Danbooru
Login Posts Comments Notes Artists Tags Pools Wiki Forum More »
Listing Upload Hot Changes Help

Search

  • Help
guro
scat
furry -rating:g

Artist

  • ? a1u 409

Copyright

  • ? blue archive 399k

Character

  • ? kazusa (blue archive) 10.0k

General

  • ? 1girl 7.8M
  • ? alternate costume 596k
  • ? animal ears 1.6M
  • ? barefoot 469k
  • ? black hair 2.0M
  • ? blush 3.8M
  • ? breasts 4.6M
  • ? cat ears 378k
  • ? cat girl 143k
  • ? colored inner hair 137k
  • ? cup 243k
  • ? dress 1.8M
  • ? drinking glass 53k
  • ? earrings 783k
  • ? extra ears 84k
  • ? foot out of frame 37k
  • ? grey halo 11k
  • ? hair ornament 1.9M
  • ? hairclip 433k
  • ? halo 432k
  • ? hand up 508k
  • ? jewelry 1.5M
  • ? looking at viewer 4.5M
  • ? multicolored hair 1.1M
  • ? open mouth 3.2M
  • ? pink hair 964k
  • ? short dress 121k
  • ? short hair 2.9M
  • ? sitting 1.2M
  • ? small breasts 657k
  • ? solo 6.5M
  • ? spread toes 6.7k
  • ? strap slip 49k
  • ? toes 208k
  • ? white dress 404k
  • ? wine glass 20k

Meta

  • ? commentary 2.8M
  • ? highres 7.4M
  • ? ↳ absurdres 2.7M
  • ? revision 76k

Information

  • ID: 10600236
  • Uploader: hdk5 »
  • Date: 4 months ago
  • Size: 26.3 MB .png (2954x4819) »
  • Source: pixiv.net/artworks/139821028 »
  • Rating: Sensitive
  • Score: 7
  • Favorites: 7
  • Status: Active

Options

  • Resize to window
  • View smaller
  • View original
  • Find similar
  • Download

History

  • Tags
  • Pools
  • Notes
  • Moderation
  • Commentary
This post has 17 children (learn more) « hide
post #10600236
post #10590455
post #10590518
post #10590701
post #10590915
post #10591035
post #10591317
post #10591475
post #10591736
post #10591969
post #10592041
post #10594034
post #10594466
post #10594497
post #10594514
post #10594555
post #10594767
post #10594886
Resized to 28% of original (view original)
kazusa (blue archive) drawn by a1u

Artist's commentary

  • Original
  • 01-ⅩⅩⅦ/ BA-LXXI

    Twi:twitter/A1UAiU
    IG: https://www.instagram.com/a1ua1u/

    • ‹ prev Search: a1u next ›
  • Comments
  • Recommended
  • Loading...

    ANON TOKYO
    about 2 months ago
    [hidden]

    @hdk5 pool.

    -2 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    hdk5
    about 2 months ago
    [hidden]

    not what pools are for

    -1 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    HyphenSam
    about 2 months ago
    [hidden]

    17 revisions is insane.

    0 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    LQ
    about 2 months ago
    [hidden]

    If absurd revision numbers should be pooled, then it should be in the wiki for revision. Though I don't think there would be any benefit.

    2 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Blank User
    about 2 months ago
    [hidden]

    ANON_TOKYO said in comment #2584872:

    @hdk5 pool.

    If this is because of the comments under post #10931745, there are much more productive ways to revive the pool vs. parent debate.

    LQ said in comment #2584893:

    If absurd revision numbers should be pooled, then it should be in the wiki for revision. Though I don't think there would be any benefit.

    Help:post_relationships states the following:

    When NOT to use Post Relationships
    • Large collections of posts.

    This seems to be the basis of the argument that posts with many revisions should be pooled instead of parented. However, it doesn't say how many is too many to parent. Personally, I don't see a problem with having around 10 children. I can see 8 to 12 in the thumbnail navigation bar, depending on their aspect ratios, without having to use the scroll bar. I guess that could be used as a limit since once there are enough images to activate the scroll bar, the navigational benefits of the bar are nullified for those later posts (though you could still navigate the earlier posts just fine).

    Either way, we definitely need a thumbnail navigation bar for series pools as well. And maybe also a way to jump to the pool page a post is on instead of having to go to the first page each time you want to view the thumbnails on the pool page.

    2 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    ANON TOKYO
    about 2 months ago
    [hidden]

    Truly a moment of all time. I'll ignore LQ's comment because of the environmental impact of AI.

    Blank_User said in comment #2584903:

    If this is because of the comments under post #10931745, there are much more productive ways to revive the pool vs. parent debate.

    Not what's happening here.

    Rulelawyering is pointless here. If a variant set of 10 posts gets pooled because that's a bitch to navigate because parent/child UI sucks, then 10 revisions doesn't suddenly make it not annoying to navigate. HDK also has a history of not pooling when he should (comment #2571588)

    -2 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    LQ
    about 2 months ago
    [hidden]

    "Large collections of posts" is way too broad to be meaningful (does any set of relationships count as a collection?), especially if it conflicts directly with a "when to" reason (unless "when not" overrides "when to").

    Ideally, "large" should be quantified, and the Danbooru code should place a smaller hard cap on new post relationships (deprecating large post relationship collections). So Danbooru could be changed to prevent updating a post to have more than 10 children. A software config limitation would stop the excess children and reduce the need to learn from the right wiki.

    Updated by LQ about 2 months ago

    2 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Blank User
    about 2 months ago
    [hidden]

    LQ said in comment #2585101:

    "Large collections of posts" is way too broad to be meaningful (does set of relationships count as a collection?), especially if it conflicts directly with a "when to" reason (unless "when not" overrides "when to").

    Ideally, "large" should be quantified, and the Danbooru code should place a smaller hard cap on new post relationships (deprecating large post relationship collections). So Danbooru could be changed to prevent updating a post to have more than 10 children. A software config limitation would stop the excess children and reduce the need to learn from the right wiki.

    I think just updating the wiki would be better than setting hard limits, at least for now. The lack of clarity has, to summarize topic #34320, resulted in varying opinions on what should be pooled or parented. Each one has its own advantages and disadvantages, and I think making those clear will help users get a better sense of which one to use. If the wikis only explain how to pool/parent and don't explain why these guidelines are in place, then it's just more likely to devolve into rules lawyering. And while lowering the cap would solve this to some extent, it would also remove our ability to make exceptions for certain cases if it turns out a large number of children is somehow more beneficial.

    Basically, this needs to be discussed in the forums instead of isolated skirmishes in the comments, and we need to start with softer measures such as coming to a consensus on which personal criteria should be adopted.

    2 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link

    Leave a comment

    Terms / Privacy / Upgrade / Contact /