Danbooru

Flag Vandalism

Posted under General

@Mikaeri Fair enough, thanks.

I seem to remember someone telling me to use the large version a few years ago, but looks like that's a no-go according to the twitter wiki, which is most likely where the samples came from.

Probably a mix-up due to the instructions under the bookmarklet wiki vs. more detailed instructions in the twitter wiki.

recklessfirex said:

@Mikaeri Fair enough, thanks.

I seem to remember someone telling me to use the large version a few years ago, but looks like that's a no-go according to the twitter wiki, which is most likely where the samples came from.

Probably a mix-up due to the instructions under the bookmarklet wiki vs. more detailed instructions in the twitter wiki.

Years ago the orig identifier wasn't known to uploaders, most of us aren't coders who can look through all the data to find that sort of stuff.

@recklessfirex I don't know when :orig was discovered since I wasn't an uploader then, but I feel like it should have been made a bigger deal than how it is now. This really all started out because of topic #13533 and the efforts of BrokenEagle98.

It seems to me like back then, uploading from :orig was only optional to most uploaders, and that's how it's led to a huge surfacing of tons upon tons of duplicates, perhaps more if we take into account how many might be tagged with bad twitter id.

If you're interested in helping out, feel free to read topic #13646 and the relevant wiki pages there. Any help is appreciated, since the sooner this is done, the less we have to worry about originals going lost because of banned/suspended/protected twitter accounts, etc.

Mikaeri said:

@recklessfirex I don't know when :orig was discovered since I wasn't an uploader then, but I feel like it should have been made a bigger deal than how it is now. This really all started out because of topic #13533 and the efforts of BrokenEagle98.

It seems to me like back then, uploading from :orig was only optional to most uploaders, and that's how it's led to a huge surfacing of tons upon tons of duplicates, perhaps more if we take into account how many might be tagged with bad twitter id.

If you're interested in helping out, feel free to read topic #13646 and the relevant wiki pages there. Any help is appreciated, since the sooner this is done, the less we have to worry about originals going lost because of banned/suspended/protected twitter accounts, etc.

Back then, uploading from :large was the only option because it was the only known largest option at the time, which meant for years we uploaded via large, until someone mentioned 2-3 years ago that there was a larger option called :orig.

toshiya4 said:

post #2619809 - a flag was made right after it was appealed, even though it already had a flag. None of the flags were resolved.
it's all kinds of messy.

It looks to me that it was just flagged once and automatically deleted as normal. The "resolved" notice denotes that the flag or deletion was overturned by an approver, which it wasn't in this case.

Well, it seems that this change in the guidelines is welcomed ^-^.
This has mostly to do with @NWSiaCB 's comment below post #2526453.
I think that his comment might need some clean-up, because I'm not quite sure what is meant by "warranting a flag". I personally think that there is a difference between warranting a flag and warranting a deletion and that is up to Janitors to decide if a post should be staying in the end. That means they are answering if a post should stay or not. So they answer the question: "Does this post warrants a deletion?"
The other question is posed by the flagger: "Does this post warrant a flag?".
That has some implications which is that every post can get flagged (even the best one out there, like from the artist ke-ta), but not every flagged should be deleted and it's up to the Janitors to decide if a post should stay.
The motivation where this opinion is coming from is simply the first sentence in howto:flag which is of pure subjective nature: "If you think that a post doesn't belong here, blabla."
Then to say that a post does not warrant a flag seems to go against this statement in the guidelines, but that's what I try to ask if it's really meant like that. Because if it is meant differently, then we should probably edit this wiki further.
But I'm supporting the thought that flagging should be as open as possible and that it can hit every post i.e. no post is untouchable and unflaggable. Off course the remaining guidelines have to be followed, too: Being descriptive, not flagging for frivolous reasons ("It's loli") and not mentioning t things that are rather tiny and don't hurt the overall quality of the image.

Toskana said:

I think that his comment might need some clean-up, because I'm not quite sure what is meant by "warranting a flag". I personally think that there is a difference between warranting a flag and warranting a deletion and that is up to Janitors to decide if a post should be staying in the end. That means they are answering if a post should stay or not. So they answer the question: "Does this post warrants a deletion?"

Well, it's a matter of the terminology being overloaded in Danbooru.

"Deletion" is sort of an odd word in Danbooru. Images aren't deleted the way that most sites delete things. Danbooru "deletion" means that a post is flagged with a "deleted" flag and hidden unless you specifically either advance through pools or search tags that contain that would otherwise contain post, or else search for status:deleted images. Only when things are "double deleted" are they really deleted, the way most sites mean the term.

Likewise, moderator is a user rank in Danbooru, and then there is a "moderation queue" and if things don't pass the moderation queue, it says how many "moderators" didn't like the post enough to approve it... but most of those "moderators" are actually "builder" rank, not "moderator" rank, and just have the "approver" privilege. Because of that, I've generally taken to calling people "approvers" rather than moderators.

In any event, if you're asking what I meant in that particular instance, I didn't think the flaws of that image were sufficient to sustain the flag, or keep me from re-approving the image.

Also,

Toskana said:

Edited howto:flag with the input of @Mikaeri and @Randeel.
If there should still be something changed, then I guess it's the correct place to mention this.

First, it would probably be more convenient to others reading to actually state the changes made, rather than ask people to go to the history tab to see.

Anyway, I don't why we shouldn't include lists of flaws in images. If someone who is going to review the flag is too lazy to read a couple sentences of text explaining where to look in more detail to judge the quality of a work, then how are we to expect they'll take the time to make a fully reasoned decision on the image, itself? I don't see what problem this is meant to solve.

NWSiaCB said:

Well, it's a matter of the terminology being overloaded in Danbooru.

"Deletion" is sort of an odd word in Danbooru. Images aren't deleted the way that most sites delete things. Danbooru "deletion" means that a post is flagged with a "deleted" flag and hidden unless you specifically either advance through pools or search tags that contain that would otherwise contain post, or else search for status:deleted images. Only when things are "double deleted" are they really deleted, the way most sites mean the term.

Likewise, moderator is a user rank in Danbooru, and then there is a "moderation queue" and if things don't pass the moderation queue, it says how many "moderators" didn't like the post enough to approve it... but most of those "moderators" are actually "builder" rank, not "moderator" rank, and just have the "approver" privilege. Because of that, I've generally taken to calling people "approvers" rather than moderators.

In any event, if you're asking what I meant in that particular instance, I didn't think the flaws of that image were sufficient to sustain the flag, or keep me from re-approving the image.

First, it would probably be more convenient to others reading to actually state the changes made, rather than ask people to go to the history tab to see.

Anyway, I don't why we shouldn't include lists of flaws in images. If someone who is going to review the flag is too lazy to read a couple sentences of text explaining where to look in more detail to judge the quality of a work, then how are we to expect they'll take the time to make a fully reasoned decision on the image, itself? I don't see what problem this is meant to solve.

You don't tell me anything new in the first three paragraphs :3.
And in the third paragraph I think you are basically saying that it does not justify/warrant a deletion. So I think that cleared up, but we only use different words in that instance.
And I will still remain on my position that every post could be flagged, even the post with the highest score....

Anyways, the changes are listed here which was suggested by @Mikaeri to put it first there: forum #129411.
Well, I guess it could help that flags don't drive into too many details and turn out to be very nitpicky ("flag fluff"). It also basically turns into uncertainty of what is still acceptable. Sometimes, thin necks, slightly uneven breasts or two right feet are getting mentioned and I agree that this is going sometimes beyond the scope. That means it is not a problem for the Janitors, but more for the lurkers and contributors, because it might create uncertainty and a pretty inconsistent baseline and people might react aggressive towards little flaws. And it will probably cause less uproar. Otherwise one could say that such flags will also flood the moderation queue.
The core of flagging stays completely untouched which is describing the relevant flaws as precise as possible.

Updated

Well, since no one really replied, I still want to ask what others are thinking about this very statement in above post:
"And I will still remain on my position that every post could be flagged, even the post with the highest score...."

I guess that this is pretty clear, but I should add that this only counts if the flag reason is reasonable, i.e. not something like "Loli". And since this is might be still unclear, I want to ask @albert if this stance is within the spirit of the flagging system, since there are some voices that are saying that some posts shouldn't be flagged in the first place.

Toskana said:

And since this is might be still unclear, I want to ask @albert if this stance is within the spirit of the flagging system, since there are some voices that are saying that some posts shouldn't be flagged in the first place.

Whenever anything like that came up, he always responded with something like “You only have one (or ten) flag per day, so use it wisely.”

kittey said:

Whenever anything like that came up, he always responded with something like “You only have one (or ten) flag per day, so use it wisely.”

Well, wisely is pretty open for interpretation and not really an answer to this question, since using something wisely means that the flags should be written reasonable imo. But it doesn't really mention what is "flaggable" :3.

I suppose I should mention this here as well: /post_flags has been updated to add tag search and include uploader/approver names. Now you can see posts that were successfully flagged by searching for the 'rejected' category. Add -image_sample to filter out all the sample flags.

You can also find posts that were flagged but later undeleted by searching for category 'deleted' with tags -status:deleted.

1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 58