Upload Feedback Thread - post here if your uploads keep getting deleted

Topsy_Krett said:

Curious as to why both of these parent posts wound up getting flagged for deletion when their child posts have long since been approved and are still up on the site.
post #3074461
post #3097575

The second one wasn’t flagged; it simply wasn’t approved.

The first one did get flagged and got deleted just a few hours ago. Some users flag only one image of a set at first to avoid cluttering the mod queue if it gets reapproved anyway. If it ends up deleted, the other images in the set are flagged once the user gets around to do it.

post #3095599

post #3092926

post #3142724

post #3144930
post #3144321
post #3081779
post #3054450
post #3050777
post #2998129

I'm not posting this because any of the images in question were deleted yet, but because this is something I've noticed which I think is unfair to regular users, in regards to Twitter and Pixiv posts:

I've noticed that if a lower quality post from Twitter is uploaded while the higher quality post from Pixiv is on the site, the lower quality post will likely be unapproved and deleted. But sometimes the Pixiv version is uploaded after the Twitter version and stays active, while the Twitter version is unapproved and deleted, even though it was uploaded before.

Yesterday, I uploaded post #3148095, which was posted on Twitter last week. It is still pending. Today, someone with unlimited uploads posted post #3149309, which is the Pixiv version that was uploaded today. When I uploaded post #3148095, the image was on Twitter for several days while the Pixiv version wasn't up yet, and I had no idea that when or if it was going to be uploaded on Pixiv.

I'm not saying this simply because it's a post that I uploaded, as I've noticed this in the case of other users as well.

For example, post #3146249 (Twitter version) was uploaded a few days ago, and less than 10 minutes later, post #3146261 (Pixiv version) was uploaded by someone with unlimited uploads. post #3146261 is active, but post #3146249 is still pending despite being uploaded first.

Sometimes, an artist posts an image on Twitter, but doesn't post it on Pixiv. Sometimes, an artist posts an image on Twitter, and then posts it on Pixiv a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks later. Sometimes, an artist posts an image on both sites at the same time.

The problem with artists that post on both Twitter and Pixiv is that sometimes it's impossible to know how far apart in time they will upload the same image on Twitter and Pixiv, or whether they will upload the same picture on both sites at all.

I think it's unfair for people to get their posts unapproved and deleted, simply because they uploaded the Twitter version on this site, without knowing at what time the artist would upload the image on Pixiv.

Therefore, I would like to know if it's fine to appeal Twitter versions that were unapproved and deleted while the Pixiv version was uploaded after and is active.

wishington said:

*Stuff*

Not to be rude or anything but in short: If you are unsure then don't upload the Twitter version, doing so is risky for restricted users and I see nothing wrong with having the Twitter version go unapproved in these cases. Also you can't really compare restricted and unlimited uploads too much as it's easier to avoid having your upload flagged than it is to get it approved, there is no guarantee all of those Pixiv uploads would get approved either if uploaded by a restricted user.

Just my opinions.

Unbreakable said:

Not to be rude or anything but in short: If you are unsure then don't upload the Twitter version, doing so is risky for restricted users and I see nothing wrong with having the Twitter version go unapproved in these cases. Also you can't really compare restricted and unlimited uploads too much as it's easier to avoid having your upload flagged than it is to get it approved, there is no guarantee all of those Pixiv uploads would get approved either if uploaded by a restricted user.

Just my opinions.

I know. I wasn't talking for myself (just giving an example), and I'm not asking for my post to be approved. I'm talking more about the second one. I mean if a Twitter post is uploaded first but the drawing is good enough quality to keep anyway.

I typically only approve a twitter post that is being 1upped if I'm the one uploading the superior version. As unbreakable said it's risky to upload new posts from twitter if you have restricted uploads. You should account for that when you decide to upload something recent from there, because there's pretty much no reason to keep a twitter post of equal or lower resolution in case another version is available.

nonamethanks said:

I typically only approve a twitter post that is being 1upped if I'm the one uploading the superior version. As unbreakable said it's risky to upload new posts from twitter if you have restricted uploads. You should account for that when you decide to upload something recent from there, because there's pretty much no reason to keep a twitter post of equal or lower resolution in case another version is available.

I think my concern is one of consistency. Once again, I'll clarify that I wasn't asking for my post to be approved (I didn't notice the poor anatomy when uploading it initially. If I had noticed it, I wouldn't have uploaded it).

The matter of consistency being, let's say someone uploads a Twitter image here and is approved (doesn't matter what the person's uploading privileges are). Then, let's say a few days or weeks later (the amount of time doesn't matter), the artist puts the image on Pixiv and someone uploads it here.

Following what you said, in the scenario that I presented, since the higher resolution version would be now available on this website, there wouldn't be any reason to keep the original Twitter version. But there's a ton of Twitter posts that are still active and are parented to the Pixiv version.

Therefore, since no one flags the Twitter version for deletion once the Pixiv version is made available, I assume there's no harm in letting both versions be active at the same time. Hence my question.

I've only had this happen like twice, so I don't feel affected by it. But just as a general statement since I've seen it happen to other people, if both versions can be active at the same time, then I don't think that the Twitter version being uploaded first should be a matter of deletion if the Pixiv version is uploaded a few moments later.

Many times my Twitter post stays if a couple of hours passes before the Pixiv one is uploaded. If however the Pixiv version is uploaded a few minutes later by another user, then that means I could have done a Saucenao check to see if it was available and uploaded that instead.

So simply put, check up on the Twitter post for Pixiv versions. There are Image search extensions for your browser that makes this easy.

g3gen said:

Many times my Twitter post stays if a couple of hours passes before the Pixiv one is uploaded. If however the Pixiv version is uploaded a few minutes later by another user, then that means I could have done a Saucenao check to see if it was available and uploaded that instead.

So simply put, check up on the Twitter post for Pixiv versions. There are Image search extensions for your browser that makes this easy.

He meant cases where the artist uploads the post on pixiv after the user uploaded the twitter version on danbooru.

There's not much you can do in those cases besides entirely avoiding uploading from twitter from artists that you know do this kind of stuff.

nonamethanks said:

He meant cases where the artist uploads the post on pixiv after the user uploaded the twitter version on danbooru.

There's not much you can do in those cases besides entirely avoiding uploading from twitter from artists that you know do this kind of stuff.

First time blindsided by simultaneous pixiv/twitter uploads.

Double-checked the time stamps on the Darjeeling image by "Guy". 0818 Twitter/0818 Pixiv--same day June 2nd. 15 minutes later someone uploads the Pixiv version and I get the obvious "You should upload the Pixiv image, it's much better." Kind of got bit there.

From now on, I'm taking a few seconds to do an image source check before posting when I'm in Twitter.

post #2745603
post #2908333 [guro]
post #2500188

chinatsu said:

post #2745603 - The style looks pretty western and it’s not of an anime-styled copyright either. Many approvers don’t like WW art (western style, western copyright/OC). This is an anime-style image board after all.
post #2500188 - Sketchy and unremarkably bland.

These were immediately hit with poor quality reviews within minutes of upload, which means there must be a glaring flaw with them.

post #3157958
post #3157984
post #3158046

Try as I might, I'm having trouble identifying the issue. I'd appreciate a second opinion so I that I know what to avoid in future uploads.

Squishy said:

These were immediately hit with poor quality reviews within minutes of upload, which means there must be a glaring flaw with them.

post #3157958
post #3157984
post #3158046

Try as I might, I'm having trouble identifying the issue. I'd appreciate a second opinion so I that I know what to avoid in future uploads.

The hands are incredibly tiny in all of these, and the thighs are questionably placed. The first and last are also noticeably sketchier than many of the artist's approved posts.

nonamethanks said:

I typically only approve a twitter post that is being 1upped if I'm the one uploading the superior version. As unbreakable said it's risky to upload new posts from twitter if you have restricted uploads. You should account for that when you decide to upload something recent from there, because there's pretty much no reason to keep a twitter post of equal or lower resolution in case another version is available.

I do understand some moderators don't want to clog the board with lower quality dupes and won't approve a Twitter post if a Pixiv duplicate is uploaded.

But the Twitter posts are often uploaded in good faith only to have a another uploader spot and post the Pixiv version that came out a half hour later often using the keywords from the Twitter upload that others put work into for good tagging.

The Twitter poster's work is down the drain when deleted, and the upload quota is reduced as a penalty.

In that case there could be a policy that could waive the upload penalty where the Twitter post was uploaded before the Pixiv one provided the moderator pool did not want the twitter upload.

g3gen said:

I do understand some moderators don't want to clog the board with lower quality dupes and won't approve a Twitter post if a Pixiv duplicate is uploaded.

But the Twitter posts are often uploaded in good faith only to have a another uploader spot and post the Pixiv version that came out a half hour later often using the keywords from the Twitter upload that others put work into for good tagging.

The Twitter poster's work is down the drain when deleted, and the upload quota is reduced as a penalty.

In that case there could be a policy that could waive the upload penalty where the Twitter post was uploaded before the Pixiv one provided the moderator pool did not want the twitter upload.

The place to request that kind of stuff is in the danbooru github. Only Albert can decide how the site works.

The only suggestion I can give you is to learn which artists you follow do this kind of stuff. Most of us already do that - it's why you often see twitter posts by very popular artists like asanagi or pija_(pianiishimo) go unuploaded for hours because everyone's waiting for the pixiv version.

nonamethanks said:

The place to request that kind of stuff is in the danbooru github. Only Albert can decide how the site works.

Ok, I put in an issue there as suggested. Might as well try from both sides.

The only suggestion I can give you is to learn which artists you follow do this kind of stuff. Most of us already do that - it's why you often see twitter posts by very popular artists like asanagi or pija_(pianiishimo) go unuploaded for hours because everyone's waiting for the pixiv version.

I can do that, the ones that are notorious for this is easy enough, but since there is no posted list AFAIK, there's always a chance of getting bit.

Any feedback on these?

post #3161985
post #3150066