Provence said:

You are more or less suggesting 2 things:
1. Stop flagging
2. Stop deleting posts (i.e. more or less no quality control and only for the "really, really awful posts).
You gotta run into problems there.

Yes, to stop flagging posts is basically what I'm suggesting. Flagging does not help this site achieve its purpose, which is to make art conveniently available to users. This is not the same thing as abolishing quality control altogether, because each post still has to be either approved or uploaded by a trusted user.

That said, there is in fact a third category of images that I'm not against deleting. Sample images for which a full version has been uploaded contribute nothing to the site, and their uploaders could easily have uploaded the full version instead of the sample.

Provence said:

Anyway, the point is that "low quality" (see Flopsy's last paragraph) is very subjective and this image falls in my book under "mediocre quality".

I agree that there is a lot of subjectivity in quality assessment. I disagree strongly, however, with your approach to it, Provence. You go about it in a maximalist way, flagging any post that subjectively, in your book, isn't very good. Consider what would happen if every user did this, as is their right. Only the posts that no users (that weren't overruled by a greater number of approvers) disliked would remain. How is this a good thing?

You see, when I encounter popular posts that I don't fancy (like post #2591203, post #1433643, post #2165918 and post #534256), I accept that other people like it and move on. It's about showing respect for other people's tastes and judgment, instead of using the full extent of your powers to impose your standards in every situation. In your quoted post I'm detecting the same imperious attitude that apparently led to your recent neutral record from NWF Renim.

I recognize that you have contributed a great deal to Danbooru since you came here, far more than I have. I also recognize that you are not the only one flagging posts. Nevertheless, I ask you to consider that with great influence comes great responsibility. Practical freedom requires enforcement of rules, but rules and enforcement should not be treated as ends in themselves. If looser quality control makes many people happier and harms only the intolerant, then quality control should be loosened.

Flopsy said:

Yes, to stop flagging posts is basically what I'm suggesting. Flagging does not help this site achieve its purpose, which is to make art conveniently available to users. This is not the same thing as abolishing quality control altogether, because each post still has to be either approved or uploaded by a trusted user.

I really don't think is a good idea. Maybe set a harder limit on users that flag images that are eventually reapproved, sure... but no contributor or janitor is exempt from uploading or approving something bad every so once in a while that deserves a second look at. As for what "purpose" this site fills seems largely up to each and every user, and as it stands the status quo is that this is an imageboard focused on generally 'high quality' artwork. But it is true we do tag vehemently, better and much more so than any other imageboards of the like.

Consider what would happen if every user did this, as is their right. Only the posts that no users (that weren't overruled by a greater number of approvers) disliked would remain. How is this a good thing?

This isn't what happens though... if every user did this as is their right, and of course did it in accordance to the rules, then it's fine. We cross that bridge when we have to. And you're mistaking something about Provence -- certainly they seem to look near and far aggressively in flagging, but they don't flag out of personal taste, they flag out of quality. And that, given, can and will be a subjective measure that can largely vary between each and every user. But there is some objective standard to it.

The posts you listed are of objectively good quality. You may not like them, but you can't refute that bodily proportions and anatomy that is correct, skillful shading, clean lines, etc contribute greatly to an artwork's artistic merit. Debate the style however you like, but that's just the way it goes, and most normal users (myself included) have a fondness for that.

The problem I have with that is that some posts need to be flagged. Sometimes, it is older posts and sometimes not, like post #2588762 or post #35894.
Even trusted user "Contributors" make mistakes and also do Approvers (some of them were demoted because they approved too many bad posts). And that is only working with flagging. Off course you could expect that every post such a user is uploading/approving is good quality, but that is a bit naive. So if that is the reason to purge the flagging tool, then I don't see how this is vandalism :P.

And no, I don't go out flagging posts that are subjectively bad. Off course there are not "succesfull" flags from me, but that is ok.
You know what would be blstant vandalism? If I'd go out and continue flagging for the same reasons, although other posts with the same reason are already approved. That's why one should only flag some posts at a time and that's probably why it is capped with 10 posts for non-approving users. So they can't flag 100 posts at any time and that could make some damage.
I, as a Janitor. could flag those 100 posts if I want, but there is simply no point in it.

So..flagging doesn't hurt Danbooru at all if it is done with responsibility. And that also means to stop if too many posts with a specific flag reason are re-approved.
It would hurt Danbooru more if there are too many bad posts that are approved by Janitors or uploaded by Contributors, but there is no flagging tool to mark these posts.

Flopsy said:

Flagging does not help this site achieve its purpose, which is to make art conveniently available to users.

It seems you're confusing Danbooru for Gelbooru; Danbooru's purpose is to be a filtered gallery of high-quality artwork. Now, because the definition of high-quality varies from person to person you can ALWAYS find someone arguing the validity of some post somewhere. The only real option is to have multiple approvers with various tastes. I, for one, would not have approved any of those earlier linked posts except perhaps the Zelda one because, outside of comics, I strive for anatomical realism, high detail lacking in unfinished looking pieces, and have scat/mutilation tags blacklisted.

Approvers/contributors serve as positive checks... flaggers serve as negative checks. Both serve an important function. Both sides can make mistakes, which is why the other side exists as a check to compensate for those mistakes.

BrokenEagle98 said:

Approvers/contributors serve as positive checks... flaggers serve as negative checks. Both serve an important function. Both sides can make mistakes, which is why the other side exists as a check to compensate for those mistakes.

Yes.
And if someone on the other side makes too many mistakes ( mistakes if the person doesn't learn), then there is the tool of bans, demotion etc.

I'll respond to a couple of specific things in your replies first, then begin my long explanation of how I understand Quality and why I don't think flagging serves any constructive purpose.

Mikaeri said:

I really don't think is a good idea. Maybe set a harder limit on users that flag images that are eventually reapproved, sure... but no contributor or janitor is exempt from uploading or approving something bad every so once in a while that deserves a second look at. As for what "purpose" this site fills seems largely up to each and every user, and as it stands the status quo is that this is an imageboard focused on generally 'high quality' artwork. But it is true we do tag vehemently, better and much more so than any other imageboards of the like.

Everyone has their individual reasons for being active on Danbooru, of course. I still believe that it is meaningful to talk about what is good for the users in general. The art on this site often delights and inspires me, and I would like it do to the same for other people.

OOZ662 said:

It seems you're confusing Danbooru for Gelbooru; Danbooru's purpose is to be a filtered gallery of high-quality artwork. Now, because the definition of high-quality varies from person to person you can ALWAYS find someone arguing the validity of some post somewhere. The only real option is to have multiple approvers with various tastes. I, for one, would not have approved any of those earlier linked posts except perhaps the Zelda one because, outside of comics, I strive for anatomical realism, high detail lacking in unfinished looking pieces, and have scat/mutilation tags blacklisted.

I agree completely about the value of multiple approvers. I'm not saying that you or anyone else should have to approve posts they dislike. My point is that flagging undoes the beneficial effects of multiple approvers, by pressuring them to adopt the flagger's standards or face censure and potential demotion.

On Quality and Flagging, by Flopsy

• There is a way to objectively rate the Quality of posts.
• It is very important that posts of too low Quality are not made available on Danbooru.
• Flagging helps keep posts of too low Quality off Danbooru.

Those are the key assertions you are making, as I understand them. I have encountered similar statements from other users before (e.g. in topic #11877 and topic #11667).

Let's start with the notion of Quality, how good a post is. I certainly do not believe that all posts are equally good. So what makes a post good? There is skill and there is effort. What is skill? It might be defined as one's ability to do something the way one intended, not just the way it turns out. A picture can be drawn with great effort but little skill, or with great skill but little effort. Is Quality the product of skill and effort, or the sum? I'd say skill matters more than effort. I could spend ten diligent hours on a picture that looked awful, while a skilled artist could create a simple but beautiful sketch in ten minutes.

Is Quality only a matter of skill and effort? Probably not, since Danbooru isn't full of expertly painted vegetables. Appeal reasons used to mention "artistic merit" quite often, what is that? What gives a picture merit? What is a picture for? Since all one does with a picture is look at it, it must be the effect on the viewer that matters. Those vegetable pictures are disfavored because they are pointless, they don't speak to us. A good picture is meaningful, conveying a valuable idea or mood. Meaning is conveyed by content and style, the what and how of the artwork.

The problem is that pictures don't speak in the same way to all people. Artistic merit ultimately lies in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, the skill and effort that went into a picture are usually visible, even to a disinterested observer. That a picture has specific content and employs a specific style is also detectable. You may hate the picture, but you have to admit that there is something to it.

So that's Quality, as objective as it gets. Skill and effort are employed to draw the subject matter in a certain style, and how much the result appeals to you depends on who you are. I'll move on to the second assertion, that is, the importance of not allowing low-Quality posts on Danbooru. What actual harm do low-Quality posts do? The obvious issue is the one of dilution. If the great majority of posts are lousy, or just irrelevant, then there's a lot of chaff to wade through to find the wheat.

The thing about the dilution issue is that it is inherently subjective. We all have our personal Quality line, separating the pictures we want to look at from the rest. If a picture has very appealing content, we may be willing to forgive its technical flaws, and vice versa. How does this apply to Danbooru, with its thousands of users? It becomes a matter of tolerance. Either we accept a certain percentage of unappealing posts, knowing that other users appreciate them, or we come down hard on anything we find lacking, hoping to discipline and whittle down the uploader population until only those who are closely aligned with our own views remain.

That's the importance of quality control. Minimizing the filtering effort required to find the good stuff. So what about flagging, then? The idea of using flags to align the site's acceptance criteria with our own does makes some sense, from a narrowly egoistical perspective. On the other hand, it makes us spend effort on conflict instead of enjoyment, it exposes us to the risk of ending up on the losing side, it deprives us of fresh experiences and it reduces the overall usefulness of the site, since it now only caters to a narrow range of tastes. Right now there is no flood (defined as something approaching 50%) of highly unorthodox posts on Danbooru, and there never has been, so I don't think flagging to prevent dilution is reasonably justified.

But there is no selfish flagging going on here, of course. It's all done to maintain objective Quality, for the greater good. Is that so? That makes no sense. A skillfully drawn picture flagged for being nasty (post #2066847), is that objective? Another skillfully drawn picture, flagged for the "wrong" kind of exaggeration (post #1790227)? Yet another, flagged because in someone's opinion, the legs are not sufficiently distinct (post #2523065)?

Even if we were to assume that flags were (almost) always based on some combination of artistic skill and effort, it still doesn't make sense. What's the point of keeping a technically superior picture that nobody likes? Why delete a technically flawed picture that many users appreciate? How does one objectively set the bar below which a picture is "too bad" to stay on Danbooru?

The conclusion? I'm not buying the idea of objective, beneficial flagging. Either posts are flagged to push out pictures that the flagger doesn't like or they are flagged to indulge the flagger's self-importance or need for control. Or perhaps it's a mix of those motives. The flaggers themselves might not think of it that way. In any case, it is selfish and destructive. It promotes conformity through implicit threats.

"On the other hand, it makes us spend effort on conflict instead of enjoyment"

A pretty critical sentence with which I can only disagree: If you are hurt by a a picture, then it is you who is starting the argument. The flag does not attack anyone, but according to this statement, it does. And that is a misconception, but not because of the flaggers. The people who are complaining then don't see the other side of the coin which is that some people think that it doesn't belong to this site. Why it doesn't belong is wrote down in the flag reason.
Or short: A flag waits to be resolved. If only one of the people who are judging the posts quality think that it belongs to the page, then it is approved. It's as simply as that. No need to make some fuss over one post and that's why one should argue against the flag reason (but in an acceptable way howto:commenthowto:flag and not against the flag per se. That is also tolerance you have mentioned.

"My point is that flagging undoes the beneficial effects of multiple approvers, by pressuring them to adopt the flagger's standards or face censure and potential demotion."
That is another misconception.
If you think of Flaggers as Criminals and the Approver as Judges, then that means that the Judge should adapt to the Criminals instead of the Law.
So, enought bad comparisons, since Flaggers are not Criminals.
The point is that if you have too many bad flags, then that could mean you are getting a bad feedback or a ban. Depending on how severe it is. Approvers don't have to adapt if the flags are not succesful.
Or you can also how I look at this via this feedback to Not One Of Us.
It comes from this point: They are an Approver and if a post really belongs to this site, then there should always be at least one Janitor who can step in, even if Not One Of Us approved posts no one approved before. It means a posts gained trust, but if the Approver isn't trusted in their decision enough, then this happens.
So to say: Approvers (and Contributors) don't have to adapt to the flagging if the flagging is not succesful.

Flopsy said:

My point is that flagging undoes the beneficial effects of multiple approvers, by pressuring them to adopt the flagger's standards or face censure and potential demotion.

I'll echo Provence's thoughts here and say this is simply not true at all. Approvers don't have to adopt anything, because they're free to approve a flagged picture with no consequences if they judge it deserves an approval - in essence, they're the ones who set the "lowest" standard of the website by what they choose to approve or not. They are, from what I can see, not at risk of anything, unless they repeatedly approve low quality art in large quantities that ends up being flagged and subsequently not approved by anyone else. That means that this particular approver's vision of quality differed from the majority (including the standard users, who may have flagged his posts) and thus he is unfit to fulfill his role.

It's almost as if people get triggered by the "Flag" part. It is not an attack on the up-loader. Grant it some flags I've seen are worded in a rather crude way or straight up trolling. Maybe, a quality check ping (or sorts) can be added and leave the "Flag" for images that are against ToS?

daniel95312 said:

It's almost as if people get triggered by the "Flag" part. It is not an attack on the up-loader. Grant it some flags I've seen are worded in a rather crude way or straight up trolling. Maybe, a quality check ping (or sorts) can be added and leave the "Flag" for images that are against ToS?

I like the idea (a 'review' link to replace Flag in most circumstances), but will it fly when Flag has been established here since nearly the beginning?

I've been busy elsewhere for a few days, but there's some things in the latest replies that I want to respond to. Specifically, I want to point out that this isn't about A's taste vs. B's taste, but about A declaring that their taste is the correct one and should be the only one allowed here.

Provence said:

"On the other hand, it makes us spend effort on conflict instead of enjoyment"

A pretty critical sentence with which I can only disagree: If you are hurt by a a picture, then it is you who is starting the argument. The flag does not attack anyone, but according to this statement, it does. And that is a misconception, but not because of the flaggers. The people who are complaining then don't see the other side of the coin which is that some people think that it doesn't belong to this site. Why it doesn't belong is wrote down in the flag reason.
Or short: A flag waits to be resolved. If only one of the people who are judging the posts quality think that it belongs to the page, then it is approved. It's as simply as that. No need to make some fuss over one post and that's why one should argue against the flag reason (but in an acceptable way howto:commenthowto:flag and not against the flag per se. That is also tolerance you have mentioned.

Emphasis mine. The idea that the will of one user who doesn't want a picture on the site is more valid than those of all the users who want it on the site, including the original uploader and approver, is just not reasonable. Many of the flagged posts I have appealed have more than a dozen favs and upvotes (e.g. post #1489439, post #2526675, post #2534498, post #2348459, post #2430440, post #1395265). When posts are deleted, or never uploaded in the first place, then the users who want to see them are substantially disadvantaged. When posts are uploaded and not deleted, the only thing the users who do NOT want to see those pictures need to do is look at something else. It may be only one post that gets deleted, but it's also only one post to tolerate and leave alone.

This is a principle that applies to life in general, not just Danbooru. We're all stuck in this universe together. What other people do will always affect us to some extent. If we learn to accept that other people like things we don't and that's OK, then we can focus on doing things we like instead of wasting energy on trying to prevent other people from doing what they want, or defending ourselves from such attempts. Don't talk about tolerance when you're trying to justify an open-ended pressure campaign to get rid of anything and everything you've solipsistically decided "doesn't belong". Let people do their own thing as long as they let you do yours. Refine, expand or just keep your personal notion of Quality to yourself.

Provence said:

It comes from this point: They are an Approver and if a post really belongs to this site, then there should always be at least one Janitor who can step in, even if Not One Of Us approved posts no one approved before. It means a posts gained trust, but if the Approver isn't trusted in their decision enough, then this happens.
So to say: Approvers (and Contributors) don't have to adapt to the flagging if the flagging is not succesful.

Flandre5carlet said:

I'll echo Provence's thoughts here and say this is simply not true at all. Approvers don't have to adopt anything, because they're free to approve a flagged picture with no consequences if they judge it deserves an approval - in essence, they're the ones who set the "lowest" standard of the website by what they choose to approve or not. They are, from what I can see, not at risk of anything, unless they repeatedly approve low quality art in large quantities that ends up being flagged and subsequently not approved by anyone else. That means that this particular approver's vision of quality differed from the majority (including the standard users, who may have flagged his posts) and thus he is unfit to fulfill his role.

You're effectively saying that approvers should only approve posts that would be approved by at least one other approver. Why, exactly? It's just more counterproductive (or selfish and narrow-minded) bar-raising.

daniel95312 said:

It's almost as if people get triggered by the "Flag" part. It is not an attack on the up-loader. Grant it some flags I've seen are worded in a rather crude way or straight up trolling. Maybe, a quality check ping (or sorts) can be added and leave the "Flag" for images that are against ToS?

I don't know about other people, but in my case it doesn't matter what it's called. Giving every single user a three-day delayed veto on posts, one that is used to trigger demotions and can only be overruled by approvers, is a bad, destructive policy under any name.

Just for the record, Provence requested a self-ban several days ago, so they can't respond to this for a few months (if they'll bother responding, anyway).

Anyways, aren't you just being selfish? You're yammering about this great ideal that everyone should be able to tolerate each other's preference for art, but not everyone wants it the way you do. If they did, the site would fail to keep its' most loyal users.

When posts are deleted, that means no approver found it worth keeping. That's it. No more, no less. They're lenient to some extent, but as it stands there's a lot more amateur art than good art out there. If we just accepted everything that came our way regardless of quality (excluding things that violate ToS) then it would dilute the already small pool of art that some picky users just like.

You're effectively saying that approvers should only approve posts that would be approved by at least one other approver. Why, exactly? It's just more counterproductive (or selfish and narrow-minded) bar-raising.

And that's exactly what happens. You know of NOOU -- he lost approval privileges. Although many of his approvals were acceptable, the rest of them were unacceptable -- duplicates, samples, very poor quality... Take a look at his feedback. An approver should account the site's bar of quality -- it's right that if their approvals are consequently flagged and not reapproved by someone else, then it should stay deleted. That's just how it works. We're not talking about niche fetishes, samples, or images that violate TOS, either.

I don't know about other people, but in my case it doesn't matter what it's called. Giving every single user a three-day delayed veto on posts, one that is used to trigger demotions and can only be overruled by approvers, is a bad, destructive policy under any name.

One that for basic members can only use once a day (Gold+ with 10)? Also, where's this 'trigger demotions' thing come out from? If an approver gets demoted, then it's probably because the posts that they approve that were subsequently deleted were of poor quality or they failed to realize something else (LQ or altered variation of an existing image with no source, cropped/thumbnail, etc).

It's not as destructive as you make it sound. Yes, there are stupid flags and the like but we're still here. We haven't gone anywhere. I'm thinking that you want Gelbooru when it already exists. They have everything here, and then some.

I'm not completely against you. I've had stupid flags on my posts before. Well, just one (and it was abiding to ToS anyway). But I just think you should be more considerate of the others arguing against your case. Flagging for quality is in no way "vandalism", it's just a QC. Flagging for other bad reasons (vetting out an artstyle/fetish, for example) is what I think you could be getting at, but you shouldn't mix up the two.

On that note, I think that members are the most fervent abusers of the flagging system given even when it's only one a day, because they poorly understand what a flag should be for. The flag against the post I mentioned was "off-topic, low quality post" despite it being anything but off-topic, and anything but low quality because there's no metric for 'quality' on a text-only page aside from the text itself. It was part of a pool.

And to add to that, I do have a slight qualm given that flagger usernames are limited to only be seen by Mod+, and I think such a privilege should be Builder+. I assume this is for anti-bandwagoning purposes, but Builders should know not to bandwagon against a user anyway. That way, the members that are doing this sort of "shitty flagging" can be at least warned by someone acceptably higher up the rung.

Flopsy said:

Specifically, I want to point out that this isn't about A's taste vs. B's taste, but about A declaring that their taste is the correct one and should be the only one allowed here.

It seems to me that you're the one doing this.

Your main point is that you want to overturn danbooru's quality standards that have been built up over a decade and by hundreds of people just to suit your tastes.

You seem to believe that there's nothing wrong with allowing pictures of any kind of the site and that it's wrong to disallow anything. That's fundamental wrong and you've completely misunderstood the point of danbooru. Danbooru is a community driven repository of high quality anime style art, so it absolutely needs a system of checks and balances that everyone can be a part of to ensure that mission.

Removing that system only serves a malicious minority that want to silence the rest of the community for their selfish goal of turning danbooru into their personal favorites folder.

Can someone check who's flagged post #2595148, post #2595149, and post #2595142? They all seem to have this "leisure suit larry" comment in the flag reason, and these posts were eventually reapproved anyway. Sounds to me like someone's vetting against a particular artstyle.

Mikaeri said:

Can someone check who's flagged post #2595148, post #2595149, and post #2595142? They all seem to have this "leisure suit larry" comment in the flag reason, and these posts were eventually reapproved anyway. Sounds to me like someone's vetting against a particular artstyle.

Not my style of art, but the :3 Chen has was more common in the early to mid 80s. That does look like a piss-poor reason to flag, especially as the rest of the picture has no issues... and the artist has a good grasp of an older style of manga art.

Mikaeri said:

Anyways, aren't you just being selfish? You're yammering about this great ideal that everyone should be able to tolerate each other's preference for art, but not everyone wants it the way you do. If they did, the site would fail to keep its' most loyal users.

Of course I'm arguing in favor of my own ideals. I would be silly of me (or you) to argue someone else's case. The debate is about whose ideal is the best one, not about who is and isn't speaking their own mind.

When posts are deleted, that means no approver found it worth keeping. That's it. No more, no less. They're lenient to some extent, but as it stands there's a lot more amateur art than good art out there. If we just accepted everything that came our way regardless of quality (excluding things that violate ToS) then it would dilute the already small pool of art that some picky users just like.

Or the flaggers managed to deplete the pool of approvers who found it worth keeping. My position from the start has been that those "picky users" are granting themselves standard-setting privileges at other people's expense, and that is shitty behavior. I stand by that.

And that's exactly what happens. You know of NOOU -- he lost approval privileges. Although many of his approvals were acceptable, the rest of them were unacceptable -- duplicates, samples, very poor quality... Take a look at his feedback. An approver should account the site's bar of quality -- it's right that if their approvals are consequently flagged and not reapproved by someone else, then it should stay deleted. That's just how it works. We're not talking about niche fetishes, samples, or images that violate TOS, either.

Not everything NOOU approved was great (in MY personal opinion). Not everything other approvers approve is great. It's no big deal (I checked at one point, and NOOU was only responsible for about 7% of approvals), except to the OCD brigade.

It's not as destructive as you make it sound. Yes, there are stupid flags and the like but we're still here. We haven't gone anywhere. I'm thinking that you want Gelbooru when it already exists. They have everything here, and then some.

I agree that the way flagging is done right now doesn't constitute a major crisis. I still think it's sad and I'm trying to promote a more positive mentality. Tolerant QC alone does not make a site good. Gelbooru relies on Danbooru for much of its content and is full of intrusive ads.

I'm not completely against you. I've had stupid flags on my posts before. Well, just one (and it was abiding to ToS anyway). But I just think you should be more considerate of the others arguing against your case. Flagging for quality is in no way "vandalism", it's just a QC. Flagging for other bad reasons (vetting out an artstyle/fetish, for example) is what I think you could be getting at, but you shouldn't mix up the two.

I've never used the term vandalism. I posted in this thread because the debate was happening here. Flagging for technical quality is less silly than flagging for style, but still arbitrary and destructive.

Hoobajoob said:

It seems to me that you're the one doing this.

Your main point is that you want to overturn danbooru's quality standards that have been built up over a decade and by hundreds of people just to suit your tastes.

Which all-important quality standards? Why are they so important? Where are they documented? Who are these "hundreds of people"? Why do they matter more than the rest of us? I'm definitely not trying to enforce my personal tastes. There are only perhaps two or three in a hundred posts here that I'd save, or even look at. Many if not most flagged posts I personally wouldn't miss for a second.

You seem to believe that there's nothing wrong with allowing pictures of any kind of the site and that it's wrong to disallow anything. That's fundamental wrong and you've completely misunderstood the point of danbooru. Danbooru is a community driven repository of high quality anime style art, so it absolutely needs a system of checks and balances that everyone can be a part of to ensure that mission.

I already mentioned that I'm not against deleting posts that are completely artless, wildly off-topic or redundant samples. Any QC that's stricter than that is pointlessly excluding content that is clearly in demand, IMO. The filters and search tools are there to help us find what we're here for among all the other garbage.

Removing that system only serves a malicious minority that want to silence the rest of the community for their selfish goal of turning danbooru into their personal favorites folder.

So, letting everyone enjoy well-annotated art in peace is malicious? That's a strange definition of malice. And by promoting diversity of content and mutual tolerance for differences in taste and standards, I'm turning Danbooru into my personal favorites folder? That's a large favorites folder.

Flopsy said:

Or the flaggers managed to deplete the pool of approvers who found it worth keeping. My position from the start has been that those "picky users" are granting themselves standard-setting privileges at other people's expense, and that is shitty behavior. I stand by that.

In all these years Danbooru has existed, I have yet to see more than a single case of high quality art being repeatedly flagged over and over until there are no more approvers to approve them, that single case being that particularly polarizing DOOM 2016 picture - and even then, it could be considered off-topic.

Gelbooru relies on Danbooru for much of its content and is full of intrusive ads. [...] Flagging for technical quality is [...] arbitrary and destructive. [...] Any QC that's stricter than [deleting posts completely artless, wildly off-topic or redundant samples] is pointlessly excluding content that is clearly in demand.

So then what do you want, Gelbooru without intrusive ads? You're free to make such a site or pitch in the idea to someone interested in doing so, I'm sure there's demand and interest for such considering it's not the first time I've heard people complain about Danbooru's standards while simultaneously complaining about Gelbooru and its ads. Or you can also contribute to Gelbooru and get rid of the ads that way.

Which all-important quality standards? Why are they so important?

Danbooru's quality standards. They are important because they are the whole basis of Danbooru.

This seems to be derailing from the more recent topic of flagging over what amounts to non-egregious bad anatomy (imo just because an image doesn't have perfectly sound anatomy doesn't mean it should be flagged, that should be reserved for really bad anatomy) to flagging and quality in general.

Just my two cents: I only support flagging very badly drawn images. However, everyone has a differently set bar for what amounts to 'very badly drawn' hence this topic. There obviously should be some limitations as to how much error there can be in an image before one should consider a flag; if images are flaggable on the strength of just their impossible back (As is a large portion of poses for the sake of the pose), then so are two left/right feet (cough cough Tony Taka xD).

But at the end of the day, setting any hard lower limit for deletion is impossible because everyone has different standards (I always argue that I'd make a terrible approver when asked, because my bar's fairly high)... Well, it IS possible if albert hardlines it, but that isn't his Modus Operandi to fracture the userbase like that.

post #2597026

Not mine. This is the 4th time the guy flags with that reason. It seems he completely hates chanta's art style. I mean, "Leisure Suit Larry faces" as flag reason? We are beauty experts now?