Questionable Approvals

@wuv_u
You should probably stop the namecalling.
Also I wonder what you mean with "lottery" approvers. If you are saying that Flandre5carlet is one then I have to say you have no idea what Approvers are chosen by Albert randomly.
But only in case sme people think you are right: Flandre5carlet was asked if they want to become an Approver.

Anyway, this topic is stupid since it's mostly attacking of other user.
I think I made my opinion clear with what I consider as utterly detrimental:
Saying that one should use the bad_* tags instead of flags. If we really want that then undelete all posts with bad anatomy and use the bad_anatomy tag.
Undelete all 3rd-party edits and tag them with photoshop.
If we start saying this then not only on a few posts but on all posts ever uploaded. If a post is supposed to stay should be judged on the post's merits and not with what a post is tagged with. Meaning even if something is tagged with bad_* Approvers are suppoosed to look at the image. They all have enough judgement to evaluate a post correctly.

@zaregoto Well, because I think it's right in the help:flag_notice.
And yes, some images have anatomy errors, any post has this. But some posts are more glaringly than others for some people. Some posts with horrible anatomy won'T get flagged for ages because no one crossed the post and it happened on coincidence when older stuff gets flagged (unless you have some ways to catch these posts or concentrating on certain artists like reiha_(penetrate).
Anatomy flags aren't the only flags but the most common since images that are really breaking the rules 1. don't get approved and 2. are mostly all deleted but are over 10 years old.
The stuff that is still a valid flag reason is anatomy. That isn't "hard" on anatomy but this is the only reason left for posts that are uploaded nowadays.

And there probably are more reasons why stuff with bad anatomy gets more flagged than posts that don't show bad anatomy.

About post #2923767 , in my eyes it's not the anatomy that is the main issue with the post, but the artstyle. It's too western for booru.

zaregoto said:

What I do want to know is: why so hard on anatomy?

Firstly, because it’s one of the things that sets us part from other ’boorus. There are enough other ’boorus that are very generous with art with “creative” anatomy.

Provence said:

Anatomy flags aren't the only flags but the most common since images that are really breaking the rules 1. don't get approved and 2. are mostly all deleted but are over 10 years old.
The stuff that is still a valid flag reason is anatomy. That isn't "hard" on anatomy but this is the only reason left for posts that are uploaded nowadays.

Secondly, pretty much this. I think that most approvers and unlimited uploaders have a pretty good feel for what the ominous “Danbooru quality” is, so we have close to no crap and only a manageable amount of mediocre stuff. But from what I’ve seen again and again in comments of flagged posts is that many users either don’t care that much about correct anatomy or simply don’t see the flaws even when they’re pointed out to them. Little actual crap and a certain disregard of anatomy make anatomy flags seem overrepresented.

Regarding some appeal reasons, I wanted to ask if there might be the need of an howto:appeal wiki. But I think there should be some clarification as to how an appeal should be written at all.
Case in point are appeals like in post #2992107 (Rating Q, Flag not by me).
In my opinion, the flag could need further explanation but then this is about perspective and there is only one aspect regarding perspective in this image that is pov_ass.
What I want to express is that an appeal reason is of course fine for every image. Every image should get appealed when someone thinks that the post is ok. However, if the appeal reason is only written in an attempt to say that the flag reason is lazy then I question if an appeal should be even used there. The reason is that such an appeal doesn't mention to plus points why an image should stay and is only attacking the flag reason that in my eyes is sufficient enough.
This problem might be exaggerated but if a flag reason is wrong and no other flaw pops up then the image gets approved. By over 90 approvers that's to expect.

In order words, while I think that appeals should be used on every image, I think they should also meet some criteria as well and one should be that a potential flag reason should not get attacked. I'd rather prefer as an Approver if the appeal would also mention the qualities of an image. Every flag reason is doing that, sometimes better sometimes worse. Otherwise this reads more like rant to me and maybe other approvers as well and therefore this appealed image has higher odds to get ignored instead. And that's the exact opposite of what an appeal should achieve.

Anyway, before I write more, here the short question:
Should appeals also meet certain requirements and should an howto:appeal wiki be created? Maybe it can be fused with the howto:flag reason that doesn't include appeals but only comments, yet.

Provence said:

Regarding some appeal reasons, I wanted to ask if there might be the need of an howto:appeal wiki. But I think there should be some clarification as to how an appeal should be written at all.
Case in point are appeals like in post #2992107 (Rating Q, Flag not by me).
In my opinion, the flag could need further explanation but then this is about perspective and there is only one aspect regarding perspective in this image that is pov_ass.
What I want to express is that an appeal reason is of course fine for every image. Every image should get appealed when someone thinks that the post is ok. However, if the appeal reason is only written in an attempt to say that the flag reason is lazy then I question if an appeal should be even used there. The reason is that such an appeal doesn't mention to plus points why an image should stay and is only attacking the flag reason that in my eyes is sufficient enough.
This problem might be exaggerated but if a flag reason is wrong and no other flaw pops up then the image gets approved. By over 90 approvers that's to expect.

In order words, while I think that appeals should be used on every image, I think they should also meet some criteria as well and one should be that a potential flag reason should not get attacked. I'd rather prefer as an Approver if the appeal would also mention the qualities of an image. Every flag reason is doing that, sometimes better sometimes worse. Otherwise this reads more like rant to me and maybe other approvers as well and therefore this appealed image has higher odds to get ignored instead. And that's the exact opposite of what an appeal should achieve.

Anyway, before I write more, here the short question:
Should appeals also meet certain requirements and should an howto:appeal wiki be created? Maybe it can be fused with the howto:flag reason that doesn't include appeals but only comments, yet.

Yes, I think we should have some guidelines for appeals. At the bare minimum, people should know that "T H I C C" and "Sexy" aren't any more welcome in appeals than they are in comments.

I think pointing out flawed flag reasons is useful in moderation. Sometimes there are objective flaws with the reason that aren't obvious unless you look closer; for instance, someone flagged post #2753526 as a bad scan when the artist actually uses greyscale bands intentionally. Regarding the example linked, I think it would have been fine if the appeal said something along the lines of "this perspective is actually possible, [reference link]" or "the perspective isn't bad enough to detract from the rest of the image". Instead, it seems to bypass the question of quality entirely to attack the flagger, which I feel is an inappropriate use of appeals.

Provence said:

Regarding some appeal reasons, I wanted to ask if there might be the need of an howto:appeal wiki. But I think there should be some clarification as to how an appeal should be written at all.
Case in point are appeals like in post #2992107 (Rating Q, Flag not by me).
In my opinion, the flag could need further explanation but then this is about perspective and there is only one aspect regarding perspective in this image that is pov_ass.
What I want to express is that an appeal reason is of course fine for every image. Every image should get appealed when someone thinks that the post is ok. However, if the appeal reason is only written in an attempt to say that the flag reason is lazy then I question if an appeal should be even used there. The reason is that such an appeal doesn't mention to plus points why an image should stay and is only attacking the flag reason that in my eyes is sufficient enough.
This problem might be exaggerated but if a flag reason is wrong and no other flaw pops up then the image gets approved. By over 90 approvers that's to expect.

In order words, while I think that appeals should be used on every image, I think they should also meet some criteria as well and one should be that a potential flag reason should not get attacked. I'd rather prefer as an Approver if the appeal would also mention the qualities of an image. Every flag reason is doing that, sometimes better sometimes worse. Otherwise this reads more like rant to me and maybe other approvers as well and therefore this appealed image has higher odds to get ignored instead. And that's the exact opposite of what an appeal should achieve.

Anyway, before I write more, here the short question:
Should appeals also meet certain requirements and should an howto:appeal wiki be created? Maybe it can be fused with the howto:flag reason that doesn't include appeals but only comments, yet.

+1 on creating guidelines for filing appeals. This will help people write more informative appeals to highlight the merits of an image.

When I file appeals I always try to emphasize the well-executed aspects, while addressing whatever issue the flag is pointing out (if any).

However, it is okay to question the flag reason . For example post #110723.

I think it's also a valid approach to scrutinize flags that say nothing but 'bad anatomy'. I think many of these would be so much better with further explanation, especially with regards to persuading approvers that the error is bad enough to justify deletion rather than simply slapping on a bad_X tag on it and moving on. Throwing out cart blanche flags IS lazy and goes against the first flagging guideline: "Do be specific and descriptive in your reason for flagging."

I find these flags to be as unhelpful as appeals that simply say "Hot", "Sexy" or "Good". I don't buy the argument that 'Bad anatomy' is sufficient because of 'obvious issues' anymore than one word appeals that operate on 'obviously good enough'.

Provence said:

Regarding some appeal reasons, I wanted to ask if there might be the need of an howto:appeal wiki.

Is help:deletion_appeals not good enough? It’s even linked from the flag dialogue. I guess nobody pays any attention to it if even you missed it.

kittey said:

Is help:deletion_appeals not good enough? It’s even linked from the flag dialogue. I guess nobody pays any attention to it if even you missed it.

I actually tried my luck with "help:appeals", "howto:appeals" and "about:appeals" ><.
But this page and howto:deletion_appeals covers everything I wanted to express already. That makes things very easy.

But I still want to emphasize on this point that's fairly at the bottom:

Be Polite. The Deletion Appeal process follows the same rule policy of politeness which the other Forums and Comments follow.

I think this should also include attacks against the flaggers, like in the aformentioned post. It seems to me that this point went more or less forgotten over time.
In the end, it seems that everything is already set in place. But maybe one should make the relevant wikis (the two appeal wikis and the flagging wiki) to access. Maybe I'll edit the help_home wiki page a bit later.

I don't think it should be possible to appeal flagged posts to begin with. Appeals are meant for deleted posts. Using them to dispute flags is not what the system is meant for.

The appeal system should be used the same way the deletion appeals thread is. You don't go into the deletion appeals thread to start appealing things that aren't even deleted yet. If you want to discuss a flag, do it in the comments section. Using the appeals system to give your comments more "weight" is a misuse of the system.

As for the content of appeals, frankly I think it hardly matters because appeal reasons are usually worthless either way. Yes, a reason like "sexy" is dumb, but even accepted reasons like "good art", "well drawn", or "<flaw> is not that bad" are just as useless. There's a reason why we don't make people argue their case in the deletion appeals thread. There's rarely anything to say beyond "I like this post; please approve it".

evazion said:

I don't think it should be possible to appeal flagged posts to begin with. Appeals are meant for deleted posts. Using them to dispute flags is not what the system is meant for.

The appeal system should be used the same way the deletion appeals thread is. You don't go into the deletion appeals thread to start appealing things that aren't even deleted yet. If you want to discuss a flag, do it in the comments section. Using the appeals system to give your comments more "weight" is a misuse of the system.

As for the content of appeals, frankly I think it hardly matters because appeal reasons are usually worthless either way. Yes, a reason like "sexy" is dumb, but even accepted reasons like "good art", "well drawn", or "<flaw> is not that bad" are just as useless. There's a reason why we don't make people argue their case in the deletion appeals thread. There's rarely anything to say beyond "I like this post; please approve it".

Though it might not have been the original intent of the system, I think that if we must dispute flags, an appeal is preferable to a comment. Consider what happens if the image gets reapproved. If the argument is in an appeal, both the flag and appeal become invisible at the same time. If the argument is in a comment, however, you have a response sticking around to something that's no longer visible unless you look in the history. It just works better with appeals.

Other than that, I agree that there's no real need to invent high standards for appeals. But we should have some standards, so people are clear that it's not acceptable to waste people's time with salt and memes. Same as comments, really - most contributors find them useless, but we do still punish people for making awful ones.

feline_lump said:

Though it might not have been the original intent of the system, I think that if we must dispute flags, an appeal is preferable to a comment. Consider what happens if the image gets reapproved. If the argument is in an appeal, both the flag and appeal become invisible at the same time. If the argument is in a comment, however, you have a response sticking around to something that's no longer visible unless you look in the history. It just works better with appeals.

Other than that, I agree that there's no real need to invent high standards for appeals. But we should have some standards, so people are clear that it's not acceptable to waste people's time with salt and memes. Same as comments, really - most contributors find them useless, but we do still punish people for making awful ones.

I'd say they should at least meet the guidelines in howto:comment. Flags should already stay withing these guidelines in terms of politeness, racism and memes.
Especially politeness seems to go unnoticed in Appeals. Flagger is blind or lazy isn't really that nice even if it might be true. There are always ways to express that in non-aggressive words.