Requested feature overview description.
When a user do a search with a number of tags < his search limits, fill the available slots with tags from his blacklist.

Why would it be useful?
It would be more convenient for the user, as it would show more results per page ( here is an exaggerated example )

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
The search bar

... that's what the blacklist is for. Making sure you do not find any image with specific tags you entered, at all, even when you intentionally search for them. You have to toggle your blacklist off to find them.

Also, blacklists can be far greater than the 6-8 tag limit.

In your example, your blacklist will not let you find any of the following: posts with dogs; posts with cats; posts with sir_william_wallace; and posts approved by notmenotyou. No amount of searching will let you find those posts without toggling your blacklist.

*post written edit*

Ok, after asking for someone to explain, I'm still against. What'd be more helpful is something to modify the post section directly with your blacklist, so you don't need the search bar.

I know what Zenti is getting at. The blacklist merely hides images (which can be unhidden if needed) while excluding them actually removes them from the results. He wants the first 1-5 tags from his blacklist to be automatically added to the search to remove those results instead of hiding them.

In saying that, -1.

BlueDingo said:
I know what Zenti is getting at. The blacklist merely hides images (which can be unhidden if needed) while excluding them actually removes them from the results. He wants the first 1-5 tags from his blacklist to be automatically added to the search to remove those results instead of hiding them.

In saying that, -1.

I just realized how this idea would clash with the ability to toggle blacklists. As it is, hiding the post still keeps you at your posts-per-page number, this suggestion would "damage" that: if you toggle your blacklist, you'll have to reload the page to load the unblacklisted images, and that can knock your page number down a couple if you blacklist general tags. Unless that is put into consideration, like how we already do by just hiding the posts, that would be unconventional for trying to find specific images.

absolutely no. that would make any tagging projects and trace hunts slower if you have common tags in blacklist.

also in practice it would be p much impossible to accomplish (multiple items on one blacklist line and negating blacklist items). and what it would do for person with like 300 things in blacklist? how you would choose what blacklist items it adds to search?

As someone who frequently untoggles elements from my blacklist, this change might be useful in some circumstances, but in others it would hinder me significantly, and the hindrance drastically outweighs the benefit.

However, this thread made me think of something. This is actually where I thought you were going with this from the title:

If you search for a term that is on your blacklist, all posts, naturally, will be blocked. But the only reason you'd want to search for that term is if you intended to toggle that element of your blacklist off. It would be kind of nice if a particular element were automatically toggled off if it is included in a search.

To put in the terms of a concrete example... If someone has my_little_pony blacklisted, and they search for my_little_pony, that line on their blacklist would be toggled off by default on the search.

That said, doing that would probably put a bunch of extra load on each search and would only be marginally useful. I don't think it's worth putting the effort in to do that... But, still kind of dandy.

^ AFAICS implementing that idea would place exactly zero more load on the server (besides the additional javascript). The comparison can be done entirely client side (search terms and blacklist lines are both available to the Javascript responsible for blacklisting).

I'm +1 on that idea; even though it would add some complexity, it seems like it would make things obviously more correct.

-1 on OP's idea as it is (silently modifying user input is a general UX no-no)

savageorange said:
^ AFAICS implementing that idea would place exactly zero more load on the server (besides the additional javascript). The comparison can be done entirely client side (search terms and blacklist lines are both available to the Javascript responsible for blacklisting).

Oh. Well. Then yeah, that's nifty then.