Implicating absurdly_absurd_res → absurd_res
Link to implication

Reason:

Bigger than absurd_res

I don't think we need absurdly_absurd_res at all, but if we do the implication makes sense I guess.

I think e621 should be modified to interpret tagging with absurdly_absurd_res as flagging the image for being too large.

Because if you have to warn that images with this tag 'may crash your browser'.. in a browser based image archival system... That should be a hint that those images shouldn't be in the system at all. Things that break the system shouldn't be shoehorned into it.

savageorange said:
I think e621 should be modified to interpret tagging with absurdly_absurd_res as flagging the image for being too large.

Because if you have to warn that images with this tag 'may crash your browser'.. in a browser based image archival system... That should be a hint that those images shouldn't be in the system at all. Things that break the system shouldn't be shoehorned into it.

I have never once come across an image that has crashed my browser. It is not a thing that happens to everyone across the board.
Besides try any of these and see if the problem persists, and if it does, then it's probably on your end, and not on everyone else's.

Moon_Moon said:
I have never once come across an image that has crashed my browser. It is not a thing that happens to everyone across the board.

It's usually only a problem if you're browsing with a phone, or an older browser. But since many of the users are... this seems pretty useful as a blacklist tag.

savageorange said:
Because if you have to warn that images with this tag 'may crash your browser'.. in a browser based image archival system... That should be a hint that those images shouldn't be in the system at all.

I'm guessing that was meant in jest/humor. I've never had a large image crash my browser (though sometimes they take a while to load or time out).

There is a max upload res at 15000 x 15000, and that should be short of a crash...even if the timeout/slow-to-load issue can be considered a potential risk.

You sure that's the max? The largest picture on the site is bigger than that post #86667

Wyvrn said:
You sure that's the max? The largest picture on the site is bigger than that post #86667

https://e621.net/comment/show/645603

Indeed...

Wyvrn said:
You sure that's the max? The largest picture on the site is bigger than that post #86667

Well, I hope that on mobiles images that large are automatically shown as the small version.
Cause 813 / 1084 MB is definitely absurd.
Firefox loaded that image without crashing on this machine with 4GB of memory, but scrolling caused it to swap from/to disk like crazy. I don't even think the average tablet would be able to do anything but keel over from trying to load it.

I briefly considered reporting that image with the reason "Why would you do this?"

Also, here is a fun thought: 15000x15000 animated gif. Probably counts as a reverse DDoS.

EDIT: I followed through with that idea: this link (be wary of viewing it) is an 8.9mb GIF file that causes firefox to allocate about 10gb on my system. It fails to load, presumably because Firefox runs out of memory (4gb real, 8gb swap) before it allocates the full 12.8 GB needed for the GIF. Fortunately, this doesn't cause Firefox to actually crash. But other browsers may crash.

The actual content is boring: a 15000x15000 grey square cycling through different brightnesses, over 60 total frames.

Wyvrn said:
You sure that's the max? The largest picture on the site is bigger than that

It may not have always been the max. I was referring to the June 11 update

• Image size limit is now 15000x15000 or smaller, instead of 14999x14999 or smaller

Alias sounds better.

Saffron said:
I don't think we need absurdly_absurd_res at all, but if we do the implication makes sense I guess.

I don't think it should exist either; I can't think of any practical use for it. If someone put this tag in the search, what would they have in mind that isn't already implied by absurd_res?

bitchassmotherfucker said:
I don't think it should exist either; I can't think of any practical use for it. If someone put this tag in the search, what would they have in mind that isn't already implied by absurd_res?

As I explained earlier, it's for blacklisting.
I started adding to it myself, after seeing several users complain about those images making their browser hang or crash. Some were even FFD because of it.

All the major imageboards use that tag, although incredibly_absurdres is more common name for it.

Genjar said:
As I explained earlier, it's for blacklisting.
I started adding to it myself, after seeing several users complain about those images making their browser hang or crash. Some were even FFD because of it.

All the major imageboards use that tag, although incredibly_absurdres is more common name for it.

So it sounds like some people really do use it. I don't. But to be honest, there's a lot of tags I've never needed but others use all of the time. That's not the sole criteria.

So while at first the name of it made me assume it was just a pointless exaggeration of the "absurd res" tag, there does seem to be more to it than that.

The degree of difference between the dimension requirements for absurd_res vs absurdly_absurd_res is actually huge. absurd_res is anything above 3200x2400, while absurdly_absurd_res is anything over 10000x10000.

Looking at that gap in dimensions, it actually does make some sense to break up that huge span between 3200 [absurd_res territory] and 15,000 [max size]. Absurdly_absurd_res comes partway between those two, at 10,000 and up. So it's not actually pointless.

Personally I have no need to distinguish between most sizes. But if people are using it on their blacklists because over 10,000 makes their technology have a seizure, then I think it actually does have a purpose. And I think we should consider keeping it.

I see; you're right. Before I was thinking that it creates an unnecessary high end for the range of sizes defined by absurd_res, thinking nobody would need to specifically look for anything beyond what's already considered to be an unusually large image. But if it's in terms of what they're avoiding, then yeah, it makes sense. I support that (especially because I'm on slow internet).

So is the consensus here to approve this implication? It seems that absurdly_absurd_res does have some use to it from what I'm reading here. Is "absurdly_absurd_res" the name we want to keep for it?

Char said:
So is the consensus here to approve this implication? It seems that absurdly_absurd_res does have some use to it from what I'm reading here. Is "absurdly_absurd_res" the name we want to keep for it?

I don't really want to keep that name, personally. It does sound silly. But I think the whole 'absurd' word sort of traps it there.. all the alternatives I find are not that different from 'absurd' in meaning ('ludicrous', 'preposterous', 'idiotic') or are not obvious in meaning ('galactic', 'cosmic', 'epic', 'nonsensical', 'superluminal').

I just came across the word of questionable origin 'superabsurd', though, which seems like a slight patch on absurdly_absurd.

savageorange said:
I don't really want to keep that name, personally. It does sound silly. But I think the whole 'absurd' word sort of traps it there.. all the alternatives I find are not that different from 'absurd' in meaning ('ludicrous', 'preposterous', 'idiotic') or are not obvious in meaning ('galactic', 'cosmic', 'epic', 'nonsensical', 'superluminal').

I just came across the word of questionable origin 'superabsurd', though, which seems like a slight patch on absurdly_absurd.

I actually kinda like superabsurd. superabsurd_res could work, and it drops the length of the tag down somewhat. Absurdly_absurd_res just feels so redundant that I keep thinking I wrote it wrong somehow and it makes me double-check every time I use it. At least with 'superabsurd_res' the super emphasizes the absurd without having to repeat the same word twice. But at the end of the day, I could live with either name for it.

"Superabsurd" rolls nicely off the tongue.

Yeah, I don't like the name either.
Superabsurd or incredibly_absurdres (since that's what most major boards use) would be better.

Genjar said:
Yeah, I don't like the name either.
Suberabsurb or incredibly_absurdres (since that's what most major boards use) would be better.

One downside to incredibly_absurdres is that it would mess up consistency with the other tags in the system, where the underscore falls right before the 'res' (absurd_res, high_res, low_res, etc). And consistency with tags has a lot of advantages for functional usage.

However, because a lot of other boards use 'incredibly_absurdres' it might be smart to also alias incredibly_absurdres -> to whatever tag we do decide to use (superabsurd_res or absurdly_absurd_res). So that way if people copypaste tags from elsewhere or try to use it here by accident, it would still end up in the right place. Although checking for it now, I don't see any instances of incredibly_absurdres being used as a tag here. So either it's been kept cleaned up manually, or it doesn't actually happen very often. So maybe that extra alias isn't necessary after all.

Alright based on the discussion and agreed plan to keep the tag but change the name of it...

Approved and aliased these:
absurdly_absurd_res to --> superabsurd_res
incredibly_absurdres to --> superabsurd_res (since it's apparently a common version for the same thing on other boards, prevents mistagging that way)
super_absurd_res to --> superabsurd_res (since I could see it as a potential oops typo tag in the future)

And then also approved implicating: superabsurd_res to --> absurd_res