Does a tumblr post merit its own pool?

Booru neophyte here. I came across post #2412026 which is misusing the relationship feature, as its children post #2412029, post #2412030, and post #2412032 are clearly entirely different images. However, the post and its children are all from the same tumblr post and are definitely related (if perhaps not explicitly chronological, although it's suggestively so). Does this warrant creating a small four-image pool? And if so, what should it be titled? It's not a named series, so the closest thing is the tag "actually its more of a collection of suzuya beign [sic] a gay ass nerd." So, what--"Kantai Collection - Suzuya Being A Gay-Ass Nerd (kvlen)"?

Anything above two posts warrants its own pool IMO.

Pool name (series):

Kantai Collection - Comic (kvlen)

That way, if the artist does more like the above, they can be added to the same pool.

howto:pools doesn't specify what a series is so maybe we should make our own definition what a series is. Would help for such cases.

I only start making series when the number of linked posts exceeds four. Also, series pools don't include layers that were part of an overall image.

tapnek said:

I only start making series when the number of linked posts exceeds four. Also, series pools don't include layers that were part of an overall image.

I'm of the same myself. I prefer having at least 5 posts for a proper pool. 4 depends.

I'm with Kadoya: 2 or 3 posts is okay for a parent-child relationship, 4 is borderline (that's where I'd pool 'em, but am inclined to leave alone if already parent-child), more than that is definitely getting pooled.

I've always been in the "pool everything that goes in a particular order, no matter how small" camp. I know some people think that's overkill, but it's not like small pools really hurt anything.

Figuring out a name is usually the only problem. I say just make up something reasonable if it doesn't have an artist-given name. The name doesn't matter that much anyway, the important thing is just grouping it in the right order.

evazion said:

I've always been in the "pool everything that goes in a particular order, no matter how small" camp. I know some people think that's overkill, but it's not like small pools really hurt anything.

Them's the currently written rules. One revision on a post other than the last one in a parent-child train and all hell breaks loose.

evazion said:

I've always been in the "pool everything that goes in a particular order, no matter how small" camp. I know some people think that's overkill, but it's not like small pools really hurt anything.

I agree completely.

Never liked two post pools. You see what's in the pool page expecting an actual series but you get like a sequel to something or a trilogy.

tapnek said:

Never liked two post pools. You see what's in the pool page expecting an actual series but you get like a sequel to something or a trilogy.

This "pool everything" thibking also goes against the argument being put together in the kouji_(campus_life) argument in the pointless pools wiki. We need to re-examine those rules to see if they should be kept.

Would it be helpful if series pools had some kind of preview and/or indicator on each post page indicating:

• 1: The particular place order of that post in the pool
• 2: The total number of posts in that pool
• 3: A preview of up to 5 posts with:
• a: The current post being first if it's the first in the pool
• b: The current post being last if it's the last in the pool
• c: Else it will be somewhere in the middle

That way, you wouldn't even need to open the pool page if it had under 5 posts. Thoughts?

BrokenEagle98: IIRC we used to have pool preview thumbnails and page numbers (or they were proposed at least, can't remember) but people had concerns about spoilers. And you can see page numbers by hovering over the pool name. They show up in a tooltip. Admittedly that is very non-obvious and inconvenient, but again I think it was to avoid spoilers.

There was an issue #1231 about anonymous sequences, but it got rejected in favor of modifying the current structure. Perhaps it would be viable to simply explicitly mark some pools as "short sequences", which would display thumbnails in the same place as current parent/child relations?

Couldn't there just be a togglable option for pools called Spoilerific or something...? (Similar to Is Active)

If it's set, it wouldn't show a preview, and if it's not set it would.