RlctntFr said:
One use for it would be to easily vote up all of your favorites, which you would probably want to do anyway. Or you could vote on an entire pool you like or dislike.

So is this thread officially a feature suggestion thread or should we wait until version 2.2?

It's a feature suggestion thread.
It was created by the Head Administrator.
It was stickied.

What do you think?

Arcturus said:
It's a feature suggestion thread.
It was created by the Head Administrator.
It was stickied.

What do you think?

Well to me it looked like a suggestion thread <i>about</i> a feature suggestion <i>feature</i> that was to be included in version 2.2. Or something. Which is why I thought I'd <i>ask</i> to be sure.

ಠ_ಠ

But thanks for answering. :D

RlctntFr said:
Well to me it looked like a suggestion thread <i>about</i> a feature suggestion <i>feature</i> that was to be included in version 2.2.

what the ...what
ffs

Hey mellis, I take it it's Lobster Week?

Now that I sound like a total tard, here are my suggestions anyway:

<b>temporary blacklist tag function</b>:
I noticed you can only search up to 4 tags at a time, but you can blacklist whatever you want. I'm assuming this is because blacklist simply hides posts rather than removing them from the search.
So how about a new tag function (like #tag or something) that temporarily blacklists a tag for that search, and doesn't count towards the maximum number of tags for a search.
Lets say you already used up your 4 tags for a search but only want to see explicit images and don't feel like watching flash movies at the moment, you could add "#-Rating:explicit #flash" to the end of your search.
An easier way of doing this would be to simply place a blacklist field next to the search field for easy access.

<b>personal folders</b>:
Something that works like pools, except rather than showing up in the pools area they show up in your user page, and they don't add a "this post belongs to the ___ pool" notice to the posts you include in them. This way you can set up your own collections and order things however you want without it being a big deal. Maybe you could include a show/hide list for posts which shows what user folders they're included in.

<b>-fav and -user</b>:
I noticed the fav and user metatags don't have a negative search function, and you also can't blacklist them. Lets say you wanted to hunt for favorites but you wanted to skip over anything you've already favorited. Or maybe you would want to blacklist a particular person's uploads and/or favorites list.

<b>hide comments and notes</b>:
An account setting that hides user comments and/or notes, maybe with a "show comments" and "show notes" button on posts.

<b>tag stats</b>:
Something that shows a breakdown of tags for a search, kind of like the "tags" list on the left of the page except divided into categories, such as list of artists or characters in a search.

<b>order:random</b>:
I made a thread about this already but might as well post it here as well. A tag that gives your search a random order. Might be more trouble than its worth but eh, I would use it.
Alternatively you could set up the already-present "random post" button to work within a search range.

RlctntFr said:
<b>personal folders</b>:
Something that works like pools, except rather than showing up in the pools area they show up in your user page, and they don't add a "this post belongs to the ___ pool" notice to the posts you include in them. This way you can set up your own collections and order things however you want without it being a big deal. Maybe you could include a show/hide list for posts which shows what user folders they're included in.

*subscribes*

RlctntFr said:
<b>personal folders</b>:

I do not see the interest on e621, I do this on my hard drive.
(Personnal collection: 62444 pics in 799 folders for 19,3Go)

It's been mentioned here and there, but I don't remember it being brought up in this thread yet...

Pool histories, primarily to protect public pools from vandalism. The description and name of a pool usually aren't given enough information to repopulate the pool if someone empties it, unless you'd already known what was in it.

Editing the title of a pool should always be public.
And I think the full edition of a pool should be possible by default (and a check box for blocking the editing by the public)

Since e621 is basically an image search engine why don't you use similar money scheme as google? You could have sponsored images from e621 database in first page of every search.

When someone donates money they would specify a tag that they like (or an artist). Four pictures with most donation to their tags would be shown as featured pictures.

Example:
$5 to Jay Naylor
$5 to breasts
$5 to dick

Whenever you search for breasts you get four featured pictures of Jay Naylor breast dicks on the very first page of your search.
You could add some balancing from score of each picture to make better content matter more even in the feature pictures.

This gives popular artists and pictures more visibility and generates income for the site.

I can imagine people abusing the feature, but then again the site still gets money..

vilis said:
pictures of Jay Naylor breast dicks

i'm sorry but LOL

A submit button for the post search field on the left.
Usefull for mobile/console users that lack a proper return key.

I think it would be helpful if we had a feature that would allow posters to delete threads that they've started in the forums.

ktkr said:
A submit button for the post search field on the left.
Usefull for mobile/console users that lack a proper return key.

You can just enter this in your address bar:
e621.net/post?tags=[enter tags]
Works fine for me.

hey, i had an idea. why not make new members go through a quick tutorial before they create an account? this would get rid of most noob mistakes such as

complaining about tags, and not fixing them

complaints about image sizes

confusion about dnp

it won't cause too much trouble for new members.

I'd love that suggestion if I thought for a second that anyone would actually read it =(

People just breeze through our warnings and postings without actually reading them as is.

how about if someone tries to post a forum with the word blacklist or some other word that is related to other common forums, give a link to that forum and ask the user to read it before posting. ya im running out of the few idea's i have left =/

mellis said:
I'd love that suggestion if I thought for a second that anyone would actually read it =(

People just breeze through our warnings and postings without actually reading them as is.

You could have a quick entrance exam for new users, that way they would actually have to read everything in order to register. Give them hypothetical situations relating to things users usually have trouble with and have them pick from multiple choice answers. Questions like:
"which is the best list of tags for this image?"
"an image is tagged incorrectly, what do you do?
"is this image safe, questionable, or explicit?"
"which artist is not on our DNP list?"
"what should you never post ever? (JEREMY BERNAL / SEXYFUR)"
"which of these tag filter lists will blacklist all scat and explicit cub pictures?"
"which of these two reposted images should be flagged for deletion and what number would you include in the flag?"
"this image is too big for your screen, how do you display the whole image?"

And so on. Have it be really easy, and if they get one wrong have an explanation as to why that answer was wrong. If that's too much effort for them, then they probably just don't care enough to deserve a registration anyway.

and it would deter some banned people from making a new account.

Extra server load, not going to happen.

ThisCatIsALandmine said:
Extra server load, not going to happen.

i wouldn't think so. i'm no expert, but it seems that it would be the same amount of strain as adding another post. but i could be wrong

i have another suggestion. when a post is deleted, on the page that the image was deleted, they should post the reason it was deleted.

nme22 said:
i have another suggestion. when a post is deleted, on the page that the image was deleted, they should post the reason it was deleted.

It already is?

Riversyde said:
It already is?

no, when it's "flagged" it shows the reason, but after it's deledted, the page just states "post has been deleted."

nme22 said:
no, when it's "flagged" it shows the reason, but after it's deledted, the page just states "post has been deleted."

post #84740 includes the deletion reason

oh, i just saw this
http://www.e621.net/post/show/84303/
and assumed

null0100 said:
i'm sorry but LOL

I literally almost choked on my tongue when I read that too. Isn't that what the world wants to see though, Jay Nalor breast dicks. Oh you crazy nippenises!

nme22 said:
oh, i just saw this
http://www.e621.net/post/show/84303/
and assumed

I don't see it here either: http://e621.net/post/deleted_index

So maybe it just hasn't been updated yet.

nme22 said:
oh, i just saw this
http://www.e621.net/post/show/84303/
and assumed

This post was not approved.

Kald said:
This post was not approved.

right, but why was it not approved? i just wanna know, for the sake of knowing. i'm pretty sure it wasn't paysite or something like that, and it was pretty funny.

Dunno if it has been suggested, but have pictures considered "safe" to have safe advertisement as well. And add a safe mode navigation for "under 18" (No, I'm not under 18. I'm 24. I just wish to show some of my friends certain pictures that are surely safe)

WHAT safe advertisements :x

Tsukiyomaru0 said:
And add a safe mode navigation for "under 18"

http://e621.net/post/index?tags=rating:safe

Hat said:
http://e621.net/post/index?tags=rating:safe

He means safe advertisements, of which there are none; the current ad provider doesn't have any safe ads and using a second ad provider isn't going to happen.

Which means...if you're on the Internet, you're going to see porn whether you like it or not! So suck it up and move on!
lmto xD

edit:
Please disregard this post, I don't think there are any requests for non-Asian language translations. Maybe even non-Japanese.

About the "translation_request" tag:
There should be *some* way of specifying the language. Like "translation_request_japanese" for a translation from Japanese into English.
Reason: I speak German and a little French, but no Japanese. I want to help translate posts, but without wading through hundreds of Japanese-language ones.

Problem: What if the uploader doesn't know what language he's dealing with?
Solution: More general language tags, like "translation_request_asian" or "translation_request_european".

Is this still a "feature suggestion" thread?
If it is, I have a suggestion.

How about a "delete" button to delete your comments on the Forums section. (Just like in the Comments section.)
Because if you accidentally double-post the same comment, or type something when you're drunk that you'll end up regretting later, wouldn't it be nice to be able to delete it?

Good idea?
Yes / No ?

Munkelzahn said:
edit:
Please disregard this post, I don't think there are any requests for non-Asian language translations. Maybe even non-Japanese.

Even if it wasn't the case, there are tags such as japanese_text, xxxlanguage_text, and they can be combined with other tags.
Redundant tags are one of the cancers of this site.

My suggestion is a hard limit on the file size a user can upload.

The rational being that there are several picture files on e621 that exceed 50MB needlessly. They look like SVG that have being blown up to an un-godly proportions and saved as a PNG just to maximize the file size.

If there is, then report them. However if there's an incredible painting or something that's 60mb at say 6000x6000 or something, then.. woohoo~

Don't like it? Blacklist hi_res

Blacklist absurd_res while you're at it, too

Valence said:
Blacklist absurd_res while you're at it, too

It's not that I hate my bandwidth being chewed up it's that those pictures must place a heavy load on the server as they are equivalent to clicking on over 200 other pictures. There some of the pictures are quite good so they must get quite a few views.

erica_wolf said:
It's not that I hate my bandwidth being chewed up it's that those pictures must place a heavy load on the server as they are equivalent to clicking on over 200 other pictures. There some of the pictures are quite good so they must get quite a few views.

Its not really the bandwidth they're worried about, it's the CPU load from heavy processing loads (complex searches, etc.).

Yes, we're doing quite fine on bandwidth, even though we're pushing towards 20 terabytes a month!

WolfieWolfie1992 said:
Is this still a "feature suggestion" thread?
If it is, I have a suggestion.

How about a "delete" button to delete your comments on the Forums section. (Just like in the Comments section.)
Because if you accidentally double-post the same comment, or type something when you're drunk that you'll end up regretting later, wouldn't it be nice to be able to delete it?

Good idea?
Yes / No ?

No. Only moderators will ever be allowed to delete comments. Users being able to do it (or worse, the uploaders) leads to people saying things, then if they don't hear what they like, deleting it, leaving half-senseless threads about, etcetera.

aaahhhh so thats why....
makes sense

Arcturus said:
No. Only moderators will ever be allowed to delete comments. Users being able to do it (or worse, the uploaders) leads to people saying things, then if they don't hear what they like, deleting it, leaving half-senseless threads about, etcetera.

But can't the same thing happen from editing your post?

Valence said:
But can't the same thing happen from editing your post?

Technically, yes. But if I see the same user with a hell of a lot of blank, edited posts I am going to be very, VERY suspicious.

has a user's online counter been suggested?

swamprootwolf said:
has a user's online counter been suggested?

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER

swamprootwolf said:
has a user's online counter been suggested?

users on site: too many

Arcturus said:
Technically, yes. But if I see the same user with a hell of a lot of blank, edited posts I am going to be very, VERY suspicious.

I'm actually a little surprised that you are not capable of seeing what a post looked like before it was edited. The site I moderated on allowed you to see the original post, and every edit of it.

Different sites, different software *shrug*

Arcturus said:
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER

Never suggested, or will in no way ever be considered for implementation?

swamprootwolf said:
Never suggested, or will in no way ever be considered for implementation?

I think

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER

kinda speaks for itself. Can we have something on our page that says where we're from? I wanna find out if there's any other people from where I live here ^~^

You could make a thread that others would have to locate once buried.

I was thinking it'd be cool if there was a "Subscribe to Artist" type of thing.

Then with a subscriptions page, it would show the un-viewed posts from the subscribed artists.

The cool thing about this is that I'd be able to quickly check for new art by my favorite artists instead of periodically searching for each individual one.

Problem: to implement this, you might need to add another field/table to the database. Another option is to just show the artists' works from x many days ago and order them by date.

Nekomimi said:
I was thinking it'd be cool if there was a "Subscribe to Artist" type of thing.

Each tag search that you do generates a customized RSS feed for those tags. You could simply do a search for each artist and then subscribe to those feeds.

I couldn't figure out how to do this...probably trying too hard. I noticed the Atom Feed thing but that wasn't quite what I was looking for. Hmm...

Edit (4 days later): I noticed in the Beta demo thing, there's an option to subscribe. Not sure if it was there before..

Suggestion: add an option in use profile settings to either hide or change the size of the large "please read the comment guidelines" message displayed on every image post.

The default setting for this option should be the largest and/or the displayed option.

I'd love for something like the 'view others who favorite this' feature for Free members. I used to use it all the time, to find images similer to ones I liked, and I'm lost without it.

Bring the flag comment for deletion thing back
I may need it later =o

i love the comment tracking, i already deleted a bunch of the stupid comments i made over my time here =D
and also blacklist works with pools and thumbnails in comments major plus =P

A little quible but since the update ive not been able to access e621 on my psp.
i dunno what it is but everywhere besides the home page brings me to a white screen.
Is it possible to make a mobile version of the site?

PsychoNerd91 said:
A little quible but since the update ive not been able to access e621 on my psp.
i dunno what it is but everywhere besides the home page brings me to a white screen.
Is it possible to make a mobile version of the site?

More server load. No.

I see that my request for a "Find Similar" feature was acknowledged. There shouldn't be any reason for assloads of reposts now.

ThisCatIsALandmine said:
More server load. No.

Atleast find the problem. I hope it gets fixed ;~;

Okay, here is my suggestion: unban Kitsu~

Sure, there was drama, but the drama:signal ratio was a lot better than most.

Quality tagging: http://e621.net/post_tag_history?user_id=3289
Quality posts: http://e621.net/post?tags=user:Kitsu~
Quality™ comments: http://e621.net/comment/search?query=user:Kitsu~

Don't look at the forum posts though, it doesn't help my point :P

And for those of you who are denser than depleted uranium:
I'm Kitsu~

Suggestion:

It would be a good idea to have an 'at-fault' / 'not-at-fault' variable added to deleted posts, used to determine whether they count against the poster's upload capacity.

While shit uploads, photographic porn, duplicates, or uploads of DNP material should still count against the user's upload cap, things which are deleted for a reason which is no fault of the user (such as an artist-initiated takedown or DNP addition, or a more-complete / higher-quality version being uploaded, or, should it ever become an issue, changes in site content policy) should not result in marks against the user. Generally speaking, an image which is (or should have been) refused approval counts against, whereas an image deleted at a later point should not.

--------

Also, a relevant note: I feel that the current 4:1 ratio for deleted posts is too soft, once only at-fault images are factored in. It currently requires 40 consecutive posts at a 100% failure-to-be-approved rate for a new user to get their posting ability disabled. Even ignoring the initial buffer of 10, a user at any given point will break even with only a a 71.4% post approval rate -- that is, nearly a third of their uploads being reposts, DNP, et cetera still affects them in no negative way (unless a mod takes action). It's essentially symbolic at the moment.

While you could just change the penalty ratio for deleted posts, another possibility would be to make it so that deleted (as opposed to approved) posts don't replace their upload point until a week or so later. This would make for an easy way of noticing somebody is on a bad post streak, yet shouldn't be disabling later on if the poster learns from their mistakes.

acct0283476 said:
Suggestion:

It would be a good idea to have an 'at-fault' / 'not-at-fault' variable added to deleted posts, used to determine whether they count against the poster's upload capacity.

While shit uploads, photographic porn, duplicates, or uploads of DNP material should still count against the user's upload cap, things which are deleted for a reason which is no fault of the user (such as an artist-initiated takedown or DNP addition, or a more-complete / higher-quality version being uploaded, or, should it ever become an issue, changes in site content policy) should not result in marks against the user. Generally speaking, an image which is (or should have been) refused approval counts against, whereas an image deleted at a later point should not.

I disagree, if one uploads a significant enough amount of a particular artist's work to lessen their upload limit upon takedown request, then they get what they deserve (and it happens to be my case).

If someone wants to upload en masse an artist's work, they should ask permission, or they accept the risk.

As for deletion after high quality pics are posted, the terms of service actually says :

You will make a best faith effort to upload only high quality furry-related images

If people follow that rule, the chances they have their stuff deleted is really low (happened to me twice out of over a thousand uploads).

acct0283476 said:
I feel that the current 4:1 ratio for deleted posts is too soft

I agree, it should be 2:1.
At the moment, we are reaching the post ID #96000, and the site counts around 86000 pics, meaning around 1/9 pics get deleted.
An "average" user would then get 1 out of 9 of their pics deleted, which is not enough to lower their post limit.
The "bad" user (let's take as example : http://e621.net/user/show/18860) will however not be able to post anything if they don't start checking for their post before uploading, which is not the case with the current ratio.

Well, part of the 'higher quality' thing was for more complete versions.

Example: I upload the pencil linework for a picture by Coyotek, then later once he has finished coloring it I upload that. It seems illogical I should have a -0.25 (or -0.5 at 2:1) post cap penalty for having uploaded the linework when it was the best version that existed at that time. Standard site policy is to replace images with more complete versions as they are made, yes? Not to avoid posting until the final version is completed.

Sometimes an artist will even go back and revise a previously 'complete' image, so you can't be [/i]certain[/i] that a post will not be replaced later. It's beyond 'best faith effort' at that point, and out of the poster's hands. Theoretically speaking, an artist could keep working on / refining the same picture indefinitely. If all lower-quality posts count against the user, then anyone uploading a version of that ever-changing piece would be automatically harming their post limit.

Just as an example, Coyotek will post his linework once it's done, then post the colored versions of things once he does them. He doesn't always color all of his linework (even though he tends to put 'To be colored!' at the bottom of every description), but he does color the majority of them. If a person uploaded nothing but Coyotek, and followed that practice of uploading each version as soon as they were available, they'd rather quickly lose all posting ability due to the odds of any given post being replaced with the colored version later. That presents the dilemma of either not posting the linework (thus missing much of his art, and delaying the rest of it), or rapidly becoming a forced non-poster.

Also, just as another example -- A certain artist has had multiple images removed because they were tagged cub, and they did not want their art labeled that. This was not brought on by any affront to the artist from the poster whatsoever, and apparently said artist is fine with their other pictures being here. So why should the uploader(s) of those images be penalized?

Honestly guys, if there is a lot of the same poster being taken down at once.. they'll get noticed.. and have their privileged removed a lot faster. 4 to 1 is fair for those who make honest mistakes.

What about adding a translation lock, to pictures without texst, so the don´t get vandalised¿

slyroon said:
What about adding a translation lock, to pictures without texst, so the don´t get vandalised¿

Already exists, requires 'privileged' rank or higher.

slyroon said:
What about adding a translation lock, to pictures without texst, so the don´t get vandalised¿

Help us find the vandals. They will be dealt with expediently. <3