Danbooru

Danbooru 2 Issues Topic

Posted under General

This topic has been locked.

evazion

order:change counts any change made to the post, not just tag changes. Posts have an internal "updated at" timestamp, which you can see here: /posts.xml?tags=id:2650976,2672836,3060093+order:change. This timestamp is bumped when nearly any of the attributes seen there change.

Non-obvious things that can bump a post:

  • Removing a child post.
  • Approving/deleting/undeleting a post.
  • Changing rating/note locks.
  • Changing the embedded notes flag.
  • Saving an old post without changing the tags. This updates the Tagger field on old posts where the Tagger is not yet set.

The last thing is probably what's happening.

Unbreakable

evazion said:

order:change counts any change made to the post, not just tag changes. Posts have an internal "updated at" timestamp, which you can see here: /posts.xml?tags=id:2650976,2672836,3060093+order:change. This timestamp is bumped when nearly any of the attributes seen there change.

Non-obvious things that can bump a post:

  • Removing a child post.
  • Approving/deleting/undeleting a post.
  • Changing rating/note locks.
  • Changing the embedded notes flag.
  • Saving an old post without changing the tags. This updates the Tagger field on old posts where the Tagger is not yet set.

The last thing is probably what's happening.

I thought that was the case, good to know.

user 525419

Kikimaru said:

Anonymous flagging was a mistake.

*edit: not the act itself, but anonymizing has made flagging reasons be of lesser quality IMO.

Flags have always been anonymous.
What's your point then?

E: Removed a part in my reply since it could cause some uproar...

Updated

nonamethanks

Kikimaru said:

Anonymous flagging was a mistake.

*edit: not the act itself, but anonymizing has made flagging reasons be of lesser quality IMO.

Flag anonimity is very important imo - it makes sure users can flag a post without fearing personal attacks.

I've only been approver for a couple of months but so far I've never really seen flag vandalism of a degree that would justify removing anonimity, so I don't really see the problem.

ceres

Kikimaru said:

Anonymous flagging was a mistake.

*edit: not the act itself, but anonymizing has made flagging reasons be of lesser quality IMO.

Flagging is already vilified enough as it is. We don’t need to give users the ability to find out who flagged a post and harass them over it.

kittey

Is it time to beat that dead horse again? Anonymous vs. non-anonymous flagging has been discussed multiple times and everything has been said before; just use the forum search. Whining about it won’t help.

It also doesn’t belong in this thread.

Edit: Sniped by BrokenEagle98. :<

Squishy

BrokenEagle98 said:

@Squishy

String length doesn't seem to be an issue, as I was able to test it out on my own Danbooru instance using the above string without issue, even as a Member-level user.

It'd help if you can get more info from the developers console (F12). Under the network tab, it should show the full results for the appeal request.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IBnVKxkey1LsEX97hc4pCDV4beNMFips

^The above is an example I worked out on Chrome. I circled all of he pertinent areas that need to be selected to show the results of the appeal request.

@BrokenEagle98

Here's the response I am getting:

https://i.imgur.com/54We5Vv.png

It says:

 <p>ERROR:  value too long for type character varying(255)
</p>
BrokenEagle98

Squishy said:

@BrokenEagle98

Here's the response I am getting:

https://i.imgur.com/54We5Vv.png

It says:

 <p>ERROR:  value too long for type character varying(255)
</p>

It appears that currently appeals/flags are limited in length due to how the databases are defined. I created issue #3585, although it's possible that such a limit may be desired and that one will be officially put in anyways.

For now at least, you'll need to keep appeals/flags to less than 256 characters.

1 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 315