Requested feature overview description.
Have the system automatically add low_res, hi_res, absurd_res, etc. upon uploading.

Why would it be useful?
resolution tags tend to get overlooked, so this could remedy that.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
The upload and tagging system.

I've also had this idea for a while now...never voiced it though. I can't really see a downside to this...one of the few sets of tags that could and should be automated.

It's shouldn't even be that technically difficult.

Pick the larger size, then compare with the tag (size) from largest to smallest.

Same applies to ratio but then you compare bigger to smaller size to get eg 16:9, 4:3...etc

AoBird said:
It's shouldn't even be that technically difficult.

Pick the larger size, then compare with the tag (size) from largest to smallest.

Same applies to ratio but then you compare bigger to smaller size to get eg 16:9, 4:3...etc

To be honest, I'd say it's trivial to do. Make a script that takes the picture resolution, then put it in a simple calculation that checks which tag should be applied to width and height, and if one of those tags is for the higher resolution, use that one. It's just gonna be all about your usual if-then-else functions.

It could be easy to do and implement, but I am not a fan of the tags in the first place. They provide information that could be searched with meta tags instead.

There was a bot that used to tag this stuff, it may still exist I'm not sure.

I think a better suggestion would be to remove the tags, and then somehow implement an alias (or something similar) that would search the width's and height's of images.

This removes tags that are redundant while still keeping the same functionality.

Reminder that FAs lousy 1280px restriction is somehow big enough to have hi_res tagged, that JPG compressed mess is what I would not consider "hi res" in 2019.

There was actually TagBot run by user which included aspect ratio and *res tagging on top of many other things that can be objectively tagged, but that bot has not ran since October 2017.

After doing some quick queries, unless I'm wrong, then there are:

40 posts that should be tagged with thumbnail but aren't
141 for low_res
28211 for hi_res
553 for absurd_res
14 for superabsurd_res

Though it seems like the wiki page for thumbnail implies the image would be low_res also, but they are not aliased.

Mairo said:
Reminder that FAs lousy 1280px restriction is somehow big enough to have hi_res tagged, that JPG compressed mess is what I would not consider "hi res" in 2019.

There was actually TagBot run by user which included aspect ratio and *res tagging on top of many other things that can be objectively tagged, but that bot has not ran since October 2017.

That's unfortunate. I've been going through and tagging hi_res and absurd_res on posts that were missing it from time to time, and it just feels like something that honestly should be automated.

Automatic the resolution tags would certainly make them more consistent and less reliant on a submitter's judgment.

Dogenzaka said:
That's unfortunate. I've been going through and tagging hi_res and absurd_res on posts that were missing it from time to time, and it just feels like something that honestly should be automated.

At least for privileged it is as simple as doing objectively correct search and just hitting all posts with proper tag script. So hopefully you have been at least doing that instead of manual way with these.

Idem said:
40 posts that should be tagged with thumbnail but aren't
...
28211 for hi_res

Yeah, like I said, even FAs stupid low and blurry limited posts count as hi_res, making the tag somewhat useless in current year when almost none of those posts can even fill half of my mobile phones screen.

Not sure why ultra low res are thumbnail as many of those are pixel_(artwork) and similar which don't yell thumbnail to me.

Mairo said:
At least for privileged it is as simple as doing objectively correct search and just hitting all posts with proper tag script. So hopefully you have been at least doing that instead of manual way with these.

Of course. Doing it by hand would be kinda rough.