I've been searching "isparent:true ischild:true" to clean up daisy chains and things that should be pooled. One thing that makes this difficult is that some child posts will appear as both parents and children in the search results, but aren't actually. One instance is post #5188819, which is currently on the front page of "isparent:true ischild:true" despite not having a child. Is this a bug or something I'm missing?

leafdapple said:
I've been searching "isparent:true ischild:true" to clean up daisy chains and things that should be pooled. One thing that makes this difficult is that some child posts will appear as both parents and children in the search results, but aren't actually. One instance is post #5188819, which is currently on the front page of "isparent:true ischild:true" despite not having a child. Is this a bug or something I'm missing?

post #5188703 is it's child

parent:5188819 status:any
deleted child posts aren't shown on their parent, you'll have to manually search for them if you want to find them

donovan_dmc said:
parent:5188819 status:any
deleted child posts aren't shown on their parent, you'll have to manually search for them if you want to find them

Why does post #1383891 show its deleted child though

snpthecat said:
Why does post #1383891 show its deleted child though

Apparently it only checks if there's any visible child, there's no filtering on which are displayed

donovan_dmc said:
parent:5188819 status:any
deleted child posts aren't shown on their parent, you'll have to manually search for them if you want to find them

Ah, that's annoying. Thanks, though. Should I remove the parent relationship or is that not advised?

leafdapple said:
Should I remove the parent relationship or is that not advised?

I wouldn't advise it, since it helps people find the old/original post it replaced.

watsit said:
I wouldn't advise it, since it helps people find the old/original post it replaced.

Alright, good to know.

Ah damn you, you and your daisy chain hate. I already had someone debate over whether my post should or shouldn't have the female tag and now you come in with this confusing post relationship.

Why should #5191767 be the parent of #5199974 instead of #5199973, like that makes no sense, not to mention, now your supposed parent doesn't even have a green border and is broken, you fool, you became the sole thing you swore to destroy!

Pardon, come again?

gusta_cz said:
Ah damn you, you and your daisy chain hate. I already had someone debate over whether my post should or shouldn't have the female tag and now you come in with this confusing post relationship.

Why should #5191767 be the parent of #5199974 instead of #5199973, like that makes no sense, not to mention, now your supposed parent doesn't even have a green border and is broken, you fool, you became the sole thing you swore to destroy!

Please try again when you can clearly explain the actual issue instead of just going "it makes no sense" or quoting Star Wars.

gusta_cz said:
Ah damn you, you and your daisy chain hate. I already had someone debate over whether my post should or shouldn't have the female tag and now you come in with this confusing post relationship.

What does a debate over a post having the female tag have to do with parent/child daisy chains?

Parent/child daisy chains shouldn't be done because that typically indicates a series of more than two posts, which should use a pool instead of parent/child links. Otherwise, a post should have children if they're created from a common base, which there only needs to be one parent from which you can go to any of the related child posts. Daisy-chaining posts makes it harder to navigate and see the related posts as you have two crawl up and down different branches to see what's been linked together.

watsit said:
Parent/child daisy chains shouldn't be done because that typically indicates a series of more than two posts, which should use a pool instead of parent/child links. [...] Daisy-chaining posts makes it harder to navigate and see the related posts as you have two crawl up and down different branches to see what's been linked together.

Thank you! Testify!

gusta_cz said:
Ah damn you, you and your daisy chain hate. I already had someone debate over whether my post should or shouldn't have the female tag and now you come in with this confusing post relationship.

Why should #5191767 be the parent of #5199974 instead of #5199973, like that makes no sense, not to mention, now your supposed parent doesn't even have a green border and is broken, you fool, you became the sole thing you swore to destroy!

Please read e621:post relationships on how to properly use post relationships.
Post relationships are only used if they are sequentially or thematically relevant.

We try to avoid daisy-chaining posts, unless in very specific circumstances.
For example:

• 1) post #5064218 is (hypothetically) a YCH commission.
• 2) post #5066041 is part of the same YCH, but with a different character.
• It would be appropriate for the first post to be the parent of the second post, as they are thematically relevant.
• If there were 3 or more posts of similar nature, then a pool would be used instead. In this case, a dedicated pool is used for these posts.
• 3) Now, you include post #5077102 in to the mix, which is an alt of post #5066041.
• In this specific case, it would be appropriate for the second post to be the parent of the third post, as they are sequentially relevant.

In your case, you could argue that post #5191767 is the thematic parent of post #5199973, and that post #5199973 is the sequential parent of post #5199974.
However, since all three posts are thematically about "5 socks" (or elbow_gloves + stockings + cock_sock), it would be appropriate/cleaner for post #5191767 to be the parent to all posts.
If you plan to make more posts, then you can remove all the post relationships and move them to a pool instead.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Please read e621:post relationships on how to properly use post relationships.
Post relationships are only used if they are sequentially or thematically relevant.

In your case, you could argue that post #5191767 is the thematic parent of post #5199973, and that post #5199973 is the sequential parent of post #5199974.
However, since all three posts are thematically about "5 socks" (or elbow_gloves + stockings + cock_sock), it would be appropriate/cleaner for post #5191767 to be the parent to all posts.
If you plan to make more posts, then you can remove all the post relationships and move them to a pool instead.

What about reverse order parenting? As in, the newest post is the parent and the two solos are its children. I know it doesn't affect the post to post navigation, but I'm more so arguing that a post with more characters, having more tags, is more likely to be the first one to be clicked on as a result from the little bit more search querries it can be a match for; so then the lesser posts are the defacto suggested posts, as if you asked the user if they'd like to see more critters with socks, as they go down the rabbit hole.

I can only think of this being an issue if, yeah there were plans to make more, so it's obviously easier to specify a parent for new posts, rather than retroactively specify children for the "final" post, but again, where do you even make the jump from relationships to pools, feels like 5 or less is too little to justify that.

gusta_cz said:
What about reverse order parenting? As in, the newest post is the parent and the two solos are its children. I know it doesn't affect the post to post navigation, but I'm more so arguing that a post with more characters, having more tags, is more likely to be the first one to be clicked on as a result from the little bit more search querries it can be a match for; so then the lesser posts are the defacto suggested posts, as if you asked the user if they'd like to see more critters with socks, as they go down the rabbit hole.

There is no fixed rule to ordering and you can freely parent/child posts as you like.

Rule of thumb though is for sequentially related posts to show a clear sign of progression.
That means no making the "most saucy" post to be the parent when it is like the third page in.

Same applies to clothed/partially_clothed/nude and imminent_sex/sex/after_sex sequences.

I can only think of this being an issue if, yeah there were plans to make more, so it's obviously easier to specify a parent for new posts, rather than retroactively specify children for the "final" post, but again, where do you even make the jump from relationships to pools, feels like 5 or less is too little to justify that.

Again, there is no fixed rule to number of posts that make a pool, though the general consensus is more than 3.
This is because a pool is designed to make navigation easier and allows for sequential ordering (e.g., you can post the last page first and then the first page, and then use a pool to sort the page order).

Though I have sometimes given myself some leeway when it comes to making pools since it is not necessary for every instance.
For example, an artist I know likes to make commissions with multiple alts, so every commission they make can have up to 3-5 alts.
In that case, I don't find it necessary to make a "Commission #34 by Artist X" pool and would just make the first "base" image as the parent.