Feature suggestions and discussion [READ THE FIRST POST]

Can we have a selectable setting to open pictures in a new tab, instead in the same one? This would be pretty handy for tablet and touchscreen users without a mouse.

@Mad Black  
I’d find this very useful. I almost always open images from the search/index pages into a new tab so I can open a bunch in a row.

@Mad Black  
You can usually long-press images and it’ll prompt if you wanna open in a new tab.

@Joey  
I know that, but it takes much longer if you do this for a number of pictures. Also sometimes you misclick and open a new window instead of a new tab and such, depending on the browser and device.

Going by a longshot here, but would be super dandy and just plain awesome if tags could be added to the ‘comments’ section of EXIF images like JPG, so that if I were to download an art piece by the artist JohnJoseco that includes Princess Luna, Gamer Luna, Headphones, and comics in the image tags, I could find the image on my computer by searching for those tags as well.
 
I can write a script to that for me, but in the meanwhile, I am just throwing that out there. Many people would love this feature I bet.

@PonyPonyPonyP0ny  
Many people would love this feature I bet  
It’s struggle enough to get uploaders to tag the bloody booru images properly, much less image macros in the comments, and I guarantee you it would get abused from Day One by douchebags filling up the EXIF tags with neo-nazi bullshit and porn and Literally Satan and “if you support this ship I hope you die screaming in flames”.

@PonyPonyPonyP0ny  
That means the code will have to regenerate the file every time someone changes the tags. It would also be JPEG-specific modification and would need to be run after the optimizer, which strips EXIF tags. It’s all in all not a good idea for us to implement.

@TexasUberAlles  
I think he’s saying “when someone downloads an image, add the current tags as an EXIF value”, so the only way that someone could fill them with “neo-nazi bullshit and porn and Literally Satan” is if they tag the image with such.

@byte[]  
I figured after that and what the other guy said. That’s a real shame, but I remain on the reasonable side of things. Thanks for the info.

I was directed here to ask this so, would it be possible to add a translation feature for comments?

@NudistHorse  
Everyone’s just going to tell you to copy and paste comments into Google Translate, but I’m actually interested to hear if there’s some kind of way to code that sort of feature into a site.

@TexasUberAlles  
Sure, just make suitable arrangements with any of the translator API providers out there (MS, Google, etc), then use site JS to call the API as needed. (You could also use the API from the back end if a foreign language is detected, I guess. Not sure that’s worthwhile, performance-wise, but caching is easier that way.) I wouldn’t say it’s trivial exactly, but it’s not rocket science.

The “implied by” field leaks information that may otherwise violate a user’s filters. This is most problematic for the tag names that are leaked to users of the Default filter, including unregistered visitors.
 
For example, a search for Twilight Sparkle produces a list of terms such as “futa twilight sparkle”, “mane six vaginas”, “naked six”, for starters.

@dcfurs  
This is true of the Tags page and tag suggestions in filters and images. There’s a limit to how much we can sanitize the site, and the objective isn’t to make it kid-friendly, it’s to filter out images people don’t want to see.

@dcfurs  
I put some thought into how this could be solved some time ago; unfortunately, it’s likely to require a lot of picky little detail work catching all the places in the site code that display or suggest tags, as well as populating the list of “NSFW-ish” tags in the first place. Performance might also be an issue, though hopefully not too much of one.
 
The foundation seems simple enough, though: add a way for tags to “imply” a choice between more than one possibility (rather than the current X -> Y, a choice between X -> Y and X -> Z) and use that to mark certain tags as e.g. [explicit] or [questionable]. Then hide those if [explicit] or [questionable] is filtered out. This would probably require JS to load the tags (the way images are loaded after the page loads, and for the same reason: server-side caching of user-specific-filtered data).
 
Hypothetically, populating the implications could be done manually, but that would be very tedious. Easier would be to have a statistics script run to pick out tags that always, or almost always, appear with only certain rating tags: each of those would be marked as “implying” that rating tag or tags.
 
All this is quite a lot of work and an ongoing performance hit (however well-mitigated) for a feature that, while essential for a kid-oriented website, and quite handy for those of us who are not children but who use filters anyway, isn’t really necessary for most users. That said, if the devs decided to do it anyway, I for one would welcome the decision.

@Wellwater  
I mean, a quick and dirty way to implement the tag text being filtered is to just use the filters themselves. If it’s hidden by the current filter used, hide the text from the tag description. How that gets done, no idea. I’m not a programmer.

@Background Pony #CDB7
 
Pretty much. “Implied by: x, y, z, and 5 more tags hidden by your current filter.”

@Background Pony #CDB7  
@dcfurs  
It gets done by a whole lot of menial work of mods adding hundreds and hundreds of tags to different ratings, maintaining it daily because of every new fetish or meme or whatever, and a significant performance hit for every tag-related operation that needs to check against a massive list of “is this tag suggestion in search of this 10 term query against this particular user’s complex filter” for ~1k concurrent users on the site every half minute.

@The Smiling Pony  
Would it [still] be performance-heavy if it only did it for the main filters and doesn’t include custom ones?

@Background Pony #CDB7  
The site database could be denormalized if it’s limited to a preset list of ratings: shove the populated tag rating tags (whether populated manually or via script) into dedicated columns in the tag table, such as is_suggestive etc to allow for those few whackos that hide [suggestive] but not [questionable], or else sex_rating (0-3) and dark_rating (0-2) and is_grotesque (true/false) to make the normal case of filtering anything “above” a certain threshold work smoothly. This wouldn’t affect performance much directly; in fact, it might even make queries, never mind AJAX responses, faster — database engines are awfully good at optimizing for conditions. You’d still need to keep an in-memory cache of which users are filtering which basic ratings if you don’t want to take the hit of a join out to the actual table with the current user’s filters. A few bytes per user, so not much more than a mebibyte normally, plus all the code hassle of cache pruning stale sessions and invalidation when they hit the topbar filter dropdown and so forth.
 
Hrm. The more I think about this the more I think this is doable. That’s a slightly dangerous attitude to have, but, well, it sure does seem like it is here.

Sorry if this has already been overtly touched upon, but how about being able to filter users from your view of the site based on accounts via a new set of filters?

Wow, a ghost town this thread has become.

@Absol95  
This is a technical forum - if you want chatter go to a chat forum.

i have no clue on how to delete search history pls help if it is already in please help me, Thanks

@Background Pony #743A  
Like, suggestions? Clear browser cache for this domain/site. How to do that depends on your browser.