Bug 459499 - The possibility to disable persons
Summary: The possibility to disable persons
Status: RESOLVED NOT A BUG
Alias: None
Product: digikam
Classification: Applications
Component: Faces-Workflow (show other bugs)
Version: 7.9.0
Platform: unspecified All
: NOR wishlist
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Digikam Developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2022-09-21 20:44 UTC by Eugen Albiker
Modified: 2024-12-29 15:55 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In: 8.6.0
Sentry Crash Report:

Attachments
Add an attachment

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Eugen Albiker 2022-09-21 20:44:18 UTC 
SUMMARY
***
I think it would be a improvement if the user can deactivate persons.
The reason is:
- The user know, that there will be no NEW pictures on which the person  (perhaps the person is dead or any other reason)
- The user knows, that he met the person in a holiday and will never meet the person again

In Digikam I have 600 different persons tags on 110.000 pictures. (Another 35.000 Faces I have in the "ignored" Tag)
I know I will never get any other/newer picture of some persons and want to disable them.

Possible advantages if I can disable some persons:
- In menu "Tools - Maintenance - "Clear and rebuild all training data" will be faster, if there will be processed less persons/faces
- Recognition of people is faster because fewer people are active
- Recognition of persons is better, because only persons are active who the user assumes are also to be seen in images

What do you think?

Greetings
Eugen
Comment 1 Maik Qualmann 2023-02-06 15:39:32 UTC 
*** Bug 465369 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Andrei 2023-02-26 10:33:35 UTC 
I agree it would be nice also for ex.... wifes and husbands and their relatives. It's our historym but it have to be in the past.
Comment 3 Chris 2023-10-17 08:34:54 UTC 
Thumbs up for the suggestion
Comment 4 Maik Qualmann 2024-05-31 05:47:49 UTC 
*** Bug 487821 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***