Mesuring criterion for breasts size

岩戸鈴芽 said:

When one person says "medium by definition" and the rest says "looks large", they should be considered large, since that's what people see in them.

My issue with this practice is that it leads to inconsistency even when it isn't a borderline/edge scenario. I've seen plenty of medium breast posts tagged as large breasts even when the heads are regularly proportioned and the breasts aren't even close to the size of large breasts proposed by the wiki. In other words, half the taggers aren't even eyeballing it because they didn't read the wiki and are tagging breasts in accordance to their real world experiences of what's considered large breasts while another half is tagging based on wiki definitions.

I think people should at least try to follow the wiki definitions otherwise tagging will be anarchy with everyone following their own definitions.

It's why some tags will specify "for tagging purposes" when there are multiple definitions for a tag's phrasing.

AkaringoP said:

But what to measure, not how to calculate the size, is the same in every country I know of.

I understand, but if you propose cup sizes as a way to measure/eyeball breast size then an example of using it to determine breast size would be nice.

Billyaabob said:

My issue with this practice is that it leads to inconsistency even when it isn't a borderline/edge scenario. I've seen plenty of medium breast posts tagged as large breasts even when the heads are regularly proportioned and the breasts aren't even close to the size of large breasts proposed by the wiki. In other words, half the taggers aren't even eyeballing it because they didn't read the wiki and are tagging breasts in accordance to their real world experiences of what's considered large breasts while another half is tagging based on wiki definitions.

Again, the point is not that the wikis are gospel but that they are guidelines. If the red eyes wiki told you to use it when one's eyes are blue, would you do it? I hope not, because that'd obviously be ridiculous. I said it before in DMs, comments and in this thread but: do not take them literally. Even if according to the "rules" of the wiki they're medium, if you look at them and think "those are large", then tag large breasts.

岩戸鈴芽 said:

Again, the point is not that the wikis are gospel but that they are guidelines. If the red eyes wiki told you to use it when one's eyes are blue, would you do it? I hope not, because that'd obviously be ridiculous. I said it before in DMs, comments and in this thread but: do not take them literally.

I'm not talking about taking things literally, I'm talking about about the issue of not even attempting to follow wiki definitions when they make sense.

Yes, you shouldn't follow wiki definitions blindly but if at least half the taggers are using it and it's agreed the definition isn't problematic then it should at least be a consideration instead of blindly following your own definition.

As another user pointed out, the definitons for breast sizes have been here for about a decade. If there was a serious issue with its definition like the eye color example you mentioned I think it would be fixed long ago or the tag deleted.

Billyaabob said:

I'm not talking about taking things literally, I'm talking about about the issue of not even attempting to follow wiki definitions when they make sense.

Yes, you shouldn't follow wiki definitions blindly but if at least half the taggers are using it and it's agreed the definition isn't problematic then it should at least be a consideration instead of blindly following your own definition.

As another user pointed out, the definitons for breast sizes have been here for over a decade. If there was a serious issue with its definition like the eye color example you mentioned I think it would be fixed long ago or the tag deleted.

But we are roughly following wiki guidelines. In most cases they work out fine, in some cases it's borderline, inconclusive, or someone just misjudges their estimation, in those cases we can follow common sense. I don't see how this is not congruent with how it's been done for as long as I've been contributing

岩戸鈴芽 said:

But we are roughly following wiki guidelines. In most cases they work out fine, in some cases it's borderline, inconclusive, or someone just misjudges their estimation, in those cases we can follow common sense.

I don't have a problem with you. I have a problem with taggers who don't attempt to know wiki definitions before tagging so it's not even a misjudgement when they tag wrong. To extend that point, I don't like it when people tag breast sizes solely base on real life experiences and completely ignore wiki definitions (case in point: the origin of this topic).

While taggers should use their own judgement, wiki definitions should at least somewhat guide the judgements to keep tagging relatively consistent. Like you said, guidelines.

Billyaabob said:

As another user pointed out, the definitons for breast sizes have been here for about a decade. If there was a serious issue with its definition like the eye color example you mentioned I think it would be fixed long ago or the tag deleted.

This isn't a great point when you consider that we discover Oldbooru tags and wiki clauses literally all the time, go "wow that's stupid", and update it to something more practical. As for the breast size guidelines, plenty of contention has existed over the years (source: Discord), but I'm guessing that most people saw how set in stone they seem and the positively ancient wiki entries before deciding that it wasn't worth the effort.

Absolutist adherence to wikis is unhealthy when you consider that 1) wikis can be wrong, 2) wikis can be impractical, 3) people can interpret guidelines differently, and 4) few people read wikis in the first place. I'd say that the breast wikis fall under at least the latter three, if not all four, because a concept this intrinsic doesn't need more clarification for most. I don't think the current attempts to categorize breast sizes are actually helpful or practical when the average joe blue user is going to eyeball it anyway, so neither is treating them like the Holy Bible.

John_Fantasy_XIV said:

I don't think the current attempts to categorize breast sizes are actually helpful or practical when the average joe blue user is going to eyeball it anyway, so neither is treating them like the Holy Bible.

Yeah, I agree. Nowadays I usually only correct breast tags when I feel like they stray too far from a wiki definition.

Billyaabob said:

Yeah, I agree. Nowadays I usually only correct breast tags when I feel like they stray too far from a wiki definition.

I feel like you're missing the point people here are trying to make clear: the wiki definitions for breasts are "meh" at best, and they're definitely not good.

In those instances you describe you should think and consider whether it makes sense use i.e "large" for the image in question, regardless of what the wiki says. You seem insistent on following the wikis, despite multiple people saying it's better not to.

岩戸鈴芽 said:

I feel like you're missing the point people here are trying to make clear: the wiki definitions for breasts are "meh" at best, and they're definitely not good.

In those instances you describe you should think and consider whether it makes sense use i.e "large" for the image in question, regardless of what the wiki says. You seem insistent on following the wikis, despite multiple people saying it's better not to.

It should be mentioned that post #7367155 was the post that started this thread since everyone seems to be talking about it without anyone having linked to it once. In this case, tagging it as large breasts does not contradict the wiki guidelines. If it makes more sense to tag a post as something and doing so blatantly contradicts what the wiki says (such as red eyes being used for posts with blue eyes), then it's a sign the wiki needs to be revised so it can be followed without resulting in mistags.

岩戸鈴芽 said:

But we are roughly following wiki guidelines. In most cases they work out fine, in some cases it's borderline, inconclusive, or someone just misjudges their estimation, in those cases we can follow common sense. I don't see how this is not congruent with how it's been done for as long as I've been contributing

Most users probably think they're using common sense when they tag the images, but since each user will judge borderline cases differently, the way they tag them will also be different. To me, calling something like that common sense is basically claiming that your choice is obviously correct and those that disagree are obviously wrong. I think "intuition" would be the better word to use in these situations.

In my case, I try to look at other factors besides how it compares to the face. For example, cleavage with a large amount of curvature will weight my decision closer to large breasts than medium breasts unless there's a sign it's due to the breasts being pushed together. It can be difficult to parse through all of the specific reasons for each decision because we'll often experience it as a vague feeling rather than an itemized list. You could parse it and use it to defend which side of a borderline you think the post falls in, but if you have to resort to that, you'd probably just be wasting your time.

岩戸鈴芽 said:
...
You seem insistent on following the wikis, despite multiple people saying it's better not to.

I don't understand what's not to get. As I've said before, I never advocated for strict adhereance. And with people these days constantly eyeball the sizes and the fact breast size definitions aren't perfect, I agree. So I ignore a lot of posts that technically violate the wiki definition but not in spirit and fix breast sizes for posts that I feel obviously tags them wrong. Despite being imperfect it's still useful as a guideline so I see if the breast sizes generally fit definitions.

I'm not sure if this is your point but your wording makes it sound like it's better to ignore the wiki size definitions altogether due to the definitions not being decent enough. If that's the case you might as well replace the definitions with "Just tag as your judgement sees fit".

Billyaabob said:

I don't understand what's not to get. As I've said before, I never advocated for strict adhereance. And with people these days constantly eyeball the sizes and the fact breast size definitions aren't perfect, I agree. So I ignore a lot of posts that technically violate the wiki definition but not in spirit and fix breast sizes for posts that I feel obviously tags them wrong. Despite being imperfect it's still useful as a guideline so I see if the breast sizes generally fit definitions.

I'm not sure if this is your point but your wording makes it sound like it's better to ignore the wiki size definitions altogether due to the definitions not being decent enough. If that's the case you might as well replace the definitions with "Just tag as your judgement sees fit".

It sounds to me like both of you are actually in agreement, but since you're emphasizing the "follow the wiki" point more and 岩戸鈴芽 is emphasizing the "wikis are not fallible" point more, your positions sound more opposed than they actually are.

Blank_User said:

It sounds to me like both of you are actually in agreement, but since you're emphasizing the "follow the wiki" point more and 岩戸鈴芽 is emphasizing the "wikis are not fallible" point more, your positions sound more opposed than they actually are.

I think most of the points people were trying to make here have been properly conveyed, yes, but when they close with:

Nowadays I usually only correct breast tags when I feel like they stray too far from a wiki definition.

I feel like it wasn't properly picked up on.

As to your previous reply, post #6510886 and post #6505737 actually started this somewhat a while back, with basically the same arguments.

岩戸鈴芽 said:

...

As to your previous reply, post #6510886 and post #6505737 actually started this somewhat a while back, with basically the same arguments.

post #6505737 seemed like it would obviously fall into the medium breasts category with a clear view of the breasts and face and the bra is pushing the breasts up into a sphere-ish shape for easy comparison to the face. They also seemed to match proportions of other medium beast images such as post #7469688.

My experience with most of these arguments is me bringing up the wiki definition then other taggers simply saying they would be considered large irl or "looks large to me". They never argued why a strict tagging won't apply to the scenario, if they even knew such a criteria even exists.

I didn't say anything for post #6510886 because the breasts there on second glance seemed like they will fit into the category of lower bound of large breasts if you handwave a bit. That being said I've noticed I've been tagging breasts on the lower end of large breasts as medium breasts a lot so I have been trying to be careful.