Title. Why does Random not apply your Blacklist to it? I've found this a little strange, is it a limitation of the site, or is it possible to add the Blacklist's effects to your Random button, and it just hasn't been done yet?

well with the way blacklist currently work i dont think its possible. blacklist only hides the thumbnails of blacklisted content on main page (and its still possible to unhide them) and in other places it replaces the thumbnails with the blacklisted thumbnail. you can still view posts normally through links and so on.

so its mainly just small cosmetic thing with thumbnails rather than actual blacklist that makes the blacklisted content completely hidden away from you.

Site limitation

https://e621.net/forum/show/147981

This is possible, on either client side (check whether loaded post is blacklisted, ask for another Random post if so), and, I think, site side (simplest implementation would probably be to cache a list of posts that are not blacklisted, per user, invalidating cache entries after 24 hours / any modification of blacklist, and use this when the user requests a random post. This would mean that Random couldn't choose images posted in the last 24hours, and might choose images that have been updated so that they would be blacklisted in last 24hours, but that's not very important IMO; it would achieve a 99+% success rate.)

savageorange said:
This is possible, on either client side (check whether loaded post is blacklisted, ask for another Random post if so), and, I think, site side (simplest implementation would probably be to cache a list of posts that are not blacklisted, per user, invalidating cache entries after 24 hours / any modification of blacklist, and use this when the user requests a random post. This would mean that Random couldn't choose images posted in the last 24hours, and might choose images that have been updated so that they would be blacklisted in last 24hours, but that's not very important IMO; it would achieve a 99+% success rate.)

With over 200,000 'active' members that'd be a lot of sucked up resource to constantly make a list for every individual of all the posts they're willing to see.

I think people will just have to deal with the risk if they choose to hit Random.

Wodahseht said:

I think people will just have to deal with the risk if they choose to hit Random.

It's fine, I can (and have) dealt with it. I just noticed the blacklist wasn't affected. I'll come across the usual...odd post, but I can shrug and click "random" again to get something else.

If you want to see random images and still have your blacklist work: order:random. Enjoy.

Furrin_Gok said:
If you want to see random images and still have your blacklist work: order:random. Enjoy.

That's useful, never used it though

might be a good way to find undertagged posts, overlooked issues, and other similar things

Furrin_Gok said:
If you want to see random images and still have your blacklist work: order:random. Enjoy.

i clicked that once and my own drawing was in the first row

Furrin_Gok said:
If you want to see random images and still have your blacklist work: order:random. Enjoy.

That's...unbelievably helpful. Thank you!

Wodahseht said:
With over 200,000 'active' members that'd be a lot of sucked up resource to constantly make a list for every individual of all the posts they're willing to see.

As I implied, there would be no 'constant' generation. Lists would be generated and cached as needed, discarded after 24 hours. If a user never asks for random posts, then no list is ever generated. I would be surprised if the number of cached lists ever rose above 100. Resource usage would probably be -lower- than it currently is, aside from a small amount of additional disk space for the lists.

savageorange said:
As I implied, there would be no 'constant' generation. Lists would be generated and cached as needed, discarded after 24 hours. If a user never asks for random posts, then no list is ever generated. I would be surprised if the number of cached lists ever rose above 100. Resource usage would probably be -lower- than it currently is, aside from a small amount of additional disk space for the lists.

That'd be a lot more reasonable, but I still don't really see a big need for this (especially given the order:random bit pointed out. However, I'll leave that discussion to others at this point as it doesn't significantly affect me either way.

Qmannn said:
Do you mean in terms of quantity of tags? If so, why not just use tagcount with the range syntax?

Yes, partially

Short version:

It's effective for finding posts you possibly missed, when combined with really specific searches in addition to single metatags. Especially if you're going through a tagging project in order of date-uploaded