Tell us stuff that needs doing

Clover the Clever

Lord and Saviour

@Tsundancer

Livestreams aren’t properly coming online. My streams been up for half an hour now and is still marked as off air. In addition the issue of online streams showing the Offline screen instead of their thumbnail is still present.

We’re aware of this - it’s something we’re looking into. We’re having to tweak our query rates due to limits from Livestream.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Zirro

@DartTimeTime

One way of solving that may be to introduce an optional “quarantine” on the first page of images, which sensitive (or generally annoyed) users could enable. What appears as their first page would be the actual second page, by which time the images have hopefully had their rating (and other tags) adjusted to a proper level.

This assumes, of course, that you are not requiring to see the absolute latest images as they are uploaded.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Clover the Clever

Lord and Saviour

@Zirro

@DartTimeTime

One way of solving that may be to introduce an optional “quarantine” on the first page of images, which sensitive (or generally annoyed) users could enable. What appears as their first page would be the actual second page, by which time the images have hopefully had their rating (and other tags) adjusted to a proper level.

This assumes, of course, that you are not requiring to see the absolute latest images as they are uploaded.

This is something we’re looking into, though probably as a function of time - ie, users would default to getting the front page on a 15 or 30 minute delay. This doesn’t work as well as an image count delay when it comes to slow periods of the day, though, so we might do it that way. Either way it’d be nice to have as a default (because most users don’t mind a bit of a delay, especially if they’re unaware of it, but most users get very annoyed by mistagged stuff).

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

onepinksheep

@Clover the Clever

We’re aware of this - it’s something we’re looking into. We’re having to tweak our query rates due to limits from Livestream.

I read that as “having to twerk our query rates”. Such a lovely mental image. I blame Miley.

Edit: Regarding my earlier post, does this seem like a feasible idea?

Is there any way to make it so that certain tags cannot be used together? Like, if you try to put a “safe” and a “questionable” tag together on the same image, the site will throw up an error warning and prevent the tag edit from going through? I just tested and it seems that you currently can use both tags at the same time, which of course contradict each other.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

No Thank You

The filter still gets rid of tags with 0 images. I need them for future eps when the leaks inevitably come, like one today. Please fix this.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

barbeque

@Splinter
Aha! It took me a while to realize, but it seems to only happen when there’s two (or more) lists of tags on the same page. Now that I know what to look for, this ~~will~~ should be easy to fix. Expect a fix soon.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Goldenpwny

Problem:
There are times when simply filtering out a tag will filter out similar images you do want to see.

Suggestion:
Can we have a feature that hides a single image if it’s “neighed” or perhaps a separate “hide this image (and this image only)” button?

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #592F

@Goldenpwny
They have said in the “Stuff we plan on doing and not doing thread that they won’t be implementing per-image hiding. They have also said in the same thread that they plan to add support for more complex filtering/watching expressions, such as:

((sweetie belle OR scootaloo OR apple bloom OR babs seed) AND (explicit OR suggestive OR questionable) AND NOT (scat OR grimdark))

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

soundtea

Ocellus is best buggo

@Goldenpwny
As the admins have said many times before: It would require way too much server power to do individual image hiding.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

when she felt her wings unfold

Goodbye Ponk Pie Hat

@soundtea
It’s as complex computationally as providing the information to the client required to display the red background on the “neigh”. It’s something which even happens already. Removal of the element even could be handled client-side.

Nobody has yet explained convincingly why this requires more server work.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

soundtea

Ocellus is best buggo

@when she felt her wings unfold
Because disliking it doesn’t add an invisible tag. Faving does, but that tag is only called when you’re actually looking through your favs. Having an individual image filter would result in having to process those individual pics for every time you click on any page. This adds up when all the users are going around and clogs up the server.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Goldenpwny

@Background Pony

@soundtea

Ah darn, well at least now I won’t get my hopes up. Thanks.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Goldenpwny

Thanks* as in “thank you for responding so quickly” (I didn’t mean to sound sarcastic/rude).

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

when she felt her wings unfold

Goodbye Ponk Pie Hat

Not convinced.

I note that the “neigh” link’s tag already has its href attribute changed from /images/<ID>/votes?positive=false to /images/<ID>/votes/undo by something when the user has downvoted it, and its class is changed so that the CSS styling inverts the colours and makes it look nice.

These are display concerns. Implementing per-image hiding based on personal downvotes is also a display concern.

There is surely no reason why existing code could not be adapted to do this at zero cost to the database backend (because this is evidently already being returned in whatever queries are being used), and at a trivial cost to hosts brewing up HTML and/or serving CSS (because they’d need to style an additional element). It could be done with some JS hackery instead too, which would reduce the additional server load to something utterly trivial.

I’m of course arguing from the post-rendering DOM tree and an understanding of how other websites work. Not necessarily a flaw in the argument, but surprise me :)

I’ll repeat my earlier request about this:
Please could clicking on “neigh” hide the image thumbnail in listing pages? Either by setting the <div class="image ..."> housing the thumbnail to display:none, or by not sending the image <div>.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

soundtea

Ocellus is best buggo

@when she felt her wings unfold
Just saying that the admins (including Clover, who kinda is the main coder) have said that actually hiding individual pics would be a massive strain on the server.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

K_A

I’ve already implemented custom image hiding in BORED. I’ll probably just move that to the server JS to prevent FOUCs, but it is not only possible but has been done.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

The Smiling Pony

( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡° )

Quick note that there’s a difference between spoilering and hiding. Spoilering (and doing other shenanigans to images already there) is clientsite. Hiding (aka filtering) is serverside as it messes with pagination (ie what images we actually send to you).

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

when she felt her wings unfold

Goodbye Ponk Pie Hat

@The Smiling Pony
For what it’s worth, I’d be happy with either a spoilered rendering for images I downvote, or a hackish client-side display:none “hide” of them. Even if the latter would result in nothing between upper and lower pagination bars (or a “you negative asshat” message☺) should I downvote everything on the page.

My goal is simply to not see stuff I don’t like. Sure, there’s filtering. But a user’s dislike individual images cannot always be inferred from the image’s tags. There exist images which a user may wish to not see for which no combination of filters and useful public tagging can be made to hide the image. Basically matters of personal taste. I’d consider tagging images as “$username hates it” to be Not Useful.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

zykfryt_uchiha

Rarity is laifu

A little reminder. Just want to know if there is any chance for it to be fix. It’s hard for me to use derpibooru with tags->filename like this.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #592F

Slightly crazy suggestion:
When displaying thumbnails for extremely wide or tall images (eg comics) currently, they get scaled down to the point that they can’t be seen properly. This makes searching for specific comics quite tedious.

Instead, I propose generating thumbnails such that they completely fill the preview box. To avoid cropping bits off, it would be possible to scroll over the thumbnail simply by moving the mouse around in the preview box.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Clover the Clever

Lord and Saviour

@zykfryt_uchiha

A little reminder. Just want to know if there is any chance for it to be fix. It’s hard for me to use derpibooru with tags->filename like this.

What’s the issue with this? If you need a short filename see the VS/DS buttons in the top bar.

@when she felt her wings unfold

@The Smiling Pony
For what it’s worth, I’d be happy with either a spoilered rendering for images I downvote, or a hackish client-side display:none “hide” of them. Even if the latter would result in nothing between upper and lower pagination bars (or a “you negative asshat” message☺) should I downvote everything on the page.

My goal is simply to not see stuff I don’t like. Sure, there’s filtering. But a user’s dislike individual images cannot always be inferred from the image’s tags. There exist images which a user may wish to not see for which no combination of filters and useful public tagging can be made to hide the image. Basically matters of personal taste. I’d consider tagging images as “$username hates it” to be Not Useful.

Sure we can client-side filter downvoted images on each page. But not without totally breaking pagination. We’d also have to do this throughout the site, which would require us to look up said downvote in more places.

If you’re happy with broken pagination and this filter not applying everywhere, then there’s nothing stopping you or someone else writing a client-side filter using Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey. But it’s not going to make it into the site any time soon.

Spoilering downvotes as an option is something we’ll consider, but it won’t be default behavior.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

The Smiling Pony

( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡° )

@Clover the Clever

What’s the issue with this? If you need a short filename see the VS/DS buttons in the top bar.

He does want the artist and rating tags, though, and those will be clipped out if the first 10 tags all start with As. I’m pretty sure this sounds like something that can be sorted with tag categories as we had planned.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

zykfryt_uchiha

Rarity is laifu

@Clover the Clever
As The Smiling Pony says.
I just miss old times, where in filename was so many tags, dat sometimes windows didn’t wanted operate on file. Now sometimes there is hardly 1/3 of tags in filename.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #592F

@zykfryt_uchiha
It did cause issues though. I remember reporting a bug in this thread where the tag list was getting truncated in such a way that it broke the link and made it impossible to view/download without using the short links.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

barbeque

@Splinter
This should now be fixed.

Posted 11 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!

Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!

This topic has been locked to new posts from non-moderators.

Locked 11 years ago

Lock reason: New threads created - obsolete