You now need an account to search for posts. This was the major database bottleneck so eliminating random visitors should help with load.
Any search that isn't a simple one-tag search will no longer use the numbered paginator. This saves me from having to do a count query.
Pending/deleted/explicit posts are no longer filtered at the database level. This means some pages won't have 16 posts (like the way tag blacklists behave).
Pending posts are visible to basic accounts.
Starting today, unactivated accounts that are more than a week old will be deleted. I don't think this will cause any problems, since unactivated accounts don't get much functionality anyway.
albert said: You now need an account to search for posts. This was the major database bottleneck so eliminating random visitors should help with load.
Simple enough. And one thing we know we won't her moaning on the forums about because you have to be a member to post, right? =P
Any search that isn't a simple one-tag search will no longer use the numbered paginator. This saves me from having to do a count query.
Not sure what this actually means. Any specific effects on us?
Pending/deleted/explicit posts are no longer filtered at the database level. This means some pages won't have 16 posts (like the way tag blacklists behave).
Hmm, not so bad for invited (the pending show up), but the normal members won't like it. Course they'd like the site going down a lot less so there's always tradeoffs.
jxh2154 said: Not sure what this actually means. Any specific effects on us?
It means you will no longer see page numbers when you search with 2 or more tags. It'll be just the next (>>) and previous (<<) links. You won't be able to go to the end pages with a link.
Quess said: It means you will no longer see page numbers when you search with 2 or more tags. It'll be just the next (>>) and previous (<<) links. You won't be able to go to the end pages with a link.
Ohhh... That could be a problem. But something I don't think would be too hard to adjust to.
Gregorius said: In all honesty, that sounds better... it's less trouble than going to the last X pages and seeing "Nobody here but us chickens!" over and over.
Honestly, I haven't personally seen that problem in a long, long time, though I know others still get it.
jxh2154 said: Honestly, I haven't personally seen that problem in a long, long time, though I know others still get it.
The people seeing it now are non-priviledged members, due to their not being able to view pending explicit-rated images. Or at least that's what was happening before. The new changes I suppose have done away with that.
Magus said: The people seeing it now are non-priviledged members, due to their not being able to view pending explicit-rated images. Or at least that's what was happening before.
I thought that might have been it. I know it's happened in the past too though, before this system was in place. But that makes sense for why it would still be happening now (until this change anyway)
Starting today, unactivated accounts that are more than a week old will be deleted. I don't think this will cause any problems, since unactivated accounts don't get much functionality anyway.
jxh2154 said: Hmm, not so bad for invited (the pending show up), but the normal members won't like it. Course they'd like the site going down a lot less so there's always tradeoffs.
Eh? This is supposed to be a bad thing? I rather like being able to see the pending posts. Whenever I want to skim the new things now, I can do it via the thumbnails without wondering what I'm missing (never mind "explicit" stuff) as opposed to having to go into the full view and continuously click next/previous...
Not running into that chickens message when I try to get to the last page is nice, but when I click to go to the last page of posts without using any tags, I end up on a page with posts I know are far from being the last ones. As it stands now, I end up on page 7626 with post #36036 being the last thing shown. A few attempts to browse last pages with tags in use doesn't seem to give me the same problem seeing as I can get low post numbers to show up (ie: post #1 under the panties tag).
Edit: Forgot to mention that having the pending posts visible also makes it much easier to keep track of my pending submissions.
Moebius_Strip said: Eh? This is supposed to be a bad thing? I rather like being able to see the pending posts.
? I think you misread me.
I'm saying that for unprivileged users, they'll see a lot more empty pages now, if I'm understanding Albert right.
We (privileged, mods, admins) can see the pending posts (which I agree is good), but my impression was that members without an invite could not see them before, and instead other images just filled those spots, and thus they'd have less pages. At least that's how it was at one point. But now all those pending posts will instead just be blank. Say, a 16 post page, with 5 pending images and 2 blacklisted. Before there would have been 14 thumbs, now there will be 9.
But it's entirely possible I'm just wrong on how it used to appear to 'member' level users.
albert said: Pending posts are visible to basic accounts.
Perhaps this part was added to the initial post later on...? After reading that, the impression I got from "not so bad for invited (the pending show up), but the normal members won't like it" was that the "pending showing up" was the thing that was fine for invited users and not so good for normal users. Sorry for the mix up.
Dunno. I was assuming the "chicken" pages I got as a regular member were all the result of explicit images, but if pending images also contributed to it, I'd have had no way of knowing.
albert said: Any search that isn't a simple one-tag search will no longer use the numbered paginator. This saves me from having to do a count query.
Urk. That's basically completely killing non-trivial queries. If you can't see an estimate of matching results, you can't know whether the query is useful at all or needs to be narrowed down further. Which pretty much kills off everything that's not a simple single tag/artist browse. In particular, searching for badly tagged dupes becomes impossible.
葉月 said: Urk. That's basically completely killing non-trivial queries. If you can't see an estimate of matching results, you can't know whether the query is useful at all or needs to be narrowed down further. Which pretty much kills off everything that's not a simple single tag/artist browse. In particular, searching for badly tagged dupes becomes impossible.
Well... you can take the number of posts the top tag of your query has and divide it by 16 to get an approximation of how many pages your query produces. It's not a perfect solution, but at least you won't be completely lost.
For finding dupes, my image search is probably faster anyway, at http://haruhidoujins.yi.org/db-search.php - unless you suspect the image to be cropped too much so that even that doesn't find it.
And you can still get a crude estimate of the number of "pages" by editing the page number in the URL to see if you get only chickens at page 10, 50 or 100 for example. That might defeat the purpose of being less database-intensive though.
kristallimeri said: Well... you can take the number of posts the top tag of your query has and divide it by 16 to get an approximation of how many pages your query produces. It's not a perfect solution, but at least you won't be completely lost.
Not really, as the numbers get completely hosed as soon as negative searches get into play and bear no resemblance to actual the hit count whatsoever.
