About that negative record. I stated "bad quality" for many of the posts I flagged. However some of them were beyond the scope of just being "bad quality". Realizing that the mod queue aren't bots, but humans with the ability to reason I assumed that after seeing the images for yourselves the reason "No" would suffice. As for parent:233301 I thought it would be "obvious" that we should have at most only one of these images, since there is there is almost no distinction between them
If anything I believe a positive should be created were a user to continue helping cleaning up the site. Either way I will now give more constructive reasons for flagging regardless of how poor quality I find an image to be post #221428.
So, could you consider removing that negative record?
No, you get a negative record and you deal with it unless it was flagrant vandalism. I'm sorry that you didn't "get" flagging but it was a merited neg. Just continue to do good work and I'm sure someone will add another positive at some point.
Also don't flood the queue with flags, when the queue is 30 flags and 4 new posts over a 6 hour span it's a thousand times more annoying to go through.
I really don't think this warranted a negative record. Sure, flagging something with "no" could've been superseded by something more descriptive, but I find that his reason for doing so was rational, and that he only wished to contribute to the site.
Seriously, what makes this different from, say, sending a message to someone for (benignly) mistagging/misrating posts, and only giving them a negative record if they continue to do so, since they would then know better? I'd say that if we come to the conclusion that giving super-minimal flag reasons is a no-no under all circumstances, and he continues to flag in that manner afterwards, then a negative record would be warranted.
And personally, if a post is blatantly bad, I generally have no problem with (but can't encourage) people giving minimal flag reasons; it's just another way of saying "I think this post needs a second review", and I'm happy that someone is at least making the effort to flag bad content. Not enough people do it.
Log said: Also don't flood the queue with flags, when the queue is 30 flags and 4 new posts over a 6 hour span it's a thousand times more annoying to go through.
So you're basically saying that it would, instead, be acceptable if he spaced-out his flags over a much-more gradual period of time? Assuming that's what you're implying, I don't see why he'd have to do that. All posts, whether flagged or not, should carry the same weight IMO.
Bapabooiee said: And personally, if a post is blatantly bad, I generally have no problem with (but can't encourage) people giving minimal flag reasons; it's just another way of saying "I think this post needs a second review", and I'm happy that someone is at least making the effort to flag bad content. Not enough people do it.
If you look at the posts he admitted he flagged they were rather flagrantly not bad and were flagged for nothing more than "no."
A record, positive or negative, is there to record an action. If 4 months down the line he decides to do this again and we have deleted the record of this how would we know he was warned? Seriously if you are worried what your record says after you already have contributor something is wrong. Records are there to keep track of deeds. This is a misdeed, resolved or not it's still a misdeed and a rather flagrant one at that. Flagging is and always has been serious business around here. Hell, I'd be surprised if he wasn't behind the old "no" flags previous to flag names being public.
Bapabooiee said:So you're basically saying that it would, instead, be acceptable if he spaced-out his flags over a much-more gradual period of time? Assuming that's what you're implying, I don't see why he'd have to do that. All posts, whether flagged or not, should carry the same weight IMO.
If there are 30 shit posts with 5 other posts mixed in, flagged or otherwise, I'm just going to hide the entire queue. It is unfair to anyone who posts during that span that factors they cannot control and have no way of knowing even occurred prevented a portion of the ~10 current mod team members from seeing their posts. (for the purposes of this argument I'm ignoring hazuki and anyone else who doesn't use the physical queue as they wouldn't notice flagged posts' position in the queue.)
All of these posts were flagged in a 30 or so minute period, it just so happened that nobody had posted for like 10 hours yesterday aside from those few posts in the middle of his flags. If you flag a couple at a time during peak hours it's fine but this was just unacceptable for anyone who goes through the queue more than once a day (which is, from what I can tell, nearly the entire remaining mod team based on some rudimentary stat tracking.)
Flag reasons such as "No." or "." are extremely annoying to me. If you are going to flag something, you can spend the 5 seconds it takes to type something meaningful.
I wasn't behind any of the previous "no" flags. I only flagged 2-3 posts before this with "bad quality" and "grotesque".
And I'm sorry, I had no idea that it was getting in people's ways for getting their posts noticed. I don't know how I could've known, perhaps we should make a howto:flag to mention this?
and never mind that negative record, it's not such a big deal I guess. This was actually supposed to be a pm to Seem, oh well.
If we're getting anything out of this it should be making a wiki for flagging. Also, I'm willing to help out if you ever need more people
Its disheartening to contribute to the site consistently, by tagging, uploading or doing quality checks, and get no pat on the back for the effort and suddenly when you slip up with good intentions you get a neg.
It would have been better to first give a warning through a private message before resorting to a negative record.
the_redstar_swl said: Sounds more like the problem is that Seem got butthurt that somebody flagged some of the crap he continually approves.
Intriguing theory considering none of the posts flagged had been approved by me (or anybody for that matter, they were almost all old posts that predated the approval process) and they've all been left flagged with the exception of
Roarchu said:As for parent:233301 I thought it would be "obvious" that we should have at most only one of these images, since there is there is almost no distinction between them
Since a) we don't delete things for this reason since the parenting system exists in part precisely for some image variations and b) all seven posts, including the parent, were flagged as "bad quality" so Roarchu has a very interesting definition of what should be an 'obvious' flagging.
I know what parents are for, but keeping images such as the ones I flagged where they're only different by a slight change in color in the background is completely useless IMO.
parent:434294 and parent:668879 are much better examples of what the parents are for, images that are similar, but have enough distinction between them to be worth keeping
I know that you wouldn't usually approve posts like that. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just wanted to point out that redstar's point didn't come out of thin air and that Seem's claim was wrong
and like I said, we should make a wiki for flagging to avoid things like this in the future
Roarchu said: I know that you wouldn't usually approve posts like that. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just wanted to point out that redstar's point didn't come out of thin air and that Seem's claim was wrong
We know you're not trying to pick a fight, and I did say *almost* all of them, but this is a tangent anyway.
Log really said all that needed to be said right at the beginning of the thread. You did something the wrong way, it got noted on your record.
You're a good poster, so a record like that is going to mean nothing in the long run anyway.
