What's wrong with that?
post #6629994
Posted under General
What's wrong with that?
post #6629994
What's wrong with this? Is it because of the butthole? or something else?
post #6631045
Is there a problem with this post?
This is the 1st post from this artist that got deleted.
KillmeEvilCock said:
What's wrong with this? Is it because of the butthole? or something else?
post #6631045
Where's the artist and the source?
Is there something wrong with these 3?
post #6638435
post #6638402
post #6634829
Curious about what's wrong with this one. Especially since the parent post was accepted and artist #105711, is relatively well known.
(Also I am lowkey under the impression that approver folks have a hidden agenda when disapproving but who knows lol)
Shirazzarazza said:
(Also I am lowkey under the impression that approver folks have a hidden agenda when disapproving but who knows lol)
A common fallacy, similar to conspiracy theories: It’s a simple explanation for something someone doesn’t understand. In reality, it’s just that nobody liked it enough. That’s quite subjective, but it’s not some hidden process. See about:mod_queue.
Conspiracy theories aside, #6628223 should be approved. Especially with how many of these child posts that contain some changes to the original are approved and all fine.
If not, I would be veeeeeryyyy curious about why somehow the parent got approved but in the child post 14 out of 14 people didn't like it enough.
kittey said:
A common fallacy, similar to conspiracy theories: It’s a simple explanation for something someone doesn’t understand. In reality, it’s just that nobody liked it enough. That’s quite subjective, but it’s not some hidden process. See about:mod_queue.
Shouldn't things be more objective? I don't need to explain the dangers of letting a handful of people control what is good and whatnot on an subjective opinion. (Rather than an extensive list of guidelines.)
kittey said:
It’s a simple explanation for something someone doesn’t understand.
I mean, fair enough but I am trying to understand why after my two other posts here asking about any discrepancies did not see any response (thus leaving me to not post that artist again afterward) and now a third post. I can understand quality being the major point and factor in approvals here but are you saying I also have to factor in approval subjectivity? Especially with a well-known, consistent artist and just changes to this image?
I am just spitballing and trying to make sense of this cause I can think I understand but then a future upload will be unapproved despite not following some criteria I perhaps missed.
Azura_DB said:
Conspiracy theories aside, #6628223 should be approved. Especially with how many of these child posts that contain some changes to the original are approved and all fine.
If not, I would be veeeeeryyyy curious about why somehow the parent got approved but in the child post 14 out of 14 people didn't like it enough.
That's literally why I was convinced there was some tomfoolery afoot haha.
It just did not make sense to me.
Azura_DB said:
Shouldn't things be more objective? I don't need to explain the dangers of letting a handful of people control what is good and whatnot on an subjective opinion. (Rather than an extensive list of guidelines.)
There is simply no alternative to the approver system we have right now. There isn't any objective standard to measure the quality of an image. Just take votes or favs for example: What would be the count to approve an image based on votes? How to act on images, that are of higher quality, but don't get enough votes like scenery uploads? If you don't want a voting system, what would be a correct guideline to approve images?
Anyway, the "handful" of people you talk about is over 50 approvers right now. Not all of them are as active as others, but if we notice that we need more approvers, more contributers will be promoted.
This is also the reason why non-approvers shouldn't give any advice to users, if they don't understand the approving system themselves. You can still ask, why an image didn't get approved, but don't try to give any advice, if you're not sure yourself.
Nacha said:
There is simply no alternative to the approver system we have right now. There isn't any objective standard to measure the quality of an image. Just take votes or favs for example: What would be the count to approve an image based on votes? How to act on images, that are of higher quality, but don't get enough votes like scenery uploads? If you don't want a voting system, what would be a correct guideline to approve images?
Anyway, the "handful" of people you talk about is over 50 approvers right now. Not all of them are as active as others, but if we notice that we need more approvers, more contributers will be promoted.
This is also the reason why non-approvers shouldn't give any advice to users, if they don't understand the approving system themselves. You can still ask, why an image didn't get approved, but don't try to give any advice, if you're not sure yourself.
Sorry...
I'm confused on what's wrong with this post. I can't think of what could be wrong with it.
anything wrong with these posts? Why were they deleted?
Almost 40 favs, but rejected?
Runty said:
Almost 40 favs, but rejected?
Favs are irrelevant when approving images. Even bad images can get a count of over 100 favs.
Rhaizen said:
Hey... links from Pixiv are valid?
What do you mean? Linking them here? Or as a source?