Forums / Maintenance / Suggest Ideas

6,920 total conversations in 569 threads

+ New Thread


Sticky Sticky
Read before suggesting a change to the NSFW/Spoiler system

Last posted Jul 26, 2016 at 03:45AM EDT. Added Jul 22, 2016 at 03:55PM EDT
7 posts from 6 users

So, we get a lot of suggestions for the general idea of being able to turn the image spoilers (the "spoiler" and "nsfw" images hiding the actual images) on and off – for example, here, and here.

The thing is, as said in the thread, these systems will not work. To explain why, here is James from 2 years ago, speaking in the council on this very topic.

There’s just too much involved in making separate cached copies of each gallery and its various configurations for each individual user and would slow down the site for the hardware that we have available…
User 1 with the view X checked would see a gallery without any X thumbnails but would see Y thumbnails, User 2 with view X and view Y checked would see a gallery without either of those thumbnails, User 3 with view Y checked would see a gallery without any Y thumbnails but would see X thumbnails, etc.
There are 220k+ users and 10k+ galleries each containing numerous sorting options and pages. Each one of those possibilities would have to be cached separately instead of how it works right now where everyone sees the same thing and only private stuff like dashboards are customized to the user.

So, this is a PSA: Please, stop asking for the ability to turn NSFW and Spoiler on and off.

Last edited Jul 22, 2016 at 03:57PM EDT

Okay so like,
I'm not going to pretend I know how to do James Job (I don't)
and I'm not going to pretend I know this stuff happens for the admins to do (I don't)

But it should be noted, that this response was in context of a feature Brad had in mind where it would be extremely comprehensive, and you could switch on and off what NSFW you wanted shown and not (Sexy pics→ show, Near gore pics→ Don't show) and to have the option of which galleries to blacklist of whitelist.

What most users are asking for is just a option to turn NSFW off on_ the entire site._ While I know some users are say, fine with normal sexy pics, and would rather hide stuff like fetishes, most users who keep asking for this feature would rather see than than not have an option to turn NSFW off. This may not be possible, as I don't know how these things are linked together, but it would be quite a bit simpler than "making separate cached copies of each gallery and its various configurations for each individual user".
This would still require, I assume, two separate versions of the site, which James may not like to do, but I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page of what keeps being requested.

Yes, that is true. But I would figure if James wanted to, and if we could, it would be done already. It's a feature that's been asked time and time again to be added for a long time, but we don't have it.

Beatrice Santello wrote:

>tfw a 170k user booru site with little to no funding can do a complex NSFW/Spoiler system while this site can't.

C'mon, if Derpibooru can do it, so can you, James.

^this

Beatrice Santello wrote:

>tfw a 170k user booru site with little to no funding can do a complex NSFW/Spoiler system while this site can't.

C'mon, if Derpibooru can do it, so can you, James.

I assume the issue with this is that Derpibooru's coding was specifically designed from the beginning for image tagging and filteringn.

KYM's like a Bangladesh factory building--it's code's been cobbled together, added on, taken away, etc. over the years as Rocket Boom expanded it, then sold it, then Cheezeburger integrated it with their other sites. This is why they say a "major site overhaul" is needed to do it. They'd have to scrap most of the site's code and rebuild it from the ground up and given Cheezeburger's entire staff is like 20 people, that's an extremely time consuming and expensive endeavor.

I'm all for it. They could finally implement BBCode instead of the convoluted HTML/Textile, have perfect image tagging and filtering, who knows what other cool features for articles--but money is needed to do that and it's unlikely KYM makes enough to warrant such an expenditure.

Beatrice Santello wrote:

>tfw a 170k user booru site with little to no funding can do a complex NSFW/Spoiler system while this site can't.

C'mon, if Derpibooru can do it, so can you, James.

KYM runs on Ruby (can't confirm tho). I don't know how boorus work, but probably not like that.

As was stated before, a general system could be doable, but not one based on individual account preferences.

O HAI! You must login or signup first!