Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
There are many cases where there is not much (if any) muscle shown and really should be removed. I haven’t checked the tag in while, but makes me think I probably should.
If there really isn’t any visible muscle, I think this is not a problem with the tag, and more of an issue with the image itself not belonging on this site.
I’ve used “feat of strength” a few times because it seems to be the best match for fitness strength moves, such as:
It also seems suited for heavy, lifting, such as:
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2100045/
Don’t agree with it in this case, though:
Maybe there is a different word or a phrase that better captures the overall idea?
But there isn't really any notable visible muscle in this, by your own stated criteria (which I agree with ) it doesn't belong here:
Good catch, I just honestly assumed muscle was there. I grabbed it as a quick example without any further analysis.
I am fine with "teen" being loosely interpreted as "young adult", say < 25 y.o. or thereabouts.
In fact it would be very easy for me to rename it to literally "young adult", but then the meaning would get stretched to anyone < 50 y.o. and then it would truly be meaningless.
When you put it that way, the overall framing makes sense. I agree that attempting to change the wording would result in a disaster.
I don't know about other users, but I personally never search using the "biceps" tag. It's overinflated with thousands of images that have little to nothing to do with biceps. I tend to use more specific tags, such as "front double biceps".
So, in my opinion, using a tag like "biceps" gives the image very little value in an image search. It will get lost at sea. I would prioritize using the more niche and specific tags. Just make sure the tags you are using actually fit in with the other images that are already using those tags.
I don't know about other users, but I personally never search using the "biceps" tag. It's overinflated with thousands of images that have little to nothing to do with biceps. I tend to use more specific tags, such as "front double biceps".
So, in my opinion, using a tag like "biceps" gives the image very little value in an image search. It will get lost at sea. I would prioritize using the more niche and specific tags. Just make sure the tags you are using actually fit in with the other images that are already using those tags.
💯
So, in my opinion, using a tag like "biceps" gives the image very little value in an image search. It will get lost at sea. I would prioritize using the more niche and specific tags. Just make sure the tags you are using actually fit in with the other images that are already using those tags.
I agree with you if using it on its own. Macro tags, such as biceps, or quads, will always yield a ton of results. However, I believe they are still important. They are most powerful when combined with other tags.
For example, an advanced search of calves, biceps, dress yields some pretty good results.
Using that last search as an example, if someone has specifically tagged “tennis ball biceps with indentation“ or some other crazy specific nonsense, that image would never show up in those results. (I like the v-arm press flex tag, for example, but for it to really work well with advanced searching, it needs to coexist with both “biceps” and “delts/shoulders”.)
I also imagine there could be a future enhancement where users can omit search results with certain tags. If/when that day comes, you can then query for photos and specifically exclude biceps.
One of the challenges is we have now 10 tags for abs and often images won’t include the tag “abs”, but one of the others. This forces you to search with one of the others, even if you didn’t care for that granularity.
Granularity on its own can potentially be useful. But, there are three issues that are problematic, not just attributed to granularity. Let’s use “abs” as an example. The first issue: using a very specific imaginative tag, without adding the general tag that has its inherent property. So, “deep groove symmetrical abs“ is perhaps compelling, but failing to include “abs“ in general makes it of a limited searchability.
Second issue is a hidden or ambiguous meaning that does not offer enhanced differentiation from the broader topic. Even something like “brick abs“ can mean five things to five different people, not to mention something like “sidewinder glutes”. (There are those who are passionate about such tags and perhaps use them as a means of highly personal organization, but that’s a different topic that can be addressed in the tag merging thread).
The above two issues together can gum up the works. Now issue three: there is a small cohort who wish to occupy all 10 tag slots, with searchability/accuracy as an afterthought. So, when typing in the letters A, B, S, the picker list will show the top 10 variants, providing an easy way to make a random pick.
The best answer I can think of is to continue merging duplicative or highly personalized/ambiguous tags with tags more reflective of an inherent characteristic that is widely understandable (and which is hopefully descriptive of muscle on a female model).
I'm just dropping by to say that I'm in favor of more generic tags than specific ones for one very simple reason: people get too deep into their specificity...
I also imagine there could be a future enhancement where users can omit search results with certain tags. If/when that day comes, you can then query for photos and specifically exclude biceps.
I've been filling in tags in anticipation of this. For example, I don't care to see images where she's wearing a face mask.
This sometimes happens when a black & white image was merged into a coloured one, though going through them there was at least one image that was mis-tagged, despite not being a merge.
That's a logical explanation.
I've been filling in tags in anticipation of this. For example, I don't care to see images where she's wearing a face mask.
What if you have a kunoichi kink? XD
On the other hand, this picture had "sleeve" in her Tag list XD Not only she is nude, she's not wearing sleeves in any of her picures.
Granularity on its own can potentially be useful. But, there are three issues that are problematic, not just attributed to granularity. Let’s use “abs” as an example. The first issue: using a very specific imaginative tag, without adding the general tag that has its inherent property. So, “deep groove symmetrical abs“ is perhaps compelling, but failing to include “abs“ in general makes it of a limited searchability.
Second issue is a hidden or ambiguous meaning that does not offer enhanced differentiation from the broader topic. Even something like “brick abs“ can mean five things to five different people, not to mention something like “sidewinder glutes”. (There are those who are passionate about such tags and perhaps use them as a means of highly personal organization, but that’s a different topic that can be addressed in the tag merging thread).
The above two issues together can gum up the works. Now issue three: there is a small cohort who wish to occupy all 10 tag slots, with searchability/accuracy as an afterthought. So, when typing in the letters A, B, S, the picker list will show the top 10 variants, providing an easy way to make a random pick.
The best answer I can think of is to continue merging duplicative or highly personalized/ambiguous tags with tags more reflective of an inherent characteristic that is widely understandable (and which is hopefully descriptive of muscle on a female model).
I built a custom cms for a client that had tree based tagging system. Basically tags could be created to have hierarchy such that you could create a tag that was “abs” then have children tags “brick abs” and “8 pack”. If you searched for the parent tag, all children tags were automatically included. However you searched for “8 pack” you would only get “8 pack”. I gave no limits to the cms, you could keep nesting tags. We could have something like that for GWM.
I built a custom cms for a client that had tree based tagging system. Basically tags could be created to have hierarchy such that you could create a tag that was “abs” then have children tags “brick abs” and “8 pack”. If you searched for the parent tag, all children tags were automatically included. However you searched for “8 pack” you would only get “8 pack”. I gave no limits to the cms, you could keep nesting tags. We could have something like that for GWM.
I have been planning exactly something like this.
I built a custom cms for a client that had tree based tagging system. Basically tags could be created to have hierarchy such that you could create a tag that was “abs” then have children tags “brick abs” and “8 pack”. If you searched for the parent tag, all children tags were automatically included. However you searched for “8 pack” you would only get “8 pack”. I gave no limits to the cms, you could keep nesting tags. We could have something like that for GWM.
It seem to me like an excellent solution to please everyone.
I hope it's possibile to do it soon.
Jeez, another idiot tagging this skinny specimen with delts/shoulders, biceps, abs, quads, forearms, calves, I've reported a few of hers for not enough muscle anyway
This look like it must have been tagged quite a while back, since every indication suggests it was tagged before the new system was in place.
Maybe someone could help explain this one?
Evidently, there are some fans of fingers of the hand.
I was totally unaware of it too.
With 1 only subscriber, it seem to me to be one of those totally useless tags, accettable only if there is really nothing else to put.
There are, instead, some users that change good tags with these totally unknown and useless tags like also stairs, peace sign, leather belt, posing block/studio cube.
There are many cases where there is not much (if any) muscle shown and really should be removed. I haven’t checked the tag in while, but makes me think I probably should.