point -- while the furry content may not need [species]_[gender], [animal]_ears and animal_ears may need a bit more work to get nailed quite down.

I agree that aliasing *_boy and *_girl to *_person is the wrong approach -- aliases are for disambiguation and should always resolve as if X==Y==X, at least for the current standards of the site, or cases where there's less ambiguity due to the alias. An implication scheme is _much_ better, as it categorizes a group of other tags with which a tag belongs. For example, the tag for the character "Nena Trinity" should imply "female" (Nena is a female) and "Gundam 00" (the Copyright to which she belongs), but does not need to imply "red hair" (though Nena does have red hair, a non-color image would neither need nor use this tag).

So, cat_girl and cat_boy could implicate cat_ears and cat_person -- and perhaps these gender-indicating tags should be reserved for the same category of use as animal_ears and [animal]_ears. Yes, some people may still misuse them at first for furry content, but those mistakes can be cleaned up while people are learning how to properly use these tags.
I'm not sure why Mindwipe is bringing up animal_ears again, I thought we'd moved on to weirder creatures, but ok let me make another case:

We are going to lose something useful by simplifying - not because of this particular situation, but because that's how a tag system mathematically functions. It's just like how you lose something by not specifying which articles of clothing are being worn by the dom and which are being worn by the sub. I think it's kinda hot if the dom is wearing thigh_boots, but I'm not about to propose a tag to help me filter out images where those boots are aren't on the dom, because I don't think it's reasonable to bloat the tags. The point is to find a place where a huge majority of users can find basically what they want a huge majority of the time, and stop adding new tags there.

Even if the proposed system (Vanndril's big quote) gives people no way to find catboys at all (which is arguable), taking the Cartesian product of all animals and monsters with at least 2 and probably more like 4 or 5 genders is not a solution.

Let's consider how much this would affect users. The three most popular [creature]_boy tags on both Gelbooru and Danbooru are demon_boy, monster_boy, and bunny_boy, none of which have any hits on this site. For catboys, well, cats are subs in general, so let me go ahead and search (under the proposed system) for "cat_ears malesub"... and I get all 4 catboy images on the booru and only one false positive (because there's also a catgirl sub). In fact, as far as I can tell those 4 catboy images are the only [creature]_boy tagged images on the entire site. Even if a huge majority of them are missing, if we implement the agreed-upon parts for furries, then keeping the entire gender system with its dozens of extra tags will be mostly to allow people to more conveniently locate 0.1% of images on the site, almost none of which have a score in the double-digits.

I'd also like to remind everyone that non-furry images with *animal_ears (that includes fake ones) make up less than 4% of the images on the site. I'll use a similar argument to the one I used before about how to please furry users: if you really want to please the users of this site with tag bloat, you should really first consider all cases that would be even more useful; for example, "masturbation" is more popular than *animal_ears, so should we have a tag for when the dom is masturbating because they're getting off on domination, and one where the sub is masturbating? Whether the dom or sub is wearing a school_uniform? Which gender has red_eyes? The level of undress on undressing images? Most of what I just mentioned almost definitely have a more solid representation in different subdivisions than animal_ears, where non-female versions are really quite peculiarly rare. Animal ears doesn't seem like the logical place to start making subdivisions, and only seems to have actually become "a thing" because furries started putting them on all of their images (that's where basically all the *_boy images are living right now). In other words, *_boy is only a major tag concern by the very confusion that we've already agreed to eliminate.

Given that we have to find a middle ground between no tags and infinite tags, I just don't see coupling genders with animal ears as justifiable.


Back to what I was talking about most recently, I was suggesting that *_boy and *_girl (remember, since [animal]_[gender] is being eliminated, these are just sharks and spiders and monsters and robots and bees and other things without ears) alias to *_person as a way of trying to simplify by discouraging a gender split on things that are even more rare than the animal_ears. Hence why I said
We accomplished this simplification on the animals and then almost fell into the same exact trap on the monsters because other non-furry boorus can't figure out how they want to tag that weird stuff.
Okay, I feel like I have a better idea of what you were trying to say, now. Reading your more in-depth explanations, I feel as though a few points in the original post were lost on me, the big one being the reason for the aliases rather than implications - I thought you were trying to accomplish something entirely different than you actually were.

So, essentially, your argument is that, due to statistically-supported low potential usefulness of these gender-split tags, we're better off not going with a gender split, doubly so because there are better places our tagging system could use some increased depth. In short, the lack of usefulness for these gender-split tags makes them an extremely low priority. Bravo on clearing that up and beating down Mindwipe's concern all in one go, by the way.

I get that. It makes sense. I really have no choice but to agree with that line of logic. I'm not entirely convinced - I won't be until I see it in action, of course - but I'm convinced enough to let it rest. I'll agree that the gender split in the case of animal_ears and monster...people does seem unnecessary at the moment.

*5 minutes pause for reading* And rereading the post you made just before Mindwipe's, I find that it is, indeed, entirely clear to me now. Before, I had trouble following your train of thought. Well, the concepts are entirely clear, but what you're suggesting, exactly, is still a little fuzzy at points:

  • Instead of Monster_<gender> or Monster, you suggest a Monster_Person tag with both Monster_Girl and Monster_Boy as aliases, right? It's that simple? Or do you suggest literally using, wildcard and all, *_boy and *_girl as aliases to *_person? I'm not entirely sure that will even work in the alias system, though I've never tested.
  • What, exactly, are you suggesting for the subcategorization tags for Monster_Person, again? Do you mean to suggest that we just use the same standard as for Furry and Animals (i.e. spider, naga, dragon, minotaur)? Or are you suggesting something else that I'm totally missing?
  • For the furry_on_animal tag. Should we implement that, or do you feel that bestiality and animal_on_animal are enough for the scenario tags?
I feel like these are the last hurdles I can think of at the moment. With answers to these questions, I'll be able to make the next "big quote draft" for the system to get a better idea of how it looks. Then, we'll take it from there and see what needs doing.

As an aside: it's amazing how much clearer I view this entire topic tonight over last night. Hah, I was so confused last night that my mind was thinking me in circles. I actually ended up arguing with myself on a few points that I made. o.O
doubly so because there are better places our tagging system could use some increased depth.
I actually don't really support increased depth on anything I mentioned; I was arguing that if we want increased depth, it should go there first before we start considering depth here. I was trying to show how following the principle "tag bloat is acceptable to be at least *this much* more specific" to its logical conclusion isn't workable when considered as a site-wide policy.


Now, for the questions:

  • I don't want to alias wildcarded phrases to wildcarded phrases, sorry for not being clear. I meant [anything]_[gender] gets aliased to [anything]_person. This includes monster_[gender] to monster_person.
As for "monster", that definitely goes on anything that doesn't count as a "person" (i.e. it's so inhuman that it clearly more resembles "furry" than "animal_ears"). All [monster]_person tags imply "monster_person", so there's no reason for them to also be "monster"; "monster" should just have the monstrous counterparts of "animal" and "furry". There's a number of reasons "monster" doesn't get split on the animal/furry line (some specific to furries), but perhaps the biggest is that the line is so blurred, since so many mythical creatures walk that line to begin with.

  • As a concession to people who are already "literate" on the larger, more generic boorus, I'm proposing that spider_person, dragon_person, plant_person be official tags that have spider_girl, dragon_girl, plant_girl etc. aliased to them. This is because those boorus have [creature]_girl tags for anything that doesn't necessarily have ears.
To prevent bloat we don't officially recognize the tag, but we want those searches to go somewhere. They can't go to animal_ears or anything related because there's no ears. They can't go to "spider" or "dragon" or "shark" because those tags are already going on furries and animals, so a Danbooru user looking for a demon_girl will get Diablo or a hellhound or something. So the only way to eliminate the coupling of gender and other info is to add a [creature]_person tag that those searches get sent to.
To prevent writing aliases for days and days, just put in aliases for terms that are most likely to be searched for based on gelbooru/danbooru until you're bored; there's not all that many relevant [creature]_boy or [creature]_girl tags on either one with over 100 images.

  • I don't think there's enough furry stuff on the site to start worrying about adding an anthro-on-feral tag (as it's called) while we're also talking about all of this. One step at a time.

As an aside, since it includes sharks, plants, demons, bees, insects, and probably robots, we might want to brainstorm a more inclusive name for the overarching monster_person tag to alias to.