Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
"Huge" etc is subjective. Large in relation to what? The frame of the woman, or huge in comparison to other women, but of what size? Heavyweight to heavyweight or to lightweight? etc .
I think the biceps etc tag can mostly only indicate the biceps are prominent or the main focus of the photo or clearly visible in the photo compared to photos that definitely don't show them.
I agree that it's hard to draw a line, that's fair. But that's also true for the question of whether to tag a body part at all, right?
I didn't look at huge glutes much, so I can't speak to that. But huge biceps was my favorite tag on the site, because it was very different from just the plain "biceps" tag. There was a clear difference: earlier in this thread you can see some of the examples of it that I posted, compared to some of the biceps pictures that I removed that tag from for not being "huge". There's a big difference! I really like that massive size, and now that the tag is gone I can't search for it at all. "Biceps" does nothing for me here, it even includes bikini girls flexing. These tags may not be 100% perfect in usage given the subjectivity in where to draw the border, but I still found a lot of use in them. Now that's all gone. So I would prefer for them to return, even though there's no perfect place to draw the line. (I did a bit of cleanup after chipperpip's reply to my earlier comment and I thought the tag was in good shape, with mostly really huge biceps tagged.)
Using biceps or calves as an example, you can search for those body parts combined with something like "wellness competitor" or "bodybuilder." There's a also a the "similar images" feature that helps you locate images based on pics that already interest you.
The same can be said for "hard calves". I have absolutely no idea what hard is meant to mean in the context, how do you know they're hard, it's a picture. Have you felt them? Because they just look like calves and it's a completely useless tag.
However to me, "huge" means more than "hard" in the context of tagging a muscle.
I fully agree with ILTY.
"huge biceps" has been unmerged from the main "biceps" tag. The intention for it is for remarkable examples like this:
Sure, there's some subjectivity (especially when some people want to tag pics where the "biceps" are mostly made of fat), but I think it's a generally useful tag, and it's not too hard to clean up pics where it doesn't belong occasionally.
I don't think "big" as a descriptor for muscle groups makes for very good tags, since there's less emphasis than with something like "huge", and probably leads to more overuse. Practically every woman on this site has "big biceps" in comparison to the general population, for instance.
The idea of the "hard calves" tag I created, like I mentioned earlier in this thread, is for extremely sharply-defined calves, like the examples I gave:
Sort of the equivalent of the "peaked biceps" tag but for calves. I'll probably go ahead and change it to "sharp calves" to make that more clear, unless anyone has a better suggestion.
For many tags, there is an agreed meaning. A lot of these women are not actually "huge." "Huge calves" and "huge biceps" more or less refers to the rounded and bulging shape of the muscle relative to the other muscles of the model's body. It is subjective, but you also know it when you see it.
You've got
delts/shoulders
delts/shoulder
delt/shoulder
delt/shoulders
as separate tags probably should be merged.
Thanks, merged the rest into "delts/shoulders". Most of those were probably due to typos (use the autocomplete, people!)
Feats of strength, grip strength, biceps stretching sleeve, shirt rip, crushing, muscle domination.
Just noticed there is a “black & white” tag for photos without color. Nice!
Renamed to “black & white photo”. Looks like someone was using to represent photos where people were of different skin colours
Could probably do "black & white/monochrome". The second part makes it clear it's not talking about race.
You probably don't want too many similar tags but some pics will be tinted with a colour eg sepia or blue etc though not strictly black or grey. ie "monochrome" photos.
That's a fair point and I agree with chipperpip. This partly, when typing in tag we don't get the suggestions of the in-use variant.
I know this is a site for girls with muscle, but I would appreciate a tag for boobs. It would be nice to be able to distinguish girls with larger boobs from those with flat chests.
I know this is a site for girls with muscle, but I would appreciate a tag for boobs. It would be nice to be able to distinguish girls with larger boobs from those with flat chests.
Most of what you're looking for would be covered by the breast implants tag, since the type of bodyfat percentage needed to show significant muscle definition would usually result in a fairly flat chest otherwise, which is the intent of the natural chest tag.
To the both of you on the huge/big prefixed muscles.
BTW I went and had a look at the “big glutes” and they didn’t seem to be any bigger than anything “glutes” was labelling, making it seem redundant. Therein lies a bit of a problem: if no one is setting a minimum standard of what is big/huge/prominent (enter other synonyms here), then people won’t be necessarily adding value with this tag, over what is already there. We’ll take a look at the other muscles and see if there is a better case for them.
One of the main challenges I’m seeing is with subjective tags, where if you took a room of 20 people you wouldn’t have a 100% agreement. Examples of this are “pretty”, “beautiful” and “hot”.