create implication pantyshot_(kicking) -> pantyshot
create implication pantyshot_(kicking) -> kicking

Link to request

So many images of these that tagging it seems useful.

Is the pantyshot_(kicking) tag necessary? Seems like it's covered pretty well with a pantyshot kicking search.

NWF_Renim said:

Is the pantyshot_(kicking) tag necessary? Seems like it's covered pretty well with a pantyshot kicking search.

Talked about before in topic #8247, topic #8445 and topic #9194. Seems like there was supposed to be a discussion about the necessity of pantyshot_(*) tags after the implications were put in, but the discussion never took place.

As it stands right now, I see a couple of solutions:

1. Keep the specialized tags with their implications
2. Nuke the specialized tags, and remove all implications

I'm more in favor of #2, since the specialized tags aren't consistently tagged anyways, and I'm willing to bet that the hit/miss ratio would still be pretty high when searching just using "pantyshot + position" method.

BrokenEagle98 said:
[...]
2. Nuke the specialized tags, and remove all implications

I'm more in favor of #2, since the specialized tags aren't consistently tagged anyways, and I'm willing to bet that the hit/miss ratio would still be pretty high when searching just using "pantyshot + position" method.

The only problem with that is that "pantyshot + position + person" can't be searched by basic members / not logged in users. Whether that's a problem or not depends on if people really care about being able to search for specific types of pantyshots together with a character tag.

SD-DAken said:

The only problem with that is that "pantyshot + position + person" can't be searched by basic members / not logged in users. Whether that's a problem or not depends on if people really care about being able to search for specific types of pantyshots together with a character tag.

Every time I see that argument, the usual response is that this gives members an incentive to contribute or pay for an upgrade (e.g. forum #39024). We don't need tags and pools that exist only to replace a multi-tag search.

+1 to finally nuking all the pantyshot_(*) combination tags.

What's the point of deleting or nuking them? It worked fine until now and it makes tagging a bit easier since it does imply the action (sitting, standing and so on). So I don't see the need. Never change a winning team since it doesn't cause problems.

I can list a couple of examples where tags were split up as opposed to having specialized tags to increase the simplicity of tagging:

• Huge Gun and Huge Sword -> Huge Weapon + Gun/Sword
• Lying on back, Lying on side and Lying on stomach -> Lying + On side/On Side/On Stomach

Me, about the lying case: That's a bit different since on side and so on still impl lying. It doesn't matter if those combinations are splitted or not. Lying is always implied.
In case of the weapons it gets harder since huge weaon can all be like a simple pantyshot. Se yeah, we have less tag traffic then since we can eliminate 5 tags but is this really desirable since the usage of pantyshot_(action) is established?
Seriously, I'm not against it but I doubt there is a gain...

BrokenEagle98 said:

I can list a couple of examples where tags were split up as opposed to having specialized tags to increase the simplicity of tagging:

• Huge Gun and Huge Sword -> Huge Weapon + Gun/Sword
• Lying on back, Lying on side and Lying on stomach -> Lying + On side/On Side/On Stomach

There was also the massive overhaul of legwear tags (topic #8196) wherein most of the specific colors and styles of thighhighs/kneehighs/socks were pruned down to just *_legwear.

In this case, we can make things simpler without even having to create a new tag. For every post already tagged pantyshot, it's just a matter of removing the unnecessarily specific tags.

The bulk update request #574 has been rejected.