Posted under General
Rastamepas said:
That first picture is 7 years old. You can't compare something 7 years old to something 4 years old.
Let that be my problem when I flag things. And I don't think I'll do it :3.
That's why it is pretty difficult to find flag-worthy fanart that is multiple years old. They mostly get flagged for anatomy errors.
Rastamepas said:
That first picture is 7 years old. You can't compare something 7 years old to something 4 years old.
Sometimes the older work is better. I could name some manga artists who went from distinct to basically copy-pasta art in that time (AMG comes to mind). Niwatazumi's Meiling cosplay as Komachi (post #1292448) is a lot better than most of the Tatebayashi_sakurako art, even now.
Does that mean we need to flag most of the Tatebayashi_sakurako posts or his recent art as being subpar? No.
I'm not sure we're set up to flag legacy art, based on earlier forum discussion - otherwise a lot of Albert's early uploads would fail moderation today. But I am concerned when flagging reasons given are somewhat generic and more criticism of the art style than specific failures of the art.
Rastamepas said:
That first picture is 7 years old. You can't compare something 7 years old to something 4 years old.
We used to have a "grandfather clause" that older posts were exempt from flagging. A couple years ago when I cited it for still being in a wiki page (howto:upload?) I was told it was killed off long before that and it being there was an oversight.
So yeah, you can.
OOZ662 said:
We used to have a "grandfather clause" that older posts were exempt from flagging. A couple years ago when I cited it for still being in a wiki page (howto:upload?) I was told it was killed off long before that and it being there was an oversight.
So yeah, you can.
I guess that is a good thing that such a clause doesn't exist.
We have Janitors that can evaluate the quality quite good for those images and some pictures aren't good and weren't good even 7 years ago. So there is some free space for Janitors here.
Is there a significant point to retroactively flagging posts from years ago that were acceptable back then because they don't meet today's standards? That seems pretty arbitrary (fitting things to one's personal standards in the flagger's case) and seemingly unnecessary.
Updated
NCAA_Gundam said:
Is there a significant point to retroactively flagging posts from years ago that were acceptable back then because they don't meet today's standards? That seems pretty arbitrary (fitting thibmngs to one's personal standards in the flagger's case) and seemingly unnecessary.
I'm more worried about the queue - do we really want to add extra load to it when it often takes posts the full 3 days to get approved or denied as is? Especially if someone is out to do some vandalism by overloading thr queue and driving more posts into deleted status because all the janitors and moderators are busy reviewing flagged posts? I'm imagining someone tearing into Albert's old uploads, for example, after that 'theifs=Danbooru' post.
I definitely think outright looking for old posts to flag is usually a bad idea, but there are cases where Really Bad art may have been uploaded a long time ago, and still deserve to be flagged. The thing is, the standards for flagging should reflect what the standards for uploading were at the time the picture was uploaded. I'm not saying they should be exactly as strict or loose, but I do think that the standards of the time of the picture are more important than the present ones.
That doesn't mean all sorts of bulk flagging of old posts are inherently bad, but the standards should definitely be closer to what they were when the images were uploaded.
Super strict scrutiny should stay with recent uploads, since that's by far the most important place to put a high amount of effort, and effort isn't an infinite resource. If users put the most effort into thinking about recent uploads, like they should, then flags on old posts will be a lot more arbitrary, both in placing them and handling them.
Does one-liner flag can be considered as vandalism? Like post #2485645.
Sacriven said:
Does one-liner flag can be considered as vandalism? Like post #2485645.
If "quality check" is ok, then why not this which is more exact?
topic #12998 (although I slightly changed my opnion)
Provence said:
If "quality check" is ok, then why not this which is more exact?
topic #12998 (although I slightly changed my opnion)
topic #13151.
It's OK, but not encouraged. Is it that hard to add a few details on the flag reason?
Sacriven said:
topic #13151.
It's OK, but not encouraged. Is it that hard to add a few details on the flag reason?
http://i.imgur.com/5yrRgc4.png
It is written: Bad proportions Then it gives some examples. There is never specified that you have to say what exactly is wrong with an image.
But I suggest a seperate wiki page for flagging and appealing as suggested in comment #1585351.
Provence said:
http://i.imgur.com/5yrRgc4.png
It is written: Bad proportions Then it gives some examples. There is never specified that you have to say what exactly is wrong with an image.But I suggest a seperate wiki page for flagging and appealing as suggested in comment #1585351.
It shouldn't have to say YOU NEED TO SAY WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG. It should be implied. You don't hand someone their homework back and say shit is bad. Common sense jesus christ.
Rastamepas said:
It shouldn't have to say YOU NEED TO SAY WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG. It should be implied. You don't hand someone their homework back and say shit is bad. Common sense jesus christ.
Calm down. And if something isn't written there, it isn't there.
You know, ambigious rules are the cause for such questions. And as I proposed, we should create a flagging and appealing guide which says what is ok and what not. Not so difficult.
Rastamepas said:
It shouldn't have to say YOU NEED TO SAY WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG. It should be implied. You don't hand someone their homework back and say shit is bad. Common sense jesus christ.
If you're asking the mods to review a post, I'd want to make sure they know what bothered me about an image. If it's a problem with proportions or there are serious scan artifacts, make it clear to the mod queue what they need to look for.
Plus, I've found being explicit is much better when you want someone to do something than letting them infer what they should be doing... as they'll almost inevitably abuse the system or do it badly.
Jarlath said:
Plus, I've found being explicit is much better when you want someone to do something than letting them infer what they should be doing... as they'll almost inevitably abuse the system or do it badly.
Yeah.
But that is up to the user. If he wants to be exact or not is only affecting the odds. Say if you want to be "succesfull" it is always to say that the head is smaller than her shoulder as a simple quality check. Because as you said: Some mods are going to ignore that flaw then.
But that is "personal responsibility" for the user and nothing in my book that should be regulated strictly. And the same is standing in the image I posted above.
You even said it yourself: If you want to let the mods know what bothered you, you write it^^.
I use a short version like "anatomy check" or the other stuff when I think one can see the flaws from the thumbnail.
So one-liner flag is allowed then? Why did I bother to make topic #13151?
Damn it all. Really now? Even just a "look at the shoulder area" can be considered a legit reason for me. One-liner flagging for me is a really, really bad. It provides no distinction between legit flag and flag vandalism. A simple reason is enough so the Janitors won't need to bother scanning pics several times for flaws. It's a waste of time. It'll help Janitors to save their times from flagged posts to reviewing pics on queue.
You know what? Do as you please. I don't want to involved within this for much longer. I already stated my opinions and that's all. I'm not Janitor after all, so you guys should know what is better for yourselves. I'm outta here.
Well, that topic was not about one-liner flags in the first place.
It was about "Loli", "Porn" "NSFW", "too sexy" and that stuff. Things that are allowed here.
And yes, it'd be nice if Janitors have more intel what the flagger wants but then again we (Janitors) should look at the image in full view and look over it. Independent of the flag reason when it comes to checking the proportions, perspective, anatomy or the overall quality.
Well, that's just my opnion about this ^-^.
Provence said:
Well, that topic was not about one-liner flags in the first place.
It was about "Loli", "Porn" "NSFW", "too sexy" and that stuff. Things that are allowed here.And yes, it'd be nice if Janitors have more intel what the flagger wants but then again we (Janitors) should look at the image in full view and look over it. Independent of the flag reason when it comes to checking the proportions, perspective, anatomy or the overall quality.
Well, that's just my opnion about this ^-^.
...That topic is about one-liner "anatomy check" flag. You sure you didn't get mixed up with other topics?
If you say so, well, from now on let's flag any pics with just one-liner then. Let the Janitors do the rest of work. It's not like they have any objections on it.
Oh come on.
Don't twist my words here. I said it's everytime better to have a longer flag reason with multiple reasons and not that every flag reason should be a one-liner. It's a middle path: I'd let the flagger decide.
And I don't speak for all Janitors. So the last sentence makes no sense.
Provence said:
It's a middle path: I'd let the flagger decide.
Right. Still, one-liner flag is a bad decision. It's really not encouraged at all. One-liner flag should be given the same treatment like undertagged pics: a stigma. Just like we have an immediate action to these undertagged pics, I think so does the one-liner flag too.
