For more information, see the search syntax documentation. Search results are sorted by creation date.

Search Results

Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

Especially now after the Tumblr exodus, there are more platforms than just Tumblr for "ask blogs".

The tag ask shouldn't imply tumblr anymore.

If needed, spin off the tags ask tumblr, tumblr ask blog, tumblr ask, tumblr question from the aliases so they can separately imply tumblr.
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

There are over 3500 results for tempest shadow, -broken horn — some of which legitimately feature only intact horns or no horn at all (eg. humanized) and also some of which are just, IMO, inadequately tagged.

Of course, even though the character's official design has a broken horn, it wouldn't be appropriate to make her character tag imply it. But, is it also generally regarded as unnecessary?

Is there any faster way to go about mass-tagging and also avoid looking like a tag crusade? At an optimistic 5 to 10 seconds to view, confirm, and tag a post, that's a mathematically-convenient 5 to 10 hours of straight, unrelenting tagging.
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

@Derpy Whooves
If you see images where their real name is exposed, please report those images for Rule #8, because nothing's changed in their indication to us that they want to remain anonymous.

Noted; but I suppose I wasn't clear, that unless I'm remembering a dream or mis-remembering a site other than Derpibooru, their works as a whole turned up in a search for artist:(their name) (not just a specific image or two) when at another time some weeks before, and again some weeks after, they only turn up for artist:(php).

Sorry that I can't be more specific or definite; I just wanted to mention it in case the people who know how the site works behind the scenes might be able to make sense of it.
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

Either I'm going crazy, or I've seen a PHP (artist:php27) revert back and forth between being a PHP and using their original artist tag(s) over the past, I dunno, month or two. Now, maybe the artist really is flip-flopping on this decision or maybe I really am going crazy, but it seems possible there's a bug (or maybe some kind of outdated server cache).

It's not like I continually lurk their tag so unfortunately I can't give a better idea of the time frame; their art has just come up in searches I've done now and then and I've noticed at times they're a PHP and at times it used their name.
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

So, in the bug thread, I've just been taught that wildcard searches will include tag aliases in the pool of information from which to find results. Sayeth byte[]: "If any searches include aliases, all searches must include aliases."

OK, just to get it out of the way, the obvious suggestion then is an option or "field selector" to search only images' literal tags (or if the back end works the opposite way: search only unaliased tags).

But, what caused my original confusion is a relative lack of clarity. This leads me to several feature suggestions:

For example, when you search for a specific tag which is aliased to another, it says so and shows what it is on the search page. How about, an expandable section (like is already used for "Implied by") which gives a list of all tags matched by a nonliteral search (eg. wildcard or fuzzy)? For bonus points, it could incorporate small explanations like "X because it is aliased from Y (which matches)" or "Y which aliases to X".

Furthermore, on the image page itself, nothing indicates why it was a search result. Admittedly, it's pretty self-evident for non-aliased tag matches and most if not all field searches, but still, a feature which highlights which tag(s) and/or field(s) matched the search would be cool. In particular, if an aliased tag is part of the match, it ought to be represented in the image's list of tags (perhaps in the same way mentioned above, "X because it is aliased from Y [which matches]).
This might be unfeasible since I know you can view an image and simultaneously have an irrelevant search parameter specified in the URL, ie. the search and the display of an image are not presently tied together on Derpibooru.

Finding what aliases direct to a tag is a little awkward, especially when starting from an image. I can click each tag on an image, and see what aliases for it are listed — which sounds like I'm just being lazy, and maybe so. 20 tags later and I've already somehow overlooked which one had the alias in my search, though… So, feature: you know the drop-down that has "Watch" and "Filter"? What about a sub-menu that has "Aliases"? And while I'm dreaming, how about "Implied by (on this image)"?

Even the Tags page makes things a bit obtuse. Like it says, "A wildcard is added at the beginning and the end" — so if I tried to use that page to accomplish suggestion #1, there are lots of cases where it will throw in unrelated tags since its search works differently. I understand why that was intended, and I'm not confident what to suggest otherwise: Omit the starting and ending wildcards if any wildcards are present in the search term? (That's unintuitive.) Add a checkbox for "strict search"? (Interface clutter, although, not much.)

And to top it all off, the Aliases list is not itself actually searchable, or even alphabetically indexed. How about it?

OK, I'm done. tl;dr more upfront discoverability of information about aliases.

P.S. +1 for please to keep tag counts.
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

Not 100% sure if this is a bug or just me misunderstanding how the search should work:

AFAIK, a search for "squee*" should return results where the text "squee" or "squee[ and any amount and combination of characters following]" is in the tags.

The following two images were in the results and I don't see the string "squee" anywhere on them:

So uh, what's happening?

[edit] I'm getting similar relevance-unknown results with other searches formatted the same, like aww*
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

That was me, it was an implied tag from "immobile" which I didn't expect. I let it be because I think the "immobile" tag is relevant but I did find it unfortunate because of the cute/cartoony nature.
Posted Report
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

When something could be both part of a set and alternate version do you use both or is one preferred over the other? Also, is there a minimum quantity to qualify as a "set" or could I get some other guidance for when that is appropriate?

Specifically at the moment I am pondering these four NSFW images and also these Rainbow Dash icons — alternate versions, parts of sets, or both?
Posted Report
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

Fine, will you take me seriously now? And, I swear to Luna, I was just tagging some more images using this machine and the moment I stopped trying to make a mistake, I did it again.

Just making sure, since it seems you realized it yourself, that it's clear I'm admitting to user error and suggesting a way to reduce the ease with which user error can be committed?
Posted Report
Magnificent Metadata Maniac -

I'm having some trouble with the keyboard shortcuts functionality, specifically, I'm activating keys accidentally.

What I think is happening, is I'll be tagging an image, then maybe scroll back up to zoom in and inspect some detail, or in some other way make the text box lose focus without noticing. When I resume typing tags, I'll trigger a shortcut instead.

Of particular concern is that I've been voting and favoriting images without realizing it. It's been a few times that I'll look at my profile and find images voted and faved that I have no recollection of doing so. It might be fair to tell me to "get gud" but, like stairs, it keeps happening…

With that in mind, I'd like to propose that keyboard shortcuts be deactivated when the tag editing interface is shown, and when there is text entered in the comment field, even if these elements don't have focus. It seems reasonable to me that these conditions indicate user intention to be typing rather than navigating or curating.
Posted Report
Showing results 1 - 15 of 15 total

Default search

If you do not specify a field to search over, the search engine will search for posts with a body that is similar to the query's word stems. For example, posts containing the words winged humanization, wings, and spread wings would all be found by a search for wing, but sewing would not be.

Allowed fields

Field SelectorTypeDescriptionExample
authorLiteralMatches the author of this post. Anonymous authors will never match this
bodyFull TextMatches the body of this post. This is the default field.body:test
created_atDate/Time RangeMatches the creation time of this post.created_at:2015
idNumeric RangeMatches the numeric surrogate key for this
myMetamy:posts matches posts you have posted if you are signed in. my:posts
subjectFull TextMatches the title of the topic.subject:time wasting thread
topic_idLiteralMatches the numeric surrogate key for the topic this post belongs to.topic_id:7000
topic_positionNumeric RangeMatches the offset from the beginning of the topic of this post. Positions begin at 0.topic_position:0
updated_atDate/Time RangeMatches the creation or last edit time of this post.updated_at.gte:2 weeks ago
user_idLiteralMatches posts with the specified user_id. Anonymous users will never match this term.user_id:211190