With the introduction of the new site I am majorly inhibited while trying to work with my sets. I use sets very often and organizing them consumes alot (too much) of my time.

Most importantly, the cap on set size. It's annoying on it's own, but the main thing is that I didnt even know it existed because when adding to a set with a size of over 10k, it still says "Post Updated". This is insane to me since I have no idea how many set additions I've not actually made since the new site was introduced. Im going to have to go back a to every post I've encountered since then and re-do everything, not to mention in a sequal of the set. (This is a point too. Why have a cap on set size? It just means people have to make "My Set 1" & "My Set 2". Same quantity just more complex)

Also, less important and I could fix this with a userscript or similar, but still, is it is now less fast/easy to add a post that is open in a tab to a set. I go through many posts a day sometimes adding to sets and such, and I have the pattern down of going to "add to set" and clicking "add" right below that. However, now it doesnt seem to default to the last set I added to, **and** it puts it in the *center* of the screen. Also a side note, the list of sets is no longer alphabetically sorted for whatever reason. I see no reason for that at all frankly.

Any solely visual changes I can deal with since if I *really* hate it, I can always change it myself with a userscript. But with the issues with sets and such, I can do nothing about.

I hope this post actually goes somewhere and doesnt just get lost in the forums. I usually ghost and never post anything at all but this really has forced me out hiding, heh.

edit:
I'll add what I'd propose so that this is less of a rant and more constructive.

My ideal is a UI that is snappy and better suited for batch/bulk work. But obviously that's *my* ideal, not everyones. Mainly I'd just like it to be easier to work with sets again. It wasnt perfect before but it sure wasnt bad. Also, I get that people are opposed to change, but like I said, if it was just visual changes then I would be fine with it. It's the changes to sets and all that have me crippled.

I can confirm both the behavior, and the weird set sorting on my end.

I've filed a bug report about the sorting, it not remembering which set you've added to last, and that it is always opened in the center of the view port.

I'm not sure how exactly Kira would like to fix the last item, but I've asked that, if it can't be handled like on the old site, that it at least remembers its position relative to the page itself, or relative to the view port.

As for the limit to the sizes, this is currently done due to performance issues of trying to handle big sets. If the overall performance of the page allows it we will increase, or outright remove, limits like that.

thanks for reading and replying. So having more sets exist in general is better performance-wise than fewer larger sets? And what of it not warning me that a set is too full?

frans7 said:
thanks for reading and replying. So having more sets exist in general is better performance-wise than fewer larger sets? And what of it not warning me that a set is too full?

Right, I've added the wrong error to the list as well, but didn't edit my post. And yes, having multiple smaller sets is apparently not as bad as having one really big one. I think it's something about how they're stored in RAM but when this was attempted to be explained to me my brain shut down because concepts behind it went right above my head.

I can do level 1 and level 2 tech support, but anything deeper is often lost on me.

notmenotyou said:
Right, I've added the wrong error to the list as well, but didn't edit my post. And yes, having multiple smaller sets is apparently not as bad as having one really big one. I think it's something about how they're stored in RAM but when this was attempted to be explained to me my brain shut down because concepts behind it went right above my head.

I can do level 1 and level 2 tech support, but anything deeper is often lost on me.

If it's a matter of RAM then I suppose I could see that. Basically your trading a little disk space for less RAM usage then. Anyway, I wouldn't think the server would load the entire set into RAM.. Seems odd to me. I was under the assumption that sets were databases and were read/written to when worked with. Perhaps where the RAM comes in is to speed up the loading/viewing of each page? So instead of re-requesting the information for each page, it instead caches it into RAM.

Anyway no clue why I rambled on about that. What more can I do? I'm fairly crippled when trying to work with my sets so I'd like to see a solution come along.

A main thing is the not being warned about a full set. Also I forgot to mention this one, but the notification for when you add to a set (among other actions) no longer follows your view. So if I'm scrolled down, I can't see it without scrolling up.

Just wanted to chime in here and say that my concerns are identical to the OP's and that this is still an issue. (And I think I may even lurk harder than the OP.)*

If the powers that be are still working on this or considering this, then I apologize for the poke.

*I legit didn't know/recall what I'd randomly set to my profile pic until this post posted.