The site now has over 700k pictures marked as absurd_res. Should the resolution required to be tagged as such be increased?

nephocemas said:
The site now has over 700k pictures marked as absurd_res. Should the resolution required to be tagged as such be increased?

There was a topic about that recently.

Those tags are applied automatically by the system (and the definition of them is hardcoded!)..
So if we rework them, we probably have to be careful to update most or all of the *_res definitions, then have some scheduled downtime to strip all the current *_res taggings and reapply them per the updated criteria.

Honestly, I think it would be a lot better if we could yeet the idea of having them as actual tags, and just translate these labels client-side into some kind of metatag search. This is IIRC not currently possible, because the criteria that are hardcoded cannot all be expressed as metatag searches.

savageorange said:
There was a topic about that recently.

Those tags are applied automatically by the system (and the definition of them is hardcoded!)..
So if we rework them, we probably have to be careful to update most or all of the *_res definitions, then have some scheduled downtime to strip all the current *_res taggings and reapply them per the updated criteria.

Honestly, I think it would be a lot better if we could yeet the idea of having them as actual tags, and just translate these labels client-side into some kind of metatag search. This is IIRC not currently possible, because the criteria that are hardcoded cannot all be expressed as metatag searches.

The bar for ''absurd'' res is too low, it's not absurd Have a link!
Yeah, this is going to be like huge -> big -> ... tag trees, at this rate.
Maybe a numbers-based tag makes more sense. There's also resolution(only one dimension)-based tags as mentioned elsewhere.

I'm in agreement that hard number thresholds would be better.

But if we went that route, there are a few questions we'd have to answer.

Like, how many divisions should there be?
When it comes to images that fall between two points, should they be rounded up or down? (Like if there were 720p and 1080p tags, what should a 900×900 pic be tagged with?)
What is the maximum before resolution becomes meaningless and it's truly absurd res?
And what about images that are reeeeeeeally long but not very tall?

lendrimujina said:
I'm in agreement that hard number thresholds would be better.

But if we went that route, there are a few questions we'd have to answer.

Like, how many divisions should there be?
When it comes to images that fall between two points, should they be rounded up or down? (Like if there were 720p and 1080p tags, what should a 900×900 pic be tagged with?)
What is the maximum before resolution becomes meaningless and it's truly absurd res?
And what about images that are reeeeeeeally long but not very tall?

Usually, you use a decade/log scale for that sort of thing. Example: Resistor codes where you get odd values like 4.7 or 2.2 because bin them to nearest within the percentage of tolerance. Music does something similar with scales (notes are collected into octaves, not decades, though). Of course it's the TV industry, so you have to throw all that out and let >3500P be '4K'. j/k That is why using marketing terms is not a good idea. (USA) Money does this thing where it's trying to be near a power of 2. 1,2,5,10,25,50,100,200,500, etc. are all setup to take advantage of the Greedy Algorithm (notice the failure mode) for making change.

I guess the details would be handled by people like Mairo and other video enthusiasts. I suggested megapixels simply because it leads to nice round numbers like 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 4 million. We wouldn't want to be dealing with 1.599MP, 1.6MP, 1.601MP, and so on, so it makes sense to have if not just a single digit of precision, no more than say 1.5, 2.5, etc. Note: Presence of smaller values will be far more common, due to same rule when sorting lists of files by filesize. You'll get a ton of ~500KB files, and very few 50MB+ files, and same thing applies to resolution. It'll have a histogram where it peaks, and then far less posts of the largest sizes.

I assumed rounded down, since we'll want a search be able to find 'at least' a given size. Yeah, technically, to find 'at most' a given size would not be accurate but not sure it matters much.

I think someone said 100MP(10Kx10K)? :P

I'll have to find where someone mentioned horizontal and vertical lengths. Yeah, that was separate but related set of tags.

Following the logic of resistor codes/musical notes/money/etc., you'd have some truly absurd values like:
100MP, 120MP, 150MP, 200MP, 250MP, 300MP, 400MP, 500MP, 750MP, 1GP, 1.2GP... Repeat with more powers of 10. I think at the point where we have even one image tagged 1GP, we've done something wrong, or horribly horribly right.

alphamule said:
I guess the details would be handled by people like Mairo and other video enthusiasts.

TL;DR, but high res for video is always going to be lower than high res for images by the simple nature of them.
Also youtube dropped HD from 720p quality back in 2020 because it's no longer considered HD standard even though that's what all HD content was back in 2010.

mairo said:
TL;DR, but high res for video is always going to be lower than high res for images by the simple nature of them.
Also youtube dropped HD from 720p quality back in 2020 because it's no longer considered HD standard even though that's what all HD content was back in 2010.

That seems fair to note about still images versus video. I guess 720 just isn't ultra mega super duper HD enough.