Parenting for dakimakura

Just for clarity, but my understanding is that dakimakura should be using parent:child relationships for front:back?

That makes sense to me.

Uh, doesn't to me. A child should be a slightly modified version of a parent. It should NOT be something with nothing but a semantic connection to the parent.

Don't you feel that there is some merit, though, in linking the two in some way or another?

Pools, or if you don't like making 2-post pools, linking each other in the comments suffices.

Please, PLEASE stop abusing parent/child.

While that's the true purpose of the parent-child relationship, I don't see why the definition can't be loosened for this purpose.

It's an intuition thing to me; it just makes sense, and it's simple. Otherwise, there are few other methods of denoting dakimakura front-back images.

Pools? Not for (usually) two images. Comments? Works, but for the average user with only two per hour? (Bearable, I suppose.)

Edit: Is it really abuse?

Pools can have two images. (side note: we really need nameless pools for exactly this reason)

This goes the same for several other types of relationships, such as "before/after", pixiv-style image responses, etc. I still maintain that these should be implemented using pools.

A loose definition is not a definition.

Given that choice, I'd definitely go for a 2-post pool. Comments are handy, but they are not ideal for storing this sort of information.

Me too. But for some reason people seem to have a phobia of small pools, or just generally any pools that do not exist for the purpose of cataloguing doujins and other similar collections.

This is because as the system is now, we are forced to enter a name for any pool that is created. This gives the impression that the posts therein must be bound together by some name, which is certainly not always the case.

Thus my request for anonymous pools.

I don't know where you got the idea that this would be abuse of parenting, it's two sides of the same image. That makes no sense. Parenting was never exclusively defined as being for use only for slight modifications.

If you want new features, that's one thing, but don't redefine what we already have in the meantime. Pooling two images *is* clunky and clutters the pools listing. I'd take comment links over pools for two images.

There are already problems with users creating pools for little to no reason, the pool name makes it easier to determine when the pool is pointless. If we introduce nameless pooling, we'll just have to be wading through all the unnamed favorites/tag search/etc junk pools before we can delete them.

jxh2154 said:
Pooling two images *is* clunky and clutters the pools listing. I'd take comment links over pools for two images.

Not that clunky. You stick the two images in a pool and then the pool drops into the backpages as other pools get updated. I can't recall any 2-post pools that I've created (I think I'm more likely to just parent-child them unless I know the title), but they don't seem so bad. I've created at least one single post pool before, to properly give the source of a series of 4koma that only had one post uploaded to Danbooru at the time. Sticking it in the comments just isn't as tidy.

I don't like the idea of nameless pools. Suiseiseki brings up a good point.

Seconding the anonymous pools idea. The whole parent/child concept has a variety of problems and should be replaced with anonymous pools. For one thing, it's redundant to have two entirely different mechanisms (parenting and pools) for grouping posts. It just leads to confusion and unnecessary arguments over when we should use which method.

Well, in a pool, posts are treated as peers, which in this case I think is appropriate.

Parenting a post, however, implies that the parent is somehow a source, origin or cause for it.

jxh2154 said:
I'd take comment links over pools for two images.

The problem with that is, from a database perspective, should we ever want to retrieve this information automatically, it can't be done without a full text search on all related comments. This will have performance penalties.

Soljashy said: Well, in a pool, posts are treated as peers, which in this case I think is appropriate.
Parenting a post, however, implies that the parent is somehow a source, origin or cause for it.

I'm not interested in the semantic distinction (which isn't really all that clear cut) so much as the actual use. I find parenting more intuitive for this sort of thing.

I'd like a new option that did it better than any of the current ones as much as anyone, but in the meantime I find parenting superior.

jxh2154 said:
I'm not interested in the semantic distinction (which isn't really all that clear cut) so much as the actual use.

It's more than a semantic distinction, though. In a parent/child link, you are identifying a single primary post. In a pool, there is no primary post.

when viewing an object or set, you'd expect to start front to back, right? So, the front of the pillow to the back of the pillow. The front is the primary post, I figure.

T5J8F8 said:
when viewing an object or set, you'd expect to start front to back, right? So, the front of the pillow to the back of the pillow.

In my opinion, this more naturally corresponds to ordering in a pool.

I'd like to see the parent system set up so if it's just two posts the links just go back and forth rather than having to go through the convoluted process of the parent performing a search to find one result, even though this is very likely not possible.

Honestly if you're so butthurt about someone parenting something even with such a clear parent/child relationship make a single pool for all the dakimakura with front+back single images. Nameless and 2 post pools are godawful clutter and I'd rather see a retarded pool with images that have no relation than 35 pools that serve no purpose except to satisfy a few people's demands on how the system must be used.

Log said:
I'd like to see the parent system set up so if it's just two posts the links just go back and forth rather than having to go through the convoluted process of the parent performing a search to find one result, even though this is very likely not possible.

It's technically possible to do this, though it's a cheap hack. Set the parent of post A to post B, and set the parent of post B to post A. Now clicking on the parent post link on either post takes you to the other post.

Of course, a cyclical parent/child relationship is nonsensical. The fact that it is even possible is one of the reasons I dislike the parenting system.