arttags:0

Looks like it's finally been fixed.
arttags:0 now only returns posts w/o art tags, like it should.

But: it only returns 5 pages of them.
That can't be right, unless someone's been going on an unknown_artist tagging spree.

animperfectpatsy said:
Bug: Blacklist order isn't preserved when saving profile changes

Behavior: Blacklist reverses itself and rearranges some lines when saving.

Expected behavior: Blacklist stays the order the user enters it.

There's long been a bug where the blacklist reverses itself when saving (was reported more than a year ago in this thread).

But now it's worse. It still reverses, but lines also move around, making it harder to keep the blacklist neat and organized.

At least it's still a minor bug since line order doesn't affect how the blacklist works.

A fix for this is ready for the next update.

Huzzah! Thanks! :)

Can't browse e621 at all with Firefox. Every single page, including direct image links, goes to the "Untrusted Connection" page. Adding a permanent exception does nothing. Two other friends using Firefox also report this issue.

Kida said:
Can't browse e621 at all with Firefox. Every single page, including direct image links, goes to the "Untrusted Connection" page. Adding a permanent exception does nothing. Two other friends using Firefox also report this issue.

This is a problem with Avast. Go into your Settings, Active protection, Web Shield, Exclusions, and add https://e621.net to the list.

Furrin_Gok said:
This is a problem with Avast. Go into your Settings, Active protection, Web Shield, Exclusions, and add https://e621.net to the list.

Did that, still having the issue with direct image links.

Edit: Added static1.e621.net as well and everything seems to be okay; really annoying that this only just started happening. x_x

Kida said:
Did that, still having the issue with direct image links.

Huh. You can at least browse e621 now, though, right? I'm not sure what could be causing the direct image issues, as I haven't encountered that, but if you hit the "View" button when making the exception through firefox, it should give you a URL that might work if you make it exempt too.

Excuse me if i posted this wrong... this is the first time i had a Problem with the site that i can't solve on my own...
Well, this Problem is simple: i can't connect to e621.net with my PC (if you are wondering how i wrote this... Wii U has Internet too :P), the Problem is (i guess) not the site but my Browser. Firefox blocks the site, saying that it's "unsafe". i'm trying to learn things like Java or Lua... but HTML is nearly unreadable for me, so i couldn't find anything to fix this or deactive this Security thingy.
Little Pic of the MD5 Error. sry for it being in German, but the code is English... so it should be fine.

would be glad if someone knows what to do.

Kida said:
Can't browse e621 at all with Firefox. Every single page, including direct image links, goes to the "Untrusted Connection" page. Adding a permanent exception does nothing. Two other friends using Firefox also report this issue.

That's odd. I use Firefox and I've never had any problems. Have you installed any add-ons that might be causing the issue?

DragonFox69 said:
That's odd. I use Firefox and I've never had any problems. Have you installed any add-ons that might be causing the issue?

only got "Adblock Plus" and "Avast Online Security"
as far as i know Firefox does like MD5 certifications, i guess?

HDplayer said:
only got "Adblock Plus" and "Avast Online Security"
as far as i know Firefox does like MD5 certifications, i guess?

Again:

Furrin_Gok said:
This is a problem with Avast. Go into your Settings, Active protection, Web Shield, Exclusions, and add https://e621.net to the list.

The connection issues are due to SHA-1 certificates being phased out. SHA-1 is an old type of encryption that is too weak to rely on for web security, and since even XP users (running SP3) can use SHA-2, there's no reason to keep it around anymore.

The reason you get it with Avast (as Furin Gok already mentioned) is Avast has a feature called HTTPS scanning. Since HTTPS is normally encrypted programs can't scan the traffic natively without having the proper keys. Avast gets around this by hijacking HTTPS traffic, scanning it, and then packing it with their own encryption certificates instead. Avast just needs to update their programs to not use SHA-1 (they should anyways).

Disabling/whitelisting it in Avast is a workaround that will prevent issues on this and other websites.

parasprite said:
The connection issues are due to SHA-1 certificates being phased out. SHA-1 is an old type of encryption that is too weak to rely on for web security, and since even XP users (running SP3) can use SHA-2, there's no reason to keep it around anymore.

The reason you get it with Avast (as Furin Gok already mentioned) is Avast has a feature called HTTPS scanning. Since HTTPS is normally encrypted programs can't scan the traffic natively without having the proper keys. Avast gets around this by hijacking HTTPS traffic, scanning it, and then packing it with their own encryption certificates instead. Avast just needs to update their programs to not use SHA-1 (they should anyways).

Disabling/whitelisting it in Avast is a workaround that will prevent issues on this and other websites.

How do you specifically whitelist SHA-1? I'm still looking, but I haven't seen that option.

Furrin_Gok said:
How do you specifically whitelist SHA-1? I'm still looking, but I haven't seen that option.

I mean you whitelist the website (like you mentioned earlier). You may be able to do it just for https scanning, but I don't actually have a copy of Avast installed to check that.

parasprite said:
I mean you whitelist the website (like you mentioned earlier). You may be able to do it just for https scanning, but I don't actually have a copy of Avast installed to check that.

HTTPS scanning can be disabled in the main settings, yeah.

Furrin_Gok said:
HTTPS scanning can be disabled in the main settings, yeah.

ok, i'll try that when i go to my PC sometime later...

Bug: In special circumstances, e621 automatically adds a duplicate link to the source section.

Steps to duplicate:

1) Upload art from FA with the direct image link, the full-sized image on its FA page, and the artist's user page, all in HTTPS form.

2) Tweak the tags of the image once uploaded and save the tweaked tags.

Actual behavior: An HTTP source link to the artist's page is added, meaning there's now a duplicate link of a previously added one in unencrypted form. Attempts to remove it and keep the HTTPS link (which should be preferred) result in the HTTP link being re-added when the edit is saved.

Expected behavior: The source links should stay the same after editing an image using the previously mentioned steps.

Strongbird said:
Bug: In special circumstances, e621 automatically adds a duplicate link to the source section.

Steps to duplicate:

1) Upload art from FA with the direct image link, the full-sized image on its FA page, and the artist's user page, all in HTTPS form.

2) Tweak the tags of the image once uploaded and save the tweaked tags.

Actual behavior: An HTTP source link to the artist's page is added, meaning there's now a duplicate link of a previously added one in unencrypted form. Attempts to remove it and keep the HTTPS link (which should be preferred) result in the HTTP link being re-added when the edit is saved.

Expected behavior: The source links should stay the same after editing an image using the previously mentioned steps.

I think that's because Furaffinity does not have the proper encryption to officially be considered HTTPS. Their links default to HTTP. Go ahead and google Furaffinity, and the link you get will be HTTP, whereas googling somewhere with the proper encryption, like E621, you'll get HTTPS.

Furrin_Gok said:
I think that's because Furaffinity does not have the proper encryption to officially be considered HTTPS. Their links default to HTTP. Go ahead and google Furaffinity, and the link you get will be HTTP, whereas googling somewhere with the proper encryption, like E621, you'll get HTTPS.

From my tests, FA works no differently when in encrypted and unencrypted modes. I don't think e621 should automatically generate a link to the unencrypted version of the user page, which behaves no differently than the encrypted one to my knowledge, especially when the encrypted version to the same page was already included in the source links.

Edit: To try this yourself, grab the HTTPS Everywhere extension provided by EFF for your browser of choice and navigate to FA. EFF has a policy of not including websites whose functionality is broken in HTTPS mode, and from personal testing as a user, I haven't noticed any differences beyond those inherent to encrypting your website. I'm surprised FA hasn't enabled HTTPS by default, though my guess it that they're trying to save a few bucks when serving pages.

Strongbird said:
I'm surprised FA hasn't enabled HTTPS by default

There are many things that surprise me about FA
Although, know that it's FA, they don't really surprise me anymore

Strongbird said:
Bug: In special circumstances, e621 automatically adds a duplicate link to the source section.

Steps to duplicate:

1) Upload art from FA with the direct image link, the full-sized image on its FA page, and the artist's user page, all in HTTPS form.

2) Tweak the tags of the image once uploaded and save the tweaked tags.

Actual behavior: An HTTP source link to the artist's page is added, meaning there's now a duplicate link of a previously added one in unencrypted form. Attempts to remove it and keep the HTTPS link (which should be preferred) result in the HTTP link being re-added when the edit is saved.

Expected behavior: The source links should stay the same after editing an image using the previously mentioned steps.

Confirmed, very weird but easily reproducible. I'll look into this one.

At worst it's related to https and there might not be a fix until we can get the backend updated, but I suspect it's just some weird site-specific hack in the code (since the sources re-arrange themselves and I haven't been able to reproduce it with other websites) which would likely be much simpler to fix.

Edit: Yup, site specific stuff. It's more/less this going on:

• Do sources have link to FA image but not a link to profile?
• Construct link to profile from image url and shove image on the end

But it hasn't been updated to account for the s in https, so it doesn't think the link was added. It also only checks for the link on edits and not on initial upload, which isn't really ideal. :P

I'll try to get a fix ready sometime this week.

nope, Avast isn't the Problem, it's a thing for Firefox to block MD5 sites... atleast for me.

HDplayer said:
nope, Avast isn't the Problem, it's a thing for Firefox to block MD5 sites... atleast for me.

I haven't been able to reproduce this.

• What OS do you use? (e.g., Windows 10)
• Are you using Firefox stable? (as opposed to beta or dev)
• Do you have the same issues on https://e926.net?
• Can you try updating your AV program?

I'd like to ultimately figure out why the site is giving you a cert like that, but others have suggested this as a temporary fix. Note that this is essentially telling Firefox to ignore their recommendation and just allow the insecure certificate, which is not without its risks (also the option may be disabled in the future).

HDplayer said:
nope, Avast isn't the Problem, it's a thing for Firefox to block MD5 sites... atleast for me.

I was doing every fix in this thread including Avast stuff when a Firefox update came out about 5 secs ago and now it works!

Give it a shot... Finally can close Avast Safezone >_<

H0rnyOmega said:
I was doing every fix in this thread including Avast stuff when a Firefox update came out about 5 secs ago and now it works!

Give it a shot... Finally can close Avast Safezone >_<

Mozilla re-implemented SHA-1 support in the latest build of Firefox. This was done to cope with the practice of antivirus programs hijacking your web traffic and injecting their own SHA-1 certificate, doing away with any certificate the website would have presented ordinarily. The change was pushed in part to ensure the Extended Support Release of Firefox (used a lot in businesses or academic environments) remains usable. parasprite explained the subject in more detail on the previous page, and there's a new Mozilla blog post with further information.

For future reference, many modern commercial, real-time antivirus applications do more harm than good, especially when they clumsily interfere with your browser's operation through mandatory plug-ins. If you're using Windows, it's preferable to use Microsoft Defender (in Win8+) or Microsoft Security Center (in older versions) as your main real-time blacklist service, then complement it with the Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET) and possibly Malwarebytes Anti-Malware's free version for the occasional thorough system scan and removal of malicious objects.

Hopefully the above explanation was enlightening for you.

H0rnyOmega said:
...a Firefox update came out about 5 secs ago and now it works!

wow... well Problem solved?
this was a rather simple way to solve it, but ok xD

(Not sure if this is a bug, but there's no way to delete/merge wiki entries for this userlevel, and presumably below)

Bug: Removing all the content of a wiki entry returns the following error:

Template is missing

Missing template wiki/update.erb in view path app/views

Steps to duplicate:

1. Edit this wiki entry
2. Remove all the text
3. Save

Expected behavior: ???

Actual behavior: Returns a missing template error
[/quote]

titanmelon said:
(Not sure if this is a bug, but there's no way to delete/merge wiki entries for this userlevel, and presumably below)

Bug: Removing all the content of a wiki entry returns the following error:

Steps to duplicate:

1. Edit this wiki entry
2. Remove all the text
3. Save

Expected behavior: ???

Actual behavior: Returns a missing template error

[/quote]

Only mods can delete wiki pages, but that error definitely shouldn't be showing. Added to my todo list.

I've noticed a problem that occurs whenever I try to upload a new image by its URL address alone.

It gives me the message "Error: File not found, try uploading again".

This is the first time I've encountered this issue while uploading anything.

GameManiac said:
I've noticed a problem that occurs whenever I try to upload a new image by its URL address alone.

It gives me the message "Error: File not found, try uploading again".

This is the first time I've encountered this issue while uploading anything.

Upload by URL is temporarily disabled due to it leaking out our public IP. We will re-enable it once we get a solution up, but I'll see if I can get a notice for that page pushed for the meantime.

parasprite said:
Upload by URL is temporarily disabled due to it leaking out our public IP. We will re-enable it once we get a solution up, but I'll see if I can get a notice for that page pushed for the meantime.

Is that what led to those DDos attacks recently?

I'll just be saving the images as an extra step for the time being then. No big deal.

Bug: The username curledstache93 was listed twice in the 'Favorited by' section on post #802817

Expected behavior: List of recent users who've favorited a post should only include one entry per user

Actual behavior: See screenshot

Steps to duplicate: Unsure. However, at the time of posting, you can navigate to the aforementioned post and see curledstache93 listed twice.

Bug: searches with metatag 'ratio' don't work with the '..' range syntax

Steps to duplicate:

Example search: Rarity ratio:1.2
Compare to: Rarity ratio:1.2..3.5

Expected behavior: The second search should show more results, because way wider pictures are included

Actual behavior: Both searches return the same result

The < and > ar unaffected. So you can still search for everything wider or taller than one value.
But its impossible right now to show pictures with ratio in a given interval

duefff said:
Bug: searches with metatag 'ratio' don't work with the '..' range syntax

Steps to duplicate:

Example search: Rarity ratio:1.2
Compare to: Rarity ratio:1.2..3.5

Expected behavior: The second search should show more results, because way wider pictures are included

Actual behavior: Both searches return the same result

It actually looks they just don't work well with decimals. For instance. rarity ratio:5..100 works fine but rarity ratio:5.1..100 doesn't.

Why it doesn't play nicely I'm not sure, but I assume it has to do with the period making the site forget to add the range (for lack of a better way to put it).

parasprite said:
It actually looks they just don't work well with decimals. For instance. rarity ratio:5..100 works fine but rarity ratio:5.1..100 doesn't.

Why it doesn't play nicely I'm not sure, but I assume it has to do with the period making the site forget to add the range (for lack of a better way to put it).

I would guess it has something to do with the parsing of the string since both the decimal and the range use the dot as a marker

duefff said:
I would guess it has something to do with the parsing of the string since both the decimal and the range use the dot as a marker

It should be easy to fix since 2 dots is the range operator and 1 dot is decimal.

duefff said:
I would guess it has something to do with the parsing of the string since both the decimal and the range use the dot as a marker

Lance_Armstrong said:
It should be easy to fix since 2 dots is the range operator and 1 dot is decimal.

I assumed this was the case, but it doesn't seem to be parsing it as a range whatsoever with most searches. I'm actually kind of stumped here.

Recently I've been noticing that some defunct tags have started popping up again. Even the ones that have been aliased away. That seems kind of worrisome.

For example: post #806133 somehow got tagged as half-dressed, even though that's been aliased to clothed.

Genjar said:
Recently I've been noticing that some defunct tags have started popping up again. Even the ones that have been aliased away. That seems kind of worrisome.

For example: post #806133 somehow got tagged as half-dressed, even though that's been aliased to clothed.

I'm aware of this issue. It's likely a combination of the cache not getting updated properly and me trying to run dozens of them at once over the last week (also the recent server problems probably didn't help much :/).

If you find any more of these let me know (it's pretty easy to fix them once I'm aware, they're just hard to track down without retesting hundreds of aliases manually).

Edit: Fixed half-dressed

parasprite said:
I'm aware of this issue. It's likely a combination of the cache not getting updated properly and me trying to run dozens of them at once over the last week (also the recent server problems probably didn't help much :/).

So only a temporary glitch, then.. In any case, there's been a lot of those. Here's a few more:

post #805524 (horror)
post #721941 (bare)
post #804267 (back)
post #805307 (artwork)
post #805041 (animal, tagged that myself because I couldn't find the other example)

These also seem broken, because they don't link properly with invalid_tag: media, owned, hunk, character_from_animated_feature_film, vulnerable, ankles, adoptable, killer, (artwork), hunky, shading, wrist, elbow, thing...

Genjar said:
So only a temporary glitch, then.. In any case, there's been a lot of those. Here's a few more:

post #805524 (horror)
post #721941 (bare)
post #804267 (back)
post #805307 (artwork)
post #805041 (animal, tagged that myself because I couldn't find the other example)

These also seem broken, because they don't link properly with invalid_tag: media, owned, hunk, character_from_animated_feature_film, vulnerable, ankles, adoptable, killer, (artwork), hunky, shading, wrist, elbow, thing...

This is more widespread than I expected. I think we may want to find a way to fix these internally.

I was hoping someone could help me, I would appreciate anything Thanks.

I've been uploading from Rule 34 and Rule 34xxx, and recently a red-boxed message has come up when I've clicked "upload" saying that the file can't be found, although it's worked before. I've been clicking on the "image quality" button and pasting the jpeg link from the site, but it doesn't work. Could anyone tell me what's going on.

Thanks again for whatever help you can provide.

AMAROK said:
I was hoping someone could help me, I would appreciate anything Thanks.

I've been uploading from Rule 34 and Rule 34xxx, and recently a red-boxed message has come up when I've clicked "upload" saying that the file can't be found, although it's worked before. I've been clicking on the "image quality" button and pasting the jpeg link from the site, but it doesn't work. Could anyone tell me what's going on.

Thanks again for whatever help you can provide.

Probably this:

parasprite said:
Upload by URL is temporarily disabled due to it leaking out our public IP. We will re-enable it once we get a solution up, but I'll see if I can get a notice for that page pushed for the meantime.

Bug: this
Expected behaviour: A fairly ordinary 'pool deleted' or 'invalid pool id' error page.
Actual behaviour: Exception page with title "ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound in PoolController#show"

Revealed by this topic today, wherein NMNY removed pool #2887 for being a duplicate of pool #12
.

Bug: First underscore not shown in artist name
Expected behaviour: The artist name should be "cotton_nottoc_(artist)" https://e621.net/artist/show/21479
Actual behaviour: It's "cotton nottoc_(artist)"

Munkelzahn said:
Bug: First underscore not shown in artist name
Expected behaviour: The artist name should be "cotton_nottoc_(artist)" https://e621.net/artist/show/21479
Actual behaviour: It's "cotton nottoc_(artist)"

That's actually done deliberately...well not exactly deliberately. The latter underscore should actually be a space since the site replaces underscores with spaces to make the name pretty. However, the regex that does this probably assumed that all artists would have real names or something and it doesn't play well with non-word characters.

However since the title doubles as the tag (and the name isn't usually very pretty anyways) I think I might just drop the not-exactly-pretty name for the artist pages in favor of usability.

parasprite said:
However, the regex that does this probably assumed that all artists would have real names or something and it doesn't play well with non-word characters.

Or the regex needs the global flag.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Or the regex needs the global flag.

Nope, it just uses (?!\b) for some reason. :V

engageforth said:
Probably this:

Thanks, that makes sense, I'll just be patient and see what happens. Good luck

first of all 'm from Brazil my bad English and then I'm using google translator any error excuse me
I fis several test in question ping and download speed of the site and you can say that about 3 months was bad the last test I realized today was this :
Load time-865ms/Page size-361.9kB
being that my internet and 10 megs (theoretically ) more she comes 1mega per second in download 'd like to know if you have any way to fix this cuz to load video 30 megs ta hard I'm sorry for anything and thank you

stalion said:
first of all 'm from Brazil my bad English and then I'm using google translator any error excuse me
I fis several test in question ping and download speed of the site and you can say that about 3 months was bad the last test I realized today was this :
Load time-865ms/Page size-361.9kB
being that my internet and 10 megs (theoretically ) more she comes 1mega per second in download 'd like to know if you have any way to fix this cuz to load video 30 megs ta hard I'm sorry for anything and thank you

I hope this translates well. If anything is confusing, let me know.

That seems like a typical page load time to me.

• What is your ping with e621?
• What is your ping with google.com? (for comparison)

parasprite said:
I hope this translates well. If anything is confusing, let me know.

That seems like a typical page load time to me.

• What is your ping with e621?
• What is your ping with google.com? (for comparison)

google-52
e621-132 *_*

stalion said:
google-52
e621-132 *_*

The numbers aren't the best but they seem normal to me. I don't think there is much you can do for this.

"Reverse Google Search" doesn't work anymore.
It always leads to the error "404 Not Found".
What does work is using https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/search-by-image-by-google/ with the preview image.

I keep receiving the 522 error when trying to access e621. Though I'm not particularly sure if there is a possible resolution to this, as I fear it might just be inaccessible to my IP, if this is a common error perhaps I could be linked to a previous resolve.

And pardon, I would type this on the e6 forums though... Unfortunately that is not possible. Please excuse me if this type of post is not supposed to be here.

engageforth said:
Probably this:

Has the "upload by URL" been fixed? any luck finding the problem?

Munkelzahn said:
"Reverse Google Search" doesn't work anymore.
It always leads to the error "404 Not Found".
What does work is using https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/search-by-image-by-google/ with the preview image.

Figured it out. We just need to tack www to the front of the URL and it works fine. I'll send a fix now.

AMAROK said:
Has the "upload by URL" been fixed? any luck finding the problem?

Stay tuned. This will be part of the next update.

Donny_Hillof said:
I keep receiving the 522 error when trying to access e621. Though I'm not particularly sure if there is a possible resolution to this, as I fear it might just be inaccessible to my IP, if this is a common error perhaps I could be linked to a previous resolve.

And pardon, I would type this on the e6 forums though... Unfortunately that is not possible. Please excuse me if this type of post is not supposed to be here.

e926 and e621 are actually the same website, so you don't have to worry about which to post on.

• How long have you been getting this error?
• Are you able to connect at all? (e.g., error 522 90% of time, 10% of time the site loads fine)
• Do you happen to be using Windows XP?

parasprite said:
Figured it out. We just need to tack www to the front of the URL and it works fine. I'll send a fix now.

Stay tuned. This will be part of the next update.

e926 and e621 are actually the same website, so you don't have to worry about which to post on.

• How long have you been getting this error?
• Are you able to connect at all? (e.g., error 522 90% of time, 10% of time the site loads fine)
• Do you happen to be using Windows XP?

I get this currently 100% of the time, and this has been for about a week now that it's been going on.

I, thank god, do not use windows XP.

Donny_Hillof said:
I get this currently 100% of the time, and this has been for about a week now that it's been going on.

I, thank god, do not use windows XP.

Visit https://e621.net/cdn-cgi/trace and send me the output

the Site said me to give this to a Admin, but i'll just post it here to see if a Admin finds it.
THING

HDplayer said:
the Site said me to give this to a Admin, but i'll just post it here to see if a Admin finds it.
THING

I got something pretty similar, but my code was 37a9ec04b2e69b04

submit your personal code, win great prizes!

Munkelzahn said:
submit your personal code, win great prizes!

Bad Dragon prizes?

Source auto-detection (or whatever it's called) is borked

post #824194

I put this in the Source field:
http://manweri.deviantart.com/art/A-centaur-in-disguise-179507382
http://orig13.deviantart.net/c1d3/f/2010/259/8/f/a_centaur_in_disguise_by_manweri-d2yvgs6.jpg

And e621 turned it into:
http://manweri.deviantart.com/art/A-centaur-in-disguise-179507382
http://.deviantart.com/
http://orig13.deviantart.net/c1d3/f/2010/259/8/f/a_centaur_in_disguise_by_manweri-d2yvgs6.jpg

flashes are squashed tiny and unsuable

kindii said:
flashes are squashed tiny and unsuable

They're working on fixing that one. In the meantime, add the bad_metadata tag to any of the squashed tiny unusuable ones that you see. We're using that tag to keep track of the broken ones, so that we can easily fix them when we have it solved.

Bug report:

What is broke: There's a specific tag which refuses to be removed by any method. Not because of implications (I checked). Seems to be broken because it was a typo tag that starts with an underscore, so the site's ignoring attempts to remove the tag.

The tag: https://e621.net/post/index/1/_leaking_pre
the image which has the tag (warning, has extreme kinks, so linking straight to the tag history): https://e621.net/post_tag_history/index?post_id=824883

Why is this important to fix: Typo tags which start with an underscore happen by mistake fairly often when someone hits the spacebar in the wrong place while tagging. While no tag is supposed to start with an underscore, but when it does happen the site needs to allow them to be fixed/removed easily.

Just today I noticed my blacklist wasn't remembered when I saw the Posts page (I always visit without logging in). I liked how esix remembered my entire blacklist without me having to log in or copy/paste it every single time.

Anyone else had this problem? Any tips? owo

Edit: It's worse than I thought at first. I have to re-paste my blacklist every time I move to another page! xD So going from Page 1 to 'Page 2' or 'Popular By Day,' my blacklist is empty. x_x

I have Extend also, though I'm not sure if it's causing it. I'll be sure to bring this up in the Extend thread too.

Bug:
Broken page at https://e621.net/artist/create?name=foxyking_%28artist%29

Expected behavior:
To be able to see the artist edit/creation page

Actual behavior:
Received the message: "He's dead, Jim

Something went horribly wrong...

Give this to an admin to report the issue: 5fd3e5980e36b1f1fd50fba11e487eec"

Steps to duplicate:
Go to https://e621.net/artist/create?name=foxyking_%28artist%29

Human-Shaped said:
Just today I noticed my blacklist wasn't remembered when I saw the Posts page (I always visit without logging in). I liked how esix remembered my entire blacklist without me having to log in or copy/paste it every single time.

Anyone else had this problem? Any tips? owo

Edit: It's worse than I thought at first. I have to re-paste my blacklist every time I move to another page! xD So going from Page 1 to 'Page 2' or 'Popular By Day,' my blacklist is empty. x_x

I have Extend also, though I'm not sure if it's causing it. I'll be sure to bring this up in the Extend thread too.

Are you on Incognito? have you tried clearing your cookies and then repasting the list to see if it sticks afterwards?

Bug:
Tag updates via api results in redirection to post search with stack trace error

Expected behavior:
Tags should be updated

Actual behavior:
Redirected to:

https://e621.net/post/show?id=%23%3CProc%3A0x00000005adc7f8%40%2Fhome%2Fe621%2Fe621-production%2Freleases%2F20160126060000%2Fapp%2Fcontrollers%2Fpost_controller.rb%3A7+%28lambda%29%3E 
DECODED:
#<Proc:0x00000005adc7f8@/home/e621/e621-production/releases/20160126060000/app/controllers/post_controller.rb:7 (lambda)>

Steps to duplicate:
1. Visit

https://e621.net/post/update.json?id=745262&post[tags]=ambiguous_gender%20brown_fur%20cat%20ears_up%20feline%20feral%20fluffy%20fur%20green_eyes%20license_info%20louis_wain%20lying%20mammal%20nude%20on_front%20painting_(artwork)%20public_domain%20signature%20simple_background%20solo%20traditional_media_(artwork)%20whiskers%20white_fur

^{Above link should re-apply all current tags to post #745262, and should be considered safe to visit without messing up tags}

2. Observe URL being redirected to

https://e621.net/post/show?id=%23%3CProc%3A0x00000005adc7f8%40%2Fhome%2Fe621%2Fe621-production%2Freleases%2F20160126060000%2Fapp%2Fcontrollers%2Fpost_controller.rb%3A7+%28lambda%29%3E

furrypickle said:
Bug report:

What is broke: There's a specific tag which refuses to be removed by any method. Not because of implications (I checked). Seems to be broken because it was a typo tag that starts with an underscore, so the site's ignoring attempts to remove the tag.

The tag: https://e621.net/post/index/1/_leaking_pre
the image which has the tag (warning, has extreme kinks, so linking straight to the tag history): https://e621.net/post_tag_history/index?post_id=824883

Why is this important to fix: Typo tags which start with an underscore happen by mistake fairly often when someone hits the spacebar in the wrong place while tagging. While no tag is supposed to start with an underscore, but when it does happen the site needs to allow them to be fixed/removed easily.

I just wanted to let everyone know that this is a temporary bug caused by the tag cleanup code introduced in the last update (which attempts to remove excess underscores and related characters). I have a fix for it ready but it might take a couple days to get it to live.

You may be able to get them off by playing with the number of umderscores, but otherwise they are safe to ignore.

Chaser said:
Bug:
Tag updates via api results in redirection to post search with stack trace error

Does this happen when you make a POST request? (Like with cURL, wget, or the "Make request" tab (with POST) in your browser's development/network tools?)

Furrin_Gok said:
Are you on Incognito? have you tried clearing your cookies and then repasting the list to see if it sticks afterwards?

Nope, no incognito. Yes I have cleared the cookies and repasted the list, but move just one page and it doesn't remember. And I've got Firefox's privacy settings set to 'Always Allow Third Party Cookies.' I can even open the individual cookies and see esix in there! o_O

What's weird is my cookies for other sites are being remembered just fine. Even add-ons like CommentBlocker, NoSquint, and Greasemonkey (for Extend) work fine here on esix. It's just the damn cookies that remember my blacklist that don't seem to want to work all the sudden Dx

I’ve tried the ‘Refresh Firefox’ feature and not even THAT worked.

As of now, the ONLY way I can enjoy esix like I usually did is to log in every time. I really want to just click my esix bookmark and boom, everything's in order :[

TonyLemur said:
Does this happen when you make a POST request? (Like with cURL, wget, or the "Make request" tab (with POST) in your browser's development/network tools?)

Nope, this appears to work using the POST. I didn't think of that. :x