donovan_dmc said:
Not really? The sysadmin doesn't review code changes, he deploys changes and does whatever he's been told needs to be done, he's only as aware of the codebase as he needs to be, which is very little except under extreme circumstances

ah ok seems like a minor flaw but okay, well i gtg

dba_afish said:
should we have an option to revert to the pre-ng layout from 2018? and then one for every single UI update since?

That isn't at all comparable. e6ng was complete site redo for major user-facing and backend issues. The UI change was incidental as a result of the code being completely scrapped and replaced. But even then, they did endeavor to get the UI back to what it was like pre-ng, even asking for feedback on issues people had with the rewrite, rather than pushing a new UI on us that we had to live with. Here, these UI changes seem to be more the point, rather than an incidental change that they're trying to minimize, with less in the way of accepting feedback on issues people have with it.

watsit said:
That isn't at all comparable. e6ng was complete site redo for major user-facing and backend issues. The UI change was incidental as a result of the code being completely scrapped and replaced. But even then, they did endeavor to get the UI back to what it was like pre-ng, even asking for feedback on issues people had with the rewrite, rather than pushing a new UI on us that we had to live with. Here, these UI changes seem to be more the point, rather than an incidental change that they're trying to minimize, with less in the way of accepting feedback on issues people have with it.

EXACTLY.

The admins need to stop dodging the issue and FIX IT ALREADY.

feckin_ded_m8 said:
All we're asking for is an OPTION to make thumbnails look like they used to.

You mean the option above the card size, Image Crop\Full?

This topic cements my resolve to never work in tech support

nin10dope said:
You mean the option above the card size, Image Crop\Full?

That literally doesn't work well. It still leaves the thumbnails the same size and shape, ruining the resolution. It's not the same at all.

feckin_ded_m8 said:
That literally doesn't work well. It still leaves the thumbnails the same size and shape, ruining the resolution. It's not the same at all.

what do you even mean? disabling crop means that the thumbnails are the original dimensions.

cinder said:

• Adding a way for mobile users to change their display preferences, in a way that presents them with 3 columns of posts with the "small" thumbnail size, 2 with "medium" and 1 with "large".

And will this setting be available without needing to log in first?

donovan_dmc said:
This topic cements my resolve to never work in tech support

I was only 4/5 of the way down page 5 when I started typing a comment that you should save your breath trying to explain the intricacies of IT Web Development to people who have no interest in learning or any familiarity with it. You'll save a few years of lifespan :P

donovan_dmc said:
That's just about the worst non-argument you could say

Seriously, think a bit

Why would hackers take days to weeks, maybe even months or years to break into a site's servers just to change around a ui page, add some settings, remove some settings, and regenerate all image samples

And, why would the developer and sysadmin let it go on for so long? Our developer has been right here the entire time and this had been going on for at least 3 hours

None of it makes sense if you just think for a few extra seconds

I guess someone doesn't have fun...

cinder said:
However, there will not be a rollback to a previous version of a site.

Yes yes lets not do exactly what everyone wants. Why? Screw you thats why. You snobs are so needy *checks notes* asking that things not get changed for no reason.

gunzzy said:
Yes yes lets not do exactly what everyone wants. Why? Screw you thats why. You snobs are so needy *checks notes* asking that things not get changed for no reason.

Lmao, exactly how the mods are acting rn.

dba_afish said:
what do you even mean? disabling crop means that the thumbnails are the original dimensions.

no it doesn't. It makes them different dimensions, but regardless of size, they are all force fit into small squares, even if they're not square shaped.

Looks like I'm late to the party, but just for the sake of it, I'll add my voice to the mob:

It was much better looking before.

Here's hoping a bit of css fixing on the dev side (not the user side) will bring it back to as close as before as possible.

feckin_ded_m8 said:
no it doesn't. It makes them different dimensions, but regardless of size, they are all force fit into small squares, even if they're not square shaped.

They always have been fit into small squares or a grid. That's actually one of the things we've managed to get reverted in the past when they tried to make the posts per row more dynamic (unless that wasn't actually changed back and I have some custom CSS to fix it? I've kinda lost track of all the CSS I've had to use lately). Now they just get a slightly dim background when the thumbnail isn't perfectly square to fill.

watsit said:
They always have been fit into small squares or a grid. That's actually one of the things we've managed to get reverted in the past when they tried to make the posts per row more dynamic (unless that wasn't actually changed back and I have some custom CSS to fix it? I've kinda lost track of all the CSS I've had to use lately). Now they just get a slightly dim background when the thumbnail isn't perfectly square to fill.

the thumbnail borders and the post info also match the size of that darkened area, but that's about it.

I think the Crop/Full options just need finer tuning that's probably already been written down

Dunno why it was decided that for the no crop option the borders should all be square with an ugly transparent(?) area surrounding the content instead of it staying fitted to the actual dimensions

Thought I'd share mine CSS too. I based it on the old CSS from the archived page, so everything should look exactly as before.
It also fixes deleted and blacklisted thumbnails and large thumbnails in posts.
post #5662332
post #5667771

@media (min-width: 474px) {
article.thumbnail {
    width: min-content;
}
}

article.thumbnail {
    max-width: 150px;
    min-height: unset !important;
    min-width: unset !important;
}

article.thumbnail a {
    height: unset !important;
    max-height: unset !important;
    max-width: unset !important;
    width: unset !important;
}

article.thumbnail img {
    max-height: 150px;
    max-width: 150px;
    height: unset !important;
    object-fit: unset !important;
    pointer-events: none;
    width: 100%;
}

@media (min-width: 474px){
article.thumbnail:not(.deleted) img {
    width: unset;
}
}

section.posts-container {
    grid-template-columns: repeat(3,1fr) !important;
    --thumb-image-size: 150px;
}

@media (min-width: 474px) {
section.posts-container {
    grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fill,minmax(var(--thumb-image-size),1fr));
}
}

article.thumbnail .desc {
    height: unset !important;
}

.post-thumbnail.dtext img {
    max-height: 150px;
    max-width: 150px;
    width: auto;
    height: auto;
}

#image-container.blacklisted img.post-thumbnail-img, 
#image-container.blacklisted video, 
.post-thumbnail.blacklisted img.post-thumbnail-img, 
.post-thumbnail.blacklisted video {
    padding: 150px 150px 0 0!important;
    background-size: contain;
}

article.thumbnail.deleted img{
    width: calc(90vw / 3);
    max-width: 150px;
}

dba_afish said:
the thumbnail borders and the post info also match the size of that darkened area, but that's about it.

Yeah, and Cinder said the border applying to the whole thumbnail card instead of the image was unintentional and will be fixed. Not sure what that's going to mean for the darkened area, or the stats appearing at the bottom of the thumbnail area instead of attached to the bottom of the thumbnail image (is that the same issue?), but I don't think they bother me as much. The defaults being large with cropping is very questionable (the new default being Medium/200px when it's added, still larger than the original but not as large as the current default Large/256px), but at least there are options to make it more like it was, which I'm thankful for.

Revert it, or give us the option to do so.

donovan_dmc said:
This topic cements my resolve to never work in tech support

Based on 40+ years in IT, when everything is working perfectly, you're invisible and ignored, but the moment something unwanted happens, it's all your fault, and you're hounded mercilessly until it's fixed.

New UI is blocking most of the score ratings (upvote/downvote) at the bottom of every post in the gallery, perhaps the size of the thumbnails are too big :c

poppintarts said:
Dunno why it was decided that for the no crop option the borders should all be square with an ugly transparent(?) area surrounding the content instead of it staying fitted to the actual dimensions

This is my main gripe with the change right now.

heckingboof said:
give us the option to do so.

Not possible

bdanimare said:
This is my main gripe with the change right now.

That was an unintended effect and is planned to be fixed, no worries c:

Why can't people just leave things the way they are? There was no need to change the thumbnails, but someone decided "let's make them bigger and take up more space lol".

nin10dope said:
That was an unintended effect and is planned to be fixed, no worries c:

Oh good!

tok8 said:
You can add this to the custom CSS in settings/advanced to revert:

article.thumbnail img {
  object-fit: contain;
}

section.posts-container {
  --thumb-image-size: 150px;
}

I have no idea what that is or what to do with that gobbledygook.. im a person, not a nerd. Wheres the toggle? Im looking for a lightswitch, not a disheveled fusebox.

pornstarch said:
I have no idea what that is or what to do with that gobbledygook.. im a person, not a nerd. Wheres the toggle? Im looking for a lightswitch, not a disheveled fusebox.

Go to your user settings, in the advanced tab there should be a textbox labelled Custom CSS. Paste it into there.

srmalloy said:
I used to think that until I started seeing software updates that changed the UI of software so that there would be something to point to as 'new' or 'innovative' or 'enhanced' without adding new functionality. The latest example is with my Samsung tablet, which recently got an Android update... that changed the boot screen. Previously, it would start up and go to the lock screen, which I had configured to display the time as:

14:23

Now, the lock screen still displays the time like that, but when the tablet boots, it boots to a lock screen displaying the time as:

14
23

It's still perfectly readable — but it's not how I want my tablet to boot up, there's no explanation for the change, and no setting to change it back. It's a niggly little detail, but it's a change that does nothing to enhance the tablet's functionality, is not documented anywhere, and appears to have been done purely as a cosmetic change that every user has to accept. It smacks strongly of the Korean societal 'deference to superiors' as a corporate "we decided to change this, and you are expected to simply accept it; your opinion is irrelevant".

... And the relevance of a multi-million dollar corporation's team to an online community run furry porn site's dev team is... what, exactly? My point isn't stupid devs or at least stupid team leads don't exist, my point is these devs are not stupid, and to think and ask without immediately assuming that just because you don't get it there is nothing to get.

kotakat said:
Hey, instead of doing dumbass moves like this without any global announcements, how about y'all fucks use the News feature to say something that the UX was going to change like this? Last one I see is from May 2025.

Still wondering when E621 will make some kind of public announcement they've been fucking with shit on us with options to resolve it.

aacafah said:
... And the relevance of a multi-million dollar corporation's team to an online community run furry porn site's dev team is... what, exactly? My point isn't stupid devs or at least stupid team leads don't exist, my point is these devs are not stupid, and to think and ask without immediately assuming that just because you don't get it there is nothing to get.

This is not a porn site.

You can "turn it back" easily with the settings on PC, but it looks worse than it was before. On mobile this shit is especially unusable. Who thought this was a good idea and then approved it?

I appreciate the larger thumbnails, I've been using CSS to enlarge the 150px ones for quite a while. But it took me forever to figure out where the un-crop setting was, can it be made to respect the un-cropped setting in the settings page?

electricitywolf said:
This is not a porn site.

yes it is, it majority porn

sigh i guess looking at this i have to now go somewhere else to find stuff cause this is unusable for me and apparently it seems like its not getting fixed. genuinely upset and disappointed at this for changing something that never needed changing.

soulfluff said:
This seems to be the best fix for me:

article.thumbnail img {
  object-fit: contain;
}

section.posts-container {
  --thumb-image-size: 150px;
}

@media (max-width: 50rem) {
section.posts-container { grid-template-columns: repeat(3, 1fr); }} 

Paste it on your CSS on the advanced settings tab.

Credit to dba_afish and Tok8

this solution worked for me
ty

theoldguy said:
Thought I'd share mine CSS too. I based it on the old CSS from the archived page, so everything should look exactly as before.
It also fixes deleted and blacklisted thumbnails and large thumbnails in posts.
post #5662332
post #5667771

@media (min-width: 474px) {
article.thumbnail {
    width: min-content;
}
}

article.thumbnail {
    max-width: 150px;
    min-height: unset !important;
    min-width: unset !important;
}

article.thumbnail a {
    height: unset !important;
    max-height: unset !important;
    max-width: unset !important;
    width: unset !important;
}

article.thumbnail img {
    max-height: 150px;
    max-width: 150px;
    height: unset !important;
    object-fit: unset !important;
    pointer-events: none;
    width: 100%;
}

@media (min-width: 474px){
article.thumbnail:not(.deleted) img {
    width: unset;
}
}

section.posts-container {
    grid-template-columns: repeat(3,1fr) !important;
    --thumb-image-size: 150px;
}

@media (min-width: 474px) {
section.posts-container {
    grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fill,minmax(var(--thumb-image-size),1fr));
}
}

article.thumbnail .desc {
    height: unset !important;
}

.post-thumbnail.dtext img {
    max-height: 150px;
    max-width: 150px;
    width: auto;
    height: auto;
}

#image-container.blacklisted img.post-thumbnail-img, 
#image-container.blacklisted video, 
.post-thumbnail.blacklisted img.post-thumbnail-img, 
.post-thumbnail.blacklisted video {
    padding: 150px 150px 0 0!important;
    background-size: contain;
}

article.thumbnail.deleted img{
    width: calc(90vw / 3);
    max-width: 150px;
}

TY TY TY

dinkledot said:
sigh i guess looking at this i have to now go somewhere else to find stuff cause this is unusable for me and apparently it seems like its not getting fixed. genuinely upset and disappointed at this for changing something that never needed changing.

ok see you tomorrow

theoldguy said:
Thought I'd share mine CSS too. I based it on the old CSS from the archived page, so everything should look exactly as before.
It also fixes deleted and blacklisted thumbnails and large thumbnails in posts.
post #5662332
post #5667771

@media (min-width: 474px) {
article.thumbnail {
    width: min-content;
}
}

article.thumbnail {
    max-width: 150px;
    min-height: unset !important;
    min-width: unset !important;
}

article.thumbnail a {
    height: unset !important;
    max-height: unset !important;
    max-width: unset !important;
    width: unset !important;
}

article.thumbnail img {
    max-height: 150px;
    max-width: 150px;
    height: unset !important;
    object-fit: unset !important;
    pointer-events: none;
    width: 100%;
}

@media (min-width: 474px){
article.thumbnail:not(.deleted) img {
    width: unset;
}
}

section.posts-container {
    grid-template-columns: repeat(3,1fr) !important;
    --thumb-image-size: 150px;
}

@media (min-width: 474px) {
section.posts-container {
    grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fill,minmax(var(--thumb-image-size),1fr));
}
}

article.thumbnail .desc {
    height: unset !important;
}

.post-thumbnail.dtext img {
    max-height: 150px;
    max-width: 150px;
    width: auto;
    height: auto;
}

#image-container.blacklisted img.post-thumbnail-img, 
#image-container.blacklisted video, 
.post-thumbnail.blacklisted img.post-thumbnail-img, 
.post-thumbnail.blacklisted video {
    padding: 150px 150px 0 0!important;
    background-size: contain;
}

article.thumbnail.deleted img{
    width: calc(90vw / 3);
    max-width: 150px;
}

Thank you so much, seems to work very well!

In the future I guess the Custom CSS will need to be their own tab welp...

notknow said:
In the future I guess the Custom CSS will need to be their own tab welp...

I don't really think that's really that necessary, because I mean, you can already just...

I never wrote something in the forum, but this recent change has compelled me.
It is truly worse in every way, I hate it. The thumbnails are way too big now, and every preview is cropped to a square, which makes no sense to me at all. I want to see the uncropped picture in the preview!
Please please please revert that unnecessary change or at least give us the option to switch to the better layout.

Edit: the settings gear icon below the search bar seems to fix both issues I have. For now. please don't change or remove that.

Look if Cinder is up to changing some of this stuff as you said Donovan DMC then could you tell him to change how the posts look when you click on them? It used to be where if you clicked on the post it was resized to fit your screen and now it just displays its original size with most of them going way off screen. Even you could see that as a bad mess up.

cinder said:
If it's any consolation, I have received some valuable feedback, and will be making some changes based on it.
This includes:

• Fixing some oversights, like the colored borders being applied to the whole thumbnail card, rather than just the image itself.
• Adding a "medium" thumbnail size, at around 200px, which would be the new default. It's a midpoint between the old 150px and the new 256px image sizes.
• Adding a way for mobile users to change their display preferences, in a way that presents them with 3 columns of posts with the "small" thumbnail size, 2 with "medium" and 1 with "large".
• Integrating the display options into the settings menu, as that's where logged in users expected to find them.

However, there will not be a rollback to a previous version of a site.

Will the changes be saved for logged users? I do prefer "Small/Full" most of the time.

theoldguy said:
Thought I'd share mine CSS too. I based it on the old CSS from the archived page, so everything should look exactly as before.
It also fixes deleted and blacklisted thumbnails and large thumbnails in posts.
post #5662332
post #5667771

@media (min-width: 474px) {
article.thumbnail {
    width: min-content;
}
}

article.thumbnail {
    max-width: 150px;
    min-height: unset !important;
    min-width: unset !important;
}

article.thumbnail a {
    height: unset !important;
    max-height: unset !important;
    max-width: unset !important;
    width: unset !important;
}

article.thumbnail img {
    max-height: 150px;
    max-width: 150px;
    height: unset !important;
    object-fit: unset !important;
    pointer-events: none;
    width: 100%;
}

@media (min-width: 474px){
article.thumbnail:not(.deleted) img {
    width: unset;
}
}

section.posts-container {
    grid-template-columns: repeat(3,1fr) !important;
    --thumb-image-size: 150px;
}

@media (min-width: 474px) {
section.posts-container {
    grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fill,minmax(var(--thumb-image-size),1fr));
}
}

article.thumbnail .desc {
    height: unset !important;
}

.post-thumbnail.dtext img {
    max-height: 150px;
    max-width: 150px;
    width: auto;
    height: auto;
}

#image-container.blacklisted img.post-thumbnail-img, 
#image-container.blacklisted video, 
.post-thumbnail.blacklisted img.post-thumbnail-img, 
.post-thumbnail.blacklisted video {
    padding: 150px 150px 0 0!important;
    background-size: contain;
}

article.thumbnail.deleted img{
    width: calc(90vw / 3);
    max-width: 150px;
}

Thank you so much and I hope they at least add an option in future to go back to the old format

theoldguy said:
Thought I'd share mine CSS too. I based it on the old CSS from the archived page, so everything should look exactly as before.
It also fixes deleted and blacklisted thumbnails and large thumbnails in posts.

omg thank you this helps so much

On mobile, it's significantly harder to filter past the posts I don't want to see, since each image takes up almost half of the screen. The blacklist can only do so much.

just going to leave this here because some admin is definitely going to read this thread: I like the option, and will probably use it part time. back when the CSS option was still new I found a tool that made the thumbnails bigger and used it for a while (until I found out that it was loading the full image on every page and that's hard on the site's bandwidth) so I'll probably mess around with this until I find what I like. I'm really glad that it's a setting though so I have that option

Click the gear icon next to the search bar or use the utilities mentioned above if you're not happy with the changes. Otherwise, I believe this forum has run its course. If you're on mobile, an interim workaround is to switch to desktop mode, click the gear next to the search bar to change the settings, and then switch back.