Like if i want to search for female lions, i could use lioness but that doesnt work here so what exactly is the alternative to get the same result?

There is none, that's intentionally not something we allow in tags (with human as the only current exception as part of the gender_form series, since human is considered a form as well as a species).

scth said:
There is none, that's intentionally not something we allow in tags.

But why? It makes the search much harder than it needs to be.

Im trying to find female dragons but because dragoness isnt a thing im swamped with females and a dragon instead of just female dragons.

To get the same search functionality i have to use a bunch of - tags which also remove a bunch of female dragon pictures because they have those tags on them, im practically forced to use the solo tag to get the half of the results what other sites get from the tag female:dragon or dragoness. It also seems silly to not have the functionality that other sites like gelbooru, inkbunny or the many rule34 clones have.

tester29 said:
But why? It makes the search much harder than it needs to be.

To avoid having a 7-fold multiplier on species tags. It might be useful for searching, yes, but would just be too many tags.

scth said:
To avoid having a 7-fold multiplier on species tags. It might be useful for searching, yes, but would just be too many tags.

But how would that be too many tags?

Lets use this picture for example:

https://e621.net/posts/5442742?q=female+dragon+solo

It currently has both the female tag and the dragon tag.
Instead of that it could have just female_dragon as tag which would mean it shows up in search if you use female and dragon tags but when you search for female_dragon it only shows specifically female dragons.

If the artist has any different opinion then it stays ungendered and gets a lore tag for the proper gender they created that character.

If anything, this would decrease the amount of tags needed as you would have something that puts everything into a main gender group and order anything towards it like how other sited manage to do it.

tester29 said:
But how would that be too many tags?

Lets use this picture for example:

https://e621.net/posts/5442742?q=female+dragon+solo

It currently has both the female tag and the dragon tag.
Instead of that it could have just female_dragon as tag which would mean it shows up in search if you use female and dragon tags but when you search for female_dragon it only shows specifically female dragons.

If the artist has any different opinion then it stays ungendered and gets a lore tag for the proper gender they created that character.

If anything, this would decrease the amount of tags needed as you would have something that puts everything into a main gender group and order anything towards it like how other sited manage to do it.

because there are 7 gender categories (female, male, ambiguous_gender, gynomorph, andromorph, herm, maleherm) and probably in the relm of no less than 1600 species tags that people would want gendered versions of, which would add 11000 new tags that would need to be maintained. when instead we could just not do that, and not worry about it, because the amount of utility these tags would serve is negligible at best.

tester29 said:
But why? It makes the search much harder than it needs to be.

It would create a bunch of tags that would only be used once or twice, like andromorph_pangolin and ambiguous_gender_tomato_frog, and we don't want to deal with that spam. It would also create questions of whether to create implications for the more popular ones and when to do so (e.g. male_horse -> horse and male_horse -> male).

Search: "<species name> <preferred gender> <solo>"
That's likely the best you'll get
Unless the specific species you're looking for has deliberately separated forms based on sex (like some pokemon)

tester29 said:
But why? It makes the search much harder than it needs to be.

Im trying to find female dragons but because dragoness isnt a thing im swamped with females and a dragon instead of just female dragons.

To get the same search functionality i have to use a bunch of - tags which also remove a bunch of female dragon pictures because they have those tags on them, im practically forced to use the solo tag to get the half of the results what other sites get from the tag female:dragon or dragoness. It also seems silly to not have the functionality that other sites like gelbooru, inkbunny or the many rule34 clones have.

~female_feral ~female_anthro dragon

snpthecat said:
~female_feral ~female_anthro dragon

If only people would actually tag those, far too few uploaders seem to know about them and they're so helpful.

Also i'm surprised that they're being swamped with non dragon females / non female dragons, dragon female isn't devoid of female dragons. Though maybe the tag dragon encompasses more than what they believe to be dragons since it's pretty broad

scth said:
If only people would actually tag those, far too few uploaders seem to know about them and they're so helpful.

I never even think of those tags, denoting that a feral is a female and such
I assume most people don't because the site usually pushes more for simplicity in the tag names so the default is female and whatever else it is separately

nin10dope said:
I never even think of those tags, denoting that a feral is a female and such
I assume most people don't because the site usually pushes more for simplicity in the tag names so the default is female and whatever else it is separately

They were re-validated as part of an effort to reduce the need for a whole lot of combination tags, because they allow more advanced searches without needing the extreme number of x_verb_y tags.

snpthecat said:
Also i'm surprised that they're being swamped with non dragon females / non female dragons, dragon female isn't devoid of female dragons. Though maybe the tag dragon encompasses more than what they believe to be dragons since it's pretty broad

I do see some female dragons but also lots of pictures that are male dragons with females of other species.

dba_afish said:
because there are 7 gender categories (female, male, ambiguous_gender, gynomorph, andromorph, herm, maleherm) and probably in the relm of no less than 1600 species tags that people would want gendered versions of, which would add 11000 new tags that would need to be maintained. when instead we could just not do that, and not worry about it, because the amount of utility these tags would serve is negligible at best.

Just a question but is the site even capatable of combining and grouping tags?

For example if there would be a tag Female:scalie would that give me pictures that have female scalies or would it only ever show me pictures with that specific tag?
If its the latter then i can understand the problem but if it can actually understand that the tag is grouped then all it would need is to have a main group for genders that get the species and rest attached to it.
Instead of having a tagsalad of:

Dragon
Mythological creature
Lion
Feline
Tiger
Female
Male
Herm
Feral
Anthro

It would look like:

Female: Dragon, Mythological creature
Male: Tiger, Feline, Feral
Herm: Lion, Feline, Anthro

Everything is ordered to the main group of genders based on the tags, instead of it being a random line of tags where you are taking guesses on which one is which.
This way you dont need have everything tagged individually to search for male wolves like male_mammal, male_canine, male_wolf. You could simply just have Male as the group and everything else connected to it.

tester29 said:
I do see some female dragons but also lots of pictures that are male dragons with females of other species.

Just a question but is the site even capatable of combining and grouping tags?

For example if there would be a tag Female:scalie would that give me pictures that have female scalies or would it only ever show me pictures with that specific tag?
If its the latter then i can understand the problem but if it can actually understand that the tag is grouped then all it would need is to have a main group for genders that get the species and rest attached to it.
Instead of having a tagsalad of:

Dragon
Mythological creature
Lion
Feline
Tiger
Female
Male
Herm
Feral
Anthro

It would look like:

Female: Dragon, Mythological creature
Male: Tiger, Feline, Feral
Herm: Lion, Feline, Anthro

Everything is ordered to the main group of genders based on the tags, instead of it being a random line of tags where you are taking guesses on which one is which.
This way you dont need have everything tagged individually to search for male wolves like male_mammal, male_canine, male_wolf. You could simply just have Male as the group and everything else connected to it.

So I suspect you want this to be a special exception to how the tags on the site to be handled?
Let's say the site's developer implements this system now. My question i'm posing to you is how many people do you think will be bothered to do the tag grouping in the first place, when a not insignificant portion of the user base can barely tag genders in the first place

snpthecat said:
So I suspect you want this to be a special exception to how the tags on the site to be handled?
Let's say the site's developer implements this system now. My question i'm posing to you is how many people do you think will be bothered to do the tag grouping in the first place, when a not insignificant portion of the user base can barely tag genders in the first place

I mean, the place i got the inspiration from literally doesnt allow the tags to not be gendered unless they are some exceptions to it for example i cant tag something with scalie without choosing between the gender variants.

We could essentially use the same system that we already have but instead of just letting people write in all tags into one wall of text you would have some separation.
You click on male, it creates the line of species under it. You write in feline, lion. It doesnt let you go further with adding a new gender, you have to click again for the same to happen.

If it can work on other sites why couldnt it work here?

tester29 said:
I mean, the place i got the inspiration from literally doesnt allow the tags to not be gendered unless they are some exceptions to it for example i cant tag something with scalie without choosing between the gender variants.

We could essentially use the same system that we already have but instead of just letting people write in all tags into one wall of text you would have some separation.
You click on male, it creates the line of species under it. You write in feline, lion. It doesnt let you go further with adding a new gender, you have to click again for the same to happen.

If it can work on other sites why couldnt it work here?

Are you going to write the code to support that? Our single developer is not paid, and he has much more important things to work on

tester29 said:
I mean, the place i got the inspiration from literally doesnt allow the tags to not be gendered unless they are some exceptions to it for example i cant tag something with scalie without choosing between the gender variants.

We could essentially use the same system that we already have but instead of just letting people write in all tags into one wall of text you would have some separation.
You click on male, it creates the line of species under it. You write in feline, lion. It doesnt let you go further with adding a new gender, you have to click again for the same to happen.

If it can work on other sites why couldnt it work here?

what other sites work like this? I'm guessing they're not boorus, and I'm guessing they don't have 1.5 million tags, 8700 of which have over 1k population.

Even if we started to do things that way from now on, it would be practically impossible to fix the existing posts

Imagine the tagging chaos on group-shots.
They can already amass lots of tags now but imagine if you get 3 of these per species, with there being a bunch of species too.
Or the sheer amount of mistagging because it would often end up character-specific in groups too. (i.e. it's no longer enough that there are clearly females and gynomorphs, you need to tell for the one fox specifically)

Probably better to just discard the false positives if you're searching for something specific.

tester29 said:
Just a question but is the site even capatable of combining and grouping tags?
...
Everything is ordered to the main group of genders based on the tags, instead of it being a random line of tags where you are taking guesses on which one is which.
This way you dont need have everything tagged individually to search for male wolves like male_mammal, male_canine, male_wolf. You could simply just have Male as the group and everything else connected to it.

Nested tag groups have been suggested before (see topic #46551), it is practically not feasible without rebuilding the tagging system from the ground up.
Not to mention the voluntary man-hours the developer needs to dedicate on creating a new system like this, as well as the cooperation of the entire userbase to utilise the new features efficiently.

donovan_dmc said:
Are you going to write the code to support that? Our single developer is not paid, and he has much more important things to work on

Hey, that fair. If it cant be done in any feasible way i can accept it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Nested tag groups have been suggested before (see topic #46551), it is practically not feasible without rebuilding the tagging system from the ground up.
Not to mention the voluntary man-hours the developer needs to dedicate on creating a new system like this, as well as the cooperation of the entire userbase to utilise the new features efficiently.

Yeah, thats what i thought. I just found it strange that the gendered tags were removed but no function to cover them exist. Why were they removed initially? Does it save much server space?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Nested tag groups have been suggested before (see topic #46551), it is practically not feasible without rebuilding the tagging system from the ground up.
Not to mention the voluntary man-hours the developer needs to dedicate on creating a new system like this, as well as the cooperation of the entire userbase to utilise the new features efficiently.

I've been vexed by this feature not existing many times, but I have to remind myself it'll never happen precisely for the reasons that thread lists.

It'd be amazing. But getting from here to there is completely infeasible