Implicating huge_penis → big_penis
Link to implication

Reason:

Because huge_breasts implies big_breasts, and huge_balls implies big_balls, huge_penis should also imply big_penis.

gaphiltfish said:
Implicating huge_penis → big_penis
Link to implication

Reason:

Because huge_breasts implies big_breasts, and huge_balls implies big_balls, huge_penis should also imply big_penis.

I got the order right this time I think. Yay!

Perhaps there should be a scale of penis size put in place? Like, micro_penis -> tiny_penis -> small_penis -> penis -> big_penis -> huge_penis -> gigantic_penis

Nikolaithefur said:
Perhaps there should be a scale of penis size put in place?

There already is. micro_penis, small_penis, penis, big_penis, huge_penis, hyper_penis. Just need the big and huge to link like they do with breasts and balls.

Nikolaithefur said:
Perhaps there should be a scale of penis size put in place? Like, micro_penis -> tiny_penis -> small_penis -> penis -> big_penis -> huge_penis -> gigantic_penis

There is a scale in place but all penis scale tags seem to be improperly implicated directly to penis rather then their preceding or subsequent stages on the scale.

Ruku said:
There is a scale in place but all penis scale tags seem to be improperly implicated directly to penis rather then their preceding or subsequent stages on the scale.

Penis is a catch-all, and not a purely size-related tag. Whether there is a micro penis or a hyper-penis, there is still a penis.

gaphiltfish said:
Penis is a catch-all, and not a purely size-related tag. Whether there is a micro penis or a hyper-penis, there is still a penis.

A tag that is not implied to penis will still get penis if it is implied to another tag that is implied to penis.

as such hyper_balls still get implied to balls even thou it doesnt show it on the hyper_balls wiki because the tag it is implied to, implies to yet another tag that in turn is imblied to balls. Implications are grandfathered.

-small is supposed to be a catch all for anything small and tinyer then small
-big is supposed to be a catch all for anything big and larger then big
-huge is supposed to be a catch all for anything huge and larger then huge
...
that is why the existing implications in penis are incorrect.

Ruku said:
the existing implications in penis are incorrect.

This implication I suggested is the only thing wrong with the structure at present. It will match the same structure as every other size-related tag if this one thing is fixed.

To say that there is not a penis if it is small or hyper does not match the way all tags are made to be. hair would always be in place for all hairs, whether it is red_hair or short_hair. There is still hair. I'm not trying to be rude, but I think your logic doesn't follow here.

Ruku said:
There is a scale in place but all penis scale tags seem to be improperly implicated directly to penis rather then their preceding or subsequent stages on the scale.

That's because users who search for something like large_penis aren't looking for hypers, etc.

These chained implications have been denied repeatedly. See forum #113520.

Genjar said:
That's because users who search for something like large_penis aren't looking for hypers, etc.

These chained implications have been denied repeatedly. See forum #113520.

none the less they have existed for both breasts and balls long before i started using this site thru an account. And is that what negative tags(-hyper...) are for?

Ruku said:
none the less they have existed for both breasts and balls long before i started using this site thru an account.

Chaining the breast sizes was an old mistake from the original administration, that would've been fixed if anyone had time to spend to actually do so. But with over 300000 posts to sort through, it's just not feasible.

You have to look at the implications from the search viewpoint. If someone is searching for hyper, they search for hyper instead of big. Whereas when someone wants to see large but not unrealistically large, they can search for large.

...and anyone who searches for micro definitely doesn't want to see anything larger than that.

Ruku said:
And is that what negative tags(-hyper...) are for?

Weren't you the one who was complaining about the six tag search limit a while back? And now it's suddenly not a problem?

Ruku said:
none the less they have existed for both breasts and balls long before i started using this site thru an account. And is that what negative tags(-hyper...) are for?

You have the implications going the wrong direction. A huge_penis would not imply a hyper_penis—It would not make any sense for a penis to always be tagged as being a big_penis, right?

A huge_penis is not a hyper_penis, but a huge_penis is a big_penis (and a penis). And that is what I am trying to fix with this original implication.

Genjar said:

Then wouldnt it still make sence to remove all these implications so at least your mess doesnt keep getting bigger as well as being consistent?

And yes it still is a problem and have questioned why there is even a limit on how specific your search can be but i have gotten no anwser.

Ruku said:
And yes it still is a problem and have questioned why there is even a limit on how specific your search can be but i have gotten no anwser.

Explained here: forum #154781.

Genjar said:

These chained implications have been denied repeatedly. See forum #113520.

I just read this. Makes a lot of sense, but I think we still need the implication. There is a ton of big penises bleeding into huge penis territory, and vice-versa. It is hard to distinguish, honestly. However, hyper vs huge is a pretty distinct difference.

Someone who wants to see big_penises will most likely want to see huge_penises too in this case, but hyper is a whole other thing, really. Hence the implication so they aren't separated when they are often tagged interchangeably.

gaphiltfish said:
I just read this. Makes a lot of sense, but I think we still need the implication. There is a ton of big penises bleeding into huge penis territory, and vice-versa. It is hard to distinguish, honestly. However, hyper vs huge is a pretty distinct difference.

That is a problem, but I don't see how mixing them further would improve it. And even though the breasts tags have a great wiki guide, they still get tagged randomly. Which is an another reason why the implications still exists: there's no sense in putting that much work into it, not while it seems like we might have to overhaul the whole group.

There's been talks about cutting down the number of tags for those, since there's clearly too many tiers for it to work. Four tiers might be easier to tag: micro, normal sized (though 'normal' is hard to define), large/huge combined, and hyper.

Genjar said:
That is a problem, but I don't see how mixing them further would improve it. And even though the breasts tags have a great wiki guide, they still get tagged randomly. Which is an another reason why the implications still exists: there's no sense in putting that much work into it, not while it seems like we might have to overhaul the whole group.

There's been talks about cutting down the number of tags for those, since there's clearly too many tiers for it to work. Four tiers might be easier to tag: micro, normal sized (though 'normal' is hard to define), large/huge combined, and hyper.

That would be ideal. Part of why I am crusading so hard for this for some personal vindication: I have been using the big_penis tag for years without knowing that huge_penis tag existed. While it was a nice surprise to find hundreds of pictures I hadn't seen before, I felt cheated, and I am afraid others are being cheated on this as well.

I think this implication is the best solution for the present, for logical consistency and so people don't have to use the ~huge_penis so much.

Fair enough. Implicating huge_* to big_* shouldn't be too problematic, as long as hyper stays separate from it.

Alternately, we could go ahead with the plan and alias huge_penis to big_penis. It'd be a good place to start: penis sizes are the hardest to tag consistently, because they come in too many shapes, girths, and lengths.

Genjar said:
Fair enough. Implicating huge_* to big_* shouldn't be too problematic, as long as hyper stays separate from it.

Alternately, we could go ahead with the plan and alias huge_penis to big_penis. It'd be a good place to start: penis sizes are the hardest to tag consistently, because they come in too many shapes, girths, and lengths.

Sounds good, either one. The implication patch would probably work best for causing the smallest stir, but the full-steam-ahead nuclear alias seems to align closer with some grander ideas already in place. We'll probably have to do the same with breasts and balls then, too. It's more work, but probably the best long-term solution to consider. All as long as hyper is separate, which is more than fine by me.

Ah, decisions. Maybe we should make a huge_* and big_* aliasing thread to see how that is received? Then proceed with either the alias or the implication.

To me the option to easily search for e.g. big and huge separately outweighs the mistags. However if chaining is the only way to solve the problem then I'm alright with chaining big and huge, however I'm against aliasing. But hyper should not imply big.

Chessax said:
To me the option to easily search for e.g. big and huge separately outweighs the mistags. However if chaining is the only way to solve the problem then I'm alright with chaining big and huge, however I'm against aliasing. But hyper should not imply big.

You can always run exclusion searches, ie big_penis -hyper_penis will get you big and huge penises, but not hyper penises, if they're chained.