litphoria

They are very small details and it doesn't seem worthwhile to keep them separated when arguably more important sexual details (such as dick vs ball vs vaginal size) are not. Categories 'normal' and 'average' may be able to be merged as well?

The thing is, while not important to you, it was important enough for first a suggestion, then a discussion (because there was some initial push back when the suggestion first appeared) then the interest to get it passed in the first place.

I think that if it is not important to you, that is not a valid reason to get rid of something. You can choose not to fill things in. Body mods, for you, are not worth it. My character happens to be based, in a very major way, around body modification. I am not one of the people who needed to define conical, inverted, and puffy nipples, but to someone they may be a very important aspect.

I suggested the nipple appearance trait. Loki is right in that I suggested it because 'inverted' was there in nipple size (and it isn't one). However, I am under the impression 'inverted' was also suggested by an individual majorly into puffy nipples. This is a big deal to people: some peoples' hearts are set racing by red hair, some by the right kind of shape, others by inverted or puffy nipples.

I don't know how much it will be used for searching, but it certainly is a thought provoker: "here, pick one of these for your characters." Now someone defines a property they might not have otherwise thought to, and might actually pick inverted or puffy now that it crosses their mind.

I like that they're there and I think it would be valuable to keep it around.

Since this involves suggesting something explicitly requested by other users (and approved through usual endorsements) I will need a fair amount of endorsements to go through with this.

We will also have to consider what this merged trait would be and what its categories are, since these two traits offer a lot of variety in categories.

Also, we will have to consider the fact that this is a fetish for some people, so I will have to do usage stats to determine if they are actually being used for such things.

Sorry for all the text. I'll just say that I want appearance (yet I'm ambivalent on anything that won't ever be searched). I really think I want to be able to pick both an appearance, and then specify a size of average or large, depending. Is it required for searching because anyone wants to find these exact details through search (or care at all)? see below:

"more important sexual details (such as dick vs ball vs vaginal size)"
There is a Genital Size specification that covers this pretty well. The only possible refinement is to allow separately for testicle (and clitoris and labia minor, vaginal length, etc) size specifications.

But NONE of this on nipples or genitalia is anything we need for search purposes. (Except for the existing size categories, sure.) Just having Nipple Size/Appearance and Genitalia Size is enough, and the other specifics could be written in the description boxes. (What about adding special syntax that permits search for a word or words in the description box of a certain trait?)

So, I want appearance. But I technically don't need it and I don't think anybody is really ever going to be searching on "puffy nipples." (or 'Large' for that matter.) By the same token, I don't think anybody is going to search on 'Large Genitalia with Small Testicles' or 'Average Genitalia with Protruding Labia Minora'.

If we just want stuff likely to be searched by at least someone, then maybe a lot of paring down can be done. But if we also want ALL the traits there to be able to express the characteristics and preferences of a profile, then we should be adding the genitalia stuff, not taking away the nipple stuff.

All this said, I could see some Genitalia characteristics added due to 'Hermaphrodite' variations. (Internal testes, No-testicles, no clitoris, and maybe some I haven't thought of.) The lack of external testicles is actually something that some people would search on, I think.

I still can't do anything with this until we have an idea what this merged trait will look like and what its categories will be.

I'm kind of against merging, so I'm not helping with that. lol
I realized last night that I actually go to the traits a LOT to look at things that aren't currently considered to be normally searched by anyone. This is so that I could write good prose that incorporates the description of the RP partner. So, even though I would NEVER search for profiles with eyes that are large and hazel, I definitely would be using these kinds of Trait details quite a bit in RP. This is true of build, facial features (no one's suggested some description of facial beauty I realized last night), genitalia details we don't even have yet, and of course, nipple appearance and size.

We could not retain all categories without creating a lot of duplicated stuff, e.g small puffy, large puffy.

Loki, I have issues with that. What if I want small conical, or average and inverted?

Searching context is not going to happen for a while, as there's no way that'll be perfomant without some serious work. So let's not consider that viable right now.

realized last night that I actually go to the traits a LOT to look at things that aren't currently considered to be normally searched by anyone. This is so that I could write good prose that incorporates the description of the RP partner. So, even though I would NEVER search for profiles with eyes that are large and hazel, I definitely would be using these kinds of Trait details quite a bit in RP.

Anne, you might be interested in split description to traits interests etc (litphoria.com), as this would give you a box above traits to describe everything that isn't going to fit within the system or is worth while knowing about otherwise, while keeping it limited and on-point so as to not drag down or impede scanning.

To me, the fact that we have these traits already gives them value. If it was a new suggestion, I could see the argument about not wanting a trait for every detail. You did not, for whatever reason, speak up then and it feels unfair to shift it suddenly now.

Let's not say it's unfair to change things later because we didn't say anything before - doing so is necessary to help us grow and figure things out. There's several times already we've added ineffective features and changed or removed them.

We've yet to see how this will turn out once issues are addressed. It's quite possible it shouldn't happen or there's a better solution.

(Or, by the same token, quite possible something decent will be worked out)