>>30067
First is reasonable and passed it on.

Second that's what's happening hash bans are stored server side. Not sure how to store otherwise. Maybe I just don't understand the suggestion, so elaborate.

Third I got the reply that that's how it works. I know it's don't, but the end result is that it won't change. You could have a userscript that fills the ban form tho and maybe a button that issue the ban and deletes the post. But it's better to mass select specific posts based on characteristics. Or reverse select. Or mass select then opt out on those that looks false selection. Or make not of posts that should be ignore, or mass select based on characteristics after nth post or timestamp, etc.

Last one. We have experience with perceptual hashing (others call it fuzzy hashing), 9chan even had perceptual hash banning feature. We even have a tool that can search for similar pics. There are two problems:
1. cant adapt the engine to it, or can't adapt it to the engine (so our tool is just a standalone stuff)
2. perceptual hashing is only useful from liek 2 steps away from the orignal, by the 3rd step it starts to match widely different images, and by the 10th it's basically any pictures I can't even guess why that was picked as "similar". So lots of false positives. And this was our xp with the phash ban on 9 too.