All about breasts

Honestly, I say let's just start using a small_breasts tag. It doesn't do any harm; it's not a subjective tag, and it's at least trying to make a useful distinction. Worst case people ignore it... tags are fairly cheap.

I mean, yeah, there's a point where there's too much and it's just annoying clutter (I'm thinking of all those horrible cum_on_xyz tags here), but I don't think this is anywhere near that line.

Negative tags, as noted, don't really work -- with a positive search, inconsistent tagging means you miss some things, but still get overall useful results. With a negative search, it can make your search totally useless (because your results will be cluttered with stuff where people forgot to add tags that should have excluded those images.)

Negative searches also fail to work completely on any image with multiple pairs of breasts of differing sizes, which is pretty common.

And it makes some things that should be extremely easy straightforward searches ("character_x with small_breasts" or "small_breasts and red_hair") into convoluted monstrosities that will be full of bad results for the above reasons.

We already have a tag for small breasts. It's called flat_chest. The only size not explicitly covered is average. And I'm against adding more tags to the small end of the continuum, as that will completely unnecessarily splinter the DFC images into multiple tags.

I'll say the same thing I always did: we have too many breast tags to begin with, so I'd rather not add more. With over 110k images it's just not really feasible to rewrite our definitions.

So can we talk about adding less? Wait I mean, removing some!

Personally, I'd be against removing any either, as I said above, the status quo is fine, and I agree with sgcdonmai's grading scale.

Huge_breasts are usually too large for my tastes, and so I'd be against lumping them in with large_breasts; gigantic_breasts usually are against the ToS and for that reason that tag serves a purpose. Flat_chested is the only tag on the small side of the spectrum, so obviously that's not a good one to delete, and that basically covers everything we use.

Xabid said:
Negative tags, as noted, don't really work (...) With a negative search, it can make your search totally useless (because your results will be cluttered with stuff where people forgot to add tags that should have excluded those images.)

I feel it pertinent to point out that this part is not a flaw in the tagging system, but a flaw in the users doing the tagging.

If a search turns up something you specifically excluded, then you should do the Good Danbooruite Thing and add the tag that should have been there.

Should I go ahead and edit the wiki pages for breasts and the relevant sizes to reflect the head-size metric?

I guess, but I still think the distinction between huge and large is really murky even when defined.