Posted under Tags
I've done some retagging of older posts which had head-sized or greater breasts as "large".... and this seems to be just as common as people mistaking large for huge if not more so.
+1 on removing cleavage from breasts. They can go together, but but nit always - the best push-up bra won't give a 20A cleavage. You need at least medium breasts to get that.
Why? When there's cleavage, there are breasts. Doesn't matter what size they are, there are breasts. Is this because small breasts implies breasts now?
So no reason to do this. Tagging difficulty is not a reason.
tapnek said:
Why? When there's cleavage, there are breasts. Doesn't matter what size they are, there are breasts. Is this because small breasts implies breasts now?
BrokenEagle98 said:
Also, while we're at it, the cleavage tag seems to be a big wrench in tagging breast sizes. About 25-50% of the time, it's damn-near difficult to tell the size because all that is drawn is just a tiny line to indicate cleavage and that's it. If it wasn't for that tiny line, the girl could be flat-chested for all I can tell. I'd like to propose removing the cleavage -> breasts implication.
I quoted the post that sparked that comment from Jarlath. Basically, I've noticed that some cleavage posts have breast sizes that are difficult to determine. Sometime, all that's drawn is a line. I guess I could just tag all of those medium_breasts, but it doesn't feel right...
Then don't tag it. If you can't determine the size, don't bother.
I guess I could do that as well...
Provence said:
I have a little concern about the huge_breasts tag. There are nearly 50k posts tagged with huge breasts, but during my process tagging every breast-post with the specific size, I almost never use this tag. It most often happens when I tag deleted posts. Now I didn't look through the huge breasts posts, but I think most of them are just large breasts. Maybe someone wants to do tag gardening about that and if not I'll take a look after Nitrogen and I have reached the 1M Id mark. This just seems fishy...
Just looked through the first two pages and almost 50% are tagged wrong in my eyes. Would want confirmation about that (not that I'm the one who is mistaken :P).
If yes, tag gardening should definitely be done.
I looked through the first 100 posts of huge_breasts (huge_breasts id:2458306..2463906).
The posts that should be tagged differently are:
Conclusion: I can't confirm an error rate of 50%.
I also reviewed some of the posts you recently tagged with large_breasts+.
Tagging errors:
Conclusion: Low error rate. You're a pretty accurate breast tagger (confirmed this on many occasions :P).
Except for the last two, I don't see why you think they should be tagged differently^^. And the unknown post is borderline. So^^: Huge breasts is massively overused.
BrokenEagle98 said:
I've noticed that some cleavage posts have breast sizes that are difficult to determine. Sometime, all that's drawn is a line. I guess I could just tag all of those medium_breasts, but it doesn't feel right...
Can you please give me a few examples?
tapnek said:
Then don't tag it. If you can't determine the size, don't bother.
+1
Rule of thumb:
reiyasona said:
Can you please give me a few examples?
I'll post some once I get home, since I'm currently surfing through Safebooru...
reyasona said:
breasts not visible = do not apply breasts tag :P
I'd like to amend that a bit... "breasts not visible or not a prominent part of the picture"
In almost every single "girl" picture the girl has breasts, but those breasts are not always one of the focuses of the image.
Not a focus: post #2462704.
Focus: post #2453500
In the former picture, it's obvious she has breasts because of the curvature, but they're not really standing out.
In the latter picture, the breasts are given a lot of emphasis lines for the girl on the left, and on the right, she's crossing her arms under her breasts making them more prominent.
Updated
BrokenEagle98 said:
I'd like to amend that a bit... "breasts not visible or not a prominent part of the picture"
In almost every single "girl" picture the girl has breasts, but those breasts are not always one of the focuses of the image.
Not a focus: post #2462704.
Focus: post #2453500In the former picture, it's obvious she has breasts because of the curvature, but they're not really standing out.
In the latter picture, the breasts are given a lot of emphasis lines for the girl on the left, and on the right, she's crossing her arms under her breasts making them more prominent.
I agree, but please take a look at the following cases (sorted descending by conspicuousness). How far would you go?
In my opinion, breasts will always appear prominent if their size can easily be determined.
post #2462704 is different because i can't measure the breasts under Darjeeling's thick jacket.
Probably medium sized due to the "prominent" shadow.
That said I'll continue tagging.
I've reached the 850k id mark while Nitrogen has reached 910k.
That means the whole area between 850k to 910k is untagged while every other id range under 1M is tagged. Does someone wants to help finish this remaining 60k id range between 850k to 910k^^?
Provence said:
Except for the last two, I don't see why you think they should be tagged differently^^. And the unknown post is borderline.
:<
Provence said:
So^^: Huge breasts is massively overused.
I think it's exactly the other way around. ;D
I've got the impression that posts tagged with huge_breasts have a considerably lower error rate than posts tagged with large_breasts.
Oh ... and we still need to reach a clear consensus on how to adjust the definition of large_breasts (forum #118018) on its "lower border" (towards medium_breasts).
Given the debate about cleavage and breasts being used incorrectly, I did a quick search using cleavage, flat_chest, and solo.
post #2453340 - use of both cleavage and flat_chest may not be appropriate.
post #2437398 - I just cleared both flat_chest and cleavage from this post.
post #2429794 - changed flat_chest to small_breasts due to there being something that could resemble cleavage.
post #2419904 - as above.
I think we might want to start reviewing all the breast tags... That first page alone had more errors than I'm willing to fix while not at home.
reiyasona said:
Oh ... and we still need to reach a clear consensus on how to adjust the definition of large_breasts (forum #118018) on its "lower border" (towards medium_breasts).
For me, the border is at the point where breasts can touch each other easily without any manipulation due to their circumference. But, if in doubt, I'll tag smaller to be safe. The volume for large_breasts would have to be a good part of the person's head, or enough height and circumference compared to the torso that they're very obvious. That's where the "quite a bit larger than hand size" or fruit comparisons can come in useful, as they're a decent shortcut for the volumes and shapes involved.
Updated
We don't need to review the breasts tags. I did the search you did and nearly all posts don't fit into the flat chest tag. Don't know why the tagged added the flat chest tag there, so it's not a problem about the definition, but it's y misuse problem.
Provence said:
We don't need to review the breasts tags. I did the search you did and nearly all posts don't fit into the flat chest tag. Don't know why the tagged added the flat chest tag there, so it's not a problem about the definition, but it's y misuse problem.
I don't mean reviewing the tags themselves but the posts they're used in. The tags that lean towards size extremes (flat_chest, huge, gigantic) are the ones which seem to be misused the most.
As for the definition for the lower border of large breasts: I'd say we use the border for medium breasts and revert it. This is subjective, but we should use then this bust chart picture reiyasona is carrying around and use it in all of the breasts tags definition as a little guide.
reiyasona said:
I agree, but please take a look at the following cases (sorted descending by conspicuousness). How far would you go?
post #2423423: (yes)
post #2441852: (maybe)
post #2446682: (no)
post #2199882: (no)
post #2430870: (no)
reiyasona said:
Can you please give me a few examples?
Not an all inclusive list... just a few examples I pulled from my recent edits.
"Cleavage" and therefore breasts...
post #1002632
post #1002646
post #2254292
post #2254325
post #2252922
Unremarkable breasts that don't deserve the breasts tag IMO but do because of the cleavage line...
post #2256649
post #2255708
post #2255262
post #2254009
post #2252414
Jarlath said:
reiyasona said:
Oh ... and we still need to reach a clear consensus on how to adjust the definition of large_breasts (forum #118018) on its "lower border" (towards medium_breasts).
For me, the border is at the point where breasts can touch each other easily without any manipulation due to their circumference. But, if in doubt, I'll tag smaller to be safe. The volume for large_breasts would have to be a good part of the person's head, or enough height and circumference compared to the torso that they're very obvious. That's where the "quite a bit larger than hand size" or fruit comparisons can come in useful, as they're a decent shortcut for the volumes and shapes involved.
For starters, we should adjust the current definition of large breasts as follows:
BrokenEagle98 said:
reiyasona said:
After estimating, comparing and tagging the size of several thousand breasts I realized that the large_breasts definition needs some adjustments.
The majority of posts tagged large_breasts contain breasts were a single breast is approaching the volume of its owner's head but almost never reaching it entirely. Usually a large breast takes up around three-fourths of the owner's head. I'd like to create an adjusted definition that reflects my observations. Thus, the volume of a single large breast should be between three-fourths the volume of the owner's head and the entire volume of the owner's head.
Yeah, I noticed that as well. I adjusted by only taking the face portion into account, as the head can appear much larger depending upon the angle it's being viewed from. So basically, if you were to draw a circle inside the face portion is what I'm talking about, where the radius matches the width of the face. Anything close to that size I tagged with large breasts.
That definition probably needs a bit of work, but it's a bit easier than trying to figure out percentages of the head size...
Then the definition would better resemble the examples mentioned in the "Distinction" part and the average large breast in the "wild".
Provence said:
We don't need to review the breasts tags. I did the search you did and nearly all posts don't fit into the flat chest tag. Don't know why the tagged added the flat chest tag there, so it's not a problem about the definition, but it's y misuse problem.
+1 (with the exception of large_breasts)
Jarlath said:
I don't mean reviewing the tags themselves but the posts they're used in. The tags that lean towards size extremes (flat_chest, huge, gigantic) are the ones which seem to be misused the most.
True, but right now the large_breasts tag is by far the most misused one. Just take a look at a random sample page: large_breasts order:random
Provence said:
As for the definition for the lower border of large breasts: I'd say we use the border for medium breasts and revert it. This is subjective, but we should use then this bust chart picture reiyasona is carrying around and use it in all of the breasts tags definition as a little guide.
The bust_chart in question (post #2168938) has the problem that its art style is not the most commonly used one here on Danbooru. It's nice to define the borders of all breast sizes in one post, but I consider a wiki entry offering diverse and insightful examples to be more important.
Updated
