Ticket Information - ID: #417
| ID: | Category: | Severity | Reproducibility | Date Submitted | Updated By: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000417 | Feature Request | Low | N/A | 06/21/10 10:41AM | Zangeon |
|
|
| Summary: | Only listing width:>height or height:>width posts. |
| Description: | We all know and love e.g. "width:1280 height:1024," but when you are less specific and use e.g. "width:>=1280 height:>=1024," things start to go downhill. Fast. Currently, "width:>=1280 height:>=1024" returns 2915 pages of posts with width/height ratios ranging from about 1/0.09 to 0.09/1. At least 700 of these 2915 pages contain nothing but posts where the height is greater than the width, and if you're only looking for potential wallpapers, then that's quite a few unneccessary pages that you'll have to sift through. Now, much like "width:>=x" only returns posts where the width is equal to or greater than "x," is there any way to only get posts where the width/height is equal to or greater than the other? If there isn't, would it be possible to implement the use of "width:>=height" and "height:>=width"? |
| Additional Info: |
lozertuser replied at 2010-06-21 22:44:40  |
| Yes, you would put the value of the height, for example 800 as the width meta tag, and visa versa. width:>=800 |
Zangeon replied at 2010-06-22 02:58:04 |
| Using e.g. "height:1024 width:>=1024" wouldn't have been a problem if it wasn't for the fact that it exludes any post that isn't exactly 1024 pixels high. "width:>=height" would obviously only return posts with greater width than hight and it wouldn't come at the cost of having to set a specific height as e.g. "height:1024." "height:>=1024 width:>=height" would return all posts where the height is at least 1024 but it would exclude any post where the height is greater than the width. It'd be a perfect way of finding wallpapers (or just wide posts) of all sizes at or above 1024 pixels in height. |
lozertuser replied at 2010-06-22 04:07:14 |
| So then change the number so it won't be as exact? What use would this second give you? Searching for wallpapers? Wallpapers have set resolutions, try searching using the tags. width:1024 height:768 |
Zangeon replied at 2010-06-22 06:29:49 |
| How can it not be exact? It's not possible - as far as I know - to use e.g. "height:~1024." "height:>width" (and vise versa) would serve to eliminate one kind of post from your search entirelly. If you have no need for wide posts, then they won't be there to slow down your search for whatever it is you're actually after. Also, I'm more interrested in width/height ratios of about 1.3 to 1.6 than a solid 800x600, 1280x960 or 1440x900 resolution. And besides, if I wanted nothing but standard resolution wallpapers, wouldn't I be going to Konachan or wherever? Finally, I'm sorry if this ticket is nothing but a needle in the eye, but is it honestly such a bad idea? |
lozertuser replied at 2010-06-22 07:51:08 |
| I can't see the point when you should know what resolutions you would want... All this will do is say you want height to be greater than width, which is pretty much useless since you still have 400K+ images to deal with. The same filtering in search could be done with a numerical value and fit your search more appropriately. What you are asking for could be done with a search query... height:1000 width:>1300 |
Zangeon replied at 2010-06-22 10:42:06 |
| The resolution I want consists of ratios of about 4:3 and 16:9, be that 1440x1080 or 4666x3500, 1920x1080 or 5226x2940. "height:>=1024 width:>=1024" currently retrieves 103,972 posts. Would you be willing to hazzard a guess at how many of those would be removed if one were to change either "width:" or "height:" to "width:>height" or "height:>width" depending on what one is after? The point of "width:>height" is to allow you to get rid of the "number set in stone" that is "height:1000" and instead let you use "height:>=1000" while at the same time avoid being flooded with 1400x4000 posts. "height:1000 width:>=1300" obviously works, but only if you're looking for posts with a height of exactly 1000px. What if you'd be more than happy to settle for 1002px, 1080px or even higher?? For that you'd either have to do tens, if not hundreds of different searches, or you could use "height:>=1000 width:>=1300" which isn't really an option since it'll unleash a tsunami of "height:>width" posts on you. Posts which you may have little to no insterrest in. Using "height:>=1000 width:>height" would allow you to avoid most of the tsunami and instead only get posts that are at least somewhat related to what it is you're after. You'd still be finding posts that are somewhat squared, but you'd be avoiding a ton of even less interresting posts. |
lozertuser replied at 2010-06-25 03:12:57 |
| What you do here: "height:>=1000 width:>height" Is the exact same as doing height:>=1000 width:>1000 If you define height as greater than or equal to 1,000, then height will be passed to the other side as well as the same value. Width will then be greater than 1,000. |
Zangeon replied at 2010-06-26 06:21:02 |
| You don't understand what I'm saying, do you? Imagine 2 posts: 1600x1200 and 1200x1600. Say that you're only interested in tall posts, but not of any specific dimention. The only thing that matters is that its height is greater than it's width. 1x2 works just as well as 9000x9001 "height:>=1000 width:>1000" does not care whether or not you only want tall or wide posts and so it'll count both the 1600x1200 and the 1200x1600 as desirable hits. But you don't want the 1600x1200 post! It's like finding a "censored" post while searching for "uncensored." The only difference is that you can use "-censored" to avoid that, but there's no way to avoid wide posts when you don't want them. There is no "-wide." Now, it's obviously possible for Gelbooru to determine the height of a post, how else would "height:" work? The same goes with "width:". What "height:>width" would do is simply take the number that "height:" looks at, divide it by the number that "width:" looks at and if the result is >1, count it as a desirable hit. "width:>height" would just be the other way around. There's your "-wide" and "-tall." Do you understand what I'm saying now? |
lozertuser replied at 2010-06-26 08:22:14 |
| Then it would be height:>=1000 width:<1000 There is no point in offering such a search as it is needless as the functionality can already be done by plugging in a single integer. |
Zangeon replied at 2010-06-28 01:45:38 |
| Oh, for the love of the IPU... You have no idea what it is I'm talking about and I can honestly not think of a simpler way of explaining it. When you use "width:xxxx," why is it that you only find posts that have exactly that width? Or when you use "width:>=xxxx," why is it either equal or greater than what you have specified? There's data that the server can look at and determine whether or not a post has the desired width, isn't there? "height:>width" and "width:>height" would compare THAT data. Not the numbers that you have typed in, but the actual data about the post. You know, the data that "height:" and "width:" looks at when it compares your desired height to the posts height. "height:>width" would find ALL posts where the height is greater than the width (not your specified height and width but the posts height and width). It would be like searching for the following: "height:1000 width:<1000" then "height:1001 width:<1001" then "height:1002 width:<1002" then "height:1003 width:<1003" then "height:1004 width:<1004" ad infinitum "height:>=1000 width:<1000" would do the same, you say? I would think not. Do you understand it now, or am I just wasting my time trying to explain it to you? |
lozertuser replied at 2010-06-28 09:13:00 |
| SELECT * FROM posts_table WHERE width>height 276,149 Results returned SELECT * FROM posts_table WHERE height>width 474,340 Results returned SELECT * FROM posts_table WHERE height=width 50,019 Results returned I'm not seeing how this is useful. I see now what you're getting at, but I can't see the feasibility of it being implemented. What you suggested also seems to have a flaw in the thought, or maybe I'm being retarded. You do not define either X or Y, so X and Y are logically anything. It will search in any case where X is smaller than Y. It doesn't matter if the height is 2px or 1 million px. So as long as the width is smaller. This does nothing to narrow down your search. |
Zangeon replied at 2010-06-28 13:23:46 |
| It's usefull in the same way that every single "-whatever" is useful: It gives you greater control over what type of post you'll find. Looking for wallpapers and don't feel like wading through a plethora of tall posts? No problem! Just add "width:>height" to your search. After tall posts? Just use "height:>width." "height:>=1024 height:<=2048 height:>width" "long_hair width:>=800 width:>height" "long_hair -panties height:>=1080 height:>width" See? There are plenty of ways of narrowing it down. Besides, "height:>width" and "width:>height" are aids. Not solutions. Oh, and there is no flaw :P It should be up to the user to decide whether or not a minium should be defined, shouldn't it? |