If you're going to flag for deletion, include a reason

I just went through the moderation queue and there are a lot of good drawings flagged with no reason in there. I'm tired of this shit. Do it properly or don't waste the approval team's time and effort.

Also, I'd still like to see the names of people who flag things. Repeat offenders should be able to be found.

I've noticed the same. There've been quite a few legitimately good (and cute) posts that I think have been unfairly flagged, and with no reason supplied. This makes me assume that they're flagged based on a personal bias, rather than on whether it's actually good/relevant content or not. But meh, I guess I'm just reiterating what you said.

Anyway, is there really any compelling reason to not make the entire post moderation system completely transparent (at least to Janitor+ members)? From what I know, a large part of keeping Danbooru's standard of quality high is transparency, and being able to hold anyone accountable for what they do. So there shouldn't really be room to squander the time of others just because offenders can't be tracked-down.

I'm sure Albert has a valid reason for this, but I'm scratching my head here to find a reason not to have more transparency with moderation - because post moderation is a pretty big deal, last I checked.

Why is there no bar at the top?
Is that what happens when no one puts a reason?

The bar doesn't show up even if you put a reason.

Reese had mentioned this in the 'Moderation changes' thread. I'm inclined to agree that flaggers' names should be visible and that an explicit reason is required.

Yes, an upload can be eye cancer-inducing to the point where rationale for unapproval is obvious. But along with not giving those with reapproval powers a point to go by, the lack of a listed reason for a flag also implies that it was based more on personal distaste (read: didn't tickle user X's fetishes) and less about quality concerns.

Wasn't they're talk about allows Mods, Janitors, and Admin the right to flag/delete post(s) without needing to state a reason onto why said post(s) was flagged/deleted? Is that still going strong or have you reconsidered on that?

Albert fixed some of these things earlier today. The unapproval reason can no longer be blank (though you can still just type a period or something). The unapproval reason also shows up on the post page now.

Well even if a janitor or up is flagging the post, they should still include the reason they're doing it. I don't really enjoy having to look at every flagged post because there is a blank for the reason, which is pretty much the same as having the reason as "figure it out yourself."

スラッシュ said: Also, I'd still like to see the names of people who flag things. Repeat offenders should be able to be found.

If approvers are going to be public, then it's only fair now that unapprovers are made public as well. So I support this.

I'd rather the identities of unapprovers be limited to the mod team. Petty individuals may decide to get "revenge" on the unapprover and just make more work. Sure they'll be banned but it just seems like trouble we don't need.

I agree with Suiseiseki.

I also agree with Suiseiseki. Janitors and co being accountable for approvals is one thing, but siccing the legions of bad uploaders on us all is different...

Agreeing with Suiseiseki and RaisingK. I recall when deletion flaggers were public, the occasional bad uploader would start personal drama in the comments over it. Approvals are much less of a hassle, IMO.

I have always been of the opinion that the rational should always be filled out meaningfully, regardless of how obviously bad a post is.

Agreed. If you know enough about what's wrong with a post to flag it for unapproval, then you have enough to write in the reason.

Also, I agree that only Janitor-level users and up should be able to see the names of the users who flag posts. Making such a thing totally public is just inviting drama.

It helps if I can read the reason and hide it in the queue rather than having to check an image to see what the deal is.

It would help if status:flagged worked in the queue though.

jxh2154 said:
If approvers are going to be public, then it's only fair now that unapprovers are made public as well. So I support this.

That's why I'm against both of them. Public approvers and unapprovers. Too much baaaw on the horizon for me.
If you want make unapprovers visible, then for the smaller part of administration the better. Preferably only admins as the instance capable to judge suspection of personal abuse(s).

I support giving reason of unapproval, but how do you want to enforce it? You can always enter some rubbish instead valid reason.

richie said:
That's why I'm against both of them. Public approvers and unapprovers. Too much baaaw on the horizon for me.

Why are you so afraid of baaawing? It's never been so bad that a ban or two couldn't fix it. On the other hand, more eyes mean "offenders" can more easily be detected.

Soljashy said:
Why are you so afraid of baaawing? It's never been so bad that a ban or two couldn't fix it. On the other hand, more eyes mean "offenders" can more easily be detected.

You know, I can easily ask you in the same way: why are you so afraid of leaving unapprovals anonymous. Did I miss some kind of unapproval rampage here or what? Nothing so bad that ban or two couldn't fix it (where there any bans because of unapproval abuse at all)?

richie said:
You know, I can easily ask you in the same way: why are you so afraid of leaving unapprovals anonymous.

My answer to that question is right there in the very text you quoted: it allows more people to help detect bad practice. Furthermore, insisting that this information be hidden makes it look like you've got something to hide. :/