Why was the "huge biceps" tag removed?

I need it back so much. It had gems and I don't understand what happened and why it doesn't exist anymore. I need it back.

Wouldn't it be redundant when "biceps" already exists?

Probably so subjective that it becomes pointless.

That said, it would be nice if there were more specific tags such as "16+ inch biceps".

Wouldn't it be redundant when "biceps" already exists?

It's more specific. We also have "egg shaped biceps" or "peaked biceps" and those are the same specific category as "huge biceps", so why can't we have that back yk? It's a nice search filter to find what I love.

Huge is not specific , it is so subjective. It's your opinion that something is huge when you tag it. I might think it's tiny or average.

It gets abused a lot because of this and things get unnecessary tags which uses up the 10 tag limit quickly.

Also by labelling a muscle group the expectation is that it is already standout.

I understand why it was gotten rid of. Subjective and hard to police how big counts as huge. I can imagine it was a mess for the mods to deal with.

But I have to say I really miss it. As tamarok says, biceps stand out in all "biceps" pictures, but in most of those they're just toned or big. The really huge ones are rare and very different. With the various "huge" tags gone, unfortunately most of the benefit of the new tagging system is lost for me. Going through tags like "huge biceps" and "massive muscles" was briefly the best part of this site for me.

The problem is unless we have someone taking ownership of such a tag and being a mod of it, then it starts to include pictures that call into question whether it’s clearly defined. We both likely have a good idea of the cut over point, but there are still people who don’t. There is also that wide chasm of borderline that makes it more work.

Heck, there are still people who will upload pictures of non muscular women to this site and wonder why they get removed.