No offense, but I think many flaggers here don't know (or don't care?) that if a pic has flaws (anatomy, limb etc.) but they don't affect the pic quality as a whole, it shouldn't be a subject for deletion or flag at the first place.
Posted under General
Sacriven said:
No offense, but I think many flaggers here don't know (or don't care?) that if a pic has flaws (anatomy, limb etc.) but they don't affect the pic quality as a whole, it shouldn't be a subject for deletion or flag at the first place.
That's why there are around 50 Janitors to evaluate a flag. If they think "nope" then they approve the post.
Is this really vandalism? Isn't there a difference between flags that don't result in post deletion, and flags that are completely off-topic?
I think that as long as a flag is focused on image quality (anatomy, lineart, shading, artifacting, third-party watermarks, etc.) then it should be considered legitimate. And if the mods decide that the reason given isn't a convincing reason for the post to be deleted, the flagger shouldn't be punished for not having a mod-level eye for quality.
Shouldn't this thread be reserved for flags that have nothing to do with the quality of the image? Reasons like "don't draw explicit art of this character" or "I don't support this pairing" or "the artist drew a red border on the post, so I thought it would be funny" or "the uploader was mean to me."
If someone is flagging excellent art for quality concerns that just aren't there, then I would agree that it's vandalism. But for borderline cases, isn't this just the system working as intended?
post #2521288
What's with appeals that insult the flagging person?
I think to some extent, the howto:comment wiki should be applied to Appeals and Flags, too.
That means "Be polite" "No racism" and " nosilly one-liners" in any case of flagging and appealing.
fossilnix said:
Is this really vandalism? Isn't there a difference between flags that don't result in post deletion, and flags that are completely off-topic?
I was going to say exactly that. That, to me, isn't vandalism at all. This thread/the term vandalism in general should be reserved for the kind of flags such as the one that started this thread ("Pure girl shouldn't be lewded tbh...").
Provence said:
post #2521288
What's with appeals that insult the flagging person?
I haven't really seen anyone else do this kind of appeals. In comments though, it's more frequent. But yes, I do agree that appeals should be subject to the same kind of standards as comments and flags.
Provence said:
post #2521288
What's with appeals that insult the flagging person?
I think to some extent, the howto:comment wiki should be applied to Appeals and Flags, too.
That means "Be polite" "No racism" and " nosilly one-liners" in any case of flagging and appealing.
Ban that guy. Make him learn in the hard way.
Kikimaru said:
The "anatomy" flagger(s) seem to be quite petty IMO.
If the flaw is too big, it is getting deleted.
The fault is not by the flagger if a post then gets deleted, but by the uploader.
If it was approved before, but it was flagged afterwards (and deleted), then the Janitor is also at fault.
If the post gets re-approved again, then the flagger is at fault.
Provence said:
If the flaw is too big, it is getting deleted.
The fault is not by the flagger if a post then gets deleted, but by the uploader.
If it was approved before, but it was flagged afterwards (and deleted), then the Janitor is also at fault.
If the post gets re-approved again, then the flagger is at fault.
if a pic has flaws (anatomy, limb etc.) but they don't affect the pic quality as a whole, it shouldn't be a subject for deletion or flag at the first place.
Maybe this statement can be included on howto:flag? It'd make the flagger think twice before flagging.
fossilnix said:
I think that as long as a flag is focused on image quality (anatomy, lineart, shading, artifacting, third-party watermarks, etc.) then it should be considered legitimate. And if the mods decide that the reason given isn't a convincing reason for the post to be deleted, the flagger shouldn't be punished for not having a mod-level eye for quality.
+1
If someone flags a post and offers honest criticisms of the image as reasons for deletion, disagreeing with the seriousness of those criticisms isn't an excuse to brush off the flag as an act of "vandalism". It's important to keep in mind that not everyone has the same standards for artistry or image quality. Flaws that seem barely noticeable to one person might be glaring defects to another, and a sufficiently bad error can detract enough from an image to completely ruin it for some people. That's why we have such a large pool of approvers in the first place.
If a post is flagged in good faith, uploaders shouldn't automatically go on the defensive and call out the flaggers in this thread. If you feel that an image's flaws are insignificant in comparison to its quality as a whole, just appeal it.
Sacriven said:
Maybe this statement can be included on howto:flag? It'd make the flagger think twice before flagging.
Flaggers already face enough contempt, both in the comments and in this very thread, simply for trying to improve the quality of this site overall. It's not in our best interest to make them fear repercussions for setting their standards too high. Let them flag what they feel is subpar, and let the approvers decide what's good enough to keep, and the system will keep on working as intended.
...
EDIT: Now, with regard to flag reasons that are actually bad, how about post #2524559? It doesn't address the quality of the upload at all and focuses entirely on the uploader.
Updated
Sacriven said:
I thought the artist itself isn't allowed to post their works in here? I think that flag is justified.
The uploader in this case has already been banned. Isn't that enough? If we extend the prohibition against uploading one's own work to the point of deleting art that would have remained in the gallery had it been posted by anyone else, we're effectively punishing all the users of this site for something done by one person. The point of flagging images is to purge low-quality art and thereby improve Danbooru. Flagging images just to spite the uploader doesn't benefit us at all.
Well, Danbooru is supposed to be a re-upload page, or did I get that wrong? So if an artist decides to upload their own work, then they should be aware of that. If someone else really would be interested, then they would 1. either appeal said post 2. or it could be uploaded by that person. A deletion is not like the post is lost forever, nor is flagging saying that the post is going to be deleted. It can still be undeleted or approved, but because of reasons mentioned above, the approver should be aware of 2 things: 1. To put higher scrutiny and 2. be aware that it is an easy target of flags.
If we really lose something when we simply don't approve or flag it, is doubtful.
As for the flags themselves: If I see something like this, I try to write a short keyword why the post looks off. Or if I approved it accidentally (that happens sometimes ;_;), I flag it and demand a second quality check if I think that there is something off. Not only posts from self-uploader.
This specific flag...I think it's still ok. Self-uploader should like I said not upload here in the first place.
So it's not really a hard-ban for those posts, but something like nude filter: An easy target. An explanation would be nice, but this text only tells me that I should be more aware of what I approve.
Provence said:
If the flaw is too big, it is getting deleted.
The fault is not by the flagger if a post then gets deleted, but by the uploader.
If it was approved before, but it was flagged afterwards (and deleted), then the Janitor is also at fault.
If the post gets re-approved again, then the flagger is at fault.
That kind of mentality of "blame and fault" is why there's so much salt surrounding flagging in the first place.
As long as no vandalism is taking palce, like people uploading/approving mspaint doodles or making dumb flags such as the one from the thread's start, then no one is at fault for anything.
Uploading or criticizing borderline quality art shouldn't be grounds to burn people at the stake.
Hoobajoob said:
That kind of mentality of "blame and fault" is why there's so much salt surrounding flagging in the first place.
As long as no vandalism is taking palce, like people uploading/approving mspaint doodles or making dumb flags such as the one from the thread's start, then no one is at fault for anything.
Uploading or criticizing borderline quality art shouldn't be grounds to burn people at the stake.
Well, "flags" are a tool for quality control. If one user accumulates too many flagged and then deleted posts, then this is a reason to discuss a bit about the user, especially if it's a Contributor. Of course not in public.
But from my flagging experience, Contributors are doing a good job, even if some posts are getting deleted from them. That happens over some time that one post from the uploads gets flagged and deleted. But that's not severe.
I try to write my flags as differentiated as possible. That works sometimes better or worse, since sometimes I'm missing sometimes the correct grammar or words. Might look nitpicky if there are many points in the flag, but it helps to evaluate the flags better and why they have been written and the uploader knows better what to look out for in the future.
Just saw that one is linked to howto:flag if one looks at a flag reason.
"This post was flagged for review (learn more ):"
Don't know when it was implemented, but that is definitely good :).
Updated
Kikimaru said:
The "anatomy" flagger(s) seem to be quite petty IMO.
I wouldn't say "petty", but more of trying to apply arbitrary standards of what is "good anatomy" very aggressively, to the point that it does come off as nitpicking.
Provence said:
Well, "flags" are a tool for quality control. If one user accumulates too many flagged and then deleted posts, then this is a reason to discuss a bit about the user, especially if it's a Contributor. Of course not in public.
I'm assuming this is not an official stance? If it isn't, not sure that I'd want it to be.
NCAA_Gundam said:
I'm assuming this is not an official stance? If it isn't, not sure that I'd want it to be.
Why wouldn't it be? A Contributor has unmoderated upload capability because they've proven that their uploads are consistently of a high quality. If they then start uploading junk, they shouldn't expect to keep said capability.