Just sort of a 'venting' I suppose of a little frustration. I dislike humanoid penis on furries I look at. I have it blacklisted. That doesn't really matter because by and large, a good portion of the posts on this site that do have humanoid penis on the furries, aren't tagged. I've been tagging a lot of them recently.

I just wish more folks would realize this is a thing and please try to use this tag if you find a post somewhere that has it and isn't tagged to help out those of us that don't like seeing it.

That is all, thank you, have a nice day.

Thank you for tagging. You make the site a better place <3

SnowWolf said:
Thank you for tagging. You make the site a better place <3

Yeah it just sometimes feels like with this one I'm an ant at the bottom of a huge mountain... thought maybe if I posted this some others might help if/when they see it.

kithylin said:
Yeah it just sometimes feels like with this one I'm an ant at the bottom of a huge mountain... thought maybe if I posted this some others might help if/when they see it.

No, I totally get you on that. I spend a lot of time tagging, and it can definitely feel that way. I don't tend to tag penis shape because I"m worried about getting it wrong. c_c So I'm sorry for when I add to the problem.

But I get you and because of you, I'll try to tag it more often :D

I'll do my best to remember that when tagging ^.^

Should uncut penises be tagged humanoid_penis if you can't see the glans?

Sometimes uncut penises are not humanoid:

post #1438574

^{Uploaded 10 minutes ago.}

Presently, uncut -humanoid_penis returns around 8700 results. That would be a good starting point.

abadbird said:
Should uncut penises be tagged humanoid_penis if you can't see the glans?

Sometimes uncut penises are not humanoid:

post #1438574

^{Uploaded 10 minutes ago.}

Presently, uncut -humanoid_penis returns around 8700 results. That would be a good starting point.

I'm not sure on that.. but If it was me I would not add humanoid_penis to that one, it has animalistic ridges.. uncut or not. That's me though. That's such a bizarre weird situation. I think that is the first example I've ever seen of an uncut animalistic penis like that.

There's also the glans tag, which is tagged even less.

Not sure if it's even worth keeping, or if it should be aliased away on the basis that it pretty much has the same coverage as humanoid_penis. With the rare exceptions, such as the one posted above, or post #1335722.

..nah, there's probably enough exceptions to warrant keeping it, even though it'll likely never be well-tagged: glans -humanoid_penis finds a lot of posts, and although some are missing tags, many of those are clearly not humanoid.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make before I got sidetracked was: if you're going to mass-tag those, consider also tagging glans in the same go.

I was not asking about the thumbnail. It was merely an example that uncut does not always indicate humanoid_penis. Even so, uncut would be a good place to start adding missing humanoid_penis tags.

Regardless, I seem to have found most of my answer while typing this response. Looking through hybrid_penis humanoid_penis, the humanoid_penis tag only requires the shaft or glans to appear human, sometimes even less, somehow.

Should posts like these be tagged humanoid_penis?

post #1438397 long_foreskin and "close" shape
post #940848 balls_deep/mostly hidden from view
post #1239881 penis_base with unclear shape

We prescribe Tag What You See, but when you only see 5-25% of something and it "looks right" (thumbnail 2 and 3), or when you see perhaps 80% of something that might be a little off (thumbnail 1), is that enough to earn a tag?