Topic: [APPROVED] Tag implication: carrot_dildo -> improvised_dildo

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

faucet

Member

This seems a little odd to me, why was this one approved and topic #37573 rejected?

There doesn't seem to be any reason argued in the topic why carrot_dildo -> carrot was rejected but I'm assuming it's because the tag is also used for carrot-shaped dildos that aren't actually carrots. But this would surely make the improvised_dildo implication just as invalid because it would no longer be an improvised dildo but an actual dildo designed to look like a carrot.

I think it would make sense for carrot_dildo to be for an actual dildo and the actual usage of a carrot would probably fit better under a tag name like carrot_insertion.

furrypickle

Admin

carrot_dildo is a mix of actual carrots, actual carrot-shaped dildos, other objects made to look like carrots, and a lot of ambiguous-could-be-either-who-knows. That makes it hard to reliably rule it as one way or the other, especially for implicating to other things.

improvised_dildo is a bit broader, so whether it's technically a dildo but looks like it shouldn't be VS isn't technically a dildo but is being used as one... it has some room for a little bit of a grey area. So both options will probably still be okay under there. So this implication isn't likely to break searches. So this one was approved.

But carrot implicates vegetable and that implicates food. So in those images where it's pretty clear it's not actually an edible carrot, having it be implicated to food becomes questionable at best and a mistag at worst. So that implication seemed more likely to break down on some images. So for now that one was rejected.

It could be revisited IF we want to separate out the 'food carrots being used as dildos' vs the 'carrot shaped dildos being used as dildos'. But I'm not sure how often it's clear enough to tell them apart. And that goes for both separating them out now and also for keeping them distinct in tagging in the future. Or if separating them is really worth the effort or even makes sense on the practical level. In a lot of images, they just look recognisably carrot-like and that's about all that's clear. Artistic styles do not help with this one at all.

So for now at least, I rejected the implication that would indirectly tag them all with food. Because that really comes down to a much bigger issue: "is food-shaped enough reason to be tagged as "food", even if it's also clear it might not actually be food?" On that broader issue, I've seen tagging go both ways on the subject and it often depended on the image. I could see arguments for both directions on that, but it's probably a broader issue. But if we implicate it for this, then that flexibility would be lost. So that's why the implication to carrot was rejected for now.