[New Feature] Post Replacements

☆♪ said:

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.

Only approvers can do it, and being an approver I think it's required you be altruistic to some extent. Twitter sourced uploads shouldn't be tagged replaceme and have their source replaced with a pixiv link. But if an approver does it on an older upload that users aren't likely to look back at, just so a superior version is available without having to make the twitter a duplicate, then I don't see that much of a problem.

There are a number of users keeping up with the forum being model uploaders though, that do exactly what you speak of: @iphn and @kudus definitely come to mind, and they might also have ideas about the whole thing. I would be in favor of having iphn be an approver, but I do understand his time has been somewhat brief as an uploader. Yet he clearly understands where to use replaceme and where to explicitly submit a superior version of an image.

I mention that because we still have lots of work to do, and any help to replace more images would be help much appreciated.

An approver has to do the actual replacement, but I assume we aren't putting the burden on them to find all replacements. Not just for old uploads, but for the future when an image is uploaded to Twitter before Pixiv, as commonly happens. Unless I'm misunderstanding, what we're considering now is that when a user finds the image on Pixiv and there's already one uploaded here from Twitter, they should post in the replacements thread instead of doing an upload. This is fine in theory and I'd be willing to do it. You've pointed out some other users who are willing to do it and that's cool, but since this happens so often we need "normal" users to do it as well, in my opinion. Posting in the replacement thread is less obvious than uploading and gives you less credit, so I'm worried that some users would just not bother and we'd be stuck with the lower quality version. It's also worth considering that if it becomes a routine operation for approvers, they'll eventually get used to it and not check as carefully.

Edit: Just to clarify that I completely agree with you in principle. We should minimize duplicates as much as possible. That would make the parent/child borders more meaningful as well. However, I think there are practical concerns that shouldn't be ignored. It's not a bad thing to make big sweeping changes to the site, but it also shouldn't be taken too lightly, especially involving things like replacements where there's no going back.

That's the major crux with it. Which is why I don't want to make it the normal way to start replacing images, since we may lose some information.

It's accepted but it shouldn't be the norm. +, there might be revisions in the final pixiv/nicoseiga/nijie/whatever post, where the Twitter post may still have preliminary drawing "artifacts" that may be desired.

Hmm. I wonder how feasible would it be to implement an automatic image comparison using imagemagick, and require a second approval if there's something significantly different between the two.

Type-kun said:

Hmm. I wonder how feasible would it be to implement an automatic image comparison using imagemagick, and require a second approval if there's something significantly different between the two.

Would be in favor of it.

I'm flipping my stance on this by the way. Given the way post #2637690 (and the subsequent parent) turned out, I don't think it's fair that we start just replacing images out of the blue even when we know one might be considerably lower quality than the other.

Reasoning for this is that even though as approvers we can and are allowed to do it, it feels especially murky to begin with, that we are allowed to handle this the way we do. In a case like that either one has to take an archiver's stance (in which case, all versions of a post, even if inferior, are 'saved') or a minimalist's stance (in which case posts must always attempt to be replaced with their most known superior counterpart).

The first I can't really find any fault with. We've been doing it that way for years before the post replacement feature came out due to NWF Renim's request after a certain topic came to light, about flagging samples without their originals. And yet we're considering using it for alternate purposes that might be unjustified to some, and might even confuse users that are doing things perfectly fine, thinking that they now have to consider posting in topic #14156 when they shouldn't have to.

Look, duplicates suck, I know. No one wants them, but for some of these we can't even consider to be 'duplicates' anyway. post #2637690 is a jpg that is much more lightweight than its png parent. Some people like that. Some people also like having the Twitter source be easily linked to share in the future. Some people like smaller images because it's less space on their computer or easier to view on their devices. We can't cater to all of those preferences if we take on a minimalist stance where all the inferior posts that should be replaced will be replaced. It's confusing and prone to mistakes, especially if a final post on pixiv/seiga is revised as I mentioned in forum #132898. Example is post #2750489 and post #2749186.

The replacement feature is something extremely powerful that is currently only available on our booru. It also creates potential headaches for other boorus and services in general (IQDB and SauceNAO) when they index posts that are actually different than what's live on our server. If part of the appeal in curation is to also expose more users to an artist's work, then their failure is also our failure.

Anyways, let me outline what I'm completely fine with using the replacement feature for before I forget.

• Sample post -> Non-sampled post. Original intent for the feature.
• Same image, but file with stripped or inaccurate/corrupt metadata -> better image. post #2196287 is one such example.
• Same image, but worse compression -> Same image with better compression. post #2766377
• Sample post with already upped original -> original post from alternate source. Less deletions on an artist's record where preventable is a + for me. post #2753690, post #2746728, post #2763253

What I am against:

• Inferior Twitter (or other source) jpg -> superior pixiv/nicoseiga/nijie png. Some people might prefer the 'inferior' post, as I mentioned above.
• Unsourced lossy conversion (third party sample) or lossy-lossless conversion -> original image. We should not credit uploaders that find posts from alternate, untrusted sources.
• Posts with clear visual changes due to revision or WIP -> Finished/revised posts. For obvious reasons.

Pinging @Randeel on this because I know we had beef over this issue, along with @NWF_Renim. I think we need a more ground stance on this, so as to not lead uploaders and approvers alike to confusion.

help:replacement notice has been written. If there are any suggestions or revisions to be made to the wiki page, then they would be greatly appreciated, but currently this is how I feel the policy for post replacement is best represented right now, given our current usage of the function. There have been some approvers that have already started to make human errors regarding placements (replacing non-revised posts with revisions, etc), so better clarification and emphasis on correctness is, well, needed.

Follow-up: @chinatsu has suggested that either we have some sort of two-factor approval for post replacements or make post replacement a separate permission (which seems a little bit of a headache I'm assuming). The first suggestion is pretty much Type-kun's idea of using ImageMagick or other comparison software to suggest a "second approval" if some post's replacement fails some % comparison threshold (forum #132901).

Since post replacement is an especially powerful function given to any approver, I'm going to ping a few more moderators/admins about this.
@Hillside_Moose @Type-kun @Apollyon @OOZ662

Personally, I was always wary about using the Post Replacement feature, because it involves deleting a currently present post. If I did use it, I would make sure everything was in order, and make sure the replacement is actually warranted.

I don't doubt that mistakes have already been made with Post Replacements, so to have a double check just in case would be useful. Type-kun's idea for a "second approval" using comparison software sounds like what that would entail.

I've already noticed someone replaced a Pixiv image with a Tumblr one, which I'm pretty sure wasn't agreed upon. There's probably an example of someone replacing an uncensored Pixiv post with the "corrected" censored one, which is just tragic.

A two-person approval system would probably be best, since people already brought up the trouble of creating another user ability in the growing list of abilities and who should have it. That said, second approvals will probably need its own page to deal with, like with pending posts, or something.

Due to demand, I created issue #3196 for a two-person approval feature on post replacements.

Hillside_Moose said:

I've already noticed someone replaced a Pixiv image with a Tumblr one, which I'm pretty sure wasn't agreed upon. There's probably an example of someone replacing an uncensored Pixiv post with the "corrected" censored one, which is just tragic.

Has this been reverted yet?

tapnek said:

Has this been reverted yet?

It can be. If the post exists, just point it out, and we can download the original file (since the md5 should still be live on the server) and replace it from our computer.

Anyways, I just fear the precedent that some approvers might be setting if they keep replacing things that aren't supposed to be replaced. Surely they have the best of intentions, but we're human, we make mistakes. I would rather both an inferior post and a superior post rather than posts being completely lost due to sheer human error.

And it's already hard work replacing images without any automated script, I imagine how much of a headache it is when you're asking someone now to check old images for similarity.

I have a question here.
As it turned out, a few of my recent posts are samples due to a mistake, and I'd like to replace them.
However, since they come from a closed place (Pixiv Fanbox), I uploaded them from my PC so they are sourceless, and replacement images are on my PC too.
Can I request a replacement in this case? How do I do it?

worldendDominator said:

I have a question here.
As it turned out, a few of my recent posts are samples due to a mistake, and I'd like to replace them.
However, since they come from a closed place (Pixiv Fanbox), I uploaded them from my PC so they are sourceless, and replacement images are on my PC too.
Can I request a replacement in this case? How do I do it?

Go ahead and send a DM to me with some way to share the images (rar/lzk to MEGA/Google Drive, w/e) so I can download them and replace them for you. I'll handle it.

Having the post #'s to replace with would also be very helpful.

worldendDominator said: (excerpt)

...since they come from a closed place (Pixiv Fanbox), I uploaded them from my PC so they are sourceless, and replacement images are on my PC too.
Can I request a replacement in this case? How do I do it?

Mikaeri said: (excerpt)

Go ahead and send a DM to me with some way to share the images...

You can also do what I did on forum #132861 in topic #14156 when you post in that topic, which is list the post #, a downloadable image link, and the original source link if available.

Mikaeri suggested http://catbox.moe to me once, and it works pretty well since the image links it provides can be used directly.

BrokenEagle98 said:

You can also do what I did on forum #132861 in topic #14156 when you post in that topic, which is list the post #, a downloadable image link, and the original source link if available.

Mikaeri suggested http://catbox.moe to me once, and it works pretty well since the image links it provides can be used directly.

I would just suggest against making any links public for now in the case that someone tries to reup them for themselves. It's not that I mind it one way or another (as that thread is helpful for images that would otherwise not be found) but Sayori is a popular enough artist that I wouldn't be surprised that someone would be trying to steal credit. Anyways @worldendDominator I forgot to mention you, but did you get the message?

Yes, I got the message, I just can't do it right away.

Gotcha. Take your time.

Question regarding replacement from alternate sources. I noticed a few posts recently where a twitter source was replaced by one from Pixiv and Nicoseiga (post #2777894 and post #2777537). It was my understanding that this wasn't what the replacement feature was for, but I haven't been keeping up with the latest rules. Just wondering whether this was now ok, or if it's something I should let someone know about if I notice it in the future?

Blue_Trident said:

Question regarding replacement from alternate sources. I noticed a few posts recently where a twitter source was replaced by one from Pixiv and Nicoseiga (post #2777894 and post #2777537). It was my understanding that this wasn't what the replacement feature was for, but I haven't been keeping up with the latest rules. Just wondering whether this was now ok, or if it's something I should let someone know about if I notice it in the future?

You're going to have to ask him about it. I brought it up earlier, and I mentioned I will condone it somewhat, only on confirmation that the images must be pretty much identical.

We've already gotten some accidental replacements which has led to much confusion, to say the least. I did it once on only a single post that I uploaded, but did not bother doing it again. Even nuanced differences are hard to catch between non-versioned posts.

From help:replacement notice:

Identical JPG file → superior PNG file. Examples include: Twitter JPG → Tumblr PNG (post #2765794), Pixiv JPG → Tumblr PNG (post #2740662). Upload it in a separate post.

Mikaeri said: (excerpt)

post #2637690 is a jpg that is much more lightweight than its png parent.

(...)

• Inferior Twitter (or other source) jpg -> superior pixiv/nicoseiga/nijie png. Some people might prefer the 'inferior' post, as I mentioned above.

I didn't get the reasoning about this particular one.

Sure, PNG is larger than JPG and someone may prefer the "lightweight" JPG version.. but one can also prefer "smaller size" sample images, we're replacing them anyway.

And, it's essentially no difference from low quality JPG -> high quality JPG replacement, which is allowed, since both practices increase the file-size.

Basically, I don't understand why replacing low-quality JPEG with high-quality JPEG from alternate source is allowed, while replacing low-quality JPEG with high-quality PNG from alternate source is not.

Again, I am personally fine with both approaches (replacing them in-post or posting as parent), just feel this *reasoning* doesn't make any sense.