Right now, the fluffy tag is absolutely meaningless. There's plenty of images in it where visible fur is minimal or even nonexistent.

post #3754548 post #3754001 post #3754057 post #3752414 post #3750713

We need to strictify the definition and probably remove some of its implications.

1) I'm not sure about the fluffy tag, it's quite ambiguous and open to personal preference/interpretation.
--
2) I would say fluffy is something among the lines of
"a character with fur posseses all or some parts of the body with a great amount of "fur-detail", where a lot of individual strands/tufts of fur may be noticeable."

"Should be tagged when the part in question is 'more fluffy than normal'."
or maybe it should be only a implied tag, which should never be manually tagged, but instead tagged through fluffy_x tags.
--
3) But since we already have fluffy_x tags, I believe it'd be better to "alias fluffy -> fluffy_(disambiguation)", once a better tagging guideline exists. And create a all_fluffy tag.
--
4) We have fluffy_tail | fluffy_ear | fluffy_hair | fluffy_chest... but why only fluffy_neck and fluffy_cheek are aliased to neck_tuft and cheeck_tuft? Should we alias all other "fluffy_x" to "x_tuft"? Should we unalias tuft?
--
5) Your own bee avatar post #3699650 could be considered fluffy in my personal standards
--
6) I believe I may have misinterpreted the tag while writing the previous points in my reply, maybe the issue with the fluffy tag is that it's easy to be mixed with "furry"/"lots of fur"?

m3g4p0n1 said:
1) I'm not sure about the fluffy tag, it's quite ambiguous and open to personal preference/interpretation.
--
2) I would say fluffy is something among the lines of
"a character with fur posseses all or some parts of the body with a great amount of "fur-detail", where a lot of individual strands/tufts of fur may be noticeable."

"Should be tagged when the part in question is 'more fluffy than normal'."
or maybe it should be only a implied tag, which should never be manually tagged, but instead tagged through fluffy_x tags.
--
3) But since we already have fluffy_x tags, I believe it'd be better to "alias fluffy -> fluffy_(disambiguation)", once a better tagging guideline exists. And create a all_fluffy tag.
--
4) We have fluffy_tail | fluffy_ear | fluffy_hair | fluffy_chest... but why only fluffy_neck and fluffy_cheek are aliased to neck_tuft and cheeck_tuft? Should we alias all other "fluffy_x" to "x_tuft"? Should we unalias tuft?
--
5) Your own bee avatar post #3699650 could be considered fluffy in my personal standards
--
6) I believe I may have misinterpreted the tag while writing the previous points in my reply, maybe the issue with the fluffy tag is that it's easy to be mixed with "furry"/"lots of fur"?

I'm not able to think on all this right now, but two words: Eevee Tails https://e621.net/posts?tags=eevee+fluffy_tail+rating%3Asafe

m3g4p0n1 said:
1) I'm not sure about the fluffy tag, it's quite ambiguous and open to personal preference/interpretation.
--
2) I would say fluffy is something among the lines of
"a character with fur posseses all or some parts of the body with a great amount of "fur-detail", where a lot of individual strands/tufts of fur may be noticeable."

"Should be tagged when the part in question is 'more fluffy than normal'."
or maybe it should be only a implied tag, which should never be manually tagged, but instead tagged through fluffy_x tags.
--
3) But since we already have fluffy_x tags, I believe it'd be better to "alias fluffy -> fluffy_(disambiguation)", once a better tagging guideline exists. And create a all_fluffy tag.
--
4) We have fluffy_tail | fluffy_ear | fluffy_hair | fluffy_chest... but why only fluffy_neck and fluffy_cheek are aliased to neck_tuft and cheeck_tuft? Should we alias all other "fluffy_x" to "x_tuft"? Should we unalias tuft?
--
5) Your own bee avatar post #3699650 could be considered fluffy in my personal standards
--
6) I believe I may have misinterpreted the tag while writing the previous points in my reply, maybe the issue with the fluffy tag is that it's easy to be mixed with "furry"/"lots of fur"?

I'm of the impression that what it should mean is "more fluffy than normal".
I mean, given what this site is, it kinda goes without saying that the majority of posts are going to have fur or hair of some sort present.

lendrimujina said:
I'm of the impression that what it should mean is "more fluffy than normal".
I mean, given what this site is, it kinda goes without saying that the majority of posts are going to have fur or hair of some sort present.

So, basically, floof? Like, so much explosion of hair that it tickles just to look at it?

alphamule said:
So, basically, floof? Like, so much explosion of hair that it tickles just to look at it?

I... guess? I'm surprised there isn't a tag for that already.