Why do we manually add tags like low_res and hi_res? The search engine supports filtering by image size, i.e. width:<=500 height:<=500.

If it's really necessary to keep the resolution tags, couldn't they at least be added automatically at upload time? Or the internal database query be transparently converted at search time?

I feel like we're making this harder than it needs to be. It's yet another thing we have to remember when tagging.

My problem with them is they're on stuff that isn't particularly high resolution, but just big, like large groups, reference pictures and especially comics. Would love to see them just go away since they're currently just defined as duplicates of pixel width/height.

e.g. this is tagged as absurd_res even though the largest frame in the comic is around 500x600:
post #621982

In the same category as this actually absurdly hi-res picture (2893x4092):
post #769597

Similarly, I wouldn't consider this hi-res since each subject is actually quite small, there's just a lot of subjects:
post #37188

Blacklisting pixelranges doesn't work properly, these tags are there so they can be blacklisted by people who have trouble with such images.

I want to get the system to add tags like this automatically, but I'm not quite there yet.

NotMeNotYou said:
Blacklisting pixelranges doesn't work properly, these tags are there so they can be blacklisted by people who have trouble with such images.

Some people just don't want to wait for their porn to load. That's completely understandable.

GameManiac said:
Some people just don't want to wait for their porn to load. That's completely understandable.

Mobile devices sich only small RAM, mobile data plans with data caps, there are many reasons to limit things.

SyldraTheCat said:
My problem with them is they're on stuff that isn't particularly high resolution, but just big, like large groups, reference pictures and especially comics.

In the case of these tags, they don't refer to image quality, but size. You can have pixel art where the overall piece is over 10k pixels in either direction and it'd be superabsurd_res.

SyldraTheCat said:
e.g. this is tagged as absurd_res even though the largest frame in the comic is around 500x600:

That used to get me too until I realized the tag was for assessing how large the entire loaded image will be rather than individual panels.

As already stated, the tags do perform a very useful role for some users. They're easy enough to ignore if you don't need them, but you certainly appreciate them being there when you find yourself in a situation where they lend a hand.

parasprite said:
I want to get the system to add tags like this automatically, but I'm not quite there yet.

On the bright side, I finished cleaning up the res tags fairly recently and it's a rather simple group to keep maintained now that that's done. It will be nice if it becomes automated though.

"This image is displayed at 20% of its original size."

e621's image downsizing effectively caps the size of the image and kinda makes blacklisting hi_res pointless.

SyldraTheCat said:
"This image is displayed at 20% of its original size."

e621's image downsizing effectively caps the size of the image and kinda makes blacklisting hi_res pointless.

Unless I'm mistaken, the full image is first downloaded, then re-sized for display when it does that.

Wodahseht said:
Unless I'm mistaken, the full image is first downloaded, then re-sized for display when it does that.

There's a third option in the settings below that one which lets you get a downsized/compressed version from e621. I use it all the time because I'm on a 20GB a month connection.

Here's a link to the image I get looking at post #769597

https://static1.e621.net/data/sample/74/04/7404451bfc90ca9a762b6aaf2a901f0a.jpg

SyldraTheCat said:
There's a third option in the settings below that one which lets you get a downsized/compressed version from e621. I use it all the time because I'm on a 20GB a month connection.

What about those that don't log in from the device in question? Is that a feature that's still available?

I get that you don't feel the tags are necessary, but there are plenty of others who do find them quite useful. I'm curious, does having them here negatively impact your experience? Beyond having to see them in the tag list or remember to add them I mean.

(Note: I do think that setting could help a number of people that do log in. I'm just trying to take the wider all-inclusive view.)

GameManiac said:
Some people just don't want to wait for their porn to load. That's completely understandable.

See SyldraTheCat's post. I use it and hit download to get larger image.

Lance_Armstrong said:
See SyldraTheCat's post. I use it and hit download to get larger image.

I don't. I'm not restricted.

Wodahseht said:
What about those that don't log in from the device in question? Is that a feature that's still available?

I get that you don't feel the tags are necessary, but there are plenty of others who do find them quite useful. I'm curious, does having them here negatively impact your experience? Beyond having to see them in the tag list or remember to add them I mean.

(Note: I do think that setting could help a number of people that do log in. I'm just trying to take the wider all-inclusive view.)

I guess typing hi_res/absurd_res is easier to remember than the syntax for width/height ranges.

On the other hand, excluding hi_res posts is pretty harsh since 1200 pixels has been pre-selected for anyone who uses it, which is not considered huge anymore, and there's 2-3MB PNG images that don't even classify as hi_res (not including the 30MB+ GIF animations). A person who knew what their requirements were could do better with a tag tailored to their requirements (e.g. size:<1MB for people on data caps).

Assuming there was a system in place one day that allowed searching -hi_res (or preferably -large_image) to mean width:<1600 height:<1200 (or preferably area:<1920K), then the tag has no reason to exist for the fact that it'd then be completely redundant. I guess the downside there is it would no longer be discoverable as a tag, but it could be made visible in other ways (e.g. the system adding a link near to the image/file size information).

Right now it just annoys me because it means "large image" (as arbitrarily chosen by someone years ago), and there's already ways for searching/filtering large images, and there's potentially valid use-cases in wanting to find actually hi-res images.

SyldraTheCat said:
A person who knew what their requirements were could do better with a tag tailored to their requirements (e.g. size:<1MB for people on data caps).

filesize:<1MB

This is one I can definitely agree with at least. People with data bandwidth/processing limits would probably be better served watching out for filesize rather than dimensions, but there's still plenty of times where the dimensions themselves can be the problem.

SyldraTheCat said:
Assuming there was a system in place one day that allowed searching -hi_res (or preferably -large_image) to mean width:<1600 height:<1200 (or preferably area:<1920K)

Do you mean total pixel count in the image? If so: mpixels:1 (1 million pixels - equivalent to 1000x1000)

Both tag searches pulled from the Tagging Cheatsheat

SyldraTheCat said:
Right now it just annoys me because it means "large image" (as arbitrarily chosen by someone years ago), and there's already ways for searching/filtering large images, and there's potentially valid use-cases in wanting to find actually hi-res images.

I can understand that. And I hope you will realize I'm not against changing definition or getting rid of these tags if other better options can be found/agreed on. I'm just playing devil's advocate to point out why they got to this point and remain there.

As pointed out earlier, by NMNY: "blacklisting pixelranges doesn't work properly, so these tags are there so they can be blacklisted by people who have trouble with such images." And despite the re-sizing option you mentioned being available, it's not necessarily helpful to people that don't log in.

Additionally, there's many people (particularly new users or people that just browse images and ignore wiki/forums) that don't even realize that metatags exist or how to use them properly that like having a simple, basic tag they can see and understand.

I don't think there'd be any problem with starting discussion as to whether the ranges of what falls in each category should be changed. And I know I've seen posts before talking about creating tags that classify digital quality as opposed to dimensions. The big snag I usually see there is how to set clear definitions.

SyldraTheCat said:
"This image is displayed at 20% of its original size."

e621's image downsizing effectively caps the size of the image and kinda makes blacklisting hi_res pointless.

Only works for non-animated posts (jpg/png) at the moment though.

parasprite said:
I want to get the system to add tags like this automatically, but I'm not quite there yet.

Well, I keep telling you a possible solution, which is two-part and solves more than just this problem, but I've never heard you say anything about it that makes me think that you would even consider it.

Part 1: Allow multiple tags for implications and aliases (ex. male -female -intersex -dickgirl -cuntboy -nullo -herm sex -i-> male/male)
Part 2: Allow metatags and tag "modifiers" (-tag1 ~tag2 "tag3 tag4") in implications and aliases (ex. width:<=500 height:<=500 -i-> low_res -high_res -absurd_res -superabsurd_res)

If you wanted to clean those up some to make things easier, an optional Part 3 would be to add special hidden tags that can only be seen while editing tags, and preferably available only after someone has taken some sort of tagging quiz or course, so they don't derp out and delete something that's helpful.

All this would also solve the problem of not having species or gender implications to characters, as a hidden tag could be automatically added by experienced people that enables those implications:

In user upload tags:
hidden:enablegenspecimp (short for "enable gender and species implications")

And if the post is tagged with a character, it sees if another tag is added or not (These two tags it would be looking for are probably gender_bender and species_bender). If the tag is added, it prevents the implication from taking place. For example:

char:shylokvakarian -gender_bender hidden:enablegenspecimp -i-> male
char:shylokvakarian -species_bender hidden:enablegenspecimp -i-> spec:tanuki

ShylokVakarian said:

<snip>

Sorry, I never had a good chance to respond.

The biggest issue here is that it would involve rewriting a huge chunk of the tag code, which among other things (dev time/effort) involves a huge amount of risk. It also doesn't help that the alias/implication system is already kind of finicky.

We have had variations of this request suggested in the past and I still think it's an interesting idea, but unfortunately there are several other parts of the site that have been taking priority.

parasprite said:
I want to get the system to add tags like this automatically, but I'm not quite there yet.

parasprite said:
We have had variations of this request suggested in the past and I still think it's an interesting idea, but unfortunately there are several other parts of the site that have been taking priority.

Is this something that can be patched using svn://donmai.us/danbooru/trunk as a base, or has the e621 fork diverged from that too much? If it can be done in the upstream Danbooru code, I could take a crack at it, since that's all open source.

Maxpizzle said:
Is this something that can be patched using svn://donmai.us/danbooru/trunk as a base, or has the e621 fork diverged from that too much? If it can be done in the upstream Danbooru code, I could take a crack at it, since that's all open source.

Some is some isn't. I can sometimes find what their solution is for a particular issue and work the code in, but other things are so differently organized that breaking it apart is more trouble than it's worth. We're also currently stuck in pre-2.0 Ruby and Rails 2.x, which doesn't help much :x. You might have better luck if you create your own MVC for it, but I can't guarantee it will work with what we have.

If you have any questions feel free to shoot me a dmail.

ShylokVakarian said:
All this would also solve the problem of not having species or gender implications to characters, as a hidden tag could be automatically added by experienced people that enables those implications

If it can only be enabled by experienced people, why not just have those experienced people add the relevant species tag instead and avoid the potential headaches of the implication?