Report site bugs here

@Arcaire  
Actually it did: https://derpibooru.org/meta/feature-suggestions-and-discussion/post/2844906#post_2844906  
From Byte[] himself.

@Marker  
He’s not a staff member.
 
We change functionality all the time, especially in the site filtering and searching logic (which is all extremely tightly wound). Many artists are quite sensitive to downvotes (some that are honestly beyond the point of rationality, but it’s not my art so hey), so functionality like that would never be officially supported. It was exploiting how we used to handle the complex filter string logic.
 
Downvotes are absolutely not supposed to be used like that. Just add it, or its tags, to your list. Honestly, if you don’t like something, it’s on you to avoid it. I can’t think of anything that anyone cares about less than the fact you don’t like an image.
 
We’re looking at adding a hide functionality that doesn’t affect score but right now we’re working on other things.

@Arcaire  
Oh, my apologies, I remembered seeing this solution offered by someone who was an active developer at the time (and being discussed among the staff), and mistook it for an intended feature. I only thought you were unaware of it.
 
So in the meantime, how should I filter images on a case-by-case basis? I already maintains a set of tags that I block.
 
Honestly, people are still going to downvote images they deemed to be low-quality regardless, why makes it harder for people to hide them as well?

@Marker  
put “id:” followed by the images ID in your complex filter,like id:111111
 
“why makes it harder for people to hide them as well?”  
because they’d then start using downvotes as a means to hide images, regardless of quality, rather than filtering the appropriate tags for them.

wait never mind, its back now

@ice1517  
Although I don’t think I will have to worry about posting about that thread disappearing again…
 
Also, has this happened t anyone else? if you try to reply to someone whose comment is at the bottom of a thread, and you click it when a new page appears, it just sends you back to the top of the previous page, instead of the linked comment?

@zippysqrl  

 
The advantage of using downvotes for the purpose is that it gives those who most like these images a reason to care about tagging so others’ filters can be effective. An image that is properly tagged will be substantially less susceptible to these downvotes, and so an artist or uploader or interested early viewer who wants the image to get a high score has a reason to ensure the tags are as complete and accurate as possible.
 
The current state of affairs leaves proper filter-tagging responsibilities primarily in the hands (or hooves) of precisely those who least want to have to visit those image pages to retag them, meaning that they have to expose themselves more to icky stuff (you know, like Jay Fosgitt’s art :P) in order to … what, avoid seeing it in the future? help others of similar mindset avoid it in the future? This is a bad misalignment of incentives.
 
And y’all have got to know that people aren’t really ever going to be all that strict about downvoting purely out of some abstract idea of “quality”. They’re just going to upvote anything they see that they like and downvote anything they see that they don’t. (For that matter, what else does quality even mean for art, especially in this context? It’s not as though clop is going to make people really think about e.g. systemic injustices.)
 
I can easily imagine that the filtering code is extremely performance-sensitive, so I can’t say I’m entirely surprised my:downvotes was disabled, but justifying it on the basis of avoiding a few downvotes to “high-quality” pics that some people really really don’t ever want to see is … misguided.

@Wellwater  
My point was that people would rather mass downvote content under a tag instead of filtering it, not that the images they’re downvoting don’t have that tag. But yes, people have a variety of reasons for downvoting, and the topic has arisen numerous times amongst both users and staff about how to change the functionality of downvotes to something better.

@zippysqrl  
Well, I can certainly agree that tag filtering is preferable to downvoting when it works, and is better for everyone.
 
Has there been consideration of a feature to e.g. cache the set union of tags in a user’s upvoted pics and diff those against the tags in a downvoted pic to allow efficiently suggesting new tag(s) to filter by upon downvote?

@Wellwater  
That’s the kind of thing neural networks are best for. I don’t think we’ll be getting neural networks for each individual user though.

@zippysqrl  
You wouldn’t need something as complicated as a neural net for that. Just check if a user’s votes show that they’ve downvoted a significant percentage the images under a given tag (for any tags that have a reasonable number of images). Could even extend this so that it automatically reports a user if they’ve downvoted a really high percentage of images under a given tag.

The easier solution would be to just do away with downvotes, since we universally hate them anyway.

@byte[]  
That sounds like a terrible idea

@Exedrus  
Yes I know you wouldn’t NEED one, if its a simple kind of pattern recognition then you can write predictable code to do it, but its pattern recognition with potentially vastly varying patterns for each person, and neural networks are basically made for cleverly recognising vastly varying patterns. Given enough training, neural networks would likely provide better results with a better idea of each users particular interests, and not just guessing through simple quantitative comparison.

@zippysqrl  
Are you still a mod?

@Milo (GERMAN)  
No.. not anymore.  

@zippysqrl  
(^:

@byte[]  

 
Just decouple them from total score.

@byte[]  
Easier, but results in a hugbox because people don’t perceive no-votes.
 
@cheezedoodle  
Would work better yes. Still worse than current system unless you let amount of downvotes be visible from the thumbnail. Oh, and you’ll also have to change the filter-by-score to account for the fact it now needs to perform extra computation instead of the score-determiner.

@Barhandar  

 
That could probably be replaced by something like:  
Complex hide:  
downvotes.gte:50, -upvotes.gte:25  
Or something along those lines. Then you’re getting similar to the old score.lte:-50

@Zeb  
People will NOT do this, I’ve already told you so. If you want something WORKING, it must not rely on regular users doing something.
 
Speaking of which, which percentage of registered accounts on the site has at least 1 tag edit? At least 100 tag edits?

@Barhandar  
Uhm… I meant for the Site filters such as Default. etc.
 
Also: There are users who do this. And if they are able to add “score.lte:#” then they’d also be able to add “downvote.gte:#” it’s… Nearly identical.
 
And if they weren’t already using “score” filter. Then the change wouldn’t affect them at all.

@byte[]  
Looking at it tbh.

@byte[]  
I don’t hate them.
 
In fact, they don’t make me feel anything, and if it was up to me, I wouldn’t care what people downvote at all, as It doesn’t affect my emotions any, and I feel any removal of them is just way too much, and no other boorus are this strict to downvotes to begin with.

I would be against removing downvotes entirely. Being able to filter out images with an overly large number of downvotes would be beneficial. Especially when it comes to troll posts and such.