Should you parent/child link posts that are in the same pool? Is there a policy on this? For example, linking all posts in pool #2322 to the first post #763311. Or posts in (explicit) pool #2458 to the first post, post #788418.
I argue that you should not. They are all in the same pool so they are already clearly grouped.
The one benefit I see to parenting them is that by clicking "parent post" you can jump to the first post in one click instead of two.
The downside is that every post has an extra info bar "This post belongs to a parent post" on top of it. The extra info bar means you have to scroll down that much further to see the actual picture for every single picture.
I think the downside outweighs the benefit. The downside effects every picture while the benefit is one time only.
Those pools are in violation of policy that has been in place since pools were put into play but if they somehow manage to not be deleted no they do not need to be parented.
e: The fuuro one is possibly fine depending on the dialogue but otherwise it's just as disposable.
pool #2458 is probably acceptable, it is a sequential series, and the text makes it essentially a short manga-ish thing. And thats more or less what Pools should be used for.
pool #2322 should be changed to a parent/child and deleted.
Fencedude said: pool #2458 is probably acceptable, it is a sequential series, and the text makes it essentially a short manga-ish thing. And thats more or less what Pools should be used for.
pool #2322 should be changed to a parent/child and deleted.
The sequence of pool #2322 comes from the original pixiv post. She asleep, he kisses her, he goes away, she opens her eyes.
Log said: Those pools are in violation of policy that has been in place since pools were put into play but if they somehow manage to not be deleted no they do not need to be parented.
Pools should be used for sequences. Pools provide for easy sequential navigation while parent-child links do not. They are both sequences.
Fencedude said: pool #2458 is probably acceptable, it is a sequential series, and the text makes it essentially a short manga-ish thing. And thats more or less what Pools should be used for.
pool #2322 should be changed to a parent/child and deleted.
It's not like the presence of text is a deciding factor in what gets pooled and not. (Counterexamples: pool #392, pool #1123)
pool #2322 was published using the Pixiv manga mode, and is clearly a short story. It's lazily drawn and very short, but I think 4 posts is around the upper limit for parenting a sequence instead of pooling it, and I'm surprised to see this stated as blanket policy.
I know CG dumps and "varying amount of sperm" sets tend to get parented, but if that's the policy for all non-manga sequences that's news to me and should probably be written down somewhere.
john1980 said: Pools should be used for sequences. Pools provide for easy sequential navigation while parent-child links do not. They are both sequences.
This argument is weak at best. They are minor variations of a single post. If we pooled every single minor variation sequence that is posted on pixiv as a manga we would have 10x the number of pools with very little to no gain.
I think we need a pool-like setup without it being a pool, because both parenting/child and pools kind of fails in this middle area. Something more similar to parenting, except that you can string images together in a sequence. Pretty much have something like a slot under the parent post to put a sequence of child posts IDs to allow the user then to view the child posts in sequence like a pool.
Log said: This argument is weak at best. They are minor variations of a single post. If we pooled every single minor variation sequence that is posted on pixiv as a manga we would have 10x the number of pools with very little to no gain.
The gain is that pools provide for easy sequential navigation while parent-child linking does not. You can have sequences even if the variations are minor.
Problems with using parent-child links for sequences: 1. They haven't necessarily been uploaded in order. 2. Even if they have been uploaded in order, the order they appear will be from bottom-to-top, right-to-left, which is less intuitive. 3. Going from one post to the next one in sequence means 2 clicks (go back to the parent post, click the next post) instead of one. Or it means opening them all at once in separate tabs.
And chaining parent-child links to create a sequence is evil. See forum #42520
I don't understand the concerns around having these as pools. Pools are not a limited resource. You can search through them. Most pools like these tend to get setup and then become inactive, naturally dropping down the list of pools.
Fencedude said: I'm going to revise my position after looking at the posts in pool #2322.
The pool, and the images, should be deleted.
Arguing whether the posts should be deleted is somewhat a separate issue. I'd rather focus discussion on the generic issue. If you strongly feel they should be deleted, that's what the Unapprove/Delete button is for.
They're still minor variations, so it makes no sense to suddenly exclude them from parenting. The problem is that not all sequences are made equal. Something like pool #1897, pool #1095, or pool #1032, where the posts have a clear sequence but are too different to parent should be pooled, not 3-5 posts where the only sequence is an increasing amount of dicks or cum in the picture.
Pretty sure I've said this before, but if not, I'll say it now - we need more pools, not less. As john1980 said, pools are not a limited resource. Except that there's some mysterious dropdown box of active pools on all post pages which nobody uses, or at least that I have no idea why anyone would use - which is IMHO a misfeature.
We also need a way to make pools without a title, for exactly such cases as these.
0xCCBA696 said: Pretty sure I've said this before, but if not, I'll say it now - we need more pools, not less. As john1980 said, pools are not a limited resource.
That's nice, but you still haven't addressed what criteria makes a series of posts pool-worthy. If we're going to allow any small series (3-5 posts) where the only thing different is cum, more cum, and buckets of cum, you're going to start running out of descriptive titles. The flood of pools would also obstruct pool searches for more substantial pools such as what I've mentioned.
We also need a way to make pools without a title, for exactly such cases as these.
I believe this is one of the proposed features for Danbooru 2. Once it's implemented, this thread would just be fluffy debate, but until then we need to make do with what we have.
My criterion would be simply "the posts depict events in a chronological sequence". Parent/child should be reserved for lowres/highres copies of the same image, recolors, touchups, etc.
I actually did this with the series of Bakemonogatari images by piro, such as post #795388. The images in the pool are the making of, in order of finishedness, and the parent image is the final image. I think this makes sense, at least.
Honestly, I think we should always make pools for clearly sequential images, even if it's just two. That just makes for much easier browsing. Incidentally you can quickly make a pool by tagging with pool:[new_poolname], so it's no more difficult than just tagging (and easier than making a parent/child).
If you're running out of pool name ideas, include the artist name, and if that isn't good enough, start numbering them.
Since I recently got a PM from a user that was chaining parent-child posts together wondering why I changed them, I figured I'd throw in my opinion here also.
As has been said and I think is universally agreed upon, chaining parent-child posts together is unnecessarily evil and extremely clunky to browse through. If a group of images are all related with slight variations here and there, then put them all under one parent post for easier browsing of that entire set.
I also agree with Log and Moose that images where there are only minor variations in content are absolutely not pool-worthy. Sequential order isn't too terribly important for images like that. If it was telling an actual story, then sure. If it was showing their progress on how the image was made, yes. But if it's just "here's this girl, here she is nude, now here she is covered in semen" then it should just be a parent-child relationship.
If you guys want to create anonymous pools for every 3 post sequence that isn't various levels of cum in danbooru 2 I will back you 100% but for this current iteration I really think we need to limit ourselves.
Look at it this way rather than a ""limited resource:""
As of this very moment we have 40 pages of 20 pools of Touhou. Imagine* that 1% of all touhou posts are part of a sequence of 3 posts that's 541 more pools, 27 pages of 3-post sequences. This makes it basically impossible to find a legitimate 15+ post sequence from a 3 post pool. Finding unique, creative names is far from the biggest problem.
*Numbers are not drawn from anything but an educated guess just from general pixiv/danbo knowledge.
