That's good, I've always wanted a way to approve flagged images from the individual image page.
Posted under General
albert said:
Some moderation enhancements:- Approving/deleting/hiding a post from its show page will now dynamically update the moderation queue
- You can now approve any non-active image
Thanks for the quick response on that ticket. It's not a huge bother but this definitely helps when people link an image that was flagged to check up on it, as happened in the deletion appeal thread a couple times.
albert said:
Oh, and you can no longer search for only NOT tags. I consider this a good thing because those sorts of queries basically require a sequential scan of the entire table.
Is there some way to make this work in combination with a source search? I found this somewhat useful in narrowing out images from a particular source search that don't have the artist added yet. Ah well, probably isn't a big deal in most cases...
EB said: Is there some way to make this work in combination with a source search? I found this somewhat useful in narrowing out images from a particular source search that don't have the artist added yet. Ah well, probably isn't a big deal in most cases...
This doesn't work? That's odd, because -artist_name source:hxxp://* is exactly the query an artist mass edit does.
And yep, I can confirm it doesn't work as a normal query. Just tried -takamachi_nanoha source:www.frapowa.com*
I'm thinking this was an oversight.
Edit: Oh, looks like mass edit no longer does the -artist_name bit. Hmmm, I suppose it *is* intentional then. I agree with you and would like to have this option back if possible. I liked being able to see only the posts missing the artist tag when I did a mass edit. Now they all come up.
albert said:
Oh, and you can no longer search for only NOT tags. I consider this a good thing because those sorts of queries basically require a sequential scan of the entire table.
As was stated in forum #15491, the site is rejecting searches with NOT tags even when there is a * tag present. Is this intentional? (Example thigh* -zettai_ryouiki)
edit: I should read the posts above me first.
- Title search in wiki fixed
- Various XSS and access check patches (thanks evazion)
- Mod queue now displays number of times a post has been hidden
- Tag statistics sidebar is back
- Pool import should be fixed (untested)
- Caching for the post listing/atom feed/piclens feed has been disabled
- Added order:favcount
albert said:
- Mod queue now displays number of times a post has been hidden
Er, in my trac (http://trac.donmai.us/ticket/532) I meant for all to see... Are you going to make it like that?
I don't like the idea of showing the number of times an image was hidden, I think it might influence mods into not approving something they may otherwise have. When you see that X other mods didn't find the image good enough to accept, you might rethink your own decision. While sure this would offer a more standardized acceptance, I thought the point of having a large number of mods was so that you would have a variety of tastes.
Perhaps they might get a clue as to just how shitty their posts are. I don't think complains would be that much of a problem, and the posts that might attract them would be the ones likely getting deleted anyway. Well, unless they take it to the forums. We could always pull this feature later if it turns out to be a problem.
It's also an indication that the posts are being considered in some fashion.
Updated
The hidden count is supremely uninteresting, I just realized. Everything that's 3 days old has been ignored by 9 people. Across the board. This is to be expected. If your post gets deleted in 3 days, then unless some portion of the janitors were inactive then 9 people ignored it. I don't think making this number public would be very informative.
I thought it would be at least a little informative for within that three day window, though (after which it wouldn't be visible anymore). It would tell you faster how much chance your image has of passing, like if everyone (or at least several) had had it hidden within the first day. It seemed like a simple enough feature to go ahead and add for "why not?".
RaisingK said:
Perhaps they might get a clue as to just how shitty their posts are.
Ha. Ha. Ha. You're new to this whole "internet" thing, aren't you? Of course it would attract shitloads of idiots bitching about their awesome 160x100 "the best futa has to offer" JPEG not getting approved. There is a strong correlation between stupidity, lack of taste and being vocal about it, but we know that already; yet another proof is unnecessary.
albert said:
I fixed the bug where excluded tags didn't work when used with union tags.
The problem is back, only worse. Excluded tags no longer work with any metatag only searches. user:roastbeefy -comic for an example. This includes source, status, and ratings based searches.
Excluded tags + metatags without any other tags won't work either.
I suppose I could trap on the case where only excluded tags are used, but as a general case I don't want people doing that. Those types of queries are guaranteed to be slow. Perhaps overloading the not: metatag will work.