Posts
Search Results
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 17
I wouldn’t figure it would be something that normal posters would use nor one that would suddenly start being used by a ton of people; as you said people barely even tag basic stuff as is. But I also wasn’t asking other people to tag things, I’m trying to volunteer to tag something I feel is important. Just need to know what to tag it as. My whole thing is that since I’m already looking through a massive amount of images, and I’m watch new posts, and there’s something I’d personally like to filter but can’t, and other people have told me they would like to filter by it too, it then just seems logical that I should try and volunteer to tag it, but I want to tag it as the most politically correct thing.
Looking on Derp quite a lot of images like the ones I want to tag are tagged anatomically incorrect, and that is usually the argument that I hear as to why people don’t like it, but while using that tag would make the most logical sense from a pre-established point of view, it also just feels like fueling a needless fire—and since it’s also not consistently used either, if I’m going to invest a couple of hundred hours of time building up a tag to mean something for people I’d like it to be more meaningful and less needlessly dramatic as anatomically incorrect tag would be.
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 16
@CCDrop
Udders not being drawn on ponies =/= masectomy. There is no need for a tag for a lack of them drawn on solely for the sake of filtering. Tags should be two-sided, searching and filtering, and your case only seems to be that you (and presumably a few other people) do not want to see them. Do you know how hard it is to already get people to tag what tags already exist? Even by a logistical standpoint it doesn’t sound worth it.
Udders not being drawn on ponies =/= masectomy. There is no need for a tag for a lack of them drawn on solely for the sake of filtering. Tags should be two-sided, searching and filtering, and your case only seems to be that you (and presumably a few other people) do not want to see them. Do you know how hard it is to already get people to tag what tags already exist? Even by a logistical standpoint it doesn’t sound worth it.
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 15
I already have my own system overall. I’m mostly here trying to talk about the idea of making a new tag largely for other people. Since really mastectomy content is kind of off putting, and IRL I’ve talked to quite a few pony porn fans who find it really creepy and wished there was a way to filter it.
So since I’m basically binge going through Tantabus anyway since I learned about it late, it would be a perfect time for me to binge tag stuff for other people if something was decided on.
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 14
@CCDrop
You can hide individual images you don’t like and you should do that as there will not be a new tag created just for you that we can not expect other people to know about or use.
You can hide individual images you don’t like and you should do that as there will not be a new tag created just for you that we can not expect other people to know about or use.
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 13
@Nocturn
Yeah that was my thoughts too, anatomically incorrect just doesn’t feel right—especially in the context of AI artwork where it takes on an whole different meaning. XD
Yeah that was my thoughts too, anatomically incorrect just doesn’t feel right—especially in the context of AI artwork where it takes on an whole different meaning. XD
Examples of why simply looking for images that have crotchboobs don’t work:
If I’m looking for Twilight Sparkle I want to be able to find: [things where you can’t see crotchboobs but you can either safely assume they exist OR they don’t need to be there because we’re talking about human twilight or gender swapped twilight.]
https://tantabus.ai/images/44763?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/45211?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/45651?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/44091?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/38068?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/38272?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/44763?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/45211?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/45651?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/44091?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/38068?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
https://tantabus.ai/images/38272?q=my%3Afaves%2C+twilight+sparkle
And even things like this: [showlistic plot where there are no sexualizaion/sexual organs on display anyway, you can safely just put this under the mental category of all equipment is there just censored.]
https://tantabus.ai/images/51731?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+safe
https://tantabus.ai/images/41719?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+safe%2C+plot
https://tantabus.ai/images/22202?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+safe%2C+plot
https://tantabus.ai/images/51731?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+safe
https://tantabus.ai/images/41719?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+safe%2C+plot
https://tantabus.ai/images/22202?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+safe%2C+plot
What I want to filter out are images like these: [images clearly depicting mastectomy]
https://tantabus.ai/images/51534?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+explicit
https://tantabus.ai/images/50712?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+explicit
https://tantabus.ai/images/51534?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+explicit
https://tantabus.ai/images/50712?q=twilight+sparkle%2C+explicit
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 12
I feel like on a politically correct side it would be to start tagging them all as anatomically incorrect but also looking at the content of that tag…
Please do not use that tag for characters that are, technically speaking, “on book” for the show. I think it’s wrong to have one group tagging things as
anatomically incorrect if they don’t match IRL horses, and another tagging things as anatomically incorrect if they look like they do in the show. Makes the tag utterly useless because it’s meaning becomes simply “Me No Like This!”@CCDrop
Can you please provide an example of an image that you want to find, but that does not have crotchboobs, so I can see what is preventing
Can you please provide an example of an image that you want to find, but that does not have crotchboobs, so I can see what is preventing
-crotchboobs from doing what you want?Tagging Discussion » General "Whoa this tag is missing stuff!" Thread » Post 202
Background Pony #635A
Please alias on cloud into on a cloud.
And lying on a cloud should imply on a cloud.
Glory (g5) should be marked as a canon character.
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 11
@CCDrop
Generally, tagging an absence of something isn’t needed because you can search with negation. Searching for -crotchboobs would search for anything without crotchboobs. Exceptions are made, but they are just that: exceptions.
I don’t want things with just crotchboobs though that misses the point. Since any position where you can’t naturally see them it’s not an issue. Since it’s not the absence of crotchboobs that’s the issue per se it’s the absence of them when they should be there. Since really a proper tag for this would probably be mastectomy since that’s why it’s so off putting is it’s like looking a castration or penectomy image since there’s a natural structure that should be there that’s not.
So for example I wouldn’t want to have to search balls just because I don’t want to see castration I just don’t want to see castration so I hide castration and that’s what I want here. I don’t care if I see crotchboobs I just don’t want to see mastectomy or whatever tag makes the most sense to start using.
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 10
@CCDrop
Generally, tagging an absence of something isn’t needed because you can search with negation. Searching for -crotchboobs would search for anything without crotchboobs. Exceptions are made, but they are just that: exceptions.
Generally, tagging an absence of something isn’t needed because you can search with negation. Searching for -crotchboobs would search for anything without crotchboobs. Exceptions are made, but they are just that: exceptions.
Tagging Discussion » General "Whoa this tag is missing stuff!" Thread » Post 200
Both should be character tags.
Tagging Discussion » General "Whoa this tag is missing stuff!" Thread » Post 199
Background Pony #635A
Please alias on cloud into on a cloud.
Tagging Discussion » General Tag Discussion » Post 9
So one thing I’ve always wished I could filter by, but there’s no tag for it is crotchboobless for images where you can clearly see the crotch on a feral pony and there’s no boobs. I don’t care if there’s human vulva on pony which is where 80% of these kinds of images come from just as long as the boobs are present in the correct place.
So I was wondering what’s the policy for new tags and would it be alright if I started tagging things as crotchboobless or something more politically correct?
I feel like on a politically correct side it would be to start tagging them all as anatomically incorrect but also looking at the content of that tag… I feel like it would be too harsh even if technically true, since I feel like the anatomically incorrect tag is a good general filter tag to avoid truly messed up anatomy, where as really crotchbooblessness is just kind of its own unique fetish.
Tagging Discussion » General "Whoa this tag is missing stuff!" Thread » Post 197
Added the ship:pinkiesentry tag. According to Derpibooru, it implies:
female, g4, male, pinkie pie, shipping, straight, flash sentry
Tagging Discussion » General "Whoa this tag is missing stuff!" Thread » Post 195
“Questionable consent” and “dubcon” should be aliased to “dubious consent”.
Tagging Discussion » General "Whoa this tag is missing stuff!" Thread » Post 193
According to Derpi, “babydoll” should imply
clothes, nightgown, and lingerie. Description provided by Derpi is a “bra-like garment with a long, usually sheer, flounce.”Tagging Discussion » General "Whoa this tag is missing stuff!" Thread » Post 191
“Grayscale” should imply “monochrome”. Also, it should have an alias “greyscale”.
Showing results 101 - 125 of 387 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 |