Final word on dupes/parenting/flagging?

Because I keep seeing things flagged as dupes for deletion even though they've already been made children to better parents. I thought the idea of parenting these was so they didn't need to be deleted?

It seems there is... a lack of consensus as yet.

Looking at the list of things flagged right now, I'm 99% certain I've unflagged more than one of these in the past because I was going off the new understanding via parenting. And now they're flagged again.

I know straight up deletion makes sense for something reuploaded soon after it was just uploaded, and perhaps tweaked in such a small way that it evaded dupe detection but is still for all intents and purposes a dupe. That's not what I'm unclear on.

So... final word please? I don't care either way, I'll parent or delete, because I have no particular problem deleting something with votes or favorites, but I have not been doing so because I thought we agreed not to? So which is it?

I suppose examples are in order:

1) post #6885 I almost certainly unflagged before.
2) post #... well I guess it's either been deleted or unflagged since I last looked, but it's a carnelian image I'm 100% certain I've unflagged before.

jxh2154 said:

1) post #6885 I almost certainly unflagged before.

About that post, it does seem less blurry than post #50383, the bigger version. Dunno why someone keeps flagging it.

Final word: don't delete unless the post violates the current rules (specifically, the one against compression artifacts or obnoxious watermarks).

Would bad crops fall under compression artifacts or should we leave those alone?

Log said:
Would bad crops fall under compression artifacts or should we leave those alone?

Leave them alone.

albert said:
Final word: don't delete unless the post violates the current rules (specifically, the one against compression artifacts or obnoxious watermarks).

What about fresh uploads? Do they still get spared, to prevent them from being reuploaded?

葉月 said:
What about fresh uploads? Do they still get spared, to prevent them from being reuploaded?

Yeah. In the grand scope of things, they don't really add that much noise. I think it's better to link to the best quality version either through comments or parents.

At least, let's tag them with "duplicate" and not count them as credits for the uploader.

Ok. I do think dupes of something upped literally hours or minutes before should just be removed (because it gets tedious to parent so many things) but on the whole the official policy should make things easier.

Can regular non-invited users use the parenting function? If so, they can just go ahead and parent things themselves instead of flagging, it'd be a big help.

So just parent posts instead of flagging?

I know I've been flagging a lot recently so I'll just parent instead then.

Marbleshoot said:
So just parent posts instead of flagging?

And add a "duplicate" tag to all the duplicates except the best one (which becomes the parent). This way they can be excluded from searches, and we can semi-easily check if a user's uploads are mostly duplicates or if there is new stuff too.

In fact, a special "duplicate" checkbox might be helpful here, as would having danbooru automatically hide posts flagged as such in searches.

LaC said: In fact, a special "duplicate" checkbox might be helpful here, as would having danbooru automatically hide posts flagged as such in searches.

While there could be problems with that, I agree that anything that makes it easier is good.

The only question is about hiding them in search results. It's good because users don't have to work it out themselves while saving, but bad because images that are sufficiently different enough to deserve a result listing might be checked dupe and hidden.

I guess proper parenting would reduce the effects of that though.

Hm, good point. Setting the duplicate flag should require the parent to be set, and if the parent is somehow lost, then the duplicate flag should automatically be cleared. This way, there's no chance that someone will set the flag inadvertently and make the picture unaccessible from searches.

It could also be useful for duplicates to inherit tags set on the master copy (but not the other way around, so you could tag a bad dupe with jpeg_artifacts without the tag carrying over to the good copy).

LaC said: It could also be useful for duplicates to inherit tags set on the master copy (but not the other way around, so you could tag a bad dupe with jpeg_artifacts without the tag carrying over to the good copy).

Yeah, as long as people make sure to migrate tags and source URLs when needed.

I've often seen older images flagged for being smaller and such, and thus the new image is "better". But the old tag is sourced artist/char/series, has a URL, and sometimes is better tagged in other ways as well. It would become a child of the new post that has none of those good tags, so we should make sure that all that information is migrated to the new post before the old is marked dupe.

I have been wondering, if the larger dupe is a scan, and there is one smaller cleaner pic (lets say no smaller than 3/4 of the scan size), which should be the parent?
post #19880 and post #151124 might be good examples

Also, should really big images (like for example 4000x3000 10MB+ png) still be set as parents, or would it be better bandwidth-wise to set a more browser friendly size (around 2000x1500) as the parent?