Posted under General
Apollyon said:
...if noise gets made, people will find and go to it.
Some of the noisiest users I can think of seem to have a thing for regularly trawling status:flagged. Border color means nothing in this case. If you want to make flags invisible, you have to be willing to go all the way or not do it at all.
in my view, if someone is going to go out of their way to get mad at things then it isn't really productive to try and limit them.
I think flags being visible is fine, even if it is contentious. I don't really intend this as a fix for anything regarding community drama but I do feel that there is something counter-productive to having an image flagged, approved, re-flagged and re-approved all within ten minutes.
The borders being red is fine, its a good contrast to the blue of pending images and its clearly different from parent/child posts. While the occasional image with a red border-design does throw me off, I think people's reaction to the color is associative and regardless of what its changed to, its going to be for flagging and this whole thing begins anew.
It's not the border colour of flags that people take are the issue with.
It's the reasons behind these flags.
Red border or not, if someone disagrees with the flag reason, they'll contest it. Making it blue or any other colour will just confuse people.
If the colour must be changed, don't use a colour that's already taken.
The color of the border's just fine. Like Squishy said, it's the reason. Nobody's gonna vent hard if the image is flagged for being a sample but they'll vent otherwise unless you got some user going "No" in all of their flags.
I do think a cooldown for like at least six hours of nobody being able to flag a post that has just been reapproved after being flagged is a nice idea. Gives approvers and mods time to deal with other things.
If you're not an approver, there's nothing you can do about flags. If you can't do anything about flags, there's no purpose in calling your attention to them. It does nothing but encourage people to come in and complain. We don't need people rushing in to debate every flag any more than we need people debating every deletion in the deletion appeals thread.
Saladofstones said:
I think flags being visible is fine, even if it is contentious. I don't really intend this as a fix for anything regarding community drama but I do feel that there is something counter-productive to having an image flagged, approved, re-flagged and re-approved all within ten minutes.
I feel like we're looking at this from the wrong angle as well.
When we have a small approvals team, users get upset because "good" images get "missed" in the queue. I question whether that's a case of over-worked approvers or a higher standard of approval, but in any case we now have a larger approvals team with much wider ideals of quality and style. Lower quality images are being approved. More images are being flagged for lower quality. More flags always means more arguments. All it takes is two approvers to completely nullify the flagging system, and they're more likely not to be stopped because demotions are such a drama magnet.
If you want flags to stick long enough for opinions to be heard and for more than one or two opinions to actually matter, we need to move away from one approval vote overturning an unlimited number of disapprovals. However, requiring a majority of approvers to vote positively on an image means that essentially nothing is going to get approved. I don't have a solution.
Updated
evazion said:
If you're not an approver, there's nothing you can do about flags. If you can't do anything about flags, there's no purpose in calling your attention to them. It does nothing but encourage people to come in and complain. We don't need people rushing in to debate every flag any more than we need people debating every deletion in the deletion appeals thread.
Why shouldn't people get a chance to debate flags and appeal flagged images? Flaggers don't have a monopoly on knowing what does and doesn't belong on the site. Once again you're assuming that users who flag always do the right thing, while those who dispute flags only "complain". Furthermore, in some cases there are factual errors in flag reasons that other users can point out, like on post #2534498.
OOZ662 said:
If you want flags to stick long enough for opinions to be heard and for more than one or two opinions to actually matter, we need to move away from one approval vote overturning an unlimited number of disapprovals. However, requiring a majority of approvers to vote positively on an image means that essentially nothing is going to get approved. I don't have a solution.
And what is the actual problem, again, other than some users getting really annoyed when they can't delete any and everything they dislike? I never got a straight answer when I asked that question in forum #125379 and my other posts in topic #13177.
Well, hiding the posts won't do anything good.
If people really want to rampage, then they should. If someone should really overstep the rules, then it is in their responsibility as a user. I mean, above the flag reason, the wiki page howto:comment is linked.
Well, looks like I'm pretty alone on my stance then :<.
Flopsy said:
And what is the actual problem, again, other than some users getting really annoyed when they can't delete any and everything they dislike? I never got a straight answer when I asked that question in forum #125379 and my other posts in topic #13177.
The undermining of one of the basic tenets of the site, I suppose.
OOZ662 said:
The undermining of one of the basic tenets of the site, I suppose.
I'll assume that you're referring to the "high-quality" part of the definition at help:home. The key point I tried to make in forum #125379 is that quality is not an objective property of artwork (although it has objective aspects), and the distinction between "high enough" and "too low" quality is even less objective. What is high quality to one person is low quality to another. That's why I favor an inclusive approval policy on Danbooru. The quality bar should be set high enough to make personalized post filters and searches effective, and no higher. Then every user can find the art they want and have no reason to complain about (or flag) the art they don't want. Doing that is like being upset about other people eating fish because you think fish is gross.
Albert already merged the patches I sent so it's going out in the next update regardless. issue #3027, issue #3028.
So even builders like me will see flags as blue now? That I do not agree with. Like others have said, it won't really change anything and once certain people find flagged posts through status:flagged or whatever, noise will be made and the Comments section of this website will show it.
And this leads me to ask this question, are there Builders out there that are very vocal about the flags they get?
Updated
tapnek said:
And this leads me to ask this question, are there Builders out there that are very vocal about the flags they get?
Do you really expect some names with this question?
But still, I'm rather curious if this will change something. I'm pretty convinced that it will. If a user is searching via status:flagged, then they don't really care about the color anyway. It can be yellow, pale liliac or whatever color you like, even red or no border at all. One can also assume that such people just want to make an uproar because it's fun.
This is more intented for recent flags or if you only search and stumble over a blue-colored post in the future. It pretty much awakes curiosity and not aggression; it just doesn't stand out that much since there are also other posts that are blue-framed, too.
If the theory will stand up: Hopefully, but it isn't guaranteed. But to just say that it won't help at all might be naive.
In the meantime, maybe reading howto:comment will help, too. It gets simply ignored most of the time, but one can't write everything into the comment, like "flagging => autism".
Updated
This has been bounced back and forth in the queue about 3 times now.
Quite frankly this is getting ridiculous. I understand that we wish to keep high quality art but the fervor behind removing images that have minor flaws has me scratching my head.
