Alright, not trying to sound like I'm complaining her, but for the years that I've been stalking e621, eventually the Brony phase came and now e621 constantly has MLP pictures dumped onto it. I don't have a problem with that, but then comes one picture that everybody goes "Ooohh!" at. Then another picture comes up that's the exact same thing except for a minor change. Then another. Then another. Then...You get the point. It piles up to a good 10-15 extra pictures that each have only A SMALL CHANGE. One has no dick, one does. If it was just that, i'd be cool with it. But these are pictures that have slightly different facial expressions. And then for each facial expression they make, they need to give it to the opposite ( dick / no dick ) so it's all nice and tidy or whatever.

Not blaming this on Brony's and the MLP fandom specifically, it's just what I've seen the most of from them.

Why can't they just compile them into a SWF with a "Next" or "Gallery" button so that e621 doesn't have so much spam?

So you're basically saying a single thumbnail for a pool of closely related edits? That could work, but it would be slightly misleading as the thumbnail would only represent one the pictures.

Deh-tiger said:
So you're basically saying a single thumbnail for a pool of closely related edits? That could work, but it would be slightly misleading as the thumbnail would only represent one the pictures.

I see your point, which is a good point, but at the same time, each different picture is just a small edit. I can understand the problem with there being Dick / No dick pics combined, and one person might not want to see the D but the thumbnail has the D in it, but that's when you can just make 2 SWF's. If you have the time to make so many edits then you have the time to compile them into 2 small SWF's so you're not spamming. One has D thumbnail, one has V thumbnail.

This idea just seems like pools with a different interface. It would take up less thumbnails, but I've yet to see full pages spammed with only edits, so I don't think it's really that necessary.

I'm very much -1 on SWF interfaces to anything that doesn't absolutely have to have one. SWF is a proprietary format that is end-of-lifed and has always been prone to breakage. You can't save the original images from them without a SWF disassembler or Flash itself.

AFAIK, this kind of setup will work with JavaScript -- Google Plus implements exactly the kind of interface you are talking about.

Inkbunny even does it without the JS, just basic HTML "a href"s (example, which is, as Deh-tiger says, rather like pools.
If E621 implements such a feature, though, JS would be the way to go(since it allows you to just reload the image, without reloading the page)

How about a settings checkbox or blacklist syntax that blocks all posts that are child posts? These variation images shouldn't be in a pool, but all but one of them should be a child post.

Edit: Found it. ischild:true. Will test.

Edit: I found a cluster of 4 spitfire pictures.

https://e621.net/post/index/1/mlp

Adding ischild:true to the blacklist didn't work. Does the blacklist start working instantly or do you have to wait a while?

Sorry for replying so late to this.

To me it's like having a Blacklist. I blocked out Gay and Nezumi so I wouldn't have to see them, but I have entirely no option to NOT see these duplicate posts that have nothing in them but minor changes? It's absurd.

Lance_Armstrong said:
How about a settings checkbox or blacklist syntax that blocks all posts that are child posts? These variation images shouldn't be in a pool, but all but one of them should be a child post.

Edit: Found it. ischild:true. Will test.

Edit: I found a cluster of 4 spitfire pictures.

https://e621.net/post/index/1/mlp

Adding ischild:true to the blacklist didn't work. Does the blacklist start working instantly or do you have to wait a while?

It takes effect instantly as far as I know.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Adding ischild:true to the blacklist didn't work. Does the blacklist start working instantly or do you have to wait a while?

ischild:true/false is one of the metatags that doesn't work in the blacklist. Most of them don't, it's mostly just id: and user:.

ischild:true
voted:yourname
fav:yourname
mpixels:>10
filesize:>5000KB
score:<-10

...could all be useful on the blacklist.