Rignak said:
Oh, right. So, the searchs "-approver:id" give all the pictures which were approved but not by "id" ?
Right, so long as "id" is a genuine user. -approver:awetioho returns no result.
Posted under General
Rignak said:
Oh, right. So, the searchs "-approver:id" give all the pictures which were approved but not by "id" ?
Right, so long as "id" is a genuine user. -approver:awetioho returns no result.
kuuderes_shadow said:
Right, so long as "id" is a genuine user. -approver:awetioho returns no result.
Hmmm... then that means... *CHECKING*... wow...!
All hail users Any (user #292333) and None (user #11539)... ^_^
Changing the border color on a post isn't going to make people interpret the action any differently; it's become ingrained in the culture of the site that a flag is an affront or an insult to the image and/or its uploader and it seems people find it okay to have a certain number of errors or "bad parts" in an image before it becomes worthy of deletion if the comments are to be directly interpreted. As for hiding post status from regular users, the last time I tried to make it so that flagging and appealing were just a call to mods and not a dinnerbell for people to attack each other using the kinda-wonky site systems it elicited only a small mostly-negative response. I only assume if this thread were titled "Let's hide flags and appeals completely from regular users" it would get the same response.
Do I support it though? Yes. Most definitely. I've thought, even since before I was a moderator, that the flagging (and even pending) system being public was silly. Approvers are chosen on the basis that they know what to look for in an image. Yet when a post is flagged, it not only fulfills its role of getting approvers to look at it, but it also generally either attracts a snide comment or two or it sparks a massive comment brawl. That's why ever since I figured out how the system works I tend to wait at least a few days for the post to pass out of the general public's eye before flagging it. How often are approvers swayed by antagonistic comments and arguments to approve an image they weren't going to before reading them?
It seems to me we leave it as it is and let the public unrest just roll around in the mud, we come up with some way to socially remove the interpretation of a post being flagged as a hostile action, we "manually" clamp down on arguments through moderation tools (likely starting resentment towards mods), or we do something to let the system itself work to stem the arguments which restricting the flagged status to only those who could resolve it will do, but it still probably won't be popular.
evazion said:
There should be approver:none and approver:any metatags.
approver:none would make it possible to search just contributor uploads. Would be useful for janitors for reviewing contributor uploads.
This works now. -approver:any and -approver:none weren't implemented, they work the same as before. Also, it's case-sensitive for some reason. I'm not sure whether it should be fixed, since this actually introduces a way to search for uploads by user "Any", using "approver:Any" or "approver:ANY".
evazion said:
The uploader should get a dmail notice when their upload is flagged.
I like this idea, too. Seems rather easy to implement. Any objections? Should dmail be created if the post is already flagged and someone adds another flag?
Updated
Type-kun said:
I like this idea, too. Seems rather easy to implement. Any objections? Should dmail be created if the post is already flagged and someone adds another flag?
Flags aren't personal attacks that need defending, it's a clerical action to ensure ToS compliance with the site's content. Giving the uploader notice of flags seems like it'd be only fuel for needless drama. Once flagged it's a responsibility of approvers to resolve the issue. The uploader's further input is unnecessary and would be most certainly biased.
Hoobajoob said:
Flags aren't personal attacks that need defending, it's a clerical action to ensure ToS compliance with the site's content. Giving the uploader notice of flags seems like it'd be only fuel for needless drama. Once flagged it's a responsibility of approvers to resolve the issue. The uploader's further input is unnecessary and would be most certainly biased.
The purpose of the dmail wouldn't be to solicit their input, but to make them aware of the situation. If the uploader has a high volume of uploads or the flagged post was uploaded some time ago, they probably wouldn't notice it getting flagged unless they specifically looked. You're correct that flagging shouldn't be seen as a personal attack, but it is a form of feedback, and it's not much use if the uploader isn't aware of it.
Blue_Trident said:
The purpose of the dmail wouldn't be to solicit their input, but to make them aware of the situation. If the uploader has a high volume of uploads or the flagged post was uploaded some time ago, they probably wouldn't notice it getting flagged unless they specifically looked. You're correct that flagging shouldn't be seen as a personal attack, but it is a form of feedback, and it's not much use if the uploader isn't aware of it.
I agree with this post on every point.
This could especially be useful when one Uploader is contributing from one artist, but the artist's art quality is more mediocre. It's a more a sign that one should be more aware when uploading from this artist.
Type-kun said:
I like this idea, too. Seems rather easy to implement. Any objections? Should dmail be created if the post is already flagged and someone adds another flag?
+1 on this. If it's more than a few weeks back, I won't see it without a special search otherwise. It can affect upload availability or serve as feedback, and knowing something was later deemed flag worthy is important for the feedback aspect. Otherwise, how do I know not to upload such in the future? It's certainly better than one day seeing the Deleted count tick up one and no knowing what happened.
Blue_Trident said:
The purpose of the dmail wouldn't be to solicit their input, but to make them aware of the situation.
So you say, but if you start sending out dmails for every flag, you're probably going to get a lot of "input" (drama in the posts' comments filling up the comments listing, etc...). So I'm not sold on the idea.
Type-kun said:
Should dmail be created if the post is already flagged and someone adds another flag?
If this were implemented anyway, what if the dmails were instead sent out when a flagged post is automatically deleted? That solves that question, avoids sending out notices for frivolous flags that get quickly overturned, and possibly dampens comment drama (though if I recall correctly, if you don't have 'filter deleted posts' set, bumped comments in deleted posts would still crowd out active posts in the comments listing).
I thought about this a little bit more, and maybe dmail doesn't work in this case. A lot of flagging could happen due to QC or rule change, especially on old uploads, and receiving a dmail for each and every of them would be disastrous.
Instead, maybe something else entirely should be created? Like an event feed, visible only to user. When their post will get flagged, an event will show up in the feed. Likewise, it'll be possible to create an event for post deletion/undeletion, notify approvers when a post approved by them is flagged or deleted, notify flaggers that their flag is resolved, maybe some other minor events too. Would this be a welcome change?
I can see the argument about flag notices potentially causing drama. But my feeling is: either uploaders should know about flagged uploads or they shouldn't. If they shouldn't, then go all the way: hide the border, hide the reason, hide status:flagged. Don't let others know at all, just let approvers know. But if uploaders should know, then tell them upfront. Don't force them to monitor status:flagged and their deletion count to find out what's going on with their uploads.
RE: an event feed, there is the Mod Actions feed, perhaps that concept could be extended for other types of events? But this is getting off-topic, maybe we should open an issue for this?
status:flagged is useful to me because I can find users for which I can find posts to flag myself.
I just wanted to say that users will be contacted when multiple posts get flagged.
It's not like it doesn't exist.
So to be consequent: If there is a Janitor who approved post A but post A will be flagged and deleted later, they should get contacted. Why should we single out only the uploaders for this cases?