It's been more than have a year since Tumblr cleaned house.

Aside from Newgrounds, which is doing great, how are the alternatives coming up these days? Updates on Pillowfort seem to be few ever since it was recommended, but I heard Mastodon is getting a bit more prominence; so I heard on both.

I have considered on setting up an account on either of those two in case Twitter "pulls the Tumblr". What are your thoughts?

AlexYorim said:
It's been more than have a year since Tumblr cleaned house.

Aside from Newgrounds, which is doing great, how are the alternatives coming up these days? Updates on Pillowfort seem to be few ever since it was recommended, but I heard Mastodon is getting a bit more prominence; so I heard on both.

I have considered on setting up an account on either of those two in case Twitter "pulls the Tumblr". What are your thoughts?

Pillowfort is horribly mismanaged and wish I could undo the initial buy In I did. Dont bother with them.

Mastodon is an unintelligible mess to me. But it works.

there is also apparently a thing called newtumbl which is basically acting like pre-purge tumblr.

Thanks for mentioning newtumbl, I had no idea about it and just made an account!

Pillowfort is kinda meh for me. I don't know if it's just me and the communities I follow, but it seems pretty dead for the most part. I'd like to see it with more of a user base.

Mastodon was a bad experience personally. Turns out if you join X Mastodon site, your posts will be visible on Y and Z Mastodon sites via the federated timeline. Great way to be seen by communities that you weren't interested in being a part of, and can lead to a lot of frustration when people who didn't want to see your stuff end up seeing it.

I really wish Writscrib hadn't fallen. It was a nice layout, good user base, and the moderators were very fast to reach for any issues.

Versperus said:
there is also apparently a thing called newtumbl which is basically acting like pre-purge tumblr.

Been using Newtumbl myself, haven't encountered any issues so far.

Furrin_Gok said:
Been using Newtumbl myself, haven't encountered any issues so far.

My only complaint is that I can't figure out if there is a way to get uploaded resolutions from that site.

I'm still trying to figure out Mastodon/Baraag, but they shrink images down with no way of displaying the full size so that's a no from me dog.

I'm going to have a Mastodon/Baraag account soon! ;)

Versperus said:
My only complaint is that I can't figure out if there is a way to get uploaded resolutions from that site.

From what I could tell, this seems to be the direct image format on newTumbl:

https://dn0.newtumbl.com/img/<blog ID number>/<post number>/<digit possibly relating to an image's upload order in the post>/<unique image ID number>/nT_<a large amount of alphanumeric characters>_<number derived from "300 * n" [where "n" is any number from 0 to 3] for recompressed previews restricted by either width or height>.<filename extension>

I looked at a few random newTumbl blogs and viewed their images directly to determine this format. The images in this post and this post worked out the best for me in determining this.

By the way, the preview size URLs (just before the filename extension) seem to be _300, _600, and _1200.

• _600 appears to be the default used in posts and appears to restrict images to a maximum height of 800 pixels, not 600. — e.g. [1], [2]
• _1200 appears to restrict images to a maximum height of 1200 pixels. — e.g. [1], [2]
• _300 appears to restrict images to a maximum width of 300 pixels. — e.g. [1], [2]
• It also seems that to get the original uncompressed images, either the number has to be changed to _0 or just remove the underscore and number at the end altogether.
• _0 examples: [1], [2]
• no-underscore-or-number-at-the-end examples: [1], [2]

Both formats appear to deliver the exact same image. If the image is of a relatively low res to begin with, then newTumbl doesn't tack on any preview size number and just delivers the original image as is on the post, like this one.

Update: I should also note that non-animated images will always be loaded with .jpgat the end, even if they're actually a PNG image. Changing the direct URL of an original quality image on the site for a JPEG to .png or a PNG to .jpg will load the same exact image either way.

Update 2: Same format is used for MP4 videos on there, just ending with .mp4. — [Post with video], [direct video link]

BooruHitomi said:
From what I could tell, this seems to be the direct image format on newTumbl:

https://dn0.newtumbl.com/img/<blog ID number>/<post number>/<digit possibly relating to an image's upload order in the post>/<unique image ID number>/nT_<a large amount of alphanumeric characters>_<number derived from "300 * n" [where "n" is any number from 0 to 3] for recompressed previews restricted by either width or height>.<filename extension>

I looked at a few random newTumbl blogs and viewed their images directly to determine this format. The images in this post and this post worked out the best for me in determining this.

By the way, the preview size URLs (just before the filename extension) seem to be _300, _600, and _1200.

• _600 appears to be the default used in posts and appears to restrict images to a maximum height of 800 pixels, not 600. — e.g. [1], [2]
• _1200 appears to restrict images to a maximum height of 1200 pixels. — e.g. [1], [2]
• _300 appears to restrict images to a maximum width of 300 pixels. — e.g. [1], [2]
• It also seems that to get the original uncompressed images, either the number has to be changed to _0 or just remove the underscore and number at the end altogether.
• _0 examples: [1], [2]
• no-underscore-or-number-at-the-end examples: [1], [2]

Both formats appear to deliver the exact same image. If the image is of a relatively low res to begin with, then newTumbl doesn't tack on any preview size number and just delivers the original image as is on the post, like this one.

thanks for that, legendary mate

BooruHitomi said:

From what I could tell, this seems to be the direct image format on newTumbl:

https://dn0.newtumbl.com/img/<blog ID number>/<post number>/<digit possibly relating to an image's upload order in the post>/<unique image ID number>/nT_<a large amount of alphanumeric characters>_<number derived from "300 * n" [where "n" is any number from 0 to 3] for recompressed previews restricted by either width or height>.<filename extension>

I looked at a few random newTumbl blogs and viewed their images directly to determine this format. The images in this post and this post worked out the best for me in determining this.

By the way, the preview size URLs (just before the filename extension) seem to be _300, _600, and _1200.

• _600 appears to be the default used in posts and appears to restrict images to a maximum height of 800 pixels, not 600. — e.g. [1], [2]
• _1200 appears to restrict images to a maximum height of 1200 pixels. — e.g. [1], [2]
• _300 appears to restrict images to a maximum width of 300 pixels. — e.g. [1], [2]
• It also seems that to get the original uncompressed images, either the number has to be changed to _0 or just remove the underscore and number at the end altogether.
• _0 examples: [1], [2]
• no-underscore-or-number-at-the-end examples: [1], [2]

Both formats appear to deliver the exact same image. If the image is of a relatively low res to begin with, then newTumbl doesn't tack on any preview size number and just delivers the original image as is on the post, like this one.

Update: I should also note that non-animated images will always be loaded with .jpgat the end, even if they're actually a PNG image. Changing the direct URL of an original quality image on the site for a JPEG to .png or a PNG to .jpg will load the same exact image either way.

Update 2: Same format is used for MP4 videos on there, just ending with .mp4. — [Post with video], [direct video link]]

Neat info, are you going to add this to the howto:sites_and_sources guide?

JAKXXX3 said:
Neat info, are you going to add this to the howto:sites_and_sources guide?

I've just added it. howto:sites_and_sources_-_n_to_z#newTumbl

BooruHitomi said:
I've just added it. howto:sites_and_sources_-_n_to_z#newTumbl

Cool, thank you for your help with that guide, its really helpful.

Newtumbl seems fine too.

I heard a rumor that Mastodon is littered with loli/shota stuff due to the lack of moderation. That gave me a hesitance to make an account to it, especially that that was the catalyst for the porn ban.

And I feel like Mastodon has some Discord vibes in it. I thought Baraag was a separate website.

Though I might stay away from Mastodon until it's polished with their privacy issues.

AlexYorim said:
Newtumbl seems fine too.

I heard a rumor that Mastodon is littered with loli/shota stuff due to the lack of moderation. That gave me a hesitance to make an account to it, especially that that was the catalyst for the porn ban.

And I feel like Mastodon has some Discord vibes in it. I thought Baraag was a separate website.

Though I might stay away from Mastodon until it's polished with their privacy issues.

Loli and shota are allowed based on which instance you're in. Baraag is hosted in France, Pawoo(the Pixiv version) is hosted in Japan, and Mastodon is apaarently the hub that servers connect to. And it does kinda feel like a twitter/discord mesh, neither of which i'm fond of.

Out of curiosity, since Tumblr is also a haven for SJWs, does Newtumbl have that same reputation?

AlexYorim said:
Out of curiosity, since Tumblr is also a haven for SJWs, does Newtumbl have that same reputation?

I don't know, I don't use it. I've just seen it being used as an artist source. It seems to be trying to replicate original tumblr

AlexYorim said:
Out of curiosity, since Tumblr is also a haven for SJWs, does Newtumbl have that same reputation?

I haven't seen anything on that so far.

Versperus said:
I don't know, I don't use it. I've just seen it being used as an artist source. It seems to be trying to replicate original tumblr

Furrin_Gok said:
I haven't seen anything on that so far.

Phew, that's a nice reassurance. I should still tread carefully.

Might as well ask here, did someone ever find out a pattern between Tumblr's various IDs, blog properties, names and such? Like something an image's name string with the blog it came from, or a post's reblog key to the post's ID? I know it's a longshot, but it would allow us to recover more lost images.

Demesejha said:
Pillowfort is horribly mismanaged

It's really following in Tumblr's footsteps, huh?

JAKXXX3 said:
Cool, thank you for your help with that guide, its really helpful.

BooruHitomi said:
I've just added it. howto:sites_and_sources_-_n_to_z#newTumbl

It seems rather few people know about that guide. I think it be exposed more, because it's great not just for uploading here, but in general. Maybe a permalink on the top bar?