|
|
Un.png (2,163 bytes) |
|
|
excluded tags works on a boolean base and is not weight aware. excluding a specific weight seems silly to me. excluding ranges may or may not be useful i guess. it could work on a not set or anythign with min/max rating of <value> base. |
|
|
Sorry if my intention wasn't clear, yes I was mostly referring to range usage similar to include. Its usefulness would be good for filtering things that may contain a little/just enough of something not preferable, like a harem (+/*/*+) but not full blown/a huge focus (***). As opposed to excluding anything with a slight harem and otherwise be a fine result. |
|
|
To make the example above easier to understand, if you want all anime that either don't have a tag or have it at low weight, this currently requires two searches; being able to exclude the tag at a given weight or above would allow for that in a single search. The point of that is when you tolerate small amounts of something, but don't want it to be the cornerstone of the show. A conceptually related point is that you can currently only specify min or max, and not both, for tags that you want present; strict range selection is impossible to achieve. Pondering the above, I had an idea that may or may not work and I figured I'd throw it here for some consideration: for inclusion, use one set of min/max where "tag is absent" is 0. Unless specified, min() is assumed at 100 and max() at 600. Here's an example: include: unweighted tag 1, weighted tag 1, weighted tag 2 min(0) max(200), weighted tag 3 min(200) max(400), weighted tag 4 min(500) max(500), weighted tag 5 max(300), weighted tag 6 min(400) exclude: unweighted tag 2, weighted tag 7 Explanation of each case; marked with a ** the cases with new behavior: include: unweighted tag 1 is present (current behavior) include: weighted tag 1 -- is present at any weight (current behavior) ** include: weighted tag 2 min(0) max(200) -- if present, is at a maximum weight of 200, but is also allowed to be absent, only not present at 300+ (not currently implemented; original point of this ticket) ** include: weighted tag 3 min(200) max(400) -- is present at a minimum weight of 200 and a maximum weight of 400 (not currently implemented or, if implemented, broken) ** include: weighted tag 4 min(500) max(500) -- is present at a weight of exactly 500, and no other (same as weighted tag 3) include: weighted tag 5 max(300) -- is present at a maximum weight of 300 (current behavior) include: weighted tag 6 min(400) -- is present at a minimum weight of 400 (current behavior) exclude: unweighted tag 2 -- is not present (current behavior) exclude: weighted tag 7 -- is not present (current behavior) The system should throw an error at the following situations: * min/max with unweighted tags (use include/exclude; min(0) max(anything-else) is the same as not entering the tag in either field); * max(0) (use exclude); * min(0) max(600) (that's the same as not entering the tag in either field); * min > max (ummm... yeah what). I can't conceive a situation in which you may want "up to 200 or at least 500, but not 300 or 400", or "either absent or present, but present only at a minimum weight of 400". Such arrangements are silly and I don't see a need to cater to them. Does this all make sense? It's 1 AM and my brain is fried, so I'm not sure the explanation is particularly useful. :/ |
- Anonymous
