Danbooru 2

Once more, just "tossing the idea out there", I'd like to suggest possibly allowing a post's upload date, age, or posts from a certain date range to be metatags. It would be interesting to to get posts from a certain date or age-range, and it would be helpful for blacklisting (which I believe should be a priority, too).

One scenario I feel this could be useful is for the augmentation of blacklisting: no matter how extensive of a blacklist one sets up, it's impossible to avoid those squatters who upload disgusting or grotesque content, and fail to tag or rate their posts properly.

In these circumstances, the uploader leaves his upload rated as questionable, and usually doesn't tag it at all. If we could add a blacklist rule along the lines of "blacklist all posts that are rated 'Q', are only tagged with 'tagme' AND are less than 30 minutes old", the chances of having to see that type of content can be greatly reduced. Because, by then, someone who has have no problem seeing that kind of content would have most likely seen it, tagged it, and rated it properly.

For the most part, blacklists work very well, but we really need to be able to use more metatags for blacklisting, so that we can more effectively avoid content presented in the aforementioned scenario (and others).

Basically, I'd like to see more metatags, and I feel that tag blacklisting is something that is very important, and should have a high priority.

Bapabooiee said:
Once more, just "tossing the idea out there", I'd like to suggest possibly allowing a post's upload date, age, or posts from a certain date range to be metatags.

We have date: for doing a lot of this. Such as:

date:2010-03-03..2010-03-05
date:2007-03-03..
date:2007-03-03

Cyberia-Mix said:
<stuff>

Funny enough, I mentioned that same exact idea about...looks like five months ago. I think it wasn't well-received then (also, not given its own topic), but I'd be lying to say I didn't still want see it.

On a related note, maybe using topic maps? We already have a lot of the basic rigging in place for it from simple raw community effort and the utility of our current tagging system (I think we have something more akin to a thesaurus (See: ISO2788)). Formalising it into how we traverse tags is the next logical step to me, and it seems it wouldn't be too awfully hard to make a map of it.

DschingisKhan said:
Funny enough, I mentioned that same exact idea about...looks like five months ago.

Yeah not surprising, what I wrote seemed a bit too obvious not to have already been tackled before (and since my post was already a wall of text I skipped the apologies part).

So Albert had noted that "tying tags to notes" was something he might be interested in doing down the road. I think that was based on the "spatial tagging" suggestion I had earlier in the thread (though there I was thinking more along the lines of simple x,y coordinates).

forum #37442 got me thinking, this could actually be more useful than simply showing people where things are and who is who. If we did use something closer to our current note system for spatial tagging, with a full bounding box rather than simply x,y we could infer a tag's prominence on a post using the heuristic that more prominent tags take up a larger proportion of the image's area.

I'm not quite sure how best to integrate that with browsing or searching, but it could be a way to mitigate posts where people have tagged tiny things in the background (like character cameos) showing up when a searcher is looking more for things as the topic or focus of an image.

However we do this though, if we do it, I'd say we ought to use a different style note than what we use for translations. I think they would tend to clutter and confuse the translation notes if they looked the same. Having something where the notes are mostly transparent and appear only when hovering over them or their tag like at facebook or flickr might be nice.

Sorry for the hijack but...

jxh2154 said:
For anyone wondering what he linked to there, it was a shitload of "it's wonderful" meme spam. That went on for four years, including as recently as a few weeks ago. I nuked it. Because I'm heartless.

How about post #627836?

Shinjidude said:
...and a pony

WARNING: MASSIVE SECOND SYSTEM EFFECT DETECTED

But I like ponies...

It was just an idea without any real implementation details worked out. I'd be just as happy if people tagged as I suggested in the other thread.

It's been suggested before, but I think some form of relational tagging (so we can link 'long_hair', 'red_hair', and a character name together in tags, indicating that this post contains that character with long red hair) would be very useful.

Obviously it would have to be optional and backwards-compatible with existing stuff, but right now it's very difficult to search for some things because of images with multiple people in them.

This is a suggestion not from myself, but from another user. Still, it makes sense to have this in place.

What we really need is a "semi-public" setting, where anyone can add, but only the creator can delete, or re-add something he's deleted.

^ About current pools.

I like this idea a lot.

Is there a problem with people deleting things from pools?

I guess they could make it so mods can also delete or the author could just give others permission

memento_mori said:
Is there a problem with people deleting things from pools?

There has been in the past. Thing is, this would also help curb pool addition abuse (such as the "Disgustingly Adorable" and "Soul-Crushingly Depressing" pools have had).
In the proposed semi-public mode, the mod would be able to delete an image from a pool, and nobody but them would be able to re-add it later; however, it would still allow users to add other posts to the pool, thus increasing ease of use and general utility of the pooling feature.

Roarchu said:
I guess they could make it so mods can also delete or the author could just give others permission

I'm pretty sure mods can already edit pools regardless of the pool's access level.
As for adding permissions to other users, I dunno. Maybe.

well, sometimes people are just too lazy, don't care, or are too busy. And they don't really have a reason to keep up, especially if they're just non-privileged members

forum #37442 got me thinking; what if instead of doing nested tags (which albert has already mentioned would be difficult), what about tags having different levels of relevance? It would solve the issue with tagging background items, make searches available for both people looking for clocks and people trying to find an image they remember with a clock in it, and would offer an effect similar to nesting.

Thoughts?

Suiseiseki said:
forum #37442 got me thinking; what if instead of doing nested tags (which albert has already mentioned would be difficult), what about tags having different levels of relevance?

Thoughts?

I think it then means users are expected to make a judgement call on an abstract concept like "relevance", despite their general inability to even understand "tag what you see".

Shinjidude's idea is actually pretty damn cool. Combine it with my voted subjective tags and it would be like Christmas twice in a row.

Doomed are we the day we let the stupidity of users set the boundaries for the system we use.

I like Suiseiseki's proposal. Even if we only split the for a given post between, say, "major" and "minor", it would make the system so much more useful.

Soljashy said:
Doomed are we the day we let the stupidity of users set the boundaries for the system we use.

Touché.

Soljashy said:
Doomed are we the day we let the stupidity of users set the boundaries for the system we use.

I like Suiseiseki's proposal. Even if we only split the for a given post between, say, "major" and "minor", it would make the system so much more useful.

I was thinking about a simple major/minor split as well, more could be added later if it was really needed.

Normal search would bring back both results, and we could probably use a metatag "major:" or something for specific results.

Adding compatibility to the UI could be accomplished as simply as adding a extra box for each, or more complex if albert or someone has a good solution.

EDIT: Perhaps a neutral level wouldn't be a bad idea to add either, but I only really see that being useful on pictures with high amounts of small details.