ルーミア said:
It already got flagged and was re-approved (first time it was auto-approved).
That just makes me more confused re: approval criteria. What does the mod team see in that picture that I (and apparently at least 1 other person) am missing?
Posted under General
I remembered bringing up the same issue a few months back regarding how the limited number of approvers tend to affect the mod queue in ways that may be unintended. Having particular preferences dictate which makes it and which doesn't would result in hit-and-miss cases.
Take post #4515564 for example. I've seen other top-down-bottom-up works like this go through the mod queue but I wasn't sure if it still had the same problem as my Reisalin Stout and Akechi works or a case of content doubt as I had to make part of the male figure see-through as a viewing compromise.
DownWithTheThickness said:
That just makes me more confused re: approval criteria.
Tbf such "criteria" has depended on the tastes of the approvers but like I said, it can cause problems. We haven't an alternate option to make it more fair to each image that goes through, especially since this is case-to-case, so we're stuck with the same issue being brought up when quality speaks.
Plenty of "see-through" type art gets approved, so that's probably not it. If you have a suggestion for an "alternate option to make it more fair" you are free to give it here. From my view, short of lowering the requirements for approveral privileges, there isn't much that can be done that wouldn't end up horribly.
ルーミア said:
Plenty of "see-through" type art gets approved, so that's probably not it. If you have a suggestion for an "alternate option to make it more fair" you are free to give it here. From my view, short of lowering the requirements for approveral privileges, there isn't much that can be done that wouldn't end up horribly.
That wouldn't even do anything, anyway. Evazion has said that approvers are added when it feels like the load is too much for the current ones. You don't become an approver the same way you gain unrestricted uploads. Even if whatever requirements are considered when choosing new approvers were made more lenient, it wouldn't increase the number of approvers or the variety of tastes among them, it would just expand the list of potential candidates for when it becomes necessry to add new ones.
As a side note, not only bad art gets deleted. A bunch of deletions have been artworks who have gotten a better version available for upload. Should users be penalized for being the victim of one-upping (read: "pixiv version became available 4 hours after twitter version, twitter version didn't get approved yet, pixiv version gets approved and twitter version gets deleted")?
Username_Hidden said:
As a side note, not only bad art gets deleted. A bunch of deletions have been artworks who have gotten a better version available for upload. Should users be penalized for being the victim of one-upping (read: "pixiv version became available 4 hours after twitter version, twitter version didn't get approved yet, pixiv version gets approved and twitter version gets deleted")?
When I see such cases. When the lower res was uploaded first by a non unrestricted user, I will approve it. Even after it was one upped by a unrestricted user.
Username_Hidden said:
As a side note, not only bad art gets deleted. A bunch of deletions have been artworks who have gotten a better version available for upload. Should users be penalized for being the victim of one-upping (read: "pixiv version became available 4 hours after twitter version, twitter version didn't get approved yet, pixiv version gets approved and twitter version gets deleted")?
About that, since such a stunt happened to me some days ago, I'd say that yes and no. No, because they could have uploaded both without a problem (as they do in several occasions; when I first accessed Danbooru I was struggling to find the differences between some parent and child posts because they looked identical, until I realised sizes and links where what made them different). But also yes, because they try to keep the best quality posts in this site, and with such a directive sometimes good apples go with the rotten ones.
About the other stuff being said on the thread, I believe the upload system is perfect as it is now, at least for us users with still restricted uploads (take it from someone with over 20% deletion ratio in his uploads). But on the other hand, I believe that for certain unrestricted uploaders there should be a review of permissions. There are certain artists' posts that as long as uploaded by them, they will be up, but if someone with restricted uploads tries, they will go through the queue and then to the deletion hole because of alleged low quality. Especially, if the content in question is a bit kinky.
Thus, I believe that low-quality should be consistent, because otherwise it's a bit confusing. I'm very certain that if I flagged some of those posts though, I'd end banned for abusing the system and misflagging.
A lot of that ends up being people trying to inflate their upload counts with a better version of an already-approved, already-tagged image so that it is low effort and highly likely to be approved.
kinshirogane7978 said:
[snip]
But on the other hand, I believe that for certain unrestricted uploaders there should be a review of permissions. There are certain artists' posts that as long as uploaded by them, they will be up, but if someone with restricted uploads tries, they will go through the queue and then to the deletion hole because of alleged low quality. Especially, if the content in question is a bit kinky.Thus, I believe that low-quality should be consistent, because otherwise it's a bit confusing. I'm very certain that if I flagged some of those posts though, I'd end banned for abusing the system and misflagging.
That is the benefit of having unrestricted, you get to post things in the grey area where they're not suitable to be flagged but also are not likely to be approved. It's generally not cause for concern, if the art was sufficiently low quality, it would be flagged, and if an unrestricted uploader had a long enough record of uploading things that got flagged then deleted, they would likely just lose the permission.
kinshirogane7978 said:
...I believe that for certain unrestricted uploaders there should be a review of permissions. There are certain artists' posts that as long as uploaded by them, they will be up, but if someone with restricted uploads tries, they will go through the queue and then to the deletion hole because of alleged low quality. Especially, if the content in question is a bit kinky.
That was basically the problem encountered with post #4297383 (my reisalin stout work btw). Despite being uploaded by someone who is reputable enough to be considered for promotion to unrestricted uploader, it still failed to pass through the queue the first time because of alleged quality issues. I raised a red flag back then over whether or not it discriminates against artists that have less recall and exposure as opposed to artists that have hundreds of thousands of followers on pixiv/twitter/FB that would have their works uploaded by the regular restricted uploaders but still get approved within hours at worst simply because of the artist name.
kinshirogane7978 said:
About that, since such a stunt happened to me some days ago, I'd say that yes and no. No, because they could have uploaded both without a problem [snip]
My point is, if a better version wasn't available at the time of upload, and hasn't been approved before a better version is later available, should it still get deleted?
ルーミア said:
You could probably ask a certain someone to run an sql query for that
Looking at the last three months, 25% of posts that pass the queue are approved within five minutes. 80% within the first hour.
See this sheet for the minutes and this one for the hours.
Updated
ArcieA said:
That was basically the problem encountered with post #4297383 (my reisalin stout work btw). Despite being uploaded by someone who is reputable enough to be considered for promotion to unrestricted uploader, it still failed to pass through the queue the first time because of alleged quality issues. I raised a red flag back then over whether or not it discriminates against artists that have less recall and exposure as opposed to artists that have hundreds of thousands of followers on pixiv/twitter/FB that would have their works uploaded by the regular restricted uploaders but still get approved within hours at worst simply because of the artist name.
If popular artists with large followings have higher chances, how do you explain some (if not most) of sakimichan's works not getting trough the que?? Lol
Small or big, an artist popularity matters not. Same with high scoring high fav posts. None of this is in consideration for approval.
The only thing I'm wary of is artists with 1 post that seems really good for them being so unknown. It raises some flags about art thief, reposter or edited pic. Just some extra steps I usually take before approving such cases.
Username_Hidden said:
As a side note, not only bad art gets deleted. A bunch of deletions have been artworks who have gotten a better version available for upload. Should users be penalized for being the victim of one-upping (read: "pixiv version became available 4 hours after twitter version, twitter version didn't get approved yet, pixiv version gets approved and twitter version gets deleted")?
Honestly, I learned to check the artist's pixiv before uploading after the first couple of times it happened to me and even wait a few hours before uploading if I noticed the artist tends to upload within 12 hours.
Mexiguy said:
Honestly, I learned to check the artist's pixiv before uploading after the first couple of times it happened to me and even wait a few hours before uploading if I noticed the artist tends to upload within 12 hours.
True, but imo you can't expect users to do that for every Twitter upload. Especially because you need greater knowledge about an artist to do that.
That's just not feasible.
If such an upload somehow slips through, I encourage everyone to appeal such a case.
Username_Hidden said:
My point is, if a better version wasn't available at the time of upload, and hasn't been approved before a better version is later available, should it still get deleted?
Then yeah, I agree it shouldn't. As I said above, they could perfectly upload both if they have the exact same quality (something obvious because it's the same exact picture) and the only thing varying is the size and source.