Was the information on who approved, unapproved, flagged pictures made public before? Did knowing who approved what caused so much trouble the last time it was made public that people feel so strongly about keeping it private?
Posted under General
Mr_GT said:
Was the information on who approved, unapproved, flagged pictures made public before? Did knowing who approved what caused so much trouble the last time it was made public that people feel so strongly about keeping it private?
AFAIK, no. This is the first time.
I don't see why people don't like this though. If anything, making everything visible to everybody will probably reduce the baaaawing and drama, since people will be more careful if their names are displayed and they can be easily held accountable for their actions. Some will still cause drama of course, but hey, that's what bans are for.
Also, as Soljashy mentioned, if you've got nothing to hide and aren't abusing unapprovals, doing everything properly and by the book, then having your name displayed is actually a good thing, since it helps your reputation as a user. Unapproving bad posts is contributing too.
So long as flagger's names are limited to the people with access to the mod queue (who's job it is to decide whether the flag was appropriate in the first place), I can't see this causing drama.
As for why this is preferable to leaving everything anonymous, it simply provides evidence of misuse, which can be corrected via a PM, or abuse where measures can be taken to rectify the situation. It also provides accountability.
I have had no less than three people come to me via PM since I became a janitor, paranoid that some user was out to get them for personal reasons. With the flagger and acceptor information available, it will be simple to either verify that no one person is singling them out, or if there is, ensure that legitimate moderation (flagging is moderation too, and not only done by moderators) is going on and not some sort of personal vendetta.
I think these reasons in themselves are enough for this to be a good idea.
Updated
Soljashy said:
Furthermore, insisting that this information be hidden makes it look like you've got something to hide. :/
I was waiting for this sentence, really. Now I'm first on the list of suspicion ones, hear hear :/
Just one simple question - on election day, when you go voting your deputies, senators or presidents etc. you are doing it anonymously, I ask you why? You don't have anything to hide, do you? Are you ashamed of your personal opinions or political preferences?
Of course there's huge difference in importance between going to voting booth and clicking unapproval button on danboru, but the answer is the same: because all people are truly, really sincere when they can be anonymous.
This does not imply, that you must be hypocrite if you're saying something under your own name. But some folks (or maybe many of them?) will tend to have biased point of view or, at best, they simply won't give a s*it about something when they feel they're not truly anonymous. And in case of danbooru that means they won't do anything even if they know that something looks terribly wrong and should be unapproved.
evazion said:
The unapproval reason can no longer be blank (though you can still just type a period or something).
Having to flag tons of stuff for redundant reasons why don't you simply have a list box to select that reason instead of going through the hassle of writing each time?
Cyberia-Mix said:
Having to flag tons of stuff for redundant reasons why don't you simply have a list box to select that reason instead of going through the hassle of writing each time?
Hey, that's a good idea.
edit: but it would be even better if you could still write your reason by yourself too
Having a set of common pre-defined flag reasons isn't a bad idea at all. Since they would be normalized, someone with access to the data (such as Albert) could even use them to develop a system to identify trouble spots with either individual users (which could be addressed via PM), or the user base as a whole (which could be addressed via howto documents).
As Richie notes though, custom reasons are a must. It's not possible to enumerate all the possible problems a post could have, especially if constructive criticism is to be included in the rational.
I'm also pretty sure to do this we'd have to change the entire flagging interface, as I don't think you can use drop-boxes in the sort of dialogue boxes we are currently using.
Suiseiseki said:
I'd rather the identities of unapprovers be limited to the mod team. Petty individuals may decide to get "revenge" on the unapprover and just make more work. Sure they'll be banned but it just seems like trouble we don't need.
This.
Also it should be more clear that a reason should be put in the box.
I didn't know that a reason showed up until a janitor mentioned it in the forums. How about asking for a reason in the dialogue box itself?
Suiseiseki said:
I'd rather the identities of unapprovers be limited to the mod team. Petty individuals may decide to get "revenge" on the unapprover and just make more work. Sure they'll be banned but it just seems like trouble we don't need.
What kind of revenge is going to happen that it is scary enough to not let this good idea through? It's not like someone is going to find you and kick your ass.
I'm for this and Ive been gunning for it for a long time now. Making this information public forces the unapprover to think up a good reason (other than a gut reaction to something they don't like) and helps the person who uploaded the pic know what's wrong with it.
Scalar said:
I'm for this and Ive been gunning for it for a long time now. Making this information public forces the unapprover to think up a good reason (other than a gut reaction to something they don't like) and helps the person who uploaded the pic know what's wrong with it.
Unapprover identity doesn't tell you anything in regards to this.
Unapproval reasons, on the other hand, are public and nobody is arguing that they shouldn't be. Most of the unapproved posts in the queue currently have a good reason stated (there's a few older ones without one but nothing we can do about that.)
Scalar said:
What kind of revenge is going to happen that it is scary enough to not let this good idea through? It's not like someone is going to find you and kick your ass.I'm for this and Ive been gunning for it for a long time now. Making this information public forces the unapprover to think up a good reason (other than a gut reaction to something they don't like) and helps the person who uploaded the pic know what's wrong with it.
I'm 100% for the reason being displayed, I just don't think that the unapprover's name needs to be displayed to the public. I know that nothing MAJOR will happen if the information is available, however I could see massive drama spawning from it, and potentially abuse in the form of dmail and general asshattery.
Danbooru has proven more than once that it has members willing to go to great lengths to annoy, misuse, and cause problems over incredibly little things (such as images not being approved), I can't see that changing.
EDIT: Thinking back, wasn't the flagger's identity public in the old system? Didn't we come to the conclusion that it was nothing but a drama magnet which led to it's omission from the unapproval system?
Updated
Scalar said:
What kind of revenge is going to happen that it is scary enough to not let this good idea through? It's not like someone is going to find you and kick your ass.
Even more comment traffic. Anything that increases the volume of comments unnecessarily is harmful. Also mails, some people just don't know when to stop, and seeing the green bar all the time when it's someone you're trying to ignore is mucho annoying.
Additionally, the poster doesn't really learn anything from seeing who flagged their post, like they do from seeing why it was flagged. The flagger's ID is really only useful to the moderation crew who could use it for the aforementioned purpose, and wouldn't be people to wreak havoc themselves.
Shinjidude said:
I'm also pretty sure to do this we'd have to change the entire flagging interface, as I don't think you can use drop-boxes in the sort of dialogue boxes we are currently using.
I have a picture in my mind of a pop-up with a list of predefined reasons, as well as a mandatory comment box in which to elaborate why the post is being flagged. Also, if there was a way to notify the flagger by PM upon re-approving the image (as opposed to going to one's profile and so forth), if need be, why their reason wasn't substantial for deletion.
hytone said:
Also, if there was a way to notify the flagger by PM upon re-approving the image (as opposed to going to one's profile and so forth), if need be, why their reason wasn't substantial for deletion.
Well, if we knew who flagged what, we could always do that manually, and that's another good reason to argue for it being visible for the approval team. I don't think "normal" people need to see it, not that I think it can do enormous harm, but it also just doesn't do anybody any good.
I agree with Suiseikeki that the approvers/unapprovers/deletion flagging should only be visible to moderation.
Although I wouldn't mind explaining to posters who post low quality content why a post would be disapproved or flagged for deletion, it is not given that these issues will be resolved through standard PM sessions, there are uploaders who will simply grief and spam out of frustration.
Also, I am rather worried about the fact that there are posts which could be deemed 'plausible' for DB. by not breaking the upload rules and not being 'poorly drawn', are being flagged because the flagger did not personally like it.
Perhaps deletion flagging should be more pinpointed to not meeting the DB quality/upload standards? It is rather depressing to see decent posts fly by through the queue merely because it did not personally do it for the individual who flagged it.
Scalar said:
What kind of revenge is going to happen that it is scary enough to not let this good idea through? It's not like someone is going to find you and kick your ass.
It's not so much that it would be "scary" but that, it's the mod staff who'd deal with whatever consequences are imposed for abuse of the unapproval system so they're the ones who need to know who's doing it. It would probably be harmless to make it public knowledge who unapproved each post (I think we used to list who'd flagged a given post back for switching to the unapproval system) but does it really accomplish anything to do so?