FA+
Shop
22 submissions
Epic Four Year Post of City Crunching Havoc
Art by Cooner
First, there was darkness. And then there was light. And then some more darkness. And then some more light. And finally, a 502 error message and the sound of millions of F5 keys being mashed in unison. Fur Affinity has turned four. It's been a long road to get here, but it's been well worth it.
With that said... we'd like to introduce an old friend back. Coming back to Fur Affinity the second half of January: the Search.
It's been a long time coming (oh, so long indeed!). But Search is finally making a triumphant return, and it's only a few days away now. Hard to believe, but true! In addition to the return of Search will be a handful of other improvements to the site over the course of 2009.
2008 was a hell of a year for Fur Affinity, and despite highs and lows, we pulled out on top and with more than a few surprises. In fact, Fur Affinity was busy in 2008 that we got...
New users: 83347
Submissions posted: 765447
Journals journaled: 238966
Comments left on journals: 2112111
Comments left on submissions: 6290599
Watches: 1602809
Favorites given: 11946528
Notes sent: 1612463
Troubletickets generated: 2150
News postings: 25
Shouts left: 1783477
Conventions ran: 1
Category Artwork (Digital) / Macro / Micro
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 654 x 1024px
File Size 337.3 kB
Comment posting has been disabled by the submission owner.
artist: four year strong
song: Wrecked 'em? Damn Near Killed 'em
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEy3x_SLOiA
song: Wrecked 'em? Damn Near Killed 'em
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEy3x_SLOiA
All these new features sound amazing. :3 Especially search, and subfolders. :3
You guys got a great service~ a lot of people complain about menial missing features, but c'mon, the place is free to use, and the highest-concentration of furry goodness out there. l3
Thanks, you guys. <3
You guys got a great service~ a lot of people complain about menial missing features, but c'mon, the place is free to use, and the highest-concentration of furry goodness out there. l3
Thanks, you guys. <3
by that logic, a subscription gives LESS reason to complain than donations - with a donation, you're willingly giving away money expecting nothing but seeing the site improve, a subscription just means you're paying for extra features.
also, even without donations, it does become a semi-valid reason to complain when said features have been under promise for YEARS
also, even without donations, it does become a semi-valid reason to complain when said features have been under promise for YEARS
Fair point... but a donation is something freely given. I don't donate to the WWF and then firebomb them for not being able to remove a bunch of animals from the endangered species list ;) However, if I were paying a group of people to do something about it, I'd expect results :)
Does it even matter though? To find an artist you need to know their name anyway and if it's to find a specific piece (by an artist you can't remember) you'd need to remember the rough title of it and have to sift through a whole bunch of results :D
We've managed (very well!) without it for this long. What's gonna change? :)
Does it even matter though? To find an artist you need to know their name anyway and if it's to find a specific piece (by an artist you can't remember) you'd need to remember the rough title of it and have to sift through a whole bunch of results :D
We've managed (very well!) without it for this long. What's gonna change? :)
You guys rock. I haven't missed the search. Most of the tags in the browse took care of all of my searching needs, which was real nice to have in the first place.
I'm going to be impressed with the new features. I'd be even more impressed if you still continue to grow.
I've said this before in a journal, not that it really matters, but those numbers are a statistic, and I'm sure that within each one of them there has been many emotions shared, inspirations created, and lives changed in the course of this year.
I hope we continue to mature as not only a site, but as a community, even if I'm an oddball in it.
I'm going to be impressed with the new features. I'd be even more impressed if you still continue to grow.
I've said this before in a journal, not that it really matters, but those numbers are a statistic, and I'm sure that within each one of them there has been many emotions shared, inspirations created, and lives changed in the course of this year.
I hope we continue to mature as not only a site, but as a community, even if I'm an oddball in it.
it -really- looks like one of these guys http://starmen.net/mother2/ebdb/ene......php?enemy=126
It was some post mentioning it on the forums, he had said he was trying for a new year release on it.
In any case, I personally will be holding off on it for atleast a little while so that the site doesn't get overloaded. It's like when Blizzard releases a new patch XD The website just dies for an entire day.
In any case, I personally will be holding off on it for atleast a little while so that the site doesn't get overloaded. It's like when Blizzard releases a new patch XD The website just dies for an entire day.
As many people in this thread have already noted, it was said in the post under the big stompy Fender...and I quote "we'd like to introduce an old friend back. Coming back to Fur Affinity the second half of January: the Search."
I must say I am quite amazed at the number of people who don't, y'know, READ THE POST and just find any chance to bitch.
Then again, it IS furry, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that people here are prone to bitch first, ask questions later.
At any rate, congrats on the anniversary, FA.
I must say I am quite amazed at the number of people who don't, y'know, READ THE POST and just find any chance to bitch.
Then again, it IS furry, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that people here are prone to bitch first, ask questions later.
At any rate, congrats on the anniversary, FA.
Wow. 4 Years is amazing. And I have a question. How did Fender get a tie that big to fit him? Do they even make them that big? O_o And I know your having lots of fun with others asking about the search bar Dragoneer. Hehe. So I wanna ask you -<Censored by the FCC to keep Dragoneer sane> <^_^>
Awesome. Happy birthday to FA.
The new features look cool. Is this going to be Ferrox coming in?
Sub-galleries seems useful. I did have a thought, though: Will there be any way to tweak watches? Eg. as it is now if you watch someone you'll get notified if they upload something into their gallery or to their scraps. It might be useful (say, for the time-poor) to be able to only be notified of gallery uploads, or in the future uploads to particular sub-galleries. Just a thought.
Here's to more years of awesomeness.
The new features look cool. Is this going to be Ferrox coming in?
Sub-galleries seems useful. I did have a thought, though: Will there be any way to tweak watches? Eg. as it is now if you watch someone you'll get notified if they upload something into their gallery or to their scraps. It might be useful (say, for the time-poor) to be able to only be notified of gallery uploads, or in the future uploads to particular sub-galleries. Just a thought.
Here's to more years of awesomeness.
*Lifts jaw from the floor* Thats some awesome results for 2008, i'm happy to say i'm one of those people on that list who joined up^^ and because of that i don't know what the search bar was niether do i care, i get around well enough. but by the sounds of it everyone Really wants it back so, hell i look forward to it too ^^
Can there PLEASE be a seperate button to watch someone and unwatch them? Sometimes I forget I've watched someone and automatically hit the watch button, only to find out I've UNWATCHED them..and since FA tells you someone's unwatched you (...OUCH please stop that ;; because I keep discovering it's FRIENDS doing it and that hurts, man) I feel horrible.
Why would you press the unwatch button at your own will when you don't intend to unwatch them?
I changed the URLs. Instead of the previous way which had the /track URL working as a trigger, e.g first time visit - watches, second time - unwatches, I separated them into two different URLs, /watch and /unwatch.
This way you will not unwatch somebody if you refresh the page or just happen to have networking issues.
Perhaps you had something else in mind? How do you see this being done?
I changed the URLs. Instead of the previous way which had the /track URL working as a trigger, e.g first time visit - watches, second time - unwatches, I separated them into two different URLs, /watch and /unwatch.
This way you will not unwatch somebody if you refresh the page or just happen to have networking issues.
Perhaps you had something else in mind? How do you see this being done?
*facepalm* No that's not what i mean!
SometimesI don't realize I already watch someone, so I hit "watch" as an impulse, not noticing the + is actually a - and end up unwatching them. No big deal except that it alerts people that someone unwatches them (Which is mean D: ) and I feel bad about it.
SometimesI don't realize I already watch someone, so I hit "watch" as an impulse, not noticing the + is actually a - and end up unwatching them. No big deal except that it alerts people that someone unwatches them (Which is mean D: ) and I feel bad about it.
http://i41.tinypic.com/6o1t07.jpg
is this what you're talking about?
is this what you're talking about?
Incorrect.
It only says that the watch notification itself is no longer valid. It does not say that somebody unwatched you, nor does it generate a notification when somebody does.
Let's say I go to your userpage and watch you; you'll get a notification about that.
Then I unwatch you.
Then I watch you again; and again, you'll get a notification about that new watch.
Thus, you have two notification now. But the first notification is no longer valid, as the "watch" that spawned it, which it references, has been removed when I unwatched you.
And that's exactly the kind of notification you think is a notification of unwatch.
It is not.
It only says that the watch notification itself is no longer valid. It does not say that somebody unwatched you, nor does it generate a notification when somebody does.
Let's say I go to your userpage and watch you; you'll get a notification about that.
Then I unwatch you.
Then I watch you again; and again, you'll get a notification about that new watch.
Thus, you have two notification now. But the first notification is no longer valid, as the "watch" that spawned it, which it references, has been removed when I unwatched you.
And that's exactly the kind of notification you think is a notification of unwatch.
It is not.
Right. I know it doesn't say WHO has unwatched you. All it says is that someone removed you. If I watched CatGirl a year ago and didn't want to watch her anymore, and remove her, it'll show up in her box that "watch was removed by user". If I watch DogMan, and then accidentally click "unwatch" immeadiately afterwards, it'll only show up in DogMan's box as "watch was removed by user".
All I'm saying is that I do indeed get a notification that someone has unwatched me.
http://i41.tinypic.com/6o1t07.jpg
All I'm saying is that I do indeed get a notification that someone has unwatched me.
http://i41.tinypic.com/6o1t07.jpg
In the name of all things unholy under the sun, that is just.not.possible. I'm so frustrated trying to explain this misconception time and again :P
The case you have linked me to shows that some user watched you, which generated a notification - then unwatched you promptly for some reason. While this is stupid, that's just how it was.
[pre]
+
+ +
+ messages
| users | | watches |
+
+ +
+
| userid |
| userid | <-- who placed the watch
| username | | targetid | <-- who is he watching
+
+ +---| watchid | <-- watch indentificator
| +
+
|
|
+
+
|
| +
+
| | notifications |
| +
+
| | userid | <-- who gets notification (you)
+----| watchid | <-- reference to the watch which spawned this notification
+
+
[/pre]
1. Notifications = take all notifications where userid is your userid
2. Notifications = replace watchid in Notifications with the info from the watches table where watch indentificators match
3. Notifications = replace watches.userid with info from the users table where user indentificators match.
Now you have the list of notifications with the name of who exactly watched you.
But if the watch, which the notification refers to, no longer exists - then no information can be retrieved and shown. This is why a placeholder of some sorts had to be put there.
*raises hands to the heavens* What to I have to do to make you understand?
The case you have linked me to shows that some user watched you, which generated a notification - then unwatched you promptly for some reason. While this is stupid, that's just how it was.
[pre]
+
+ +
+ messages
| users | | watches |
+
+ +
+
| userid |
| userid | <-- who placed the watch
| username | | targetid | <-- who is he watching
+
+ +---| watchid | <-- watch indentificator
| +
+
|
|
+
+
|
| +
+
| | notifications |
| +
+
| | userid | <-- who gets notification (you)
+----| watchid | <-- reference to the watch which spawned this notification
+
+
[/pre]
1. Notifications = take all notifications where userid is your userid
2. Notifications = replace watchid in Notifications with the info from the watches table where watch indentificators match
3. Notifications = replace watches.userid with info from the users table where user indentificators match.
Now you have the list of notifications with the name of who exactly watched you.
But if the watch, which the notification refers to, no longer exists - then no information can be retrieved and shown. This is why a placeholder of some sorts had to be put there.
*raises hands to the heavens* What to I have to do to make you understand?
Well, yes - you are just interpreting it wrong.
Why?
I watched you and you got a notification. Then I unwatched you. My "watch" on you was removed, and your notification becomes defunct - it becomes a notification of a nonexistent watch. But it is a notification nontheless, and it is there in the database, and your notification counter is still incremented.
So you have to remove the notification.
But because the data who watched you (me) is no longer available (I removed my watch, remember?) SOMETHING has to be shown in it's place so you could remove it. And that something is this "watch removed by user" placeholder.
Why?
I watched you and you got a notification. Then I unwatched you. My "watch" on you was removed, and your notification becomes defunct - it becomes a notification of a nonexistent watch. But it is a notification nontheless, and it is there in the database, and your notification counter is still incremented.
So you have to remove the notification.
But because the data who watched you (me) is no longer available (I removed my watch, remember?) SOMETHING has to be shown in it's place so you could remove it. And that something is this "watch removed by user" placeholder.
Oops, you were quicker than me. But I think you're basically saying what I said in my comment below! I get it now.
In that case, there isn't much that can be done. It's just a little awkward/disheartening for it to still notify even if it's a notification of a non-notification. You know?
In that case, there isn't much that can be done. It's just a little awkward/disheartening for it to still notify even if it's a notification of a non-notification. You know?
You get a notification for the watch. Correct.
Then someone unwatches you. It says "REMOVED by the user." Correct.
We are not talking about someone watching twice.
We are talking about someone watching for a time, then deciding to unwatch and how it's kind of stupid to have a notification in our inboxes that says we've been unwatched or that someone's removed a picture of ours from their favorites.
It happens.
coffinberry has provided a screenshot. Try watching your own account and then unwatching it.
Then someone unwatches you. It says "REMOVED by the user." Correct.
We are not talking about someone watching twice.
We are talking about someone watching for a time, then deciding to unwatch and how it's kind of stupid to have a notification in our inboxes that says we've been unwatched or that someone's removed a picture of ours from their favorites.
It happens.
coffinberry has provided a screenshot. Try watching your own account and then unwatching it.
I know what you mean, and I keep telling you that is not possible. Not because I think so, I know this, I wrote the damn thing.
The code responsible for unwatching somebody is 30 lines big and it does.not.generate.notifications.at.all.
All it does it that it removes the watch, and redirects you saying it was successfully removed.
Do I have to pastebin the code to make you believe?
The code responsible for unwatching somebody is 30 lines big and it does.not.generate.notifications.at.all.
All it does it that it removes the watch, and redirects you saying it was successfully removed.
Do I have to pastebin the code to make you believe?
No, you just have to prove what my eyes have seen wrong, I guess.
I understand that you wrote the code and I'm very happy for you, but I have been notified of being removed by a user [though it didn't name them], and I think it sucks. Just now, I +watched myself and then unwatched myself and it said I removed myself in my notification area for watches. Obviously, it doesn't notify me when I am unwatched. Because you wrote the code.
I understand that you wrote the code and I'm very happy for you, but I have been notified of being removed by a user [though it didn't name them], and I think it sucks. Just now, I +watched myself and then unwatched myself and it said I removed myself in my notification area for watches. Obviously, it doesn't notify me when I am unwatched. Because you wrote the code.
Wait, I think I understand what you mean now.
It only notifies us if we've been removed by someone if we had never cleared their watch when they watched us?
Like person A is watched by person B and doesn't sit down at the computer in time to read the notification and clear it before person B unwatches person A. Person A receives a notification that they've been removed by the user.
But this wouldn't happen if person A saw the notification, removed it from their page and THEN was removed? Or am I still not understanding correctly?
It only notifies us if we've been removed by someone if we had never cleared their watch when they watched us?
Like person A is watched by person B and doesn't sit down at the computer in time to read the notification and clear it before person B unwatches person A. Person A receives a notification that they've been removed by the user.
But this wouldn't happen if person A saw the notification, removed it from their page and THEN was removed? Or am I still not understanding correctly?
I have no tone, this is text. I'm frustrated because of how difficult you're making this. you OBVIOUSLY understand what me and everyone else is talking about yet you go to long lengths to tell us we're wrong. We're not wrong, we just don't understand WHY it's saying it. And now we do. Will you please fix it?
Well *laughes*
4 years furaffinity, thats a bunch *g*
and.. here's my song for Furaffinity ;) :
maybe it will be heard and conquer Furaffinity x)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1383501/
4 years furaffinity, thats a bunch *g*
and.. here's my song for Furaffinity ;) :
maybe it will be heard and conquer Furaffinity x)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1383501/
Understatements of the year, June 5th, 2006:
"Search temporarily disabled"
"Our coders are working on the problems and developing resolutions to get these services back in an efficient operational capacity. However, progress thus far has been on the slow side."
Thanks, Wayback Machine for this classic news post. I joined after search went down, so I didn't even know what the search bar looked like until I looked there.
Thankfully, I've had little need for search, as my Watch list filters all my favorite pics very well. I'm most excited about subfolders(photos, music and comics shouldn't be mashed all together). If there's a +Watch link above submissions(along with that full nav bar with gallery, scraps, etc.), that would make me very happy as well.
And to all the "Search shouldn't take this long" people... yes, it does. Plus, it has to index 4 years of submissions. Days of processing right there.
"Search temporarily disabled"
"Our coders are working on the problems and developing resolutions to get these services back in an efficient operational capacity. However, progress thus far has been on the slow side."
Thanks, Wayback Machine for this classic news post. I joined after search went down, so I didn't even know what the search bar looked like until I looked there.
Thankfully, I've had little need for search, as my Watch list filters all my favorite pics very well. I'm most excited about subfolders(photos, music and comics shouldn't be mashed all together). If there's a +Watch link above submissions(along with that full nav bar with gallery, scraps, etc.), that would make me very happy as well.
And to all the "Search shouldn't take this long" people... yes, it does. Plus, it has to index 4 years of submissions. Days of processing right there.
3 minutes 20 seconds actually.
The problem is not with the volume of data, but how it is organized and how verbose it is. As it stands, a lot of the database structure has to be ALTEREd to make it useful for the search; titles and descriptions aren't descriptive enough, and nobody uses tags.
Problem is not with making the search work, but with having it return results that are relevant to the search query.
The problem is not with the volume of data, but how it is organized and how verbose it is. As it stands, a lot of the database structure has to be ALTEREd to make it useful for the search; titles and descriptions aren't descriptive enough, and nobody uses tags.
Problem is not with making the search work, but with having it return results that are relevant to the search query.
Please don't do a deviant art.
The subfolder function and the annoying prints-on-demands features are so god damn annoying on deviantart.
It can probably be done right but don't do it like DA.
Don't let people make 10000 subfolders so browsing galleries becomes confusing and a pain in the ass and please don't slap "DO YOU WANT TO SELL PRINTS OF THIS?" on every fucking submission you upload.
The subfolder function and the annoying prints-on-demands features are so god damn annoying on deviantart.
It can probably be done right but don't do it like DA.
Don't let people make 10000 subfolders so browsing galleries becomes confusing and a pain in the ass and please don't slap "DO YOU WANT TO SELL PRINTS OF THIS?" on every fucking submission you upload.
Dammit I really need to be briefed on the relationship between ED, furry and the world. I think I must have missed that day of class, because I was trying way too hard to divide and conquer the two up until a few days ago. We're all called sick fucks and basement-dwelling wastes of DNA, and all the furries I've talked to so far are totally OK with it. I don't get it. But then again I take shit way too seriously, ask anybody. I want to turn of my brain but it's hard. ><
I think it's because furries write half that stuff. >:3* But really, no one takes it seriously. No one takes ANYTHING on ED seriously, it's one big joke site made for teh lulz.
*If you're on ED a lot like me, you'd know that THIS IS A LION AND YOU NEED TO GET IN THE CAR
*If you're on ED a lot like me, you'd know that THIS IS A LION AND YOU NEED TO GET IN THE CAR
Is this out of proportion. Assuming he was originally 5ft tall, 1ft wide and 1/2 ft deep, and 100lbs, his density would be 40 pounds per cubic foot. Scaled to 50 ft tall, 15ft wide, and 7.5 ft deep (assuming his build increased width and depth by around 50%), his density would be around 142 pounds per cubic foot. Is it possible for him to almost quadruple his muscle density? Maybe.. from the looks of it he might have, but even doubling muscle density is massive, which would make 225 tons a more realistic weight.
Semantics. "400 tons stronger" does not necessarily apply directly to weight. It may not even apply directly as a figure, but as a subsequent relation to a mass of another substance. For instance, 400 tons (of feathers) stronger. Granted, that's a ludicrous amount of feathers, but it isn't going to be very solid, or strong. Mathmatics aside, the way the words are set up in the image leaves you clueless as to his actual weight and density in the imagined scenario. You only have 1 variable given, and that's his height.
Comments