Posted under Bugs & Features
FWIW, I originally proposed in forum #130737 to use IQDB to validate that the image being replaced at least matches the current image in similarity.
As for myself, I don't want to wake up one morning and find that all images have been replaced by goat.se...
RaisingK said:
Perhaps make a separate "can replace posts" permission?
That would be better than just giving all approvers cart blanche at replacing posts, since as Mikaeri mentioned, some approvers are chosen at random...
FWIW, I originally proposed in forum #130737 to use IQDB to validate that the image being replaced at least matches the current image in similarity.
This would stop malicious replacements but things like revisions or Twitter -> Pixiv replacements would still pass this check.
RaisingK said:
Perhaps make a separate "can replace posts" permission?
It's less a hassle to implement than it is to manage. If we go down this road until everyone has five or ten separate permissions for different things, it will become difficult to track just who can do what.
It also raises questions of who will give out these permissions (currently only one mod promotes anyone at all), and who should be chosen. Or to put it another way: which approvers should not be chosen, and how can we trust them with anything if we can't trust them with this simple job?
To be honest I think we should just give RaisingK and BrokenEagle mod accounts for their bots and let them automate replacements, assuming they are so inclined.
^I can't speak for RaisingK, but the idea of letting an automated script do the replacements makes me leery. I trust it enough to do tagging, commenting, and updating since those are relatively benign activities and easily reversed. IMHO replacements should always be manual and visually verified, and doing that just myself would burn me out... :/
The only image samples I'm concerned with are pixiv samples, and automatically verifying those is straightforward enough. I've incorporated replacements into my daily scans, and everything looks good so far.
RaisingK said:
The only image samples I'm concerned with are pixiv samples, and automatically verifying those is straightforward enough. I've incorporated replacements into my daily scans, and everything looks good so far.
@RaisingK Out of curiosity, will you be making automated messages to users that have uploaded these pixiv samples, so that next time they won't do it again? Much like the pixiv source fixing messages.
I ask this because although it's good there's the grace of replacing image samples for newbie contributors, uploading samples shouldn't become a regular habit for them. That means emphasizing using the bookmarklet or putting in the direct image link to the upload page.
What should be done with replacing E-Hentai samples such as post #2745826? I do not believe you can upload the full-sized image via the source.
EB said:
What should be done with replacing E-Hentai samples such as post #2745826? I do not believe you can upload the full-sized image via the source.
Well at the very least we should tag those posts so in the future we can easily identify them. There are a lot of barriers to using a script to use them but users with the knowledge could definitely tag them as they come across them.
Would it be possible to increase the maximum file size?
Edit: or perhaps I misunderstood, could you clarify what you mean?
His concern isn't about filesize -- just about the fact that EH doesn't allow you to easily provide the link to an image for booru to replace. Currently the solution is to find a mirror (such as on hitomi.la, confirm the file has the same md5), or upload the file somewhere else temporarily (catbox works, imgur works but strips metadata and does some extra funky shit, resizing/artifacts and the like, if you upload anonymously).
I believe it's on the backburner for the feature to include replacing images directly from your hard drive in the future.
Mikaeri said:
Currently the solution is to find a mirror (such as on hitomi.la, confirm the file has the same md5), or upload the file somewhere else temporarily (catbox works, imgur works but strips metadata and does some extra funky shit, resizing/artifacts and the like, if you upload anonymously).
I did figure there was going to be a need to use an alternative source if the replace function was going to be used at all. I'll be doing that if it's considered acceptable.
evazion said:
- Don't replace Twitter posts with Pixiv posts. Or at least don't do that unless we decide to (I don't think we should).
OK, it's probably better to discuss this now before it gets out of hand later.
I don't really see the reason to not replace images from different source if the sampled/resized image is being replaced with HQ/unmodified version this way. Granted, it should be double-checked if it isn't a revision, but that goes for all replacements. As I perceive it, the alternative is to upload the image from different source and parent it, right? I don't think it's a good way to handle this situation.
I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter.
Type-kun said:
OK, it's probably better to discuss this now before it gets out of hand later.
I don't really see the reason to not replace images from different source if the sampled/resized image is being replaced with HQ/unmodified version this way. Granted, it should be double-checked if it isn't a revision, but that goes for all replacements. As I perceive it, the alternative is to upload the image from different source and parent it, right? I don't think it's a good way to handle this situation.
I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter.
Been seeing a few approvers do this, not that it really bothers me (since there's less "duplicates" in the gallery) but I do understand why some people would be bothered as it isn't accurate to the nature of 'post replacement'. If I had to pick a side, I'd say I'm fine with it (just as long as again, the posts *must* be identical save for resolution/artifacting).
On the plus side we do get to keep messing up all the other booru's repost bots (which I admit, serves as a slight bit of entertainment).
I'm not really against it, it's just that replacing Twitter-to-Pixiv is less clear-cut than replacing image samples to originals. The past consensus was that Twitter uploads shouldn't be flagged or deleted when a superior version is uploaded from Pixiv. But replacements don't penalize uploaders the way deletions do, so that reasoning doesn't really apply any more.
I'm fine with using different sources as long as the replacement is not a revised image. But replacing from different image sources will make it more likely for an image to be accidentally/purposefully replaced with a revision instead.
To that I say, should there be some kind of two-man integrity check? People make mistakes, but it's much less likely when more than one individual is involved.
Another idea would be to do some kind of internal IQDB check before accepting the image. There could also be a manual override for that like there is with BURs, but DanbooruBot would notate that it was overridden in the replacement comment so that others could doublecheck the image. Either way, it would also be nice to add any similarity data available (89%, 97%, etc) to the comment as well.
+1 to cross source replacements and +1 to some sort of two person verification.
Also this change would significantly change how uploading works given people scan for Twitter posts to child to their Pixiv version. We will need a site-wide notice/banner about this informing users to use the replaceme tag or the forum (preferred personally) instead of uploading.
Though it's unfortunate that egos get in the way of optimal organization of the site, I think we should consider when making this decision that people like having their names on uploads. I wouldn't want to lose a better version from pixiv because someone doesn't bother because they won't get their name on it. We might want to have some way for people to get "credit" for finding a better version of an existing post.
