Can someone inform me on this new tab I see?

It seems you can maintain these sets in your user options

https://e621.net/user/home

» My sets
» Sets I maintain

I'm writing a changelog right now, which will introduce sets. You can also look at the new help page for them

Awesome

So, they're like pools? Or to organize faves, or what?

Xch3l said:
So, they're like pools? Or to organize faves, or what?

tony311 said:
You can also look at the new help page for them

@Butterscotch: Well, I read it. I was putting what I got from there

So, any rules about what is/isn't an appropriate set?

tony311 said:
I'm writing a changelog right now, which will introduce sets. You can also look at the new help page for them

I read it, but have no bloody clue what it is....

Is there some more simpler words you can use? c:

Is it like a filter system for favs?

Halite said:
So, any rules about what is/isn't an appropriate set?

1. Don't use harassing names/descriptions in public sets, just like how you can't harass users in your profile 'about' text

2. Don't spam-create large amounts of pointless public sets (feel free to create as many private sets as you want; only you can see them)

Other than that, no, you're free to make whatever sets you want. Private sets are only visible to you so they really don't matter, and public sets only show up on a single page (the set list) so it's okay if you make an "ugly renamon" set or a "tony's favorite posts" set.

That's the main difference between pools and sets. If you were to create a "tony's favorite posts" pool, it would quickly be deleted and you might receive a warning if it's not your first offense. That's because pools are shown prominently on the post's page, so it's rather inconvenient to see a box that says "This post is in the pool 'tony's favorite posts'!" on the post page. But sets don't show up like that, so a post could be in two hundred different random sets and it makes no difference to anyone.

As to how to use them, I can think of three different scenarios where they can be useful:

1. Better favorite organizing. Instead of having just a single fav:tony311 group, now you can have set:tony_toshowtogirlfriend, set:tony_hasfunnycomments, and set:tony_avatars sets. Searching within them works just like searching for fav:tony311 except they aren't ordered by the date you added them to the set like favorites are.

2. Sharing sets with the public or with friends. I can make a set called something like set:tonys_favorite_fox_photos, add all of my favorite fox photos to it, and share that set with other people so they can see as well. This works pretty much the same as photostreams on Flickr.

3. Organization of an artist's art. Let's say you're an artist who uploads your own work to e621. Now you can organize your uploads into sets, for example set:tony_sketches, set:tony_inks, set:tony_commissions, etc. You can even link to those sets on your user profile "About" text!

Note: Above set names start with "tony_" but they don't have to. I just like to use consistent prefixes so they look a bit nicer :)

Hope that clears up some of the confusion over sets.

Halite said:
So, any rules about what is/isn't an appropriate set?

The rules boil down to "don't be a dick" (don't do something like making a public set called "shitty art" or make tons of public sets to spam up the list or anything like that). But other than that, anything goes. The point of sets is to let you set up groups of images that fit some theme that is untaggable and doesn't meet the requirements for pools.

Also, from the changelog:

Sets are intended to be used like groups or photostreams on other sites, in that any user is free to add any posts to any set they own (or maintain). For more information on sets, please see the sets help page

Oh, I get it now. If it's not pool worthy, put it in a set!

So if the set of toshowtogirlfriend is empty does it just not show up, or is it like a pool where it's just empty, do I need to be a privy etc?

Snowy said:
...don't do something like making a public set called "shitty art"...

Damn.

Moon_Moon said:
So if the set of toshowtogirlfriend is empty does it just not show up, or is it like a pool where it's just empty, do I need to be a privy etc?

Set names cant be that long meh thinks

TheHuskyK9 said:
Oh, I get it now. If it's not pool worthy, put it in a set!

Yep.

I'm really excited about sets. When I have time I plan on making sets for distinguishing things that we don't tag but which I sometimes want to search for (e.g. sets for male/herm anal or fellatio images that indicate which one is the receptive partner).

Snowy said:
Yep.

I'm really excited about sets. When I have time I plan on making sets for distinguishing things that we don't tag but which I sometimes want to search for (e.g. sets for male/herm anal or fellatio images that indicate which one is the receptive partner).

I made a set for Alcoholic Cats
https://e621.net/set/show/6

edit: Need more drunken feral cat images, someone upload moar!

Am I doing it right?

TheHuskyK9 said:
Am I doing it right?

Yes :3

Conker said:
I made a set for Alcoholic Cats
https://e621.net/set/show/6

edit: Need more drunken feral cat images, someone upload moar!

Ur doing it wrong.
Beer =/= liquor.

Halite said:
Ur doing it wrong.
Beer =/= liquor.

says you :v but changed it for your amusement, could use some more images for feral cats drinking though

I love this!

The only thing that could make it better would be having an option to page through post by post like you can with pools. That way I could make a set for my favorites and just page through them all without having to click in and out of each pic individually.

I just made a little experiment:
1) Put post #374580 (old) in a private set that I'd created
2) Uploaded a bigger version at post #375042 (new)
3) Parent/Child relationship:
post #375042 (new) = parent
post #374580 (old) = child
4) Deleted post #374580 (old)

It's a well-known fact that, when you delete a post, its favorites are automatically transferred to its parent post.

However, the same is not true for set membership.
While post #374580 (old) was a member in my private set, post #375042 (new) isn't.
Is this intentional or a bug/missing feature?

Doesn't this kind of obsolete the normal favourites -feature?

Depends, leave your faves PG and throw all the hardcore porn in a private set, or the other way around if you are ashamed of liking ponies/comics/humour.

Munkelzahn said:
I just made a little experiment:
1) Put post #374580 (old) in a private set that I'd created
2) Uploaded a bigger version at post #375042 (new)
3) Parent/Child relationship:
post #375042 (new) = parent
post #374580 (old) = child
4) Deleted post #374580 (old)

It's a well-known fact that, when you delete a post, its favorites are automatically transferred to its parent post.

However, the same is not true for set membership.
While post #374580 (old) was a member in my private set, post #375042 (new) isn't.
Is this intentional or a bug/missing feature?

What if someone makes set "low res pics"? It would be not desired if bigger versions of deleted pics were there automatically.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
What if someone makes set "low res pics"? It would be not desired if bigger versions of deleted pics were there automatically.

LOL

I can add the same functionality to sets that exists with faves (where faves are transferred to the parent) but I can also add a checkbox to control whether this happens or not.

ArdesCadaver said:
Doesn't this kind of obsolete the normal favourites -feature?

I suppose. But favorites still show up on your profile and don't require "creating" the favorites first, and adding posts to your favorites is slightly faster, so it still has a use :P

tony311 said:
I can add the same functionality to sets that exists with faves (where faves are transferred to the parent) but I can also add a checkbox to control whether this happens or not.

Where would this checkbox be?
a) In the deletion menu => the deleter controls if set membership gets transferred
This seems like the most straightforward solution, but how would the deleter know if the set creators want this? So here's another idea:
b) In the set menu => the set creator and/or maintainer controls if set membership gets transferred

In either case, IMHO the box should be checked by default. Otherwise, people will start complaining about pics disappearing from their sets.

Munkelzahn said:
Where would this checkbox be?
a) In the deletion menu => the deleter controls if set membership gets transferred
This seems like the most straightforward solution, but how would the deleter know if the set creators want this? So here's another idea:
b) In the set menu => the set creator and/or maintainer controls if set membership gets transferred

In either case, IMHO the box should be checked by default. Otherwise, people will start complaining about pics disappearing from their sets.

I just committed the new code, so it should be live within the next day or so. It's a new checkbox on the edit and create pages for sets, meaning only set owners can control it, not maintainers. Defaults to on.

tony311 said:
I just committed the new code, so it should be live within the next day or so. It's a new checkbox on the edit and create pages for sets, meaning only set owners can control it, not maintainers. Defaults to on.

Even awesomer

I remember this idea conceptualizing on the forums a while back. It's great you guys actually listen to users here. It's actually better than anything that I said too.

Seven_Twenty said:
I remember this idea conceptualizing on the forums a while back. It's great you guys actually listen to users here. It's actually better than anything that I said too.

Actually I came up with the idea on my own a few weeks ago XD
Not saying someone didn't suggest something like it but I...actually yeah, let's say I listen to user input. Yeah. That sounds better.

tony311 said:
Actually I came up with the idea on my own a few weeks ago XD
Not saying someone didn't suggest something like it but I...actually yeah, let's say I listen to user input. Yeah. That sounds better.

That's actually a damn big coincidence then. A few weeks ago was also when I saw it. It's strange how two people can come up with nearly the same feature at the same time. Great feature anyway.

Seven_Twenty said:
That's actually a damn big coincidence then. A few weeks ago was also when I saw it. It's strange how two people can come up with nearly the same feature at the same time. Great feature anyway.

Just for curiosity's sake, do you remember where it was?

Also: With tonight's update, this is now live:

tony311 said:
I just committed the new code, so it should be live within the next day or so. It's a new checkbox on the edit and create pages for sets, meaning only set owners can control it, not maintainers. Defaults to on.

tony311 said:
I just committed the new code, so it should be live within the next day or so. It's a new checkbox on the edit and create pages for sets, meaning only set owners can control it, not maintainers. Defaults to on.

Thank you for adding this feature!
And the reverse image search links, and uploading from HTTPS :)