Posts
Search Results
Tagging Discussion » A question about "males only" » Post 5
Labra 
Bi bird horse
@LightningBolt
It’s being used as a catch-all for any image with only male characters, really. It usually just gets used alongside gay when those posts should actually just be tagged as gay. Some people have even started using it instead of solo male for some reason. I’d go as far as to say that of all the images tagged with males only it only actually applies in maybe 20% of cases, probably even far less.
At this point it’s a cycle. People started using it in the non-intended way and now those images make up the majority of the content under this tag which, in turn, leads to even more people using it like that because they see all those posts that shouldn’t even be there in the first place and just roll with it. At least that’s what I could gather from some of the DMs I’ve sent (or received) after I removed that tag only for it to be re-added again. I mean I can’t blame them since I would’ve also assumed males only was just an umbrella term for images featuring only male characters if it wasn’t for the tag description and, granted, it was a bit too ambiguous before, but I get the feeling that a lot of people don’t read those anyway.
I’ve been doing clean-up on new images for a few months now, even before you changed the description (Thanks for that by the way, that was really fast!) and after you did I started going a bit further back earlier today but I’d say there’s probably well over 2000 posts that would need “scrubbing” and that could take me quite a while to say the least. And from what I can tell females only seems to have a similar problem.
It’s being used as a catch-all for any image with only male characters, really. It usually just gets used alongside gay when those posts should actually just be tagged as gay. Some people have even started using it instead of solo male for some reason. I’d go as far as to say that of all the images tagged with males only it only actually applies in maybe 20% of cases, probably even far less.
At this point it’s a cycle. People started using it in the non-intended way and now those images make up the majority of the content under this tag which, in turn, leads to even more people using it like that because they see all those posts that shouldn’t even be there in the first place and just roll with it. At least that’s what I could gather from some of the DMs I’ve sent (or received) after I removed that tag only for it to be re-added again. I mean I can’t blame them since I would’ve also assumed males only was just an umbrella term for images featuring only male characters if it wasn’t for the tag description and, granted, it was a bit too ambiguous before, but I get the feeling that a lot of people don’t read those anyway.
I’ve been doing clean-up on new images for a few months now, even before you changed the description (Thanks for that by the way, that was really fast!) and after you did I started going a bit further back earlier today but I’d say there’s probably well over 2000 posts that would need “scrubbing” and that could take me quite a while to say the least. And from what I can tell females only seems to have a similar problem.
Tagging Discussion » A question about "males only" » Topic Opener
Labra
Bi bird horse
Hey!
From what I understand males only is supposed to be used in the same way as females only for male characters, specifically that it shouldn’t be used when the males are sexually interacting with each other since that would instead just be tagged as “gay”. If that’s the case would it be possible to adjust the disclaimer in the tag description in a similar fashion to “females only” to represent that? Like its counterpart it often (I’d even say mostly) doesn’t get used in the way it seems to be intended and it would be nice to have something definitive to point at when people re-add the tag even though it was removed multiple times.
From what I understand males only is supposed to be used in the same way as females only for male characters, specifically that it shouldn’t be used when the males are sexually interacting with each other since that would instead just be tagged as “gay”. If that’s the case would it be possible to adjust the disclaimer in the tag description in a similar fashion to “females only” to represent that? Like its counterpart it often (I’d even say mostly) doesn’t get used in the way it seems to be intended and it would be nice to have something definitive to point at when people re-add the tag even though it was removed multiple times.
Tagging Discussion » "Blushing ears" should be aliased to "ear blush" » Topic Opener
Labra
Bi bird horse
Blushing ears and ear blush are both used for the same thing, yet they both have over 300 uses each with very little overlap. Since “ear blush” gets used slightly more and already implies “blushing” it would probably be the more logical alias of the two.
Showing results 1 - 6 of 6 total
Default search
If you do not specify a field to search over, the search engine will search for posts with a body that is similar to the query's word stems. For example, posts containing the words winged humanization, wings, and spread wings would all be found by a search for wing, but sewing would not be.
Allowed fields
| Field Selector | Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
author | Literal | Matches the author of this post. Anonymous authors will never match this term. | author:Joey |
body | Full Text | Matches the body of this post. This is the default field. | body:test |
created_at | Date/Time Range | Matches the creation time of this post. | created_at:2015 |
id | Numeric Range | Matches the numeric surrogate key for this post. | id:1000000 |
my | Meta | my:posts matches posts you have posted if you are signed in. | my:posts |
subject | Full Text | Matches the title of the topic. | subject:time wasting thread |
topic_id | Literal | Matches the numeric surrogate key for the topic this post belongs to. | topic_id:7000 |
topic_position | Numeric Range | Matches the offset from the beginning of the topic of this post. Positions begin at 0. | topic_position:0 |
updated_at | Date/Time Range | Matches the creation or last edit time of this post. | updated_at.gte:2 weeks ago |
user_id | Literal | Matches posts with the specified user_id. Anonymous users will never match this term. | user_id:211190 |
forum | Literal | Matches the short name for the forum this post belongs to. | forum:meta |