Thanks, Marco!
You point out two other difficulties:
- what to do with features which are only or predominantly found in non-Zodiac imagery? Perhaps add a "notes" section for each figure?
And more complicated:
- How many aspects should be treated together?
This goes both ways. There's what you say, if you select a large enough number of traits and look for an exact match, it will soon turn out that each image ever drawn is unique. This cannot be the intention.
But on the other hand, it feels like looking for bulls which have both long and lyre-shaped horns yields more satisfying results than just looking for these traits in isolation. I guess we'll look at this on a case by case basis.
For example, I think listing "double crayfish" as a unique [edit: I must say "rare" now] feature is useful. Like this, when someone runs across a double crayfish they will know right away it's relevant.
You point out two other difficulties:
- what to do with features which are only or predominantly found in non-Zodiac imagery? Perhaps add a "notes" section for each figure?
And more complicated:
- How many aspects should be treated together?
This goes both ways. There's what you say, if you select a large enough number of traits and look for an exact match, it will soon turn out that each image ever drawn is unique. This cannot be the intention.
But on the other hand, it feels like looking for bulls which have both long and lyre-shaped horns yields more satisfying results than just looking for these traits in isolation. I guess we'll look at this on a case by case basis.
For example, I think listing "double crayfish" as a unique [edit: I must say "rare" now] feature is useful. Like this, when someone runs across a double crayfish they will know right away it's relevant.