Posted under General
chilled_sake said:
may as well remove the approver name as well
Right now that field is the only way anyone with low level accounts can tell what's coming from users that have auto-approve and what's being approved. Some of the users with auto-approve upload things I wouldn't touch because they'd fail approval. Removing the ability to tell the difference could actually hinder the push to get new users to improve their quality control.
SciFi said:
Right now that field is the only way anyone with low level accounts can tell what's coming from users that have auto-approve and what's being approved.
This isn't strictly true. Even logged out it's still technically possible, by performing something like an id:3440014 approver:any search, to find out whether or not a particular post skipped the modqueue.
This is a bit more time-consuming, though, and most users are unlikely to be familiar with advanced search tricks like this. Maybe, if the approver's name is hidden, there should be an indicator like "Manually Approved" or "Automatically Approved" beneath the post status in the sidebar.
Tsumanne said:
I for one see a complete and utter lack of accountability with this change. This change ignores the reality of the basic system. There are two levels. Up-loader and approver. Why is half the equation being removed? Why is half the accountability being removed? I personally am proud that I attempt to consistently raise my bar in both uploads and approvals. The basis on that pride resides in accountability (this is crucial for new up-loaders and approvers)... I like that I can always be called out for a lack of judgement and... have been. That my name be tagged whether it be upload or approval. Without these things, what credibility do I have? Isn't that the whole point of raising the bar here on Danbooru? If you want to talk about bias, talk about artist bias... They have 500 uploads, so I guess this one must be ok.
I really don't understand how a user's name being on a post improves quality. I think it's alright to feel some pride, but that this could be derived from achieving builder, approver, or unlimited uploads status, in addition to recognition for achievement in meeting benchmarks and positive feedbacks or just the joy of helping other users along and engaging in on the site. Having one's name on a post can be an ego boost but I don't think it's much more than that. Approvers play a role in molding and developing tastes on the site and, but I find this to be too individualistically minded.
Consider there are drawbacks. Like approver's usernames being associated with posts on search engines. Or the fact that often times several different approvers may have approved a post, however it's just one that happened to snag it at the right time. Another approver that is trying to push tastes in a certain direction then would never get the "recognition" they are just as due as the next one.
iridescent_slime said:
This is a bit more time-consuming
A link to this search could be included next to their upload limit or as a new row on all users called Pending uploads or something next to their total and deleted uploads count.
Maybe, if the approver's name is hidden, there should be an indicator like "Manually Approved" or "Automatically Approved" beneath the post status in the sidebar.
I'm not clear as to why. I think the blue pending approval bar at the top of the page makes it clear that it's awaiting a manual action and that, if it goes away, the post was approved.
Beneath the favorites count we already have Status: Pending. Perhaps what could be done is, for approved posts, have Status: Active (Approved) (with the text Approved being a hyperlink to the moderation history of the post), and Status: Active for posts that bypassed the queue—the former would work also for posts that bypassed the queue and were then flagged and later approved.
I still don't get the point of removing the information, for either regular users or approvers. Those that want to know that information are still going to be able to find it (example in topic #15926). On the opposite side, there are already ways with CSS to hide it for those that don't want to see that information. So the only thing this proposed change seems to be is a way for a small subset of users to force their views on the entire site, which will in effect accomplish nothing.
BrokenEagle98 said:
I still don't get the point of removing the information, for either regular users or approvers. Those that want to know that information are still going to be able to find it (example in topic #15926). On the opposite side, there are already ways with CSS to hide it for those that don't want to see that information. So the only thing this proposed change seems to be is a way for a small subset of users to force their views on the entire site, which will in effect accomplish nothing.
It's not exactly hidden information. One can easily look at post histories if they need to. And sure, you can do a lot of things with scripts that may go against how the site is designed, you can even get notifications for flags. Experienced users can use these changes appropriately but that doesn't mean they should be the default function.
You can agree or disagree with the suggestions, but no one is 'forcing' anybody to do anything.
chilled_sake said:
...you can do a lot of things with scripts that may go against how the site is designed...
Unless you're albert, you don't know what the site was designed for, nor whether a script goes against it or not.
...but that doesn't mean they should be the default function.
I'm not sure that's the common opinion.
You can agree or disagree with the suggestions, but no one is 'forcing' anybody to do anything.
Changing the layout is a type of forcing. It forces some to seek the information in other ways, since the information is no longer presented.
Whereas right now users are not "forced" to view that information. They can use Custom CSS which will hide that information, even though the information is still there.
The proposal however would remove that information. Nothing as simple as a Custom CSS could bring it back. It would require a userscript or more to restore.
Regardless of any of the above though, IMO I haven't heard any convincing arguments about removing the approver name. In the end, it all seems to boil down to "well we removed the uploader, might as well remove the approver".
TL;DR
-1 That's my vote.
I still have mixed feelings on uploader removal (on one hand, I've always disliked the concept of gaining fame for posting someone else's work, but on the other hand, having the information present has saved me time in the past when it came to recognizing and reaching out to problem uploaders), but I think I'm against removing approver as well.
Primary reasoning is that I definitely do care about maintaining the quality level of this site, inactive though I may be anymore, and I do pay attention to who is approving posts I come across that I don't feel meet quality so that I can say something if I notice a trend of behavior. The removal of this kind of info takes away from the community's ability to help keep the site up to standards, placing all of the power in the hands of a very small collection of mods and janitors.
Personally, I still think Uploader/Tagger/Approver would be better left on the post but perhaps hidden under a collapsible or clickable "analytics" or something section.
chilled_sake said:
It's not exactly hidden information. One can easily look at post histories if they need to. And sure, you can do a lot of things with scripts that may go against how the site is designed, you can even get notifications for flags. Experienced users can use these changes appropriately but that doesn't mean they should be the default function.
You can agree or disagree with the suggestions, but no one is 'forcing' anybody to do anything.
I'm forced to visit the information page every time I want to look something up.
Now, if I'm not mistaken you have made a CSS that hides the uploader's name in the mod queue. Since you have done this, why can't you then do a CSS that hides the name on the regular upload page as well? That way you are free of "bias" and the other users aren't affected at all.
And this still "name hiding" policy" does nothing, at least some users are still doing a very poor job tagging their uploads before hitting submit. If the removal of Top Tagger (or even Uploader) is for enforcing users to tag properly beforehand (wtf?) then it's already failing but users that do not tag properly beforehand should receive some backlash in one way or the other. But that doesn't happen.
I mean..what is the goal of this?
Lacrimosa said:
I mean..what is the goal of this?
Looks like you’ve missed how this even came about.
If I understood correctly, the perceived main issue is this:
This led to the following additional issue:
Apparent solution: remove uploader names to remove e-peen incentives. Assumption: if there’s no reason to hurry, uploaders should have the time to tag properly, leading to better tagged posts.
Reactions to the “solution” that I remember seeing:
Disclaimer: This is just my view on it. I won’t claim that this summary is accurate.
kittey said:
Looks like you’ve missed how this even came about.
If I understood correctly, the perceived main issue is this:
- Some high-volume uploaders tag minimally, especially during Pixiv rush hour, which led to the assumptions that these users want to have as many uploads as possible with their name on it for e-peen reasons.
This led to the following additional issue:
- Some properly tagging uploaders are annoyed about getting sniped by some of the aforementioned uploaders.
Apparent solution: remove uploader names to remove e-peen incentives. Assumption: if there’s no reason to hurry, uploaders should have the time to tag properly, leading to better tagged posts.
Reactions to the “solution” that I remember seeing:
- Appreciation by users who think uploader credit is stupid anyway.
- Protest from users wanting to have upload credit.
- Protest from users who say that nobody checked if the perceived issue is actually an issue and if the solution is helpful in any way.
- Protest from users who are annoyed by obscured information that requires extra effort to view.
Disclaimer: This is just my view on it. I won’t claim that this summary is accurate.
That was a rhetorical question. I know how this thing developed.
Sniping is still a thing, especially during rush.
Removing the name on the upload is a fairly poor thing to do here since you can still see what you've uploaded on your profile page. You still get the feeling that this upload is mine and nothing can be done about it.
The best way to handle sniping and credit-taking is to make a rule against image sniping. That way you don't hurt the diligent users and the ones with sniping behavior are getting sorted out.
Can you make a hard rule, though? Of course not, but if an user accumulates more and more complaints it may be a sign to step in. That way no one gets really harmed.
Anyway, the solution that is found here tackles not the issue that is perceived. This change hinders diligent users by doing stuff properly because why should I even upload if I don't even get tagging credits. But it surely doesn't remove e-peen incentives.
In other word, tagging well is less rewarded now in any way, while the primary issue is still present.
The fact that only 2% of posts changed Top Tagger name shouldn't be considered as a failure of that. The requirement of that to happen have been insanely high. That's fairly obvious when you look at the user reports. Even the worst taggers still have a total amount of over 20 tags in average, making snatching Top Tagger from them insanely difficult because you have to bump the post to at least 41 tags in total now. Speaking from tagging experience, only a few posts are actually exceeding40 tags in total.
I think 2% are actually a very, very good number for this project. But that's just me.
Readily accessible accountability at the user level. This is both my argument and the basis of the site when I first decided to make the leap from long-time lurker to contributor in winter 2012. This also touches on the other elements of accountability that sold me to follow and contribute to this site above all others: Artist recognition and direct link to original sources.
Accountability. Accountability. This is what makes danbooru special among all the other "similar" sites so why retract any element which has made this site both successful and special via that rare concept of internet credibility?
The fact that the site is turning its back on readily accessible accountability in any form is contradictory to the effort made over the years by many to raise the bar here on danbooru to ensure that it would be more than a mere repository for porn...
Standards are only achieved and maintained through accountability. Anyone should be able to readily call out my uploads. Anyone should be able to readily call out my approvals. It's that peer check that keeps us all honest and makes this site great. I wouldn't be here otherwise. If anything, add peer accountability, don't retract it.
PS (edit)
Removing Up-loader (top tagger) is a mistake that will ultimately harm the integrity of danbooru. And with that, I've said my piece. What will be will be.
Updated
BrokenEagle98 said:
So far as it comes to forcing, literally any change to the site can be characterized like that so I'm not concerned. There just isn't any information being removed, it's all available in post histories and, as you said, there are already tools right now people can run to show or hide uploader and approver names. I don't see anyone saying we should add a field for the translator of a post to be shown, even though for translators it would provide about as much utility. I don't at all see what great service is provided by showing these names on a post, besides giving some people a feeling of ownership. I often have to contact a user about how they aren't using the site as well as they could, like those who don't include a source, and have had no issues clicking to load the page for tag histories, and when it comes again to translators, this part of the community has been doing that well before we removed the uploader name without issue either.
Some of the same problems expressed about uploader names on a post exist for approvers as well. There is still the felt sense of ownership over posts in addition to users unrelated to a post in any way besides approving it being associated with the post, including on third party sites mirroring or indexing this one.
Kayako said:
The removal of this kind of info takes away from the community's ability to help keep the site up to standards, placing all of the power in the hands of a very small collection of mods and janitors.
I don't believe this challenges our ability to do that in the slightest, it certainly hasn't made it harder for me to contact users. And I fail to see how this shifts power to moderators or active builders in any way.
Personally, I still think Uploader/Tagger/Approver would be better left on the post but perhaps hidden under a collapsible or clickable "analytics" or something section.
This has promise.
Lacrimosa said:
Now, if I'm not mistaken you have made a CSS that hides the uploader's name in the mod queue. Since you have done this, why can't you then do a CSS that hides the name on the regular upload page as well? That way you are free of "bias" and the other users aren't affected at all.
Well I don't think the use of scare quotes around bias is at all necessary. How I'd like to use the queue really isn't relevant here, I just don't want to happen to see someone's name when going through it...but this is not the same, it's not just a matter of using CSS so I don't see an approver's name on a post, which I would not do, it's about what the default mechanics of the site are, I don't feel any sort of bias seeing who approved something.
Lacrimosa said:
I think 2% are actually a very, very good number for this project. But that's just me.
I also do not think 2% is a failure considering, if I am not mistaken, that would be 2% of all posts as opposed to all poorly tagged posts. I'd still though the idea that making some the Top Tagger is the cause of that percentage or even that it's a good incentive. As I have expressed before, I think people should be encouraged through a material benefit, such as more upload slots. Why put in work just to have your name on a post? That could be enough for some people, but I can't imagine who.
Tsumanne said:
Readily accessible accountability at the user level. This is both my argument and the basis of the site when I first decided to make the leap from long-time lurker to contributor in winter 2012. This also touches on the other elements of accountability that sold me to follow and contribute to this site above all others: Artist recognition and direct link to original sources.
Accountability. Accountability. This is what makes danbooru special among all the other "similar" sites so why retract any element which has made this site both successful and special via that rare concept of internet credibility?
The fact that the site is turning its back on readily accessible accountability in any form is contradictory to the effort made over the years by many to raise the bar here on danbooru to ensure that it would be more than a mere repository for porn...
Standards are only achieved and maintained through accountability. Anyone should be able to readily call out my uploads. Anyone should be able to readily call out my approvals. It's that peer check that keeps us all honest and makes this site great. I wouldn't be here otherwise. If anything, add peer accountability, don't retract it.
PS (edit)
Removing Up-loader (top tagger) is a mistake that will ultimately harm the integrity of danbooru. And with that, I've said my piece. What will be will be.
I really do fail to see how any of this would erode accountability and the integrity of the site. If someone makes an errant post, I can easily find their name from the post history and then check their backlog of uploads and approval just as always.
