Monthly thread bump.
Posted under General
There is some aberration on the Keeper report. After a post is first uploaded, it sometimes sets the Keeper ID to null, which shows up as None on the report. I need to figure out some way to account for this, but in the meantime, I am uploading the report as is.
Note: I just noticed that the deletions aren't being counted correctly for uploads. Take that into account until it gets fixed. FIXED!
Updated
In an attempt to detect down voting rings, I've added a new down vote report. You can already detect some interesting outliers, like the similarity between Catloaf, 10half, Doujin_Sensei, and AruKyuu. I won't pretend the logic for it is foolproof; you can see the code for it here.
albert said:
In an attempt to detect down voting rings, I've added a new down vote report. You can already detect some interesting outliers, like the similarity between Catloaf, 10half, Doujin_Sensei, and AruKyuu. I won't pretend the logic for it is foolproof; you can see the code for it here.
I think that report could be a bit misleading, as it may not be a user that is being targeted but a particular artist/pool/copyright/whatever.
Take mine for instance... all of those downvotes were not against a user, but against suke_(singekijyosei) phone_screen which I don't think should be on this site, but unfortunately topic #14891 went nowhere and they're still being uploaded, so I'm taking the only action I can at this time which is to downvote all of those posts. The reason the percentage is so high is that there is primarily only one user that is uploading those images, as I haven't downvoted any other of that user's uploads.
I don't think this report should be visible to users below moderator level. Moderators have the responsibility of making sure users are following the rules when voting, and this seems like a valuable tool for them. But for the rest of us, this report will only cause anger and suspicion about something that isn't our responsibility to enforce.
Squishy said:
Well, that explains the instant 'poor quality' reviews and downvotes my posts received within minutes of uploading during the last week of June.
Because I down voted your posts shouldn't tell you there is some conspiracy. If you're in want of an explanation for their poor quality it is because they have tiny hands or twisted spines. I do not keep up with the forum enough to answer to that thread.
How may I ask would you know these posts were marked as poor quality "within minutes" when rejection reasons are not public until the post is deleted?
Further I'm not the only approver, for you to get your posts marked poor quality others would have agreed. And for what you said to have any explanatory power your name should be on the list as a target more than once. I have a script that down votes posts I mark as poor quality, what probably happened is I was caught up on the queue when I saw your posts come in and marked them as poor quality.
chinatsu said:
Because I down voted your posts shouldn't tell you there is some conspiracy. If you're in want of an explanation for their poor quality it is because they have tiny hands or twisted spines. I do not keep up with the forum enough to answer to that thread.
Erm, I didn't say anything about a conspiracy or being targeted by a downvote ring. As I understand the report, there needs to be several people with similar voting patterns for case of such. I'm not talking about that, since I only show up once as a target.
I also don't recall uploading anything with twisted spines or torsos either, so you might have my uploads confused with someone elses?
How may I ask would you know these posts were marked as poor quality "within minutes" when rejection reasons are not public until the post is deleted?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone can see how many moderators reviewed a pending post with a breakdown of Breaks Rules, Poor Quality and No Interest before the three days are up?
Squishy said:
I also don't recall uploading anything with twisted spines or torsos either, so you might have my uploads confused with someone elses?
No mate this is yours you even just referenced it https://files.catbox.moe/crsyyx.png
chinatsu said:
No mate this is yours you even just referenced it https://files.catbox.moe/crsyyx.png
That's a torso bend, not a torso twist?
And how come your line goes from the front of the neck to the sternum's ventral side, and then directly connects from there to the dorsal side of the sacrum by cutting through upper anterior of the waist toward the posterior of the pelvis, completely disregarding the suggested alignment of the waist as indicated by the waist bow?
I'm pretty sure that line does not represent the spine nor the body's vertical axis due its shift along sagittal plane. And that abrupt bend from the chest doesn't even follow the curve of her posture, not to mention the lack of any rotation going on. This does not help me understand your reasoning at all.
Updated
Squishy said:
That's a torso bend, not a torso twist?
And how come your line goes from the front of the neck to the sternum's ventral side, and then directly connects from there to the dorsal side of the sacrum by cutting through upper anterior of the waist toward the posterior of the pelvis, completely disregarding the suggested alignment of the waist as indicated by the waist bow?
I'm pretty sure that line does not represent the spine nor the body's vertical axis due its shift along sagittal plane. And that abrupt bend from the chest doesn't even follow the curve of her posture, not to mention the lack of any rotation going on. This does not help me understand your reasoning at all.
That's a lot of buzzwords for terrible anatomy. Her right leg is detached from the rest of the body, there's no way to justify that stuff with perspective.
Sorry but it was already hard to take you seriously on anatomy when you argued against every single flag on the matter under comments. Now that apollyon has promoted you just so you could reapprove his bad uploads it's even harder, especially given the kind of "art" in approver:Squishy user:Apollyon. As NWSiaCB put it in post #2709690 nobody's buying the concerned citizen act.
It's also pretty funny that you'd complain about being targeted, given how several of the posts you went to reapprove that were immediately reflagged had already been flagged three or four times before.
Going through the dataset a bit, many of the high confidence matches don't seem to be catching downvote rings as originally intended, but rather cases of uploaders posting a large volume of content that others find objectionable. The Catloaf et al. case mentioned before is against a user who posted dozens of extreme inflation/insect birth pictures, and another one shows up against a user who was self-uploading cosplay photosets. It's reasonable to assume that these would catch the attention of people who otherwise rarely feel the need to use the downvote feature.
As much as I respect you, nonamethanks, I'm going to have to defend myself against some ridiculous accusations.
That's a lot of buzzwords for terrible anatomy. Her right leg is detached from the rest of the body, there's no way to justify that stuff with perspective.
Thank you! I already know that.
But can you tell me where that torso twist is? Can you help me understand what that diagram is supposed to show me?
Sorry but it was already hard to take you seriously on anatomy when you argued against every single flag on the matter under comments.
That's a pretty daring accusation. You got any numbers for that?
Have I been in 'every single flag' on this matter? Given the amount of flags issued on a daily basis and how many of them proceeded without issue, I would appreciate some concrete numbers to show my level of participation.
Now that apollyon has promoted you just so you could reapprove his bad uploads it's even harder, especially given the kind of "art" in approver:Squishy user:Apollyon.
If there are people whose purpose is to reapprove one person's uploads, I'm certainly not one of them user:Apollyon -approver:Squishy
As NWSiaCB put it in post #2709690 nobody's buying the concerned citizen act.
You do realize there was misunderstanding there, right?
He thought I was talking about users with unlimited uploads privileges, which I wasn't, nor had he said anything about me putting on some kind of 'act'.
I'm not sure how you got the 'concerned citizen' angle from either of us, but I'll extend the same offer to you as well: I'll be happy to share the details of what I was doing at the time and I would appreciate any feedback on my reasoning. Via Dmail.
It's also pretty funny that you'd complain about being targeted, given how several of the posts you went to reapprove that were immediately reflagged had already been flagged three or four times before.
Where did I say I was being targeted? If so, did I accuse anyone specifically?
Did I mention anything about approvals or flags here at all? Did anyone else?
...
For the record, all I did in this thread was mention my personal experience regarding downvotes on my uploads correlating with what the report was showing. I did not name or call out anyone. I did not play victim by complaining about conspiracies or about being targeted. I said nothing about the approval process and the usage of flagging either.
I'm not sure why I'm getting lectured here, instead of having a discussing about the potential uses and pitfalls of the Downvote Report.
I'll gladly talk about that, but I will not respond to any further derails directed at me.
If there's something anyone needs bring up with me: My Dmails are open (and I have icecream to share)
feline_lump said:
Going through the dataset a bit, many of the high confidence matches don't seem to be catching downvote rings as originally intended, but rather cases of uploaders posting a large volume of content that others find objectionable. The Catloaf et al. case mentioned before is against a user who posted dozens of extreme inflation/insect birth pictures, and another one shows up against a user who was self-uploading cosplay photosets. It's reasonable to assume that these would catch the attention of people who otherwise rarely feel the need to use the downvote feature.
I concur, the downvote report would not show why people are downvoting. Of course, it was never meant to.
I think it's a useful tool that would form a part of a more holistic process.
Probably need to also look at what the uploader was doing. I suspect uploaders who were posting self-uploads, cosplays and third-party edits would rack up downvotes pretty quickly.
And a glance at some of these uploaders reveal they were posting off-topic or controversial subject matter: I would agree with people who downvoting users like fisherprize or Johny2dixCZ
Updated
