Aliasing bigger_version_at_source → bigger_version_at_the_source
Link to alias

Reason:

common mistake

Seems common enough, +1 for that.

People should really use the bvats shortcut, so much faster to type.

Tuvalu said:
People should really use the bvats shortcut, so much faster to type.

i would but i keep forgetting how its spelled

Mutisija said:
i would but i keep forgetting how its spelled

Same here. Maybe bvas should be aliased too?

Both approved

This always struck me as an odd tag.

I'm guessing it's used when the larger images are unavailable for certain reasons, such as being exclusive to the commissioner or something?

GameManiac said:
This always struck me as an odd tag.

I'm guessing it's used when the larger images are unavailable for certain reasons, such as being exclusive to the commissioner or something?

The bigger version at the source should be uploaded and the old post should be flagged for deletion as an inferior copy.

GameManiac said:
This always struck me as an odd tag.

I'm guessing it's used when the larger images are unavailable for certain reasons, such as being exclusive to the commissioner or something?

There have been a few limited situations in my uploads where the largest version available by artist was too big for the site (despite the massive sizes e621 allows).

I'm assuming there are other possible cases like those you mentioned as well though.

Wodahseht said:
There have been a few limited situations in my uploads where the largest version available by artist was too big for the site (despite the massive sizes e621 allows).

I'm assuming there are other possible cases like those you mentioned as well though.

I've always wondered: Are the size limitations hard limits or soft limits? That is, are they the limits because that's how much the hardware can handle, or are they deliberately set by the admins/techs/whoever sets that?

ShylokVakarian said:
I've always wondered: Are the size limitations hard limits or soft limits? That is, are they the limits because that's how much the hardware can handle, or are they deliberately set by the admins/techs/whoever sets that?

They are soft limits. The size of the file doesn't matter a whole lot as far as hardware goes since they mostly just take up disk space (which we have plenty of) and transfer time (which we also have plenty of).

parasprite said:
They are soft limits. The size of the file doesn't matter a whole lot as far as hardware goes since they mostly just take up disk space (which we have plenty of) and transfer time (which we also have plenty of).

Gotcha. I presume this is to keep massive pictures from taking up so much space, especially if they need to be deleted?

ShylokVakarian said:
Gotcha. I presume this is to keep massive pictures from taking up so much space, especially if they need to be deleted?

Nah, they're just a combination of old limits and practicality.

To put it in perspective, a consumer 3TB hard drive can hold forty thousand 75 MB files for less than $100, but as you can see most images uploaded here are much much smaller than than that anyways.

parasprite said:
Nah, they're just a combination of old limits and practicality.

Wait, the entirety e621's image database is only 502.3 GB?

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Wait, the entirety e621's image database is only 502.3 GB?

I downloaded the entirety of e621's image database to a spare hard drive quite a while ago, it was only 400-something gigabytes back then.

Tuvalu said:
I downloaded the entirety of e621's image database to a spare hard drive quite a while ago, it was only 400-something gigabytes back then.

Hah, I was expecting more, like 2-3s TB of data.

I wonder how many spare backups out there of e6.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Hah, I was expecting more, like 2-3s TB of data.

I wonder how many spare backups out there of e6.

Nah, 2-3 terabytes would equate more to the amount of data my entire Steam library would take up seven times over.

GameManiac said:
This always struck me as an odd tag.

I'm guessing it's used when the larger images are unavailable for certain reasons, such as being exclusive to the commissioner or something?

Not necessarily. If a larger version of an image is not publicly available (behind a paywall or belonging only to the commissioner), then it does NOT confer the BVATS tag.

BVATS is because some users don't know how to save full-size images from websites; Sometimes you got to click around for them.

Or users upload inferior versions of images (post #731331) they found on 3rd-party sites that resize and compress the images. (Pinterest, Imgur, etc.)

Sometimes it's because an artist posts a particular image on several sites with varying resolution limits.

Example: post #725713 by CyanCapsule
FurAffinity (1280px limit unless the artist reuploads to bypass the resizing)
Tumblr (Limited to 1280px wide or 1920px high, whichever comes first)
Weasyl (No limit)
InkBunny (No limit)
Pixiv (No limit, but CyanCapsule decided to upload the 1280px version anyway)

In this case, the InkBunny or Weasyl sources would be most preferred.

It may also be worth noting that some artists withhold high-resolution versions of their images as Patreon exclusives, so giving a proper gallery source to show where you got an image is rather important to avoid DNP violations for posting paid content by non-DNP artists.

(Sometimes it's not a matter of resolution, but rather a difference in the image format. For this reason, I think it may be useful to alias bigger_version_at_the_source to BETTER_version_at_the_source https://e621.net/forum/show/170291)

@chdgs:
Does Deviantart have a size limit? I don't believe it does.

Tuvalu said:
I downloaded the entirety of e621's image database to a spare hard drive quite a while ago, it was only 400-something gigabytes back then.

I'll probably do the same eventually, through Python. Though I also sort through what I want and don't want, so I'll cut down my space to 1/3 or 1/4 its original amount.

Just as a reminder, we're okay if you guys make siterips, but if you overload the servers we will shit down your throats.

If you can throttle it to 1 image per second and we're happy.
That rate would, with a full siterip, take a whooping 8 days and some 2 hours. We don't have any bandwidth restrictions and all content is served by cloudflare, so we don't care how large the used bandwidth is, but we do care about the amount of simultaneous connections and requests to our servers.

GameManiac said:
@chdgs:
Does Deviantart have a size limit? I don't believe it does.

There is no resolution limit* for FULL images. File size limits still apply, though. LARGE images (clicking the image when you get to the page) have a limit, but I'm not 100% sure what it is (max width 1280?).

From what I can tell, the availability of FULL images on DeviantArt via the DOWNLOAD button is controlled by the artist. Example is post #666443, for which I got the 3.4MB 2557×3614 image from DeviantArt a few months ago. Note that the details for the image say it's still the 3614px image. However, the download button seems to be no longer available, so you can presently only get a 1280px version from there.

The same goes for post #666442 and its source.

There are quite a few instances where e621 hosts larger versions of images than those available on other sites (that aren't due to paywalls withholding hi-res content). Often when the artists themselves upload here. There's even a tag for it: SVATS, smaller_version_at_the_source.

_
*Bear in mind that a lot of sites still implement resolution limits, but they're somewhere beyond orders of some fifty-thousand pixels in either dimension. When I say "no limit", what I actually mean is "no limit that cripples the ability of an artist to post images over 2000px".

I don't see why you'd really want a full rip anyway, I have a list of about 30000 posts which I am supposed to rip, more or less my favorites (got maybe 3000 of my ultra favs done). I currently don't have any delay but it's single threaded synchronous so I really doubt that I even get one image per second.

chdgs said:
... For this reason, I think it may be useful to alias bigger_version_at_the_source to BETTER_version_at_the_source https://e621.net/forum/show/170291)

Sound good to me, would avoid some confusion.

NotMeNotYou said:
Just as a reminder, we're okay if you guys make siterips, but if you overload the servers we will shit down your throats.

If you can throttle it to 1 image per second and we're happy.
That rate would, with a full siterip, take a whooping 8 days and some 2 hours. We don't have any bandwidth restrictions and all content is served by cloudflare, so we don't care how large the used bandwidth is, but we do care about the amount of simultaneous connections and requests to our servers.

The way I siterip, I wouldn't even come close. I tackle it one tag at a time (for organization and memory management). Half of the time, I only manage a slow rate of about 50 images before having to restart.

Though it already beats my old method of looking and downloading each individual image and having multiple tags up at once.

chdgs said:
There is no resolution limit* for FULL images. File size limits still apply, though. LARGE images (clicking the image when you get to the page) have a limit, but I'm not 100% sure what it is (max width 1280?).

From what I can tell, the availability of FULL images on DeviantArt via the DOWNLOAD button is controlled by the artist. Example is post #666443, for which I got the 3.4MB 2557×3614 image from DeviantArt a few months ago. Note that the details for the image say it's still the 3614px image. However, the download button seems to be no longer available, so you can presently only get a 1280px version from there.

The same goes for post #666442 and its source.

There are quite a few instances where e621 hosts larger versions of images than those available on other sites (that aren't due to paywalls withholding hi-res content). Often when the artists themselves upload here. There's even a tag for it: SVATS, smaller_version_at_the_source.

_
*Bear in mind that a lot of sites still implement resolution limits, but they're somewhere beyond orders of some fifty-thousand pixels in either dimension. When I say "no limit", what I actually mean is "no limit that cripples the ability of an artist to post images over 2000px".

From what I've seen of other artists, I'll most likely not even bother paying attention to this limit, because I'll never reach it.

NotMeNotYou said:
if you overload the servers we will shit down your throats.

in the furry fandom, that's not a threat

Munkelzahn said:
(but) in the furry fandom, *puts on sunglasses* that's not a threat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o