Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
"calf veins" and "calves veins".
There's a tag called "hard calves" which I'm not sure is much different to "calves"
Yes I never understood hard calves. It's useless. Although I don't understand how we ended up allowing that, but not allowing wide calves as that's obviously more descriptive and obvious and applicable.
Yes I never understood hard calves. It's useless. Although I don't understand how we ended up allowing that, but not allowing wide calves as that's obviously more descriptive and obvious and applicable.
By "wide calves", not sure that's as obvious, given that tags get misinterpreted unless you mean calves seen from the front? But that would just be my interpretation.
Yes I never understood hard calves. It's useless. Although I don't understand how we ended up allowing that, but not allowing wide calves as that's obviously more descriptive and obvious and applicable.
I’d support the merge, if only because hard calves suggest they are flexed or standout, which in many ways isn’t different from the existing calves tag.
If something is not a standout attribute, then there isn’t much point to labelling.
Yes I never understood hard calves. It's useless. Although I don't understand how we ended up allowing that, but not allowing wide calves as that's obviously more descriptive and obvious and applicable.
The intent was for extremely sharply defined calves, like this:
Sort of the equivalent of "peaked biceps" for calves. The regular calves tag is of limited use, since it was a default tag on the site for so long, and can reasonably be applied to pretty much any picture with muscular calves visible.
Would it be more clear if it were called something like "sharp calves" instead?
One of the challenges, is that without a tag description or someone managing a given tag, then we end up with a lot of images that don't match the intent. At that point it risks being not much better than the more general version of the tag.
BTW this is not to say the intent is bad, but just that what was seen there wasn't adding value in the way images were tagged. If you want to de-merge it, I have no strong feelings.
What's the difference between https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?tags=... and https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?tags=... ? Seems like they could be merged, the first one was created less than a month ago. There's also https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?tags=... but that one might make sense to specifcally filter out the ones with flexing.
Now there's a fourth tag called non-selfie mirror is this what "mirror" was meant to be or is there a difference?
Now there's a fourth tag called non-selfie mirror is this what "mirror" was meant to be or is there a difference?
There are some people who seem to want name every item that appears in a photo, except for the muscles on the woman 😓. It’s annoying and I am not sure at what point we properly set down hard rules? For the mirror one I am tempted to merge it, but was waiting to see if there were any strong feelings either way.
Right now we can start with nothing subjective, it has to be visible, no dates, no weight values, no acronyms and no brand names. Though there is that fuzzy low value one, that is really a judgement call.
I feel like the distinction could be useful if applied properly but it seems the "mirror" tag is used more like an umbrella tag, I guess because of the unspecific name. Then again renaming the tag or merging it with another might leave us with a bunch of mistagged pictures, not sure what the best solution here would be.
To add to the confusion you can set your phone cam to act like a mirror reflection which can be seen in some selfies where the logo etc is reversed.
Overall, I would have thought selfie (if we must have one for that as there are so many of that type it gets overwhelming) mirror/reflection (where it is a noticeable part of the image ie reflects the model, not incidental)
There are some people who seem to want name every item that appears in a photo, except for the ones muscles on the woman 😓. It’s annoying and I am not sure at what point we properly set down hard rules?
Certain objects distinctively add to the atmosphere/style of the photo, usually when the model is interacting with it somehow. For example: bicycle. Also, there are a handful of tags that indicate the general setting, and therefore the atmosphere of the photo, such as beach, stairs, and boat.
However, muscle tagging should take precedence in all cases, whether we are talking about bicycles or skin tone or hair braids, or selfies. At least make sure at least one body part is tagged, or “figure/fitness” versus “bodybuilder”.
For the mirror one I am tempted to merge it, but was waiting to see if there were any strong feelings either way.
I think the distinction between a “mirror selfie” and a selfie where the model holds her arm out and photographs herself is super academic for the purposes of this tagging system. I would argue that a selfie is a selfie is a selfie…
I think the presence of a mirror matters most when the model is reflected, allowing an extra aspect of the model to appear in the photo. That often happens in bedroom situations and photoshoots, where you can see an extra reflected angle of the model in the photo. That’s when a mirror matters for the style/atmosphere of the photo. A plain selfie with a camera pointed at a mirror doesn’t pass the test. And, tagging a mirror just because one happens to be in the room, but not reflecting the model, would be like adding tags for “table,” “chair,” etc. A bit too extra.
Height comparison and height difference.
Seems that when you compare height, there is a difference
Suggest merging pizza into dining/eating/food.
Same with sushi.
I don't see where the specific food enhances the model, or affects the overall atmosphere/style of the photo at a deeper level than the dining/eating/food tag already does. Will we need tags for hamburgers, bread, and milk?
Lots of "posing" stuff. Suggest merging:
posing routines ==> posing practice/posing.
posing tutorial ==> posing practice/posing.
uncut posing video ==> posing practice/posing.
biceps posing ==> biceps flex.
"Front biceps flex" and "biceps flex" could probably be merged.
Agree with this.
Also, on the biceps topic, suggest a merge and then a rename:
FIRST, merge front double biceps ==> double biceps flex.
("double biceps flex" needs just a bit of cleanup to tag any "back double biceps" in there, but it looks like there are very few and I will volunteer to do it.) [UPDATE 2 HOURS LATER: this is done. There were not that many. Also corrected a handful to "most muscular/crab flex".]
SECOND,
After merging, rename front double biceps to "front double biceps flex" and rename "back double biceps" to "back double biceps flex." This will auto populate tag list options for users searching front/back, biceps, or flex, and should help minimize creation of new tags for the same thing.
Most of the previous suggestions were adopted without comment, I went back and did a few more of the obvious ones:
"backstage pump" -> "pump room"
"calf veins" -> "calves veins"
"pov standing over you" & "low angle" -> "low angle/pov above you"
"sushi" & "pizza" -> "dining/eating/food"
"biceps posing" -> "biceps flex"
"triceps posing" -> "triceps flex"
The other "posing" ones I would need to go back to look at closer, some of them might work as separate tags.
FIRST, merge front double biceps ==> double biceps flex.
("double biceps flex" needs just a bit of cleanup to tag any "back double biceps" in there, but it looks like there are very few and I will volunteer to do it.) [UPDATE 2 HOURS LATER: this is done. There were not that many. Also corrected a handful to "most muscular/crab flex".]
SECOND,
After merging, rename front double biceps to "front double biceps flex" and rename "back double biceps" to "back double biceps flex." This will auto populate tag list options for users searching front/back, biceps, or flex, and should help minimize creation of new tags for the same thing.
Thanks for that, I was actually planning on doing something like this, but as you can guess the main holdup was needing to separate out the "back double biceps" uploads from the general "double biceps flex" ones.
You seem to have done it a little differently though, I was planning on merging "double biceps flex" into "front double biceps", not the other way around. After the merge there wouldn't be an indefinite "double biceps flex" tag, only the front and back versions (for video clips featuring both angles, both tags can be applied if they're a prominent enough feature, and anyone looking for either/or could do a combined tag search).
In any case, currently I'm still seeing a bunch of uploads with double biceps flex applied that only feature back biceps, so those would need to be cleaned up to only have "back double biceps" before we can merge "double biceps flex" into "front double biceps".
You seem to have done it a little differently though, I was planning on merging "double biceps flex" into "front double biceps", not the other way around.
Wait, on second look I think your approach is the right approach. was thinking semantics only and communicated it poorly.
Recognizing that the old tag will resolve into the updated/merged tag, I agree that:
double biceps flex ==> front double biceps ==> front double biceps flex
and
back double biceps ==> back double biceps flex
After the merge there wouldn't be an indefinite "double biceps flex" tag, only the front and back versions (for video clips featuring both angles, both tags can be applied if they're a prominent enough feature, and anyone looking for either/or could do a combined tag search).
Yes. It seemed more efficient given the way users seem to approach tagging. I think the term "flex" is redundant, since it's fair to assume any muscle type labeled by a tag will undergo a flex. Since many are looking for "flex," when they don't see it they add it. The "biceps flex" tag will prob continue to be a general tag, since there likely hundreds of pics where the tag is applied for a biceps flex in general. But in my opinion, the difference in front and back for a double biceps flex really matters since they derive from the names of pretty standard and traditional bodybuilding poses, which themselves probably come from the way people like to see bodybuilders show their work.
In any case, currently I'm still seeing a bunch of uploads with double biceps flex applied that only feature back biceps, so those would need to be cleaned up to only have "back double biceps" before we can merge "double biceps flex" into "front double biceps".
I am looking again now, and found a bunch on the first pages. Will scan through again.
"Saree" and "Sari" should be merged.
In India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, it is usually spelled "saree." In the West, the spelling "sari" is mostly used.
Maybe a "sari/saree" tag?