[X] My Assistant

Make a ZIP archive of your files and upload that instead. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Thank you, Miku fan, you've saved me tons of time now! (I was searching this particular forum to figure out this exact problem, about uploading indiv. files, now I can just upload the ZIP file and sit back and H-Verse! Thx! (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

Ability to search minimum/maximum gallery size.

<### images
>### images

Very effective way to filter for Tankobons, one shots, Comic Magazines, etc.

Ability to search minimum/maximum gallery size.

<### images
>### images

Very effective way to filter for Tankobons, one shots, Comic Magazines, etc.

http://ehwiki.org/wiki/To_Be_Added#Never_To_Be_Added

Searching by size (or date) could easily be accomplished with tags, though (so long as you accept some fuzziness). If enough people would get behind it, I'm sure we could hammer out something adequate.

I actually already suggested a "number of pages" tag system for Tenb, he promptly ignored that part of the PM.

My system was quite simple, number of images in ranges so a user tagging "57 images" would result in the tag "between 40-60 images" being added. The exact image ranges would have been discussed if the idea had gained traction but alas.

This post has been edited by binglo: Jun 28 2013, 17:43

I actually already suggested a "number of pages" tag system for Tenb, he promptly ignored that part of the PM.

My system was quite simple, number of images in ranges so a user tagging "57 images" would result in the tag "between 40-60 images" being added. The exact image ranges would have been discussed if the idea had gained traction but alas.

Your problem is that you needed (for how you conceived your idea, at least) Tenboro to automatically convert certain types of text to a given tag. But you could actually use slaving to accomlish the exact same effect. I'm not saying this is a great solution, though...

Instead, you could actually sidestep most of that problem if you avoid any explicit (outward-facing) numbers and instead name your ranges. Some examples of labels you could use would be things like "chapter-sized", "tank-sized", "mag-sized"... You could easily play with that sort of thing. Alternatively, you could do something like "petite", "small", "medium", "large", "huge"...et cetera (although these are much less intuitive). Hopefully, people wouldn't be inclined to use any specific numbers then, and all you'd have to do is veto any tags for which the gallery's size doesn't match the defined size.

This post has been edited by PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore: Jun 28 2013, 19:03

My bad, my explanation sucked (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Tenb didn't/don't have to do anything, it's all just batch slaving. Had a much more detailed explanation in the PM. Again, no response on it tho does not bode well, so I just left it alone.

This post has been edited by binglo: Jun 28 2013, 19:07

Instead, you could actually sidestep most of that problem if you avoid any explicit (outward-facing) numbers and instead name your ranges.

Way more of a headache than it's worth and it wouldn't necessarily satisfy what people want. If we make it too coarse then it becomes worthless (e.g. 20-40 could be too big of a range), too fine and people have to keep searching over and over again.


I'm certain that the real problem with numbers (despite the data being there already and being more rigid than gallery names) is the same as why date searching was removed: ranges massively hurt the search engine. Tenboro could easily add image counts to the engine but they'd only work with exact numbers.

Tenb didn't/don't have to do anything, it's all just batch slaving. Had a much more detailed explanation in the PM. Again, no response on it tho does not bode well, so I just left it alone.

You don't need Tenboro's permission to use tags.

Way more of a headache than it's worth and it wouldn't necessarily satisfy what people want.

Really? How is it a headache exactly?

It's better to give people any solution than none. At least with some solution, they can actually complain about how it doesn't do what they want, and then you can consider whether their problem is worth addressing. Without any solution, all they can really say is "give me a way to search by gallery size".

If we make it too coarse then it becomes worthless (e.g. 20-40 could be too big of a range), too fine and people have to keep searching over and over again.

When you say "keep searching over and over again", you are apparently showing a lack of imagination. It's very easy to tag open ranges like "greater than 20 images", "greater than 40 images", "less than 1500 images", "less than 1000 images", etc... If you put any two of those opposites together, you can create your own range. (At that point, the only advantage of simultaneously tagging a closed range would be that it's only one tag...but that's also only useful if it spans a useful range.)

The question is not "Is 20-40 too big a range?", it's "Do you, Joe, think 20-40 is too big a range?" It's pointless to worry about what the general users (who only use the Galleries) will think, because they can only tell us if they see something being used, and as long as we're just discussing it, they'll never see anything and never tell us what they might think. All you should be worried about is what you think will work.

Personally, I think divisions at 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 1000 would probably be adequate (0 and 2000 are implied). (I would actually be alright with playing with 100, 200, and 300...I think it might be alright to just combine them into 250.)

This post has been edited by PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore: Jun 28 2013, 20:06

Mmm the "image count" value is basically there already right?
Images: ### @ ### MB

If the ranges thing is big trouble for people can't we turn it into more of a filter for searching purposes?

If we add a "value/category" to each gallery for size:
1-100 Images -> Category A
101-250 Images -> Category B
251+ Images -> Category C

or something like that, I just chose Category (letter) for the sake of example.

So each gallery would already have an A, B, or C tagged to it and when an advanced search is done there'd be the option of filtering for A, B, or C. (or possibly multiple categories?)

I guess tagging may work if we used the Category suggestion...
We could keep it very simple
Small 1-100
Medium 101-250
Large 251+

Small would take care of almost all doujins/oneshots/mini series/short artist CGs (3-4 chapter stories)
Medium would take care of almost all tankobons
Large would take care of everything else.

There may be some overlap with Comic magazines between medium/large but the only thing that really seems to conflict with Comic magazines are the individual one shots pulled from them. So as long as Small is excluded or Medium+Large is searched, one could separate Magazines and the oneshots pulled from said Magazines?

Edit: I think what's the most important aspect is that this could be used alongside the normal gallery searching. So it's not like you'll only be searching category size (unless that's what you wanted of course). That's about as useful as searching for "English" and "translated". If people want to narrow their searches, they'd take advantage of other tags as well. And I think this solves the problem we have of identifying specific stories in Tankobons because we constantly replace/expunge smaller galleries when the larger/more complete galleries come out.

This post has been edited by Slobber: Jun 28 2013, 20:26

How is it a headache exactly?

ANY approach that uses tags is straight-up horrid. Doesn't matter how divisions are made.

- Tags do not update dynamically. A user can easily add or removed dozens of images at any time, so it's a constant workload to veto and re-vote.
- Every single gallery would qualify for a tag of some kind. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

It's better to give people any solution than none.

Once you start a half-assed solution you're forced to stick with it from that point onwards and any improvements made must link back to it.

All you should be worried about is what you think will work.

What people want will work, but it needs to be implemented in a way that doesn't set the DB on fire. The data is there already, staring at us right in the face. The workload should not be ours, it's Tenboro's.

You don't need Tenboro's permission to use tags.

No but slaving around 1000 different variations does.

This post has been edited by binglo: Jun 28 2013, 20:31

ANY approach that uses tags is straight-up horrid. Doesn't matter how divisions are made.
- Tags do not update dynamically. A user can easily add or removed dozens of images at any time, so it's a constant workload to veto and re-vote.
- Every single gallery would qualify for a tag of some kind. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

Then those are arguments for wide, closed ranges. Slobber's suggestion, with only 3 categories, would work well, then.

Once you start a half-assed solution you're forced to stick with it from that point onwards and any improvements made must link back to it.
What people want will work, but it needs to be implemented in a way that doesn't set the DB on fire. The data is there already, staring at us right in the face. The workload should not be ours, it's Tenboro's.

It'd be nice if we could tell Tenboro exactly what we want, though. Like, say, for him to automatically tag Slobber's categories on every appropriate (and currently extant) gallery. From there, either the work is on us, or if Tenboro is really nice, he might code the tag to update with the gallery size (including for new galleries).

But if Tenboro doesn't want to do the work, but he also doesn't explicitly tell us we can't do that system, then you're doing all of the users a disservice by not committing to it. If we can do it, then we should. You can't force Tenboro to do it, but you also shouldn't abdicate all responsibility to Tenboro when it's entirely in your power to make it work.


...A large part of the usefulness of gallery size searching (for me, at least) is to isolate tanks/mags, though. You could just let us tag "tankoubon" and "magazine" on only tank/mag galleries (as opposed to "Every single gallery [qualifying] for a tag of some kind").

No but slaving around 1000 different variations does.

Unless he's explicitly told you as much, no, not really... (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

In any case, that's why I suggested named ranges.

You could just let us tag "tankoubon" and "magazine" on only tank/mag galleries (as opposed to "Every single gallery [qualifying] for a tag of some kind")
-PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore

I don't hang around the vigilante section but:

I'd assume Magazine tag -> any complete Magazine galleries only

Not sure how the Tankoubon tag would work though (incomplete Tankoubon included? Compilation of Magazine scans put together in the order designated by Tankoubon included?)

Both would be extremely useful though!

This post has been edited by Slobber: Jun 28 2013, 21:04

Then those are arguments for wide, closed ranges.

- Every single gallery would qualify for a tag of some kind. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

It'd be nice if we could tell Tenboro exactly what we want, though.

He knows it already: Searching using numerical image count ranges with no limitations. Maybe he can limit the range to within 100 (e.g. 21-121, 200-300, etc.) but generally that is what is most desired.

You can't force Tenboro to do it, but you also shouldn't abdicate all responsibility to Tenboro when it's entirely in your power to make it work.

My power alone means nothing compared to the workload that the entire userbase would need to undertake.

A few hours of Tenboro's time can create a permanent system, or we can collectively spend hundreds of hours working indefinitely to create something that's not even as useful. Hmmm....

My power alone means nothing compared to the workload that the entire userbase would need to undertake.

A few hours of Tenboro's time can create a permanent system, or we can collectively spend hundreds of hours working indefinitely to create something that's not even as useful. Hmmm....

The thing is, you're leaving the whole god-damn thing in limbo. Who knows if Tenboro will ever do anything, and you're not going to let us do anything...

In that case, let us have "tankoubon" and "magazine" to tag in the interim, then.

let us have "tankoubon" and "magazine" to tag in the interim, then.

The latter of those 2 isn't needed since we have the Anthologies wiki. The former of those 2 needs a definition.

The latter of those 2 isn't needed since we have the Anthologies wiki. The former of those 2 needs a definition.

You can't search with "the Anthologies wiki". (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) The point is to include or exclude tanks/mags in general, if so desired. A "magazine" (or "anthology") tag is the only way to do that.

For definitions, I suppose...
tankoubon: A complete book by a single author (or author+artist), published digitally or physically by a third party.
(I suppose we can include magazines under "anthology"...)
anthology: A book with stories by more than one author published digitally or physically by a third party.
I think those are servicable definitions.

You can't search with "the Anthologies wiki".

Yes you can. I've never once heard of someone wanting to search ALL anthologies at once, they always knew which ones they wanted (since most are themed).

tankoubon: A complete book by a single author (or author+artist), published digitally or physically by a third party.

Is this restricted to the Manga and Non-H categories?

Yes you can. I've never once heard of someone wanting to search ALL anthologies at once, they always knew which ones they wanted (since most are themed).

And what if I want to exclude them all? Or what if I just want to browse all the magazines at once? (At least I can see covers like that.) Or what if I just want to use the tag to effectively exclude all the translated chapters that are just pulled from the mags, but which still have the mag name in the title and therefore clutter a basic search for the magazine name? This last one is huge.

"anthology". Give.

Is this restricted to the Manga and Non-H categories?

Just because of the terminology, yes. It's restricted to Eastern books/authors/artists. ("anthology" can apply to any appropriate Western book, for all I care. There actually are a few.)

This post has been edited by PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore: Jun 28 2013, 22:30