I searched for an answer to the following question and found none; apologies in advance if I missed the discussion.

Is there a method of entering search parameters that exclude a set or pool?

One can exclude the favorites of a user:

platypus -favoritedby:bob

But excluding a set not only doesn't work, but gives buggy results:

platypus -set:bobthulhumythos
platypus -pool:terribleart

Is there a method that can perform the latter search?

It actually works that way, but you have to enter the ID of the Set or Pool you want to exclude. I'm not sure why is this, though.

You'd have to do

• platypus -set:12345, or

platypus -pool:12345

Xch3l said:
It actually works that way, but you have to enter the ID of the Set or Pool you want to exclude. I'm not sure why is this, though.

You'd have to do

• platypus -set:12345, or

platypus -pool:12345

This still does not work -- at least, not when I have done it. I get a bug when I do this, the same kind gained when I don't use the ID. Posts duplicate themselves in the output and the excluded sets are included in the output, rather than excluded. Some of the posts duplicated are not in the would-be excluded sets. Has anyone experienced this?

blip said:
This still does not work -- at least, not when I have done it. I get a bug when I do this, the same kind gained when I don't use the ID. Posts duplicate themselves in the output and the excluded sets are included in the output, rather than excluded. Some of the posts duplicated are not in the would-be excluded sets. Has anyone experienced this?

There's the alternative of platypus inpool:false to exclude posts that are in pools (I forgot about that one). And no, I haven't

Xch3l said:
There's the alternative of platypus inpool:false to exclude posts that are in pools (I forgot about that one). And no, I haven't

I found the "inpool" term as well. The problem with that one is that it's a general proposition. If you want to exclude a _specific_ pool, but not all pools, you're out of luck. Since you can't control other people putting a post in one pool or another, the results are incohate. (I do appreciate the suggestion.)

If "inpool:true/false" could be directed to a specific pool, we'd be in business.

I haven't worked with sets but I don't seem to be having the issue with the pools I've tested it on.

Can you can copy and paste your exact search (e.g., cake pie -pool:1234 platypus -human) and post it here so we can see what you are looking at?

I created a private pool called "testpool." Its ID is 5639 (thank goodness for that mousehover thing, b/c I couldn't find the IDs any other way).

A search for the following terms yields six results, making it easy to study:

female x-ray femdom cum_in_pussy

(Female is redundant there.)

The first two posts in that suite of tags was thrown into the pool.

The following search terms should work, but don't:

female x-ray femdom cum_in_pussy -pool:5639
female x-ray femdom cum_in_pussy -pool:testpool

The results are identical. Again, the output includes no exclusion and duplicate posts.

Note that "pool:testpool" used alone works properly.

Is there a typo in my terms?

blip said:

female x-ray femdom cum_in_pussy -pool:5639
female x-ray femdom cum_in_pussy -pool:testpool

The results are identical. Again, the output includes no exclusion and duplicate posts.

Yeah that is definitely a bug. As a test I changed the posts per page to limit to "5" and there were 3 pages of posts, the first had 5 posts (duplicates) showing on the same page. Interestingly enough, if they happen to be blacklisted it only showed that two were being blacklisted even though all 5 were (presumably it only counts the number of different post ids).

By the way, the pools aren't actually private. Unchecking "public" only makes it so that others can't edit them. If you are done with your testing/playing with results, I'd like to ask that you remember to delete all of the test pools except for pool #5639, which I will use as an example for a bug report.

parasprite said:
By the way, the pools aren't actually private. Unchecking "public" only makes it so that others can't edit them. If you are done with your testing/playing with results, I'd like to ask that you remember to delete all of the test pools except for pool #5639, which I will use as an example for a bug report.

Wow. That's embarassing. I had no idea about the pools being public. I'll destroy all save the one you mentioned.

If you could make a note on the pool creation screen that "private" doesn't mean "not seen," that might help bumblers like myself.

And thanks for the bug report.

blip said:
Wow. That's embarassing. I had no idea about the pools being public. I'll destroy all save the one you mentioned.

If you could make a note on the pool creation screen that "private" doesn't mean "not seen," that might help bumblers like myself.

And thanks for the bug report.

That function was created before sets existed and it's kind of useless now. I know Tony (one of the devs here) has mentioned that it will likely just be removed at some point in the future, it just hasn't been done yet.