Flag Vandalism

Flandre5carlet said:

I'd like to bring up the fact that particular users continue misusing the appeal system with asinine and fruitless comments that bring absolutely nothing to the discussion/in favor of a post.
While it may not have as much impact as unwarranted flags (and especially so vandalistic ones) I believe those kind of appeals share the same kind of vandalistic nature to them.

Well since most users are limited to a post per day this should be less of an issue. They will learn fairly quickly if their bogus appeals just get ignored. Perhaps though it could be a privilege revoked for users after abuse which I assumed already was the case. I think a user should just be encouraged to use the appeals thread or the upload feedback thread.

kuuderes_shadow said:

More like a fair few things going through the mod queue that would have been approved in the past now aren't being approved. This obviously has an impact on flagged images as well.

I don't think the problem here (assuming you're referring to the image you appealed) is the flag itself - more that this is just another case of an image that should have been (re)approved and hasn't been.

There are better images than that one that have gone through the queue without being accepted recently, though.

Yes. Honestly I don't know what to say anymore.

It's funny how cancerous this "quality control" has become. They would assume even the most minor error as a big deal. Now I understand why my friends on SanCom never want to visit here.

Truly a memorable moments in my last months in here.

Either there aren't enough modders, or active modders who care, is the feeling I'm getting these days. You'd think that the flag reason alone would be enough to get someone's attention upon opening the link.

I'm feeling a bit less comfortable with the reassurances given months ago how the mod queue would expediousky handle frivolous flagging.

Sacriven said:

Yes. Honestly I don't know what to say anymore.

It's funny how cancerous this "quality control" has become. They would assume even the most minor error as a big deal. Now I understand why my friends on SanCom never want to visit here.

Truly a memorable moments in my last months in here.

You can always try to ask for approval privileges if you want the cancer to go away.

Keep in mind that just because a post has a dumb flag reason doesn't mean it will automatically get reapproved. post #1674198 was an extremely artifacted version of its parent; plenty of approvers saw it and dismissed it likely for that reason. The real point of contention is on the deletion of "postfacto duplicates" when a higher quality parent appears; if that became a trend the site would fall into chaos.

Sacriven, what you're rallying against isn't flag vandalism. Having seen your appeals, of which post #2552985 is a representative example, the posts are generally flagged with a detailed reason that you disagree with. Whether the site's standards are being raised or if there aren't enough approvers I can't definitively say (though I lean toward the former given the number of approver votes on pending or flagged posts has stayed steady or slightly increased over the last month or two), but it doesn't fall under "vandalism."

It's not the number of approvers that is the point, though, although obviously more mods reviewing an image makes it more likely that one of them will approve it. Cases of images passing through the queue with just 1 mod reviewing them are starting to appear for the first time in a while, and 2 and 3 seem to be becoming more common again.

The thing is, I get the feeling that a lot of mods will pass over images for various reasons that nonetheless want approving - perhaps they aren't personally interested in the subject matter, or they aren't completely confident so leave it to someone else to decide, or they're going through quickly and only picking out the best of the best to approve. I don't want to come across as though I'm being critical about this - on an individual level there's nothing wrong with it and I know I'd do the same thing if I had approval priveleges.

But for the mod queue to actually function fully effectively, there needs to be someone who is prepared to go through every single picture (probably from the bottom of the queue) every single day, approving every single image that falls on the right side of borderline, even if only barely, regardless of the non-quality related content of the image. It's a hugely time consuming task, and a largely thankless one (indeed, as you will inevitably be picking out those images that other mods left alone, it's likely that your approvals will be of a lower average quality than other mods, and some people may thus see you as inferior as a result). Not to mention that you would have to give serious consideration to images that make you want to puke. But, no matter how many mods are checking images, someone has to play the role or you'll get images that are slipping through the system that shouldn't.

For years this role was filled by Not One Of Us. Yes they approved some images that really shouldn't have been approved, but they also ensured that a huge number of images that really don't want to be deleted were spared from that deletion at the last minute. Now they no longer have approval priveleges and there's noone filling that role.

To see the effect this has you only have to look through the deleted images. Early this year I checked a month's worth of deleted images to see how many I felt should be approved. I found a couple of dozen borderline posts, of which just 5 I thought really wanted approval. I was pleasantly surprised by this outcome.
Nowadays, and with much the same standards as I had then, I would expect to reach that 5 before reaching the end of the latest day. Sure you can then post in the deletion appeals thread, and things do occasionally get rescued as a result, but images that had only 2 or 3 mod reviews that are posted in there generally stay on only 2 or 3 mod reviews - in other words mods often aren't even checking them. This much at least is nothing new, but that's not exactly a good thing. And of course some uploaders don't know about the thread anyway.

Yes, the number of approvers checking each image that has been deleted is slightly higher now than it was back then, but this isn't actually the key factor to preventing decent images from getting deleted.

It got to the point where someone without unrestricted uploads adding an image to danbooru can actually prevent the image getting on the site. Which is an absurdity.

Anyway, all this is completely off the topic of the thread...

... so to get more on the topic of the thread, I think the flag reason for post #2558599 is a contender for the worst ever.

(edit: fixing grammar error)

OOZ662 said:

Sacriven, what you're rallying against isn't flag vandalism. Having seen your appeals, of which post #2552985 is a representative example, the posts are generally flagged with a detailed reason that you disagree with. Whether the site's standards are being raised or if there aren't enough approvers I can't definitively say (though I lean toward the former given the number of approver votes on pending or flagged posts has stayed steady or slightly increased over the last month or two), but it doesn't fall under "vandalism."

Well it wasn't. I just want to whine about how a very minor error justifies a deletion, ignoring the other parts and whole value of the image itself (you can see my reason clearly on my appeal though).

And yes, over past months the posts' standard (at least in my eyes) has been raised sharply, even I dare to say that it's too high for some people. It's already reach to the point where some users feel disheartened to upload anymore.

Well, I think it's enough for thread's derailing now. And, +1 for kuudere's post.

To go off of kuudere's shadow's statements, I'm not sure what the rest of the staff are up to, but I wonder if there's been a chilling effect in the past few weeks from the increased flagging encouraging approvers to skip borderline uploads. If this is the case, then perhaps part of the issue is that. I got into a major disagreement over a week ago with someone and was pressured to keep my approval standards high, so I've been reticent to approve borderline posts since I have no idea if they'll be flagged and render my efforts in vain. Seeing posts with appeals is usually nice since those tend not to be flagged too much afterward, so I try to approve them as I see them if they're above the borderline. I'm not going to approve the way NOOU does, but if stupid flaggings stop being so common I don't mind opening my horizons to let a few more in.

It would be nice if there was a bit more communication amongst approvers as a whole on what we know we will and won't approve to prevent unnecessary flaggings. As for the odd spat of flags saying vague statements, they really need more warning to stop undermining the process, which goes for vague appeals too.

So, uh, getting back on topic:

fossilnix said:

Now that the message says "flagged for review," did this user think "review" meant "check the notes" and not "consider deletion?"

I think it's because the flag dialog said that "fake translations" are banned, without clarifying that this refers to incorrect hard translations. It looks like kuudere already fixed this in help:flag notice. I went ahead and updated it to clarify a few other things as well.

post #2560729
Not really a vandalism, but this is ridiculous. I don't know what flagger thinks, but flagging just because of her eyes is laughable and selfish. So much for "quality control", for fuck sake.

Sacriven said:

post #2560729
Not really a vandalism, but this is ridiculous. I don't know what flagger thinks, but flagging just because of her eyes is laughable and selfish. So much for "quality control", for fuck sake.

The eyes aren't the only thing wrong with that. The flagger could've been for thorough, but hopefully approvers can take a second to understand that he was trying say that the post has flaws that merit a pass through the queue.

Also, once again, flags aren't a personal insult. They're just another run, or in this case a first run, through the approval queue.

buehbueh said:

To go off of kuudere's shadow's statements, I'm not sure what the rest of the staff are up to, but I wonder if there's been a chilling effect in the past few weeks from the increased flagging encouraging approvers to skip borderline uploads.

It's not that. Several prolific approvers recently retired or otherwise lost their approval privileges. The numbers of approvers even seeing individual posts has drastically dropped. It used to be that deleted posts would have around 10, now it's only about 3-5 on a lot of posts I've seen. The site just needs more active approvers.

Hoobajoob said:

The eyes aren't the only thing wrong with that. The flagger could've been for thorough, but hopefully approvers can take a second to understand that he was trying say that the post has flaws that merit a pass through the queue.

Also, once again, flags aren't a personal insult. They're just another run, or in this case a first run, through the approval queue.

Just a plain curiosity, but what are the others?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm angry towards the flagger, not the flag. Nowadays flaggers have already developed some kind of "flag this, flag that" symptom, ignoring the whole image value just for personal standard. I've seen many images got deleted which has a good quality and acceptable for this site, but still deleted anyway just because of a minor error in their arms/feet/hands. Summarily, the proverb "With only a drop of alcohol, a pot of milk is damaged".

Sacriven said:

post #2560729

In this and many other cases, those flags are pictures that haven't even gone through the moderation queue thanks to contributor status. I'd understand the feeling if they were pictures that had already been approved once getting flagged for something you consider minor, but when it's an upload that entirely bypassed the queue in the first place, I frankly don't get the anger.

Sacriven said:

Just a plain curiosity, but what are the others?

The shoulder looks off and the linework/shading is fairly substandard. Look around the lines on the arms and hips, you see a lot of uncolored spots and broken sketchy lines. It'd be one thing if it was suppose to represent light reflecting off the skin, but it's on both sides and on the darkening shaded parts, too.

Hoobajoob said:

The shoulder looks off and the linework/shading is fairly substandard. Look around the lines on the arms and hips, you see a lot of uncolored spots and broken sketchy lines. It'd be one thing if it was suppose to represent light reflecting off the skin, but it's on both sides and on the darkening shaded parts, too.

The 'uncolored' parts you speak of are highlights from accent lighting/backlighting, the shading is actually above-average from the median art, because a lot of substandard shading overuses soft brushes/air brushes which don't look good if not executed well (You can see that he makes use of both hard/soft (cast and form shadow) shading fairly well). Chalk the highlight positions down to visual appeal and inexperience. One thing you learn in art is that readability and appeal are more important than complete technical accuracy. Accurately determining light sources and their requisite effects requires either very good spatial visualizing or experience, and intentionally breaking light is something artists do. Another thing you also learn when drawing still life is that the darkest shadows happen closest to the light, at the beginning of the cast shadows.

post #2501105 is an example where a far more experienced artist creates highlights on both sides with what seems to be a head-on frontal light.

The linework also is fairly sharp, and only sketchy on the inside of the silhouette, where it matters the least. Not everything needs to be perfectly rendered for an artist to convey his/her vision. Just take a look at concept art. Would you say concept art is any less artful because it's not fully-rendered?

I'd normally stay silent instead of defending the image (Which I honestly feel is not deserving of deletion, though I'd never have uploaded it myself), but for feeling that your comment was too egregious.

Well, I don't know what you are thinking, but I consider this a bit unfair to say that flagging became to nitpicky in the past. And while I also put my standards a bit higher than I used to lately, my flags have never been an issue here in this topic (except the silly flag at the very beginning and I stopped to sound "funny" because of this.
Well, for these flags, I noticed something: The person who complained here, I don't know if justified or not, was the same person whose images were flagged.
I don't want to say anything more to this topic but I think that the flagging standard this rise. Maybe because of an increase in flagging in general or maybe due to the demotion of Not One Of Us and users are now "braver" to flag an image, because they know that the biggest "obstacle" has no approval powers anymore. I don't know if that really hits it, but it should be considered.
That said: If that is true, then the standard did indeed rise, but I will also take a look at flags if I see one in the queue.
That said: i think I won't really stop to flag images if I see more bad posts. But I think it can never hurt to ask a second person about their opinion. It did save images their asses (maybe they were re-approved, but definitely flagged at first) because I did so in the past, because the other user didn't see it the way I did and vice versa. I stopped that completely in November, so maybe that is a reason that my standards did rise.

But if you are angry at the flagger, then I have to say that you don't know them. That's because their names are hidden: A witch hunt is not wanted and therefore a call-out at the flagger shouldn't be done. The moderators will take actions if they think that there is vandalism or if an user is attacking a copyright, artist (because of their artstyle) or user and will ban that user. And that is understandable.
So it is better to "attack" the flag because it just has more substance and is a weaker starting point at defending your posts than becoming personal with a person you don't know.
Therefore: Wait out the flag if you are angry at the person who flagged it because of a stupid reason in your opinion.

I have a question which I also ask in comment #1618111 :
When is coloring a bad point for an image. I mean, saturated colors are rarely a negative point, but what if an image has washed out colors (i.e. the opposite of saturated colors) or the coloring is going over the lineart. What is if there is only one tone of the color and no real shading. I know that this has something to do with flat coloring and is not really a negative point, but are there instances where missing shading is indeed a negative point.

Provence said:

I have a question which I also ask in comment #1618111 :
When is coloring a bad point for an image. I mean, saturated colors are rarely a negative point, but what if an image has washed out colors (i.e. the opposite of saturated colors) or the coloring is going over the lineart. What is if there is only one tone of the color and no real shading. I know that this has something to do with flat coloring and is not really a negative point, but are there instances where missing shading is indeed a negative point.

When it's gaudy, in my opinion. It's hard to quantify it, but when you see bad coloring you just know on the spot, "this is terrible."

Also I don't really see any overly-wrong problems with the shoulder, if you look at someone from an angle, their closer shoulder is going to appear a lot shorter than the farther one. It is simple perspective, which I would say also applies to the neck-shoulder area, since the frontal perspective is actually slightly below the horizon and looking up. The torso isn't too long, but it and the hips look too thin, which give the impression that it's long, but since that isn't the focal point of the image (huge visual emphasis on the bust), I can give that a pass.

I would honestly say that this isn't a good image, but it's far from bad and not too mediocre either. If it were me, I'd approve it as meeting Danbooru baseline, though as I've mentioned, I wouldn't have uploaded it.

CodeKyuubi said:

I'd normally stay silent instead of defending the image (Which I honestly feel is not deserving of deletion, though I'd never have uploaded it myself), but for feeling that your comment was too egregious.

All the things I mentioned were just to say it's a medicore picture. The fact it also has a severe problem with the eyes that make her look like sloth from the goonies is what makes the post flag worthy.

If you don't see the problem with the eyes, then look at her chin/nose and the angle it establishes for her face. If you look at the eyes now based on that angle the left eye is on a way higher angle than the other eye. If the eyes were on their own it'd be fine, but the angle of the mouth and chin don't match the angle of the eyes. Either the left eye is too high or the mouth/chin are at the wrong angle.

The main point I'm making here it that the flag has some kind of merit and definitely wasn't vandalism.

This is my first ever complaint on this site.

I believe the flag is being abused by someone who think he's professional enough to judge artists' works. I have been noticing it long ago. It's not an opinion, when this particular "user" actually flags an artwork, drew by good artist, with reason such as "One should probably look over this very long stomach and very thin arms. If we also follow the neck, then it is connected to the chest not by a 90° angle, but is slightly crooked" post #2526675.

And then moderators who actually kind of went with it too, by "did not like the post enough to approve it". It is contesting the ability of us contributors (or builders with unrestricted upload) to pick well drawn artworks -- at least when they didn't violate any "code of conducts" of the site, likewise on par with many other artworks. I wish the mods and admins will look into this issue.