FeKa said: That's a good solution, but still I'd prefer the old system.
I don't think the two-flag is better.
With the previous system, it took one flagger and the passive agreement of all the moderating staff to delete a post. This system would reduce that requirement to only two people.
Of course, it's true that all it takes is one person to re-approve a post, but when weighting the requirements for approving or deleting, I think we should be stricter when deleting. Approved posts can still be stumbled upon with relative ease to be brought back to consideration in the future. Comparatively, it's much less frequent for people to thumb through deleted posts.
I think what albert means is that if two people flag it, it gets to be subject to auto-deletion after 3 days. If it's just one person, then it doesn't. I don't feel like that's a bad idea as such, but I wonder if that'll mean having a 50-image pileup of single-flagged images at the bottom of the moderation queue.
You know, just like before we introduced 3 day auto-deletion for flagged images. (Though at least you can now hide images from it, so it's not as much of a problem.)
When you flag an image, the "Flag" link doesn't disappear. You can try to flag it a second time, but you won't get a "You have already flagged this post" message. Instead, you get the "Something broke." message.
The "reason" combo box is insufficient. Posts I flag usually fulfill at least 2 of the requirements. Poor compression is often one of them, paired with poorly drawn and/or bad anatomy. (note: bad anatomy is not in the reason combo box...)
Notes are not visible to the users, but the box itself is. I haven't tried using the "Other" reason yet, but I hope it won't show up like this: This post was flagged for deletion: other (1)
Edit: And not being able to look at the image while flagging is annoying. I also need to check if I flag the correct image.
S1eth said: When you flag an image, the "Flag" link doesn't disappear. You can try to flag it a second time, but you won't get a "You have already flagged this post" message. Instead, you get the "Something broke." message.
The "reason" combo box is insufficient. Posts I flag usually fulfill at least 2 of the requirements. Poor compression is often one of them, paired with poorly drawn and/or bad anatomy. (note: bad anatomy is not in the reason combo box...)
Notes are not visible to the users, but the box itself is. I haven't tried using the "Other" reason yet, but I hope it won't show up like this: This post was flagged for deletion: other (1)
I just flagged an image, and I used other (It was poorly drawn so my reason was poorly drawn) and it works like this other: <poorly drawn>
Anelaid said: Can "self upload" be added to the reasons to flag a picture?
No. We don't judge posts based on who uploaded them, we judge them for their quality. Remember that a post once deleted can't be reuploaded by anyone, be they the original poster or somebody else.
スラッシュ said: I think what albert means is that if two people flag it, it gets to be subject to auto-deletion after 3 days. If it's just one person, then it doesn't. I don't feel like that's a bad idea as such, but I wonder if that'll mean having a 50-image pileup of single-flagged images at the bottom of the moderation queue.
That's one thing, and the other is that flagged images still have no reason to get a different treatment than all other images which are auto-deleted after three days. In fact, they have less of a reason, because somebody felt like flagging them, which is not the case for new uploads.
Yeah, I agree. I am honestly piecing things together here, but it seems some people feel that flagging can be malicious or arbitrary ("on a whim" seems to be a popular term in this thread). I would like to see some evidence towards this, personally...
At least we can see that if an image got flagged, the chances of it making it through the approval queue are very low (19 out of 232 last month, thanks zatchii). But the fact is that any upload in the approval queue is likely to get rejected, because there are a lot of bad uploads in there (unless something changed drastically last month). And like you say, the reason they're in there is because someone actively sent them there, so they are more likely to be bad than an image from the queue.
One thing I'm wondering: maybe flagged images shouldn't be marked in red? That kinda makes them more likely to be ignored or just presumed to be bad. If we want to have an objective second look, you shouldn't make it known that it's a second look (expressing that it failed once already makes it more likely to fail again, after all). What's that called, double blind? Not quite I think... Anyway, that.
Other than that I would caution against changing this system radically, because there has been a lot of discussion and reason behind how the system currently works (or at least how it worked before these changes). Even if people feel some of it is confusing or arbitrary, it's probably not the case for danbooru.
スラッシュ said: Yeah, I agree. I am honestly piecing things together here, but it seems some people feel that flagging can be malicious or arbitrary ("on a whim" seems to be a popular term in this thread). I would like to see some evidence towards this, personally...
At least we can see that if an image got flagged, the chances of it making it through the approval queue are very low (19 out of 232 last month). But the fact is that any upload in the approval queue is likely to get rejected, because there are a lot of bad uploads in there (unless something changed drastically last month). And like you say, the reason they're in there is because someone actively sent them there, so they are more likely to be bad than an image from the queue.
One thing I'm wondering: maybe flagged images shouldn't be marked in red? That kinda makes them more likely to be ignored or just presumed to be bad. If we want to have an objective second look, you shouldn't make it known that it's a second look (expressing that it failed once already makes it more likely to fail again, after all). What's that called, double blind testing? Anyway, that.
Double blind is when neither the conductors of the experiment or the subjects are aware of the experimental variable. Its an attempt to stop bias. The classic example is of a cough drop and a placebo. Neither the conductor nor the subject is aware which is the actual drop and which is the placebo. Its not applicable here since there aren't two groups of people.
Really, keeping in mind that flagging doesn't mean poor quality is a better solution than anything else.
Well, 1) it should and 2) in most cases it does, and people do get conditioned into that stuff, even if they're aware of it.
I'm curious if zatchii's 19 out of 232 statistic is equal to the average "success rate" of the moderation queue. I'd say it's higher, but perhaps not by much.
I think its low because the majority of what got flagged lately wouldn't be approved to begin with, and we went through a lot of Seem-related work, which generally bypassed everything because of his status as a mod.
Flagging is a lot more selective and is biased towards ambiguous things to begin with, so the most a properly flagged post could be is average.
My question is, since things aren't deleted if their flagged, what is the purpose of flagging them? They don't show up in the queue either, it seems, so who is going to see that they are flagged?
I'd really like for the whole flagging system to go away and replaced by "sending back to mod queue". As スラッシュ said, this gives the image a chance to be reviewed by all approvers without any presumption that it's bad. I tried to be as objective as possible when examining flagged posts, but it can never be the same as other normal pending images.
If this can be done, we can keep our old system of 3 day auto-deletion because the flagged and non-flagged got treated exactly the same, they have their fair chance to be looked at, they can be appealed through Deletion Appeal thread if anyone discover them.
rantuyetmai said: I'd really like for the whole flagging system to go away and replaced by "sending back to mod queue". As スラッシュ said, this gives the image a chance to be reviewed by all approvers without any presumption that it's bad. I tried to be as objective as possible when examining flagged posts, but it can never be the same as other normal pending images.
But then wouldn't get the flagging reason, which can be a "when you see it", or something like "duplicate", "thumbnail" or other things not apparent from the picture itself. If an image has an apparent flaw, it shouldn't get a pass because one of the janitors failed to spot it.
I don't see why a flagged image shouldn't be subject to extra scrutiny, and I think "This picture shouldn't have been approved, and here is why:" is a good model on the whole.
I wish the flagging users were still visible, too. There's sometimes unpleasantries in the comments from members, but on average I think showing the flagger has worked out quite well.
No reason why we can't have both, though. Like instead of marking it in red, if a reason is present, it could simply be included in the "pending moderator approval" field above the image, like this (warning; hackjob):
Since mods/janitors (are supposed to) look at the full image before deciding, this would work. It could also be listed on the mod queue as a line. Just not having the red border would already help, I think. Anyway. Also agreed on that the user flagging should be visible. That was put there because of abuse in the past, and it shouldn't be anonymous anyway.
Thumbnails and pixiv manga sample should be yellow highlighted in the mod queue just like duplicate images, those can be dealt with easily enough. What we need is a way to prevent the primary uploader and primary approver to re-approve a post themselves.
zatchii said: I don't see why a flagged image shouldn't be subject to extra scrutiny
If an image gets an ok by 2 different approvers, it's quite clear that it is acceptable to be on Danbooru. There can be mistakes present within them that are flag worthy, but it also has something that had attracted those 2 people - I'd like to see them as well because I trust in the taste of our staff.
I think zatchii's point is that if an image slipped through a first time because a major flaw was unnoticed, and slips through a second time because said flaw wasn't mentionned when flagging, then flagging isn't really achieving its purpose.
Also yeah +1 again to undo the flagging system changes.
スラッシュ said: I'm curious if zatchii's 19 out of 232 statistic is equal to the average "success rate" of the moderation queue. I'd say it's higher, but perhaps not by much.
These numbers are horribly skweed by that toho pokemon set haduki deleted.
Another notable change: the delete button was removed from the mod queue.
