As the title says, the updated flind, gnoll flesh gnawer, gnoll hunter and gnoll witherling are missing the gnoll monster tag. This tag is useful for finding all gnoll related monster stat blocks at once.

Hopefully someone will reply if I've missed any!

Update: Actually, at a glance, quite a lot of monsters of the multiverse stat blocks are missing monster tags, which makes searching a lot harder, so it might be worth doing a pass of all of them and adding the relevant tags?

Update 2: To clarify, what I'm referring to are the "monster tags" as stated by D&D Beyond in the homebrew editor, these are not the same as the Monster Sub-type which is what D&D calls "tags" in the monster manual. 🤦‍♂️

WotC didn’t include tags on the monsters in MotM, so DDB didn’t add any because they can’t.

Good ol' WotC, changing their categorization in every book.

Remember the major and minor magic item categories from XGtE? WotC doesn't.

Quote from IamSposta>>

WotC didn’t include tags on the monsters in MotM, so DDB didn’t add any because they can’t.

I'm not sure I follow?

To clarify, the tags I'm referring to have never been included in the books, they're only for searching here on D&D Beyond, same as environments which mostly come from a monster's description and are included for non-beasts even though they don't have published tables of environments (unlike beasts which got a big table for circle of land druids).

While MotM does not seem to have the sub-type "tag" as before, where gnolls previously were Humanoid (Gnoll) but are now Monstrosity, this doesn't prevent DDB from applying Gnoll under the Monster Tags box in the editor, as this isn't directly connected to sub-types.

Sorry if that's some nice confusing terminology; what the monster manual calls "tags", DDB calls "Monster Sub-types", meanwhile it uses "Monster Tags" for what it uses for searching. While many of these are in common with the sub-type, some aren't, such as the NPC tag, so there's no rule on what they can and can't use since it's for helping users to find things, which currently it's not that easy to do.

From the Monster Manual:

Tags (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/mm/introduction#Tags)

A monster might have one or more tags appended to its type, in parentheses. For example, an orc has the humanoid (orc) type. The parenthetical tags provide additional categorization for certain creatures. The tags have no rules of their own, but something in the game, such as a magic item, might refer to them. For instance, a spear that is especially effective at fighting demons would work against any monster that has the demon tag.

DDB didn’t just make those tags up, they got them from the monster statblocks. None of the new ones have tags.

Quote from IamSposta >>

DDB didn’t just make those tags up, they got them from the monster statblocks. None of the new ones have tags.

Sure, but these don't exactly correspond to the bracket "tags"; we have tags such as NPC which are not defined, but they're very useful for searching.

The "Monster Tags", as listed in the editor, exist only for searching, so there is absolutely zero reason why they need to be excluded for that purpose, as the bracketed tags ("Monster Sub-Types" in the editor) are entirely separate.

Gnolls are gnolls, so they should have the gnoll search tag so people can actually find them because that's what a search function is for. I will tell you now that there is precisely zero chance of convincing me that this is anything other than a bug. 😝