Please log in. To create a new account, enter the name and password you want to use.
If you supplied an email address when you signed up or added a email later, you can have your password reset.
This user name doesn't exist. If you want to create a new account, just verify your password and log in.
This user name exists. If you want to create a new account, please choose a different name.
Enter the current email address you have registered in your profile. You'll get an email containing your new password.
You have no email address in your profile, so you can't have your password reset.
Password reset. Check your email in a few minutes
That account does not exist.
The email address specified is not registered with this account.
Delivery to this email address has failed.
Do you mean a toggle to make pools hide posts in the index?
That might be a simplification in some ways, but I think the only case it'd really improve is #3 (pairing without hiding), which is sort of a niche case. The rest are sort of a lateral move. It could probably handle the same things, but it'd be a bunch of new UI and user education, and a lot of design questions to figure out.
For example: it'd bloat the pool list, which right now functions as a list of interesting post groups; need some mechanism for purging empty pools, eg. if a duplicate is deleted; using the "order" mechanism to indicate which is the conceptual "parent"; some equivalent of quick parenting with tag scripts.
Your final semi-issue could be resolved with a 'completed' switch for the Pool. Your viewers will know when it is ready for download.
The batch issue is that, while I don't care if people download the batch, I do prefer that people who like it to actually spend the time to use vote and/or favorite each one appropriately, which is less likely to happen if a large batch is posted at once. Staggering posts (posting 5-10 images of a set a day, say) probably helps that. It also means there's no need to hide them (there's not that many at once). I don't care if other people do or don't do this--I'm not suggesting it as policy--it's just something I try to do.
Of course, as we've talked about, score isn't everything--in fact, isn't much at all, in some cases, even range_murata is largely 0/1, wtf?--but at least that avoids making it worse.
petopeto
That might be a simplification in some ways, but I think the only case it'd really improve is #3 (pairing without hiding), which is sort of a niche case. The rest are sort of a lateral move. It could probably handle the same things, but it'd be a bunch of new UI and user education, and a lot of design questions to figure out.
For example: it'd bloat the pool list, which right now functions as a list of interesting post groups; need some mechanism for purging empty pools, eg. if a duplicate is deleted; using the "order" mechanism to indicate which is the conceptual "parent"; some equivalent of quick parenting with tag scripts.
The batch issue is that, while I don't care if people download the batch, I do prefer that people who like it to actually spend the time to use vote and/or favorite each one appropriately, which is less likely to happen if a large batch is posted at once. Staggering posts (posting 5-10 images of a set a day, say) probably helps that. It also means there's no need to hide them (there's not that many at once). I don't care if other people do or don't do this--I'm not suggesting it as policy--it's just something I try to do.
Of course, as we've talked about, score isn't everything--in fact, isn't much at all, in some cases, even range_murata is largely 0/1, wtf?--but at least that avoids making it worse.