faucet said:
People coming out the woodwork who have never posted on the forum before to voice their opinion yet there's "no demand for this" 🤔

Literally nobody said there wasn't demand (unless you are referring to some previous version of a comment), so your quote isn't a quote.
A few people, including me, said that demand wasn't utility -- and I stand by this. A given set of tags is a particular way of solving a given problem. I don't trust 'demand' because, while I'm sure people know what problems they experience, I don't trust people to accurately predict whether the particular solution is going to be better, for the overall system, than literally doing nothing -- or even to necessarily make any analysis at all rather than just jumping on a bandwagon that looks shiny.

So we have to do bodycounting. This will not go well in my opinion.

I always thought that e6 has a unique charm that other booru sites don't have. I'm sure the majority of users here don't mind how many male, female, or herm characters are in a single post, they just search for their favorire kinks, or maybe other stuff out of curiosity. But hey, mff_threesome too hard to find.

Only the very detailed users will benefit from this. Only they are the ones that will be using these bodycount tags.

monsterbomb10010 said:
I always thought that e6 has a unique charm that other booru sites don't have. I'm sure the majority of users here don't mind how many male, female, or herm characters are in a single post, they just search for their favorire kinks, or maybe other stuff out of curiosity. But hey, mff_threesome too hard to find.

As stated in the topic about xyz_threesome, those tags are really not that workable (fully populating *_threesome would entail 120 different tags, by my calculation, and many more aliases to normalize eg. fmf,ffm -> mff; most of the relevant tags do not currently exist). I don't think counting is useful in general, but for that particular application, count tags might be the best answer I've seen.

savageorange said:
120 different tags, by my calculation

94. 84, the 7th tetrahedral number* covers all the combinations of all the 7 core gender categories, and then there are 10 more unique combinations containing intersex since we don't combine that with any of its subtags for pairings.

mmi, mfi, m?i, mii
ffi, f?i, fii
??i, ?ii
iii

Quoting directly from a janitor of another recent thread

strikerman said:
In theory, unnecessary tags clog up the tag list and make it harder for people to find more useful or relevant information.

I'm fine with one or two silly little things like these, though.

Which is bizarre, considering these proposals being the equivalent of using a roll of paper towel in the toilet

I can understand the walls of text I'm not reading worrying about ultra-specific tags, but ... at the same time, I feel like trying to find pictures with multiple participants in very specific ways, like 1 male/2 female, or 1 female/2 male is more difficult than it has to be, while still being a very common kind of art piece. A lot more than the aforementioned "2 clothed female anthros" which isn't a kind of picture people want to find for the same reasons you'd want to find 2 female, 1 male pieces.

In short, c'mon. The extreme end of vague and simple tags isn't necessarily better than the extreme end of a tag for every pixel either. There's plenty of juicy middle ground, and "multiple_females" being set to just "female" just seems woefully incorrect.

Gonna be honest... I think the only way I could see these working is if we removed all the intersex umbrella tags. (Could leave plain intersex though if needed - I'm just talking about things like male_penetrating_intersex, clothed_intersex, etc.)

<number>_intersex is just not reasonable since nothing can imply it. I don't think any of these intersex tags are useful anyway, they feel like tag bloat and like a holdover from when we had a 4 tag search limit.

I'm probably going to entirely stay out of this one and read it later. I probably wouldn't bother tagging them TBH, but if 10000 other people were, I might reconsider. Already busy. Good luck! :)

I'm just hoping for <solo_x> and <multiple_x> tags, I don't even care about numbers. Hell, even just adding <solo_x> and then using <group> could work for the majority of searching. That would at least lessen the load by a majority.

But seriously, this site has been really lacking in these basic searching tags for too long. I really hope this is still being looked at.

I actually only recently noticed this was a thing when I tried to search multiple_girls and realized that it was aliased to "female." Apparently it's been a thing for years?? How have I never noticed?

spe said:
Want to find a M/F/F threesome? Good luck with that.

Funnily enough, "ffm" and "ffm_threesome" (why are there two tags?) exist, but no one uses them lmao. As well as the mmf counterpart.

wregax said:
I'm just hoping for <solo_x> and <multiple_x> tags, I don't even care about numbers. Hell, even just adding <solo_x> and then using <group> could work for the majority of searching. That would at least lessen the load by a majority.

But seriously, this site has been really lacking in these basic searching tags for too long. I really hope this is still being looked at.

Wait, they aliased solo_x too?? Since when?
I mean at least with solo, you can search "solo" along with the gender tag and that technically works.

dba_afish said:
demand is not utility. demand on its own means nothing.

can anyone explain the actual use case of these tags? how do they serve one of the core functions of a valid tag?

are these tags for searching for a specific post?
are these tags for browsing a bunch of posts?
are these tags for blacklisting posts to avoid seeing them?

fit these tags into at least one of the three given criteria and explain how it would be the best solution in its niche.

---

from where I'm sitting I can't really imagine much of a use for these. I mean, these would ostensibly be searching tags but, like, who is going to be able to remember the exact count of a gender in a post?

the only ones of these I could see potentially being useful would be the 1_<gender> tags, mostly for harem/gangbang posts. but honestly, I feel like we could expaind harem out into a tag group and get the same utility and then some.

Generally, for browsing a lot of images. Because it's a broad tag that can encompass many things.
Here's an example that I could see being its most frequent use case. Currently, if I want to search for posts with, say, one guy and multiple women, that is impossible. If I search group female male I will get the same results as if I just searched group, minus any that don't include at least one of either. So all that subtracts is single gender groups and nonbinary only groups. I'll get posts included that have multiple men or only one woman, which is what I don't want. By simply including even just multiple_males and multiple_females, that is enough to get exactly what I want in this example. Because then I can just search multiple_females male -multiple_males, bing bang boom.

I feel like a lot of the apprehension when it comes to people not being able to count or getting character gender wrong could be avoided by just not doing the specific number tags. Though I personally don't think that's that big of a problem.

Yeah, I also just think having a way to search for a post like 1_male group would be good. Pretty much impossible to do so currently. I don't care about counts other than 1 and multiple, though I don't see them as having much of a downside either.

I think this could be useful, hell there is a whole genre of pics that are "multiple furries behind a couch, one furry sitting on the couch" that would handily be covered and indexed properly (there was a point on Twitter where half of my feed was variants of those for like a week).

Also really silly to complain about tag spam on E621 of all places, considering how specific some tags are, and the dedication of people to tag every single fur color on sparkledogs

devourer_ita said:
Also really silly to complain about tag spam on E621 of all places, considering how specific some tags are, and the dedication of people to tag every single fur color on sparkledogs

e6 has banned users for too specific tags, and we've been cleaning those tags up. The argument that there is other tag spam doesn't hold water (at least for this case)

snpthecat said:
e6 has banned users for too specific tags, and we've been cleaning those tags up. The argument that there is other tag spam doesn't hold water (at least for this case)

I didn't really mean specific tags like, making up one on the spot, smaller_male_furry_leaning_on_wall_teasing_viewer and I wouldn't blame staff for getting rid of those LMAO.

I fail to see who would be hurt by some drawing getting 2_males 3_females added to it. Still, I see plenty of people that would like to search more specific things, compared to adding 7 different fur and hair colors. The argument of "demand doesn't mean utility" doesn't hold water because people who want to specifically see pics with a certain number of peeps with a specific gender would be able to do so (And tag art that needs it, as is encouraged), while everyone else can ignore it and move on with no harm.
Even the admin that proposed it said that part of why those tags were removed a decade ago was due to site limitations that no longer exist (people keep bringing up that Danbooru only lets you search 2 tags, and some other places 4, while e621 seems to allow for much greater search freedom), and was done by admins that have long left the site.

devourer_ita said:
I fail to see who would be hurt by some drawing getting 2_males 3_females added to it.

Tag bloat. e6 has also banned users for adding a bunch of unnecessary tags (tags that could be valid in certain other scenarios, but were added for the sake of increasing the post's tag count to excessive levels). The more tags a post has, the harder it is to notice incorrect tags or more important tags missing, and fewer people will be willing to check and fix.

devourer_ita said:
The argument of "demand doesn't mean utility" doesn't hold water because people who want to specifically see pics with a certain number of peeps with a specific gender would be able to do so (And tag art that needs it, as is encouraged), while everyone else can ignore it and move on with no harm.

Except tagging is a community effort. People who check tags being correct, ensuring important tags are there and there aren't mistags, can't ignore it if we want to ensure posts are tagged accurately.

In my mind, the way I see it going down is: someone wants to look for an image, they remember it having 2 males and 4 females. So they search 2_males+4_females. But wait, one of the males actually looks ambiguous, so even though they remember 2 males, it's tagged 1_ambiguous+1_male+4_females (it may have even been tagged 2_males+4_females first when they originally saw it, but it got changed at some point), so they'll never find it when trying to be so precise. Or another post someone remembers having 3 males, so they search 3_males, but they misremembered and it actually had 4 males (maybe a background character they didn't recall in their memory), so they'll never find it with that search. And don't forget all of the existing posts, I highly doubt someone's going to go through all of them to tag the number of each sex, and do so accurately, so they can't be used reliably.

At the same time, imagine someone posts an image and tags 2_males 1_female male female. Someone else thinks one of the males is ambiguous, so retag it 1_ambiguous 1_male 1_female ambiguous_gender male female male_(lore). The original poster or someone else "knows" the character is male, so adds back to 2_males but neglects 1_ambiguous 1_male, so a post with trio characters ends up tagged 1_ambiguous 1_male 2_males 1_female ambiguous_gender male female male_(lore). Now imagine another post with more than three characters, with more than one under contention. Sex tag wars will leave a bigger mess then it already does. It gets all kinds of messed up, cleaning it up will be more difficult, and keeping it clean from future abuse will require more locked tags.

Now even with all that, similar things will happen with form (if people see <count>_<sex>, it will soon follow that people will equally want <count>_<form> for all the same reasons, and there are disagreements between characters being feral, anthro, or humanoid at times; fixing the humanoid mistags will be more tedious if they're tagged with a count). solo, duo, trio, and group character count are already a problem we need to deal with, with people not knowing when something counts as a character (it's not unusual to see a post tagged solo when there's one full character visible along with a disembodied_penis or disembodied_hand), making per-sex and per-form character prime to create more problems, without providing as much utility as people think, in my view.

This thread is probably getting a bit long to put a new BUR in the same thread, but perhaps an alternative proposal keeping the distinction to just 1 and multiple would go through better? Technically redundant, but would need both for tag projects to be viable, and for effective searches without expecting total adoption. Keeps the tag bloat quite a bit smaller, and while it doesn't totally solve the problem Watsit brought up it reduces how often it would apply.

I'd be hesitant to actually create a separate BUR for it though - from what I've seen in the past, creating competing BURs just lowers approval on both (somewhat obviously). Perhaps a poll to see what people think the limit on count should be?

Made a discord poll, probably unlikely to get many responses but might be enough to get at least some idea.

Forgot about that, and as expected not too much interaction, but the winner was 3 with 42% approval (8 votes), nothing else even close. And some people who'd prefer the counts mirror the current character count structure, or at least have some granularity beyond 3 (something like several up to a point, then many).

Users already struggle to simply tag Female and Gynomorph properly, so this feels like it's going to add a lot of unnecessary bulk and way more improper tagging. I just don't see what the issue is with the system as it is now.

intergalacticboner said:
Users already struggle to simply tag Female and Gynomorph properly, so this feels like it's going to add a lot of unnecessary bulk and way more improper tagging. I just don't see what the issue is with the system as it is now.

Primarily, in my opinion, the complete inability to find posts that are, say, one male and a group of females. I don't much care about anything beyond single and group, though others clearly would like more.

scth said:
Primarily, in my opinion, the complete inability to find posts that are, say, one male and a group of females. I don't much care about anything beyond single and group, though others clearly would like more.

y'mean like harem and reverse_harem?

Specificity can be a good thing, but there is such a thing as diminishing returns and then there is too much for the tag to be useful in searches. I would argue using less specific descriptors such as majority_male or male_harem for example would be more useful for the intent of this thread then the tags in these BURs.

Just because these tags are in use on other booru websites does not mean they can be applicable here, these other websites almost certainly dont utilize the same level of moderation or usage of moderation intensive doctrines such as twys or they have limitations that e621 doesnt have that make these tags a necessary trouble on those sites.

The target is a good one, but using tags of specific number x gender is the wrong way to go about it.

As a aside the terminology used in most of the tags from this thread's BURs are a bit iffy, seeming along the same vain as the archaic c-boy and d-girl terminology that got eliminated years ago and then there is also the inconsistency in whether the tags shall be spelled out(i.e. one) or numeric(i.e. 1). It would probly help to include any potentially required follow-up/s in the descriptions of these BURs.

my concern is still that the intersex count tags would be impossible to maintain since nothing could imply them. But if we could just not have 1_intersex 2_intersex etc, I'd be more open to this

wandering_spaniel said:
my concern is still that the intersex count tags would be impossible to maintain since nothing could imply them. But if we could just not have 1_intersex 2_intersex etc, I'd be more open to this

if we did it based on group ratio rather than absolute I think there'd be some situations where an implication would be valid... maybe?

but also yeah, I think we could just leave 'em loose, or leave them out entirely. I don't think it'd be thst big of a deal. _{honestly, I've started to question the utility of intersex in general...}

dba_afish said:
_{honestly, I've started to question the utility of intersex in general...}

^{Come to the dark side}

dba_afish said:

_{honestly, I've started to question the utility of intersex in general...}

It's removal would certainly make gender_penetrating_gender much more simplified

dba_afish said:
y'mean like harem and reverse_harem?

See the wiki on harem, not exactly a great tag. Plus not exactly generally applicable as a replacement.
I'd be fine with majority_* tags or ratio tags in general I suppose, but I also think the specificity could be helpful for searching. It's kind of ridiculous how specific our existing, accepted tags get. I don't see this as any worse than, say, color_fur or any of hundreds of other commonly accepted examples, while being significantly more helpful.
Also, yeah, intersex would probably just be best left out.

Adding my own two cents, I sit very comfortable with the idea that even just adding solo_<gender> would simplify things a lot. I would like to be able to find MMF threesomes without seeing FFM and FF+M situations. Being able to blacklist even specifically "solo_male threesome" would be awesome!

I don't really think adding "duo_<gender>" or "x_<gender>" should matter, because in almost every situation it tends to be redundant.
MMF > solo_female threesome
MMFF > male female group
MM > male duo -female
FF > female duo -male
IFF > solo_intersex -male threesome
AMM > solo_ambiguous -female threesome

Simply adding the "solo_<gender>" tag would be the best move as far as I can see. There's no reason to tag more than a threesome, it's just "group", and if you're the type of person who wants to see a really big orgy with more than one of each gender then I'm certain you'll be the type to be happy with whatever gets served your way, lol! /LH

dba_afish said:
honestly, I've started to question the utility of intersex in general...

100% agreed

monochri said:
Adding my own two cents, I sit very comfortable with the idea that even just adding solo_<gender> would simplify things a lot. I would like to be able to find MMF threesomes without seeing FFM and FF+M situations. Being able to blacklist even specifically "solo_male threesome" would be awesome!

I don't really think adding "duo_<gender>" or "x_<gender>" should matter, because in almost every situation it tends to be redundant.
MMF > solo_female threesome
MMFF > male female group
MM > male duo -female
FF > female duo -male
IFF > solo_intersex -male threesome
AMM > solo_ambiguous -female threesome

Simply adding the "solo_<gender>" tag would be the best move as far as I can see. There's no reason to tag more than a threesome, it's just "group", and if you're the type of person who wants to see a really big orgy with more than one of each gender then I'm certain you'll be the type to be happy with whatever gets served your way, lol! /LH

Yeah solo_<gender> would sound good. Personally I don't want to filter all the pictures with male+female, and I still enjoy seeing solo female pics but when it comes to solo male, not so much. Idk am I just filtering wrong but as for now If I'd try to filter with solo_male, it converts to male and it would hide the posts with male+female as well, which frankly just sucks :/

nordicwerewolf said:
Yeah solo_<gender> would sound good. Personally I don't want to filter all the pictures with male+female, and I still enjoy seeing solo female pics but when it comes to solo male, not so much. Idk am I just filtering wrong but as for now If I'd try to filter with solo_male, it converts to male and it would hide the posts with male+female as well, which frankly just sucks :/

Yes, there is currently no way to hide or search for posts with only one male but other genders present, which is one of the most critical things a proposal like this could fix. Just doing solo_* would already help a ton.

scth said:
Yes, there is currently no way to hide or search for posts with only one male but other genders present, which is one of the most critical things a proposal like this could fix. Just doing solo_* would already help a ton.

there is stuff like male_focus and solo_focus.

dba_afish said:
there is stuff like male_focus and solo_focus.

Neither of which would really work for the majority of such a search. Though they are helpful tags in their own right.

Would definitely appreciate either solo_[gender] or [gender]_only as a valid tag, having solo_male alias to male means that any attempts at filtering runs into issues at the start. I could theoretically do -female but that still allows for m/m content or male/intersex or male/ambiguous until you're using several tags where one would work well.

wolfstar124 said:
Would definitely appreciate either solo_[gender] or [gender]_only as a valid tag, having solo_male alias to male means that any attempts at filtering runs into issues at the start. I could theoretically do -female but that still allows for m/m content or male/intersex or male/ambiguous until you're using several tags where one would work well.

male -female -intersex -ambiguous works as male_only, though not fully if it's a comic with multiple scenes
Also what's the problem with allowing m/m content in male only? if you don't want it though you can always -male/male

wolfstar124 said:
Would definitely appreciate either solo_[gender] or [gender]_only as a valid tag, having solo_male alias to male means that any attempts at filtering runs into issues at the start. I could theoretically do -female but that still allows for m/m content or male/intersex or male/ambiguous until you're using several tags where one would work well.

solo_<gender> and <gender>_only seem entirely superfluous to me. example: solo_male and solo male would be literally identical. and for male_only you could just use male -ambiguous -intersex -female.

tags like these _only_ make sense in regards to the gender makeup of groups and only in groups with a non-uniform gender make-up. in every other instance we already have existing sets of tags that function identically.

you've got a search limit of 40 dang tags, we don't need hybridized tags like this.

dba_afish said:
solo_<gender> and <gender>_only seem entirely superfluous to me. example: solo_male and solo male would be literally identical. and for male_only you could just use male -ambiguous -intersex -female.

tags like these _only_ make sense in regards to the gender makeup of groups and only in groups with a non-uniform gender make-up. in every other instance we already have existing sets of tags that function identically.

you've got a search limit of 40 dang tags, we don't need hybridized tags like this.

The idea of solo_gender would be only one of that gender with others present, not literally solo gender. This is currently literally impossible to search for or blacklist.
one_gender would be fine too, would probably be a better target.

scth said:
The idea of solo_gender would be only one of that gender with others present, not literally solo gender. This is currently literally impossible to search for or blacklist.
one_gender would be fine too, would probably be a better target.

well, solo_* would be a bad name for it then, yeah.

E-H uses the names sole male and sole female for this (or at least a similar) situation, I think the name would also fit best here.

dba_afish said:
well, solo_* would be a bad name for it then, yeah.

E-H uses the names sole male and sole female for this (or at least a similar) situation, I think the name would also fit best here.

Yeah sole male/female could also work

scth said:
The idea of solo_gender would be only one of that gender with others present

At what point does this stop applying
is M/F solo male & solo female? or is it only if more than one of any gender is present while only one of a different gender is present
Would M/F/F/G/A/H/MH be solo_* except for female? That seems excessive

donovan_dmc said:
At what point does this stop applying
is M/F solo male & solo female? or is it only if more than one of any gender is present while only one of a different gender is present
Would M/F/F/G/A/H/MH be solo_* except for female? That seems excessive

It would work like how 1_[gender] works over at femboy.fan

donovan_dmc said:
At what point does this stop applying
is M/F solo male & solo female? or is it only if more than one of any gender is present while only one of a different gender is present
Would M/F/F/G/A/H/MH be solo_* except for female? That seems excessive

I don't think that would be particularly excessive. That would already be a rather unique combination that we have no way to search for, and something a combination tag would never work for. Not something that needs to be searchable necessarily, but no harm in it.

The situation (one of one gender with others present) is something I'd like to be able to search for, and no suggestions have come even close. Most of them use more specific combination tags too, which is less desirable in a tagging system. I see it as somewhat similar to the gender_form tags that were recently reinstated - there were so many combination tags made to search for specific situations that they would have resolved, and they've already become useful tags despite being not too well known yet.

We can of course start off light with solo_* and multiple_*, and add on 2_*, 3_* later. It's a decent first step at least