I'd love a tracker because I never know if my feature requests have been acknowledged, denied, or followed up on. Some of them contain code..

Request: Let us designate an image as a thumbnail for a flash or video file. This could tie into the Parent system (thumbnail has to be child of flash file), ought have some manner of "yo this is a flash/video" border.

Why it would be useful: Because have you -tried- browsing through the works of a flash artist for that one you remember and wanna rewatch?

Request: Append the creation date to linked forum posts

eg. Something like the note on the 'cuntboy' page

forum #172539 (Sep. 2015)

Why it would be useful: [TBA]

• some obvious stuff like avoiding necroposts and outdated info
• Having an idea about when the discussion happened

Request: Allow filtered out posts to have a generic warning thumb instead of being removed from search results

Why it would be useful: It is difficult to know when you would like to see blacklisted tags. It's easy to forget your blacklist or horrors is working in the background.

• I don't want to see gore, gore of wolverine is ok.
• I don't want to see spoiler, spoilers of shows I don't like are ok.
• No hyper, unless it's funny.
• No vore, I make exceptions for my favorite artists.

[self edit: IMPLEMENTED \o/]

titanmelon said:
Request:A separate sub(-sub?) category for aliases/implications alone

Why it would be useful:
Because the first two pages of the current tag/wiki forum (without any other categories) look like this (as of posting)

Approved :P

Request: Transfer votes (or at least upvotes) to a superior post when an inferior post is deleted

Why it would be useful: Same idea as in transferring favorites which we already do. It would be particularly nice personally since I upvote more often than I favorite. The only drawback I can think of is if a user downvoted a post only due to low resolution, and would not have downvoted a higher quality version. So perhaps (if feasible) we could just transfer the upvotes.

Requested feature: Being able to download all of yours or others favorite pictures onto your computer.
Like downloading all of a specific artists stuff or your favorites list, even just a specific tag

Why it would be useful: It saves the hassle of downloading a lot of porn onto your computer and will save a lot of time instead of downloading a lot of pictures individually

Requested feature: the removal or tweaking of the deleted post penalties.

Why it would be useful: it only effects the people who post images on a regular basis, and not the people who deserved the penalty for having their images removed

Explanation/logic behind it: you can read my comment to Slyroon on as to how irritating it is here (https://e621.net/post/show/840019), but, and this is gonna be a long one:

This penalty does not effect the people who deserve it as much as people who do: posts being removed from the site for inferior quality, slyroon's mass quality checks and posts being an example, count with this penalty, and can quickly accumulate to fewer posts being able to be posted than wanted or "earned". The people who do, however, post DNP, RLP, Beast, etc., always get warned, then issued bans and block, when it becomes a problem; this penalty does not hamper their ability to post DNPs, just how much, which means little if they continue to do it. And should push come to shove, they can easily create another account and (hopefully) "get it right this time", with no immediate repercussions.

So in shorthand: this system does not work the way it should work, or at least it seems how it should work.

My suggested fixes are: the complete removal of penalty system. "It's no longer needed, so get rid of it"; the removal of the Y/4 deleted posts penalty: being able to only lose 1 posting ability per ten deleted posts makes managing your posting ability easier: you can post more, better quality images from other places to compensate should you need to, and want to put the effort into; finally, the adaption to only remove posting ability from non inferior quality deleted posts. This'll make your accidental rule-breaking deletions have less effect and, thus, only really harm the people who intentionally post DNP and etc.

And in shorthand again: this penalty seems to not really balance itself out on posts / deleted posts ratio.

And with me as an example on this all: all of my images have been removed do to inferior quality, but I'm at 14 posting when I should have 21 posting, because Slyroon uploaded 21 better quality posts; I'd need to post 70 images to get to 21 again, whereas if the Y/4 deleted posts penalty were changed, I'd need substantially less, if at all. This'd not be too bad, but it can continue to get worse and it's harder to make it better. On tangent with another example: If a person could get 51 more posts deleted on me, I would literally become unable to post AT ALL, because 4x14=56, and you always -1 per ten's digit, the reversal of X/10 additional posting. This penalty isn't hard on me, per say, because I am not a constant updater. However, a newer poster may find the potential lose of additional posting, or even the loss of your default ten, to be an actual problem.

I've only been posting the negatives to my logic, but it is hard to see any positive way towards adapting to this rule. It seems to only punish the community, not help regulate. But like I said, I don't know exactly what that system is here for, or even why. It just doesn't seem to make sense as it is now.

Sorry for the Great Wall of Siral-Logic, but I do believe this needs to be managed.

DarkKnightSiralExan said:
Requested feature: the removal or tweaking of the deleted post penalties.

(reasoning)

I flat-out object to the removal of deleted post penalties. It exists to punish bad posting practices in general, not just the most egregious examples, which will yield a neutral or negative note on your user record. Too small a penalty and users will haphazardly post anything with no regard for the quality of images; after all, there are a lot of people out there who would rather see a number tick up than care about the integrity of each individual upload.

As for tweaking the system, I worry that instituting separate post limit penalties would create murky waters in terms of what constitutes an accident (lower quality source) versus more egregious negligence (posting from DNP) or malevolent intent (source from behind an obvious paywall). In the event that a higher-quality version is made available later, however, I would not object to the user not receiving a penalty for sourcing the best image available at the time. That is one facet I can sympathize with, as such would serve as a needless penalty.

DarkKnightSiralExan said:
Requested feature: the removal or tweaking of the deleted post penalties.

Why it would be useful: it only effects the people who post images on a regular basis, and not the people who deserved the penalty for having their images removed

Explanation/logic behind it: you can read my comment to Slyroon on as to how irritating it is here (https://e621.net/post/show/840019), but, and this is gonna be a long one:

This penalty does not effect the people who deserve it as much as people who do: posts being removed from the site for inferior quality, slyroon's mass quality checks and posts being an example, count with this penalty, and can quickly accumulate to fewer posts being able to be posted than wanted or "earned". The people who do, however, post DNP, RLP, Beast, etc., always get warned, then issued bans and block, when it becomes a problem; this penalty does not hamper their ability to post DNPs, just how much, which means little if they continue to do it. And should push come to shove, they can easily create another account and (hopefully) "get it right this time", with no immediate repercussions.

So in shorthand: this system does not work the way it should work, or at least it seems how it should work.

My suggested fixes are: the complete removal of penalty system. "It's no longer needed, so get rid of it"; the removal of the Y/4 deleted posts penalty: being able to only lose 1 posting ability per ten deleted posts makes managing your posting ability easier: you can post more, better quality images from other places to compensate should you need to, and want to put the effort into; finally, the adaption to only remove posting ability from non inferior quality deleted posts. This'll make your accidental rule-breaking deletions have less effect and, thus, only really harm the people who intentionally post DNP and etc.

And in shorthand again: this penalty seems to not really balance itself out on posts / deleted posts ratio.

And with me as an example on this all: all of my images have been removed do to inferior quality, but I'm at 14 posting when I should have 21 posting, because Slyroon uploaded 21 better quality posts; I'd need to post 70 images to get to 21 again, whereas if the Y/4 deleted posts penalty were changed, I'd need substantially less, if at all. This'd not be too bad, but it can continue to get worse and it's harder to make it better. On tangent with another example: If a person could get 51 more posts deleted on me, I would literally become unable to post AT ALL, because 4x14=56, and you always -1 per ten's digit, the reversal of X/10 additional posting. This penalty isn't hard on me, per say, because I am not a constant updater. However, a newer poster may find the potential lose of additional posting, or even the loss of your default ten, to be an actual problem.

I've only been posting the negatives to my logic, but it is hard to see any positive way towards adapting to this rule. It seems to only punish the community, not help regulate. But like I said, I don't know exactly what that system is here for, or even why. It just doesn't seem to make sense as it is now.

Sorry for the Great Wall of Siral-Logic, but I do believe this needs to be managed.

I think this should be thing, but should have some exceptions, like if you post something but a bigger version gets posted, it's not really your fault so it shouldn't count, like for the posts that aren't your fault for being removed it shouldn't count as a penalty

Requested feature: Set invalid: type for invalid tags, instead of aliasing them to invalid_tag. Show invalid:* tags in a separate, folded-by-default section below General.

Why it would be useful: the uploader (and later editors) will clearly see which tags are invalid.

Current implementation silently drops all invalid tags and leaves the user wondering which tags were invalid. Doubly confusing if the tag gets aliased long after the post has been tagged.

hslugs said:
Requested feature: Set invalid: type for invalid tags, instead of aliasing them to invalid_tag. Show invalid:* tags in a separate, folded-by-default section below General.

Why it would be useful: the uploader (and later editors) will clearly see which tags are invalid.

Current implementation silently drops all invalid tags and leaves the user wondering which tags were invalid. Doubly confusing if the tag gets aliased long after the post has been tagged.

+1 on this suggestion, given that I've accidentally put in a few of my own that turned out to be invalid tags, but couldn't figure out which tags I had screwed up (they kinda blur together after the first dozen or so post taggings a day :P ).

hslugs said:
Requested feature: Set invalid: type for invalid tags, instead of aliasing them to invalid_tag. Show invalid:* tags in a separate, folded-by-default section below General.

Why it would be useful: the uploader (and later editors) will clearly see which tags are invalid.

Current implementation silently drops all invalid tags and leaves the user wondering which tags were invalid. Doubly confusing if the tag gets aliased long after the post has been tagged.

That's actually a really good idea. I'll bring this up in committee to see how we might be able to go about this.

Wouldn't that make those far harder to clean up, though? Having separate tags for each invalid_tag seems like it'd get out of hand quickly, just like *_(disambiguation) already has.

Genjar said:
Wouldn't that make those far harder to clean up, though? Having separate tags for each invalid_tag seems like it'd get out of hand quickly, just like *_(disambiguation) already has.

Auto-remove after X days?

parasprite said:
Auto-remove after X days?

That'd be possible? Then yeah, it's a good idea.
The tag types would also have to be locked, so the users wouldn't change them from invalid to general, or whatever.

If timed auto-remove is a possibility (not only not a staffer, but not a coder) that does seem like it'd be the best option if not leaving things at status quo (which, as hslugs' post points out, has issues).

Genjar said:
Wouldn't that make those far harder to clean up, though? Having separate tags for each invalid_tag seems like it'd get out of hand quickly, just like *_(disambiguation) already has.

You could find and remove them via an invalid* search.

Genjar said:
Wouldn't that make those far harder to clean up, though? Having separate tags for each invalid_tag seems like it'd get out of hand quickly, just like *_(disambiguation) already has.

Instead of an alias to invalid_tag, implicate and change category. That way it's still possible to search invalid and see what caused it to be added.

Biggest threat would be people changing category of the re-grouped tag...

Or instead of above, alias the problem tag to just have "invalid_" put on the front (ie alias arm -> invalid_arm), then it doesn't matter what category is, fixers can just search for invalid* like Furrin said.

---

And cleanup of invalid isn't as time-consuming as disambiguation since it's more a case of just deleting them. Their primary purpose would be letting people that tagged a defunct tag know *which* of the ones they tried are defunct.

Furrin_Gok said:
You could find and remove them via an invalid* search.

Yes, but that doesn't make those any less time-consuming to clean. They'd still have to be cleaned one at a time, and we don't have enough taggers to do that. It'd also mean less time for sorting out other things. ^{_{(I've got about hundred tagging projects that just keep growing and growing. And maybe one or two that are slowly shrinking.)[/sup]}Whereas invalid_tag can be (and usually is) cleaned by tag scripting.}

Could it be set up so that removing "invalid_tag" also force-removes any invalid: type tags?

Requested feature: The ability to search for posts which have been undeleted. (Currently, searching for status:undeleted simply returns every active post in the same way clicking the Posts tab does.)

Why it would be useful: It would allow users to find posts which have been undeleted much easier, as they of course reappear right where they were deleted from in the post listing (i.e. right in the middle of nowhere by the time they are undeleted).

DragonFox69 said:
Requested feature: The ability to search for posts which have been undeleted. (Currently, searching for status:undeleted simply returns every active post in the same way clicking the Posts tab does.)

Why it would be useful: It would allow users to find posts which have been undeleted much easier, as they of course reappear right where they were deleted from in the post listing (i.e. right in the middle of nowhere by the time they are undeleted).

The system doesn't really support this right now. There's no field in the db for "has been deleted before, but was restored later". I don't know if it would be impossible, but getting it to properly retrieve the information from older posts would probably be overly complicated since we'd have to infer it from the deletion logs.

DragonFox69 said:
(Currently, searching for status:undeleted simply returns every active post in the same way clicking the Posts tab does.)

status:zyzzyva :P

Can this site be more simplier?
Like changing of how it works?

Cubeeffect said:
Can this site be more simplier?
Like changing of how it works?

What do you mean? What needs changing?
_____

Could we get the ability to add custom text to {\{post}\} searches? I want to be able to enter stuff like {{~this ~that|this or that}} just like we can for wiki links, only for multiple tags.

Furrin_Gok said:
What do you mean? What needs changing?
_____

Could we get the ability to add custom text to {\{post}\} searches? I want to be able to enter stuff like {{~this ~that|this or that}} just like we can for wiki links, only for multiple tags.

I don't think that would be hard to do. After all, any problems with the pipe would be a problem with wiki links too. :D

Edit: Coming soon™

Cubeeffect said:
Can this site be more simplier?
Like changing of how it works?

There's technically a mobile version of the site, but it's not very well optimized atm. What do you have in mind? We're always looking for ideas for making the site intuitive and easy to use.

Feature: can you do the thing that danbooru / gelbooru does and put a dropdown box of predicted tags when you start typing? Make sure you add an option to disable, for mobile users who can't select option on dropdown boxes.

Why it's useful: I often misspell or forget parts of a tag. And the suggestions that pop up when you get it wrong doesn't help you because its too specific and not 'wide' enough, if you get that. e.g. searching Lysergyde in the tags return no suggestions, even if one letter is wrong, the system won't try and help you.

Pendraggon said:
Feature: can you do the thing that danbooru / gelbooru does and put a dropdown box of predicted tags when you start typing? Make sure you add an option to disable, for mobile users who can't select option on dropdown boxes.

Why it's useful: I often misspell or forget parts of a tag. And the suggestions that pop up when you get it wrong doesn't help you because its too specific and not 'wide' enough, if you get that. e.g. searching Lysergyde in the tags return no suggestions, even if one letter is wrong, the system won't try and help you.

I would greatly appreciate having this. I know Tony was playing with something like this at one point, I'll poke him to see how easy it would be to implement it. :P

parasprite said:
I would greatly appreciate having this. I know Tony was playing with something like this at one point, I'll poke him to see how easy it would be to implement it. :P

There is a section of account settings where you can make a list of tags that will always load at bottom of page when uploading or editing tags. Can just click from there to add to tag list for the image. Useful for tags you often mess up/forget. Beyond about 30-35 they start going off page though.

Wodahseht said:
There is a section of account settings where you can make a list of tags that will always load at bottom of page when uploading or editing tags. Can just click from there to add to tag list for the image. Useful for tags you often mess up/forget. Beyond about 30-35 they start going off page though.

Really? I thought that list autotagged images, and so I avoided it since I never upload images that are the same.

Furrin_Gok said:
Really? I thought that list autotagged images, and so I avoided it since I never upload images that are the same.

Me too. The blurb says "These tags will always be shown when tagging or uploading an image.", though. It's the 'uploaded tags' title that is misleading. I'd rather have an awkward but explicit title like 'always-shown tags'

Yeah the blurb is misleading. I long avoided it, thinking who would need such a thing, until I tried it and I LOVE IT. My list:

----------
solo
duo
group
----------
male
female
male/female
----------
nude
topless
bottomless
clothed
----------
breasts
nipples
pussy
penis
flaccid
erection
----------
oral_penetration
vaginal_penetration
anal_penetration
----------
sitting
kneeling
standing
----------

It makes uploading SO much easier, and I think this list (or something similar) should be turned on by default. Also, if you change the theme (top right corner of your window), you can avoid the issue Wodahseht mentioned of tags going off the page.

Requested feature:
Some sort of "image check" for webms

Why it would be useful:
Because there's no way to check for them, other than sifting through already uploaded webms that may or may not have the tags it should have, uploading a webm runs you the chance of getting the "already uploaded" alert.

Nuji said:
Requested feature:
Some sort of "image check" for webms

Why it would be useful:
Because there's no way to check for them, other than sifting through already uploaded webms that may or may not have the tags it should have, uploading a webm runs you the chance of getting the "already uploaded" alert.

You can check the md5 on http://onlinemd5.com/ (or equivalent terminal utility), then search md5:123456789ab... to see if it's uploaded.

It's not ideal but it might be helpful to know.

Furrin_Gok said:
Really? I thought that list autotagged images, and so I avoided it since I never upload images that are the same.

I avoided this one too at first because I assumed it was a privleged feature. I mean, why would anyone let regular users auto-add a list of tags to every upload? :c

Uploaded Tags

Any thoughts to what we could rename this?

The best I could come up with is "Quick Tags".

parasprite said:
Any thoughts to what we could rename this?

The best I could come up with is "Quick Tags".

Maybe "My Tags"?

parasprite said:
Any thoughts to what we could rename this?

The best I could come up with is "Quick Tags".

My Common Tags
These tags will always be shown when tagging or uploading an image. Clicking on a tag in the list will then add it to the current image. e621 can calculate these automatically for you.

---

The bit in italics is my recommended addition to the section description.

"Quick Tags"

These tags will be shown below the tagging field when you upload an image. You can click them to add tags to the post for your convenience.

e621 can calculate these automatically, but it will replace your existing Quick Tags, so save them elsewhere before trying this option!

+1 on 'quick tags' - specifically implies user interaction is involved in using them.
-1 on 'common tags' or 'my common tags' -- this is vulnerable to the same misunderstanding as 'uploaded tags'.
±0 on 'my tags' - it's better than 'uploaded tags', but the purpose is not clear.

Requested feature:
Inferred tag

Why it would be useful:
Improved tag accuracy without interfering with 'Tag what you see' (TWYS).

Include either a check box or formatting option such as inferred:TagName for each tag on a picture. Any tag that is 'inferred' would appear below the primary tag list in an inferred tag list on an image- inferred tags (or whatever you want to name it) are included tags that come from outside sources that you may not be able to derive from the image or doesn't comply with standard TWYS tags. When doing a search for a tag a small checkbox can be included next to the search that can be used to indicate that the searched tags should also include inferred tags- thus people can easily search for TWYS tags or all tags.

This preserves TWYS and allows a simple search for only tags that you can directly see in an image as well as the ability to also include information that can't be seen. Implementation should be simple enough as a picture's tags just need to be able to remember if they are normal tags (TWYS) or if they are an inferred tag (Inf). This could help make e621 one of the most accurately tagged image sites on the net.

GoldenWings said:
This preserves TWYS and allows a simple search for only tags that you can directly see in an image as well as the ability to also include information that can't be seen.

Problem with this being maintaining accuracy and verifying information used for those tags. As well as defining what is a valid source for "inferred" information. I foresee many more tagging arguments/wars if this happened. TWYS is at least definable and enforceable.

Wodahseht said:
Problem with this being maintaining accuracy and verifying information used for those tags. As well as defining what is a valid source for "inferred" information. I foresee many more tagging arguments/wars if this happened. TWYS is at least definable and enforceable.

I would not rate inferred tags anywhere near the level of importance of TWYS tags. Doesn't need to be nearly be as critical about keeping valid sources to back up the tags and for those who dont like the tags because of that fact could simply ignore inferred tags completely. As for arguments- they will never stop no matter what feature gets added. I had thought about this concept for quite a while now and figured it would be at least worth throwing out there to see what others think.

GoldenWings said:
Requested feature:
Inferred tag

Why it would be useful:
Improved tag accuracy without interfering with 'Tag what you see' (TWYS).

Include either a check box or formatting option such as inferred:TagName for each tag on a picture. Any tag that is 'inferred' would appear below the primary tag list in an inferred tag list on an image- inferred tags (or whatever you want to name it) are included tags that come from outside sources that you may not be able to derive from the image or doesn't comply with standard TWYS tags. When doing a search for a tag a small checkbox can be included next to the search that can be used to indicate that the searched tags should also include inferred tags- thus people can easily search for TWYS tags or all tags.

This preserves TWYS and allows a simple search for only tags that you can directly see in an image as well as the ability to also include information that can't be seen. Implementation should be simple enough as a picture's tags just need to be able to remember if they are normal tags (TWYS) or if they are an inferred tag (Inf). This could help make e621 one of the most accurately tagged image sites on the net.

Do you have an example for a tag would benefit from this?

parasprite said:
Do you have an example for a tag would benefit from this?

Sure- here are a couple examples that inferred tags could be useful:

First compare the following two posts:
https://e621.net/post/show/746933
https://e621.net/post/show/843221

Both show the character Princess Cadence from the MLP series along with a male outside of view. The male outside of view can be assumed to be Shining Armor who is her husband from the series based on the available coloring of the male and "situation" the two are in. One has tagged the male as Shining Armor, the other has not. Based on TWYS there may not be enough in the image to say 'That is Shining Armor' even if the artist was to say it was. Shining Armor could be an inferred tag where he is not necessarily directly viewable but is in the pic. For those who wanted a complete list of images involving the two characters may benefit from including inferred information. For those who only want to see pictures where the character is plainly in view could simply do a normal search without including inferred tags.

Another concept may be gender. From males that look like females to herms and such it is not always apparent to the gender of characters in certain images. Well known or characters that are drawn many times would allow an inferred gender tag since people would know the character's gender even if it is not necessarily apparent in the current pic they are viewing.

Additional: see https://e621.net/post/show/304236 and the argument about tagging the image character as 'fluttershy' where inferred:fluttershy could have been used

When you go into purple "apply tag script" mode, I want the current script text and a link to the tag script help to appear on two lines between Mode and Blacklisted/Trending Tags.

Weren't there conditional tag scripts?

Lance_Armstrong said:
Weren't there conditional tag scripts?

I literally found out about these not too long ago

GoldenWings said:
Sure- here are a couple examples that inferred tags could be useful:

First compare the following two posts:
https://e621.net/post/show/746933
https://e621.net/post/show/843221

Both show the character Princess Cadence from the MLP series along with a male outside of view. The male outside of view can be assumed to be Shining Armor who is her husband from the series based on the available coloring of the male and "situation" the two are in. One has tagged the male as Shining Armor, the other has not. Based on TWYS there may not be enough in the image to say 'That is Shining Armor' even if the artist was to say it was. Shining Armor could be an inferred tag where he is not necessarily directly viewable but is in the pic. For those who wanted a complete list of images involving the two characters may benefit from including inferred information. For those who only want to see pictures where the character is plainly in view could simply do a normal search without including inferred tags.

Another concept may be gender. From males that look like females to herms and such it is not always apparent to the gender of characters in certain images. Well known or characters that are drawn many times would allow an inferred gender tag since people would know the character's gender even if it is not necessarily apparent in the current pic they are viewing.

So, if the character is a "canon cuntboy" but can't be tagged cuntboy because there are no genitals visible, it would need to be tagged inferred:cuntboy and male? I doubt that would stop users from arguing over whether to remove the male tag, or whether the cuntboy tag still applies (as if the inferred tag "validates" its usage). I could also see some users neglecting gender tags entirely with the reasoning "inferred tags don't have to follow TWYS, so if I only use inferred gender tags I can't get in trouble", which would definitely negatively affect searches/blacklisting and create a whole new line of tagging issues.

Even excluding gender, I would think that it would add unnecessary complexity to tagging while confusing the average user, and all while adding very little to searchability (particularly since they would likely be extremely undertagged unless a lot of work was done to maintain it).

Additional: see https://e621.net/post/show/304236 and the argument about tagging the image character as 'fluttershy' where inferred:fluttershy could have been used

In this case, the original ruling was made before the exception was made for character names. Now it can be tagged as fluttershy_(mlp) without issues (I've left a comment for this one and retagged it).

I'd appreciate if the member post daily flagging limit was bumped from 5 to 10, where the default upload limit lies. I found myself running into that limit two days in a row when uploading superior versions of artwork, and not being able to flag old work necessitates adding notes to the description field detailing what post it is superior to--easily overlooked and likely to make a mod's job harder.

Edit: Also yes this would probably be better for the feedback thread in retrospect. I'm a big derp.

+1 for increased flag limit, or maybe gradual increases with enough successful flags. I once spent 3 days gradually flagging the inferior posts from a single artist, and I frequently use my favorites list as a placeholder for posts that should be flagged.

Upload limit = 10 + (approved/10) - (deleted/4)
Flag limit =?= 5 + (status:deleted/5) - (status:active/2)

leomole said:
+1 for increased flag limit, or maybe gradual increases with enough successful flags. I once spent 3 days gradually flagging the inferior posts from a single artist, and I frequently use my favorites list as a placeholder for posts that should be flagged.

Upload limit = 10 + (approved/10) - (deleted/4)
Flag limit =?= 5 + (status:deleted/5) - (status:active/2)

Nah, we don't even need anything that complex. Back when you could write your own flag we needed it to reduce the amount of stupid/crappy/invalid flags people could write. Now that we have predefined flags they are almost entirely dupe flags. An hourly limit (to prevent script spamming) is probably all we would need.

leomole said:
I frequently use my favorites list as a placeholder for posts that should be flagged.

Damn. Why didn't I think of that.

I want fuzzy Metasearches... That way I can browse images that have been favorited by at least one of a group of users, rather than one user at a time.

Probably not a bug, so it goes in here :v
Not sure why the character anchor tag is linking to the general section, unless that's where it would be located if the section was expanded

Requested feature:
Auto-expanding closed section tags when clicking on a navigable page/tag anchor that leads to it

-

That's probably a bit overcomplicated of an explanation, so here's an example:

Edit: lolsyntaxtypos

Try navigating to the N-Z Character section of the Ambiguous Tags wiki page, and see if anything works

Now try Navigating to the N-Z General section

Why it would be useful:
Uhh

Cuz..reasons?

(convenience maybe, can't think of anything substantial atm)

(This is based on some mentions/discussions of prior posts in here, plus could've sworn I saw the suggestion somewhere)

Putting it in here in case i forget again

Requested feature:

1. A list of basic 'custom' tags that appear on the Upload page

2. A way to allow uploaders to choose between various 'levels' of complexity regarding listed tags:

• Simple/Basic - Basic tags, the minimum required on posts
• Intermediate - Basic + Intermediate - More substantial ones, that aren't as mandatory
• Advanced - ???

Why it would be useful:
Makes it easier to ensure posts are well-tagged, and those who aren't aware of some can still find them easily

See this post for more info: forum #187915

How about adding voting for public sets? So we could see whether the sets we've created are useful to anyone else. Even just being able to upvote them (without downvoting) would do.

Requested feature: colored Privileged and Contributor bars (instead of the regular, blue member bar).

Why it would be useful: Not that useful, but rather logical, seen all other ranks have differently colored bars too.

Currently, the line that appears after a post has been approved reads like this:

Approver: <Name>

I think it would offer more information to users if it was formatted like the Posted line instead:

Approved <Time> ago by <Name>

Might be too much headache for minimal gain, but I'd appreciate this information, and it could be useful for gathering statistics about approval time averages.

Requested feature:

Reverse linking the forum post made for aliases/implications to the wiki, i.e

• 1. alias/implication for x -> y created
• 2. forum post created
• 3. link to forum post on wiki article for x and/or y created

Why it would be useful:
So I don't have to go around manually adding forum discussions to the wiki for every single alias/implication tag made

Just curious, is there a reason why the Forum tab is the only one to show in italics when there is a new post?

Are there any plans to make, say, the Posts and Blips tabs do the same thing?

Requested feature: When entering something in the field "Special Instructions" on the takedown form the field for Post IDs should not be cleared/ignored, but instead both should be copied over into the takedown form.

Why it would be useful: People assume they can use both fields, so I end up with special instructions like "Delete only this one" but it is not visible which image they fielded in the posts section because that field gets dropped.

I think there should be away to add thumbnails for Flash and Webm.

People could add missleading thumbnails, but I think Admins can find away to stop that from happening, and also....I don't think people on here would do such a thing, I mean I don't see spam, etc., anywhere on here at all.

I think it would be a great idea if we could download entire pools all at once instead of going through each image and downloading them.
(I'm a mobile user so I can't just flick through tabs in a second each, downloading like crazy)

Just switched to Reduced Samples, and noticed:

Proposed Feature: Clicking on reduced sample should load original image (Equivalent to clicking the 'View original' link)
Why: a) Clicking on reduced sample currently doesn't do anything, b) This is IMO an obvious thing for it to do, c) clicking a large image is much easier than clicking a small text link.

Requested feature: When you look up someone who is on the DNP list (e.g. Ohmuu) have a message saying "This artist have requested to not have their art posted."

Why it would be useful: It can be confusing as to whether or not you misspelled a name sometimes, or if the person is the the dnp list, or if the artist simply has nothing posted on this site, it would be useful to get a heads up as soon as you type in their name.

CoffeeFly said:
Requested feature: When you look up someone who is on the DNP list (e.g. Ohmuu) have a message saying "This artist have requested to not have their art posted."

Why it would be useful: It can be confusing as to whether or not you misspelled a name sometimes, or if the person is the the dnp list, or if the artist simply has nothing posted on this site, it would be useful to get a heads up as soon as you type in their name.

Do a similar one for Conditional DNPs, This artist has rules for uploads, check their \"Takedown Requests\":\https://e621.net/takedown.[/i]

CoffeeFly said:
Requested feature: When you look up someone who is on the DNP list (e.g. Ohmuu) have a message saying "This artist have requested to not have their art posted."

You mean, like when you search for images by them you get that message? That sounds like it'd be a significant change to make.

What about something like: an image uploaded on site that just said "DNP Artist" that got tagged with all DNP artist names.

Wodahseht said:
You mean, like when you search for images by them you get that message? That sounds like it'd be a significant change to make.

What about something like: an image uploaded on site that just said "DNP Artist" that got tagged with all DNP artist names.

Only return max 3 dnp messages.

That being said, I'd love to have a proper DNP system integrated into the takedowns (rather than the awkward mix of implication/wiki page that we have now).

Requested feature: Support for Chrome on Android's theme color feature.

https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-for-theme-color-in-Chrome-39-for-Android?hl=en

Why it would be useful: Looks nice and improves UX for tabs in Android's recent tasks list.

Requested feature: add a "direct download" button or something similar to posts(specifically(but not exclusively) jpeg and png posts) that downloads the image instead of opening it

Why it would be useful: I think a lot of people like me appreciate the convenience of just clicking a download link when we find a picture we like, it's a matter of convenience not of usefullness though.

Currently i have a userscript that adds a "direct download link" that's the same as the download link but has the target attribute "_blank" and the download attribute as the same as the href. (userscript source: http://pastebin.com/4PaCFRGi) It's not a hard feature to introduce, and really it doesn't add any functionality to the site, but i think it would be a big convenience for the people who can't write userscripts or don't want to add plugins to their browser

Is there a maximum length for post comments? ...if not, then maybe there should be.

See post #516482 for 'why?'. It took quite a while to just scroll past that in the comment index. It's been removed.

Any plans for separating the blacklists? (forum #167213)

Still can't block user posts/comments without blocking blacklisted uploaders too

Didn't notice parasprite's reply to that here

Which sounds great

-

Or a 'disable all' button for said blacklists?

(this isn't meant to sound antsy or anything like that, but i've noticed it was suggested by at least 3 other people excluding me so far - useful for tagging projects?)

I currently have everything blacklisted, for a variety of reasons, and manually disabling >25 tags per page causes a lot of slowdown when they load one line at a time, not to mention the tedium

Requested feature:

Is there a simple way to copy a forum link with one click?

e.g. the shortcut link for this post is forum #189553

Maybe add it to the Respond | Edit | Report | Hide | other options at the bottom of posts? :

Why it would be useful:

pls ;-;
manually adding in the date and title takes long enough already

Requested feature:
How about a Cancel button while editing posts?

Why it would be useful:
in case you change your mind idk

titanmelon said:
Requested feature:
How about a Cancel button while editing posts?

Why it would be useful:
in case you change your mind idk

I had no idea people used those (I usually just hit "back").

I'll throw that on my todo list. At the very least it would be nice to have them standardized. :P