Implicating anthro_penetrating_anthro → anthro_on_anthro
Link to implication

also (inhales deeply)

anthro_penetrating_anthro -> anthro_penetrating
anthro_penetrating_anthro -> anthro_penetrated

feral_penetrating_feral -> feral_on_feral
feral_penetrating_feral -> feral_penetrating
feral_penetrating_feral -> feral_penetrated

human_penetrating_human -> human_on_human
human_penetrating_human -> human_penetrating
human_penetrating_human -> human_penetrated

humanoid_penetrating_humanoid -> humanoid_on_humanoid
humanoid_penetrating_humanoid -> humanoid_penetrating
humanoid_penetrating_humanoid -> humanoid_penetrated

anthro_penetrating_feral -> anthro_on_feral
anthro_penetrating_feral -> anthro_penetrating
anthro_penetrating_feral -> feral_penetrated

feral_penetrating_anthro -> anthro_on_feral
feral_penetrating_anthro -> feral_penetrating
feral_penetrating_anthro -> anthro_penetrated

anthro_penetrating_human -> human_on_anthro
anthro_penetrating_human -> anthro_penetrating
anthro_penetrating_human -> human_penetrated

human_penetrating_anthro -> human_on_anthro
human_penetrating_anthro -> human_penetrating
human_penetrating_anthro -> human_penetrated

anthro_penetrating_humanoid -> humanoid_on_anthro
anthro_penetrating_humanoid -> anthro_penetrating
anthro_penetrating_humanoid -> humanoid_penetrated

humanoid_penetrating_anthro -> humanoid_on_anthro
humanoid_penetrating_anthro -> humanoid_penetrating
humanoid_penetrating_anthro -> anthro_penetrated

feral_penetrating_human -> human_on_feral
feral_penetrating_human -> feral_penetrating
feral_penetrating_human -> human_penetrated

human_penetrating_feral -> human_on_feral
human_penetrating_feral -> human_penetrating
human_penetrating_feral -> feral_penetrated

feral_penetrating_humanoid -> humanoid_on_feral
feral_penetrating_humanoid -> feral_penetrating
feral_penetrating_humanoid -> humanoid_penetrated

humanoid_penetrating_feral -> humanoid_on_feral
humanoid_penetrating_feral -> humanoid_penetrating
humanoid_penetrating_feral -> feral_penetrated

human_penetrating_humanoid -> human_on_humanoid
human_penetrating_humanoid -> human_penetrating
human_penetrating_humanoid -> humanoid_penetrated

humanoid_penetrating_human -> human_on_humanoid
humanoid_penetrating_human -> humanoid_penetrating
humanoid_penetrating_human -> human_penetrated

Reason:

[bodytype]_penetrating_[bodytype] means there is sexual interaction between two members of the mentioned bodytypes, which, in turn, means that [bodytype]_on_[bodytype] applies. The rest are in the name of the relevant tags.

nah, do this instead:
https://e621.net/forum/show/266291

Ruikuli said:
nah, do this instead:
https://e621.net/forum/show/266291

I've since disagreed about my statement in that thread I've created. Since creating it, I've learned the usage of said tags could be legitimately helpful, most especially in group image filtering and searching.

Input like anthro_penetrating human_penetrated won't necessarily net you an anthro penetrating a human specifically. What if in the same image a human was just happening to be penetrated by a non-anthro while the anthro is penetrating a non-human? It leaves the search a little bit broad in that regard for filters and searches intent on finding a specific thing.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
I've since disagreed about my statement in that thread I've created. Since creating it, I've learned the usage of said tags could be legitimately helpful, most especially in group image filtering and searching.

Input like anthro_penetrating human_penetrated won't necessarily net you an anthro penetrating a human specifically. What if in the same image a human was just happening to be penetrated by a non-anthro while the anthro is penetrating a non-human? It leaves the search a little bit broad in that regard for filters and searches intent on finding a specific thing.

Is there a reason to not apply both?

would we gain anything from it?

I am too sleepy to make intelligent words right now. But I will pretend to be wise to guide conversation.

post #1569170

SnowWolf said:
Is there a reason to not apply both?

would we gain anything from it?

I am too sleepy to make intelligent words right now. But I will pretend to be wise to guide conversation.

post #1569170

That other post was for an alias, not an implication - in other words, if it were applied, tags like anthro_penetrating_human would cease to exist across the entire site and be automatically converted into anthro_penetrating and human_penetrating.

You probably mean that those tags should imply anthro_penetrating and human_penetrated, and you would be correct because they should, but that would have to be a different suggestion.

Victoria_Oblong said:
That other post was for an alias, not an implication - in other words, if it were applied, tags like anthro_penetrating_human would cease to exist across the entire site and be automatically converted into anthro_penetrating and human_penetrating.

You probably mean that those tags should imply anthro_penetrating and human_penetrated, and you would be correct because they should, but that would have to be a different suggestion.

*slow blink*

I am ever so slightly familiar with how the site works.

And, actually, you've got it wrong: TagA can only alias into TagB, not TagB AND TagC. So one of anthro_penetrating or human_penetrated would be lost in the process.

I was in error though:

I read over a little too quickly while a little too sleepy and forgot that 20char's implication suggestions included anthro_on_human implying anthro_penetrating and human_penetrated... and just focused on Dice's post about how anthro_penetrating doesn't provide enough information. My bad. ^^;

SnowWolf said:
*slow blink*

I am ever so slightly familiar with how the site works.

And, actually, you've got it wrong: TagA can only alias into TagB, not TagB AND TagC. So one of anthro_penetrating or human_penetrated would be lost in the process.

I was in error though:

I read over a little too quickly while a little too sleepy and forgot that 20char's implication suggestions included anthro_on_human implying anthro_penetrating and human_penetrated... and just focused on Dice's post about how anthro_penetrating doesn't provide enough information. My bad. ^^;

*notices Admin tag*
Well, I'm a dumbass. I'm gonna go sit in the Shame Corner.

Victoria_Oblong said:
*notices Admin tag*
Well, I'm a dumbass. I'm gonna go sit in the Shame Corner.

*tugs out of the corner*

No big deal, honestly. You weren't wrong in trying to provide me with information, and my post was a bit wonky-shaped. (It's what I get for posting while sleepy, but I've just been SO busy the last few days, and didn't want to neglect the forums any more than I already have)

Your heart was in the right place and you explained it really well--except for that one detail :)

So, no Shame Corner for you! (You may have the Hat of Aw Geeze, I feel Dumb for a few hours, but the HAGID is passed around quite a lot, so no hogging it. :) )

+1 +1+1 oh please add these implications, I saw the arrival of the x_penetrated and y_penetrating tags and thought I'd have a new huge thing to add to my already huge list of things like tagging non-mammal breasts and colors of genitalia

I thought I mentioned it a while ago but my opinion is that these are a good example of tag-bloat. They are overly specific where you can accomplish a very effective search just using the [form]_penetrat(ed/ing) tags.

Yes, you will lose some specificity by aliasing these away. No, I don't think that is sufficient enough to justify their existence. The number of false positives you would get as a result of using the more general tags in combination would be very small.

As a general rule, loss of specificity is not sufficient by itself to justify the existence of a tag. For instance, we don't have an orange_cat tag, and if one were made it would probably be aliased away. This is despite the fact that searching orange_fur cat probably has way more false positives than you'd get with penetrated/penetrating tag combinations.

So yeah. I say alias these away, unless there's a better argument for their existence.

Volteer133 said:
+1 +1+1 oh please add these implications, I saw the arrival of the x_penetrated and y_penetrating tags and thought I'd have a new huge thing to add to my already huge list of things like tagging non-mammal breasts and colors of genitalia

you do realize that these implications have been in place for weeks now?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
you do realize that these implications have been in place for weeks now?

I did not, I have also been browsing the forums here while very tired