(*) Would it be possible to have an explicit misc: namespace while searching? For instance, we can get exact tag matches by searching for f:group$ or m:group$, but if you search for misc:group$, the search function appears to completely drop the misc: and searches for group$ in any namespace. Sure, we can use exclusions, such as misc:"body swap$" -female:"body swap$" -male:"body swap$", but that's messy. It's also (currently) impossible to exclude a misc: tag without also excluding all m: f: etc tags with the same name. I think all that would be needed would be for a search string of misc:"tagname$" to search or exclude tagname in misc namespace only.

(*) Something else that would be helpful for the cleanup crew would be to have a psuedo-namespace for gallery title that can be used in search.

For instance, back when Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy and Fire Emblem galleries were getting fixed up, it would've gone so much faster if we could've (for instance) searched for p:"dragon quest iii$" without Dragon Quest III in the title so the title and straggler tags could be put in line with standards. (and we definitely haven't seen the last major title/tag cleanup effort yet)

This could also help when we're trying to search for important information that's been tagged but has yet to be added to the title: artist name, group name, parody name, Rewrite, Decensored, Incomplete, etc.
So t would be nice to be able to search with title:"galleryTitleSubstring" or -title:"galleryTitleSubstring" or something of the sort.

(*) From the API, currently there's no way to see if a gallery is visible or not, unless it's been expunged. If it's expunged, it'll return expunged: true, but there's no way to figure out when something's been internally replaced, which means that links generated via the API are sometimes out of date. (so, eg., maybe someone makes a list of tags from API results and posts it in a thread for people to vote on, but some of the galleries have been updated, and it looks silly trying to fix up galleries no one will see) Maybe it could return visible: true or visible: false as well? (If not, that's fine, it's not important)