BrokenEagle98 said:
Just throwing this out there, but when small breasts was decided to be brought back as a tag (it was originally aliased to flat chest), there were no bulk updates done then (topic #9228). We first decided on a definition of what constituted small breasts, and then a couple of enthusiastic tag gardeners went to work adding the tag manually.
That thread gave me some good insights on past breast related definition changes. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!
I gathered some interesting material from over there that could be relevant for this discussion:
S1eth said:
Toks said:
But we don't implicate gigantic_breasts and huge_breasts to large_breasts, even though they are logically subsets.
They are a subset of the breasts tag which specifies breasts of any size > 1/3 of the character's head. Gigantic_breasts is essentially only needed to keep track of ToS violations.
Has there been a definition like this? I couldn't find it in the history of breasts or tag group:breasts tags.
BrokenEagle98 said:
I would just like to throw in my two cents. I think small breasts should be anything that is greater than "flat as a board" for post-pubescent characters, and less than normal sized breasts. What are normal sized breasts? Well, too me, if any part of the breast would hang over a hand if it is placed immediately beneath the breast, I would constitute that as greater than or equal to normal. This also makes it relatively easy to to a visual comparison most of the time. If you look at all of the posts that Toks originally posted, they all meet this criteria, i.e. larger than flat, but not enough to hang:
post #1362392
post #1357791
post #1343910
post #1366283
Greater than or equal to normal sized breasts that also meet the criteria above, i.e. enough to hang:
post #1389981
post #1374196 (Girl on left, small breasts; Girl on right, normal breasts)
post #1387173
post #1385263
There are, of course, going to be gray areas with this, but unless you can actually do measurements on the characters, which we can't, it's always going to be subjective. That's not a big deal though, because the difference between normal, large, huge and gigantic is already subjective, so there wouldn't be anything new about it.
Good comparison of breasts and small_breasts, in my eyes.
Comparison based on post #2168938.
BrokenEagle98 said:
I just think it'll be hard to come up with any tag query that won't have a lot of false positives since as it's been stated, it relies on accurate tagging which we know isn't always the case. However, using the tag script function should make the job a whole lot easier since it will be evident from the thumbnail in a majority of posts on whether the breasts are average sized or not.
Choosing the the quality over quantity approach is completely fine with me. But of course it'll take time (and a lot of work on user side) for the new medium_breasts tag to establish its position.
