nuke moderate_pubic_hair

BUR #6807 has been approved by @evazion.

nuke moderate_pubic_hair

So we have moderate pubic hair, which is for a small amount of pubic hair... Wrong! Apparently it's for when there's a lot of pubic hair but not enough for excessive pubic hair.

The tag currently is half posts like post #4597654 and post #4256196, and half posts like post #3615238 or post #4599052. It's a mess because obviously people are not gonna care about wiki clauses that contradict a tag name.
It's in fact so much of a mess that we might as well throw it away, because it currently is unusable due to the wide variety of posts found within.

The utility of this tag as the current definition describes it was already called into question in topic #14480, and it's no surprise to me that the wiki history shows it started as a pet tag.

We have excessive pubic hair for a lot of pubic hair, we don't need a tag for pubic hair that is excessive but not quite enough, because that's not possible to objectively define. Maybe we could use a tag for "abundant but not excessive", but it's not this tag.
We could also use a tag for a small amount of pubic hair, but that's still not this tag, because "moderate" is inherently a bad name, so this just needs to go.

nonamethanks said:

We could also need a tag for a small amount of pubic hair, but that's still not this tag, because "moderate" is inherently a bad name, so this just needs to go.

Pubic stubble? Or more than that?

Unbreakable said:

Pubic stubble? Or more than that?

Pubic stubble seems to be for visibly shaved pubes, so you could not use it for something like post #4661857.

We could go with sparse pubic hair which would make sense for a low density of natural pubic hair, as opposed to a small amount of shaved hair, which I don't think this would be targeting. Either that or light public hair which would be more general (if a bit less natural English) and use an adjective modifier common to other tags here.

I agree that moderate pubic hair is a very poorly named tag and can be nuked without much loss. I would be in favour of keeping excessive pubic hair as it is, and creating either sparse pubic hair or light pubic hair for very small amounts of pubic hair.

However, excessive pubic hair currently implies pubic hair. Should sparse/light pubic hair also imply pubic hair? I would assume that a decent amount of users would want to be able to exclude everything except very small amounts of pubic hair, but if light pubic hair implied pubic hair and we don't have a medium pubic hair tag, they would not be able do this (of course, they could blacklist pubic_hair -light_pubic_hair but that won't occur to the average user). If we want users to be able to choose how much pubic hair they see, we'll either need to have light pubic hair not imply pubic hair (which is somewhat counterintuitive) or we'll need a medium pubic hair tag.

I'd definitely be in favor of creating some sort of tag for small amounts of pubic hair. It seems to be easier to get people to agree on what is "a little" compared to "a lot". As for an implication, why not? small breasts still implies breasts, and I can't think of any other cases where certain sizes aren't included in the main tag.

Cattywampus said:

I'd definitely be in favor of creating some sort of tag for small amounts of pubic hair. It seems to be easier to get people to agree on what is "a little" compared to "a lot". As for an implication, why not? small breasts still implies breasts, and I can't think of any other cases where certain sizes aren't included in the main tag.

The main difference between pubic hair and breasts is that women are very frequently drawn with no pubic hair at all, and people frequently want to exclude any significant amount of pubic hair. If we don't have a medium pubic hair tag and light pubic hair implies pubic hair, then without a -b blacklisting users cannot get "either no pubic hair or only a very small amount," which is a reasonable search to want to be able to make. There's no comparable problem with breasts because we have flat chest to pick out the no breasts posts, meaning that users can search ~flat_chest ~small_breasts to exclude bigger-than-small breasts.

I just think that if we're overhauling the pubic hair tagging framework, then it would be nice to allow for what I would think would be a relatively common search: "no pubic hair or only minimal pubic hair". We don't have to cater to this if we don't think its worth it.

CormacM said:

I agree that moderate pubic hair is a very poorly named tag and can be nuked without much loss. I would be in favour of keeping excessive pubic hair as it is, and creating either sparse pubic hair or light pubic hair for very small amounts of pubic hair.

However, excessive pubic hair currently implies pubic hair. Should sparse/light pubic hair also imply pubic hair? I would assume that a decent amount of users would want to be able to exclude everything except very small amounts of pubic hair, but if light pubic hair implied pubic hair and we don't have a medium pubic hair tag, they would not be able do this (of course, they could blacklist pubic_hair -light_pubic_hair but that won't occur to the average user). If we want users to be able to choose how much pubic hair they see, we'll either need to have light pubic hair not imply pubic hair (which is somewhat counterintuitive) or we'll need a medium pubic hair tag.

I'd say that sparse pubic hair or whatever we went with would need to imply pubic hair as any amount would be covered by the general tag. For people that want to block, as you mention they can via the blacklist. If they use the blacklist already, they should be able to read the attached help page to learn the capabilities. For those that are searching, you could just search by sparse pubic hair alone or pubic_hair -excessive_pubic_hair depending on what they were searching for.

CormacM said:

The main difference between pubic hair and breasts is that women are very frequently drawn with no pubic hair at all, and people frequently want to exclude any significant amount of pubic hair. If we don't have a medium pubic hair tag and light pubic hair implies pubic hair, then without a -b blacklisting users cannot get "either no pubic hair or only a very small amount," which is a reasonable search to want to be able to make. There's no comparable problem with breasts because we have flat chest to pick out the no breasts posts, meaning that users can search ~flat_chest ~small_breasts to exclude bigger-than-small breasts.

I just think that if we're overhauling the pubic hair tagging framework, then it would be nice to allow for what I would think would be a relatively common search: "no pubic hair or only minimal pubic hair". We don't have to cater to this if we don't think its worth it.

You're making the assumption that moderate pubic hair would regularly and reliably be used. I feel like in practice only the notable extremes would get tagged by people, with everything else just getting pubic hair. Look at how frequently medium hair is used compared to any of the other hair length options (87k for medium vs ~1.3 million for short or ~2.3 for long, or two orders of magnitude off).

CormacM said:

The main difference between pubic hair and breasts is that women are very frequently drawn with no pubic hair at all, and people frequently want to exclude any significant amount of pubic hair. If we don't have a medium pubic hair tag and light pubic hair implies pubic hair, then without a -b blacklisting users cannot get "either no pubic hair or only a very small amount," which is a reasonable search to want to be able to make. There's no comparable problem with breasts because we have flat chest to pick out the no breasts posts, meaning that users can search ~flat_chest ~small_breasts to exclude bigger-than-small breasts.

I just think that if we're overhauling the pubic hair tagging framework, then it would be nice to allow for what I would think would be a relatively common search: "no pubic hair or only minimal pubic hair". We don't have to cater to this if we don't think its worth it.

For this to even work, if I'm understanding it, users would have to not tag pubic hair on posts featuring "light pubic hair", which I highly doubt we would be able to enforce. With or without an implication I don't see such a search being possible without constant gardening, because I don't think you would be able to stop people from constantly tagging light pubic hair posts with pubic hair.

The problem isn't the existence of implications, or the lack of a moderate pubic hair tag, it's the lack of a no pubic hair tag. The ~flat_chest ~small_breasts example works because we have a tag for a lack of breasts. There's no equivalent tag for pubic hair. If we didn't have flat chest, then a "small breasts or no breasts" search would be equally as impossible.

I highly doubt renaming the tag will help much.
Because that's what we're doing at the end of the day when we introduce light/sparse/whatever pubic hair.

blindVigil said:

For this to even work, if I'm understanding it, users would have to not tag pubic hair on posts featuring "light pubic hair", which I highly doubt we would be able to enforce. With or without an implication I don't see such a search being possible without constant gardening, because I don't think you would be able to stop people from constantly tagging light pubic hair posts with pubic hair.

The idea is that users could add -excessive_pubic_hair -medium_pubic_hair to their search. Then light_pubic_hair could imply pubic_hair (which it should), with no problems.

That said, I agree with Shinjidude that a medium_pubic_hair won't get regularly or reliably used. Not enough people care enough to try and enforce a 3-step hierarchy of pubic hair lengths. So let's just tag the extremes, excessive and sparse pubic hair, and people can figure out how to blacklist if they really care.

The bulk update request #6807 (forum #194668) has been approved by @evazion.

If you want a tag for light pubic hair then go ahead.

Ok, I created a wiki for sparse pubic hair, and threw a few posts into it if people want to start using it. I picked that option in part so it wouldn't get mixed in with all of the "light_{color}_*" tags or "optical light" related tags in autocomplete.

Let's just hope this doesn't end up being a replacement tag.