Mind if I suggest adding another approver or two specifically for low-post-count copyrights/niche images? It might alleviate the issues between the approvers and the uploaders.
Posted under Bugs & Features
We have plenty of approvers now, more than at any point before, it's the uploads that need to be better. The popularity of a copyright doesn't carry much bearing, it's pretty much down to quality at this point. Personally though, I think the quality has been pretty good lately. All the glaring examples of bad uploading were down to some new people and self-uploaders, who are getting dealt with faster, at least visibly. The best uploads have been from the contributors, especially the new ones, and the regular uploaders are stepping up their game.
buehbueh said:
We have plenty of approvers now, more than at any point before, it's the uploads that need to be better. The popularity of a copyright doesn't carry much bearing, it's pretty much down to quality at this point. Personally though, I think the quality has been pretty good lately. All the glaring examples of bad uploading were down to some new people and self-uploaders, who are getting dealt with faster, at least visibly. The best uploads have been from the contributors, especially the new ones, and the regular uploaders are stepping up their game.
Contributors like Schrobby or dean exia are like 24/7 uploading machine. Not only their uploads are finest quality, but also they're capable to grasp a new work from an artist in the matter of minutes.
Sometimes it frustrates me, lol.
Provence said:
What do you mean?
I think I get what he means - I've had posts time out after three days and there seems to be nothing wrong with them.... and I'm not sure if it's because only two people looked at it, or because there's something bad about it that I didn't get at the time.
My suggestion is to implement some sort of feedback system for the rejects beyond "bad art" and "didn't like it enough to approve" - like a 'too similar do other posts of this type' or 'very generic", etc.
Jarlath said:
My suggestion is to implement some sort of feedback system for the rejects beyond "bad art" and "didn't like it enough to approve" - like a 'too similar do other posts of this type' or 'very generic", etc.
That already exists, approvers can type anything they want as a detailed rejection. Unless you're talking about more presets that don't have to be typed manually.
Toks said:
That already exists, approvers can type anything they want as a detailed rejection. Unless you're talking about more presets that don't have to be typed manually.
Maybe more presets. It would be nice to know something more than "didn't like it enough to approve" - maybe removing that preset so they have to be more specific.
Jarlath said:
Maybe more presets. It would be nice to know something more than "didn't like it enough to approve" - maybe removing that preset so they have to be more specific.
That's just what it says when they don't pick a preset. I'd be wary of requiring of approvers more attention to each individual rejection, lest we drive even more of them off. I imagine the reason most images are getting only 4 - 6 views these days is that the new process took away the option to "hide all images on the current page", making it much more time- and attention-intensive to go through the queue.
Making more preset reasons available probably wouldn't hurt, though.
hemoglobin said:
I imagine the reason most images are getting only 4 - 6 views these days is that the new process took away the option to "hide all images on the current page", making it much more time- and attention-intensive to go through the queue.
Yeah, didn't there used to be at least seven people looking at each picture?
Haha, finally, at least for now, Comcast has pulled themselves far enough from their own bowels to restore my internet service!
Toks said:
That already exists, approvers can type anything they want as a detailed rejection. Unless you're talking about more presets that don't have to be typed manually.
Personally, I'd like the "detailed rejections" to be shown in a box at the top of deleted posts similar to the flag/appeal/deletion notifications. They probably shouldn't have the name publicly associated with them (ala flags) but there's not much reason I see to hide that feedback from people other than the uploader.
OOZ662 said:
Personally, I'd like the "detailed rejections" to be shown in a box at the top of deleted posts similar to the flag/appeal/deletion notifications. They probably shouldn't have the name publicly associated with them (ala flags) but there's not much reason I see to hide that feedback from people other than the uploader.
They already are displayed there. Example: http://testbooru.donmai.us/posts/1
Toks said:
They already are displayed there. Example: http://testbooru.donmai.us/posts/1
I really should just get a tablet to forever refresh the changenotes.
A number of users have been making complaints about the lack of moderator activity recently. The average number of mods reviewing a picture has dropped further from 4-6, as reported just a month ago, to only 2 or 3, and this has resulted in an upswing of (also largely ignored) appeals from posters who don't feel this rate is thorough enough. In addition, promotions seem to have stagnated recently, bringing in less new blood to fill in the gaps left by inactive moderators. Are these sentiments founded, and if so, what should we do?