Can someone tell me why my post hasn't been approved when it was reviewed by 16 approvers post #11143470
Posted under General
Can someone tell me why my post hasn't been approved when it was reviewed by 16 approvers post #11143470
Looks pretty okay to me, don't see anything wrong with the proportions and the anatomy looks fine
post #11148008 G
post #11144528 E
post #11130723 S
post #11089323 S
post #10579096 E
post #9916552 E
I would appreciate your feedback.
A good 85% of my deleted posts deserve approval.
But specifically, those ones.
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=user%3Adividebyzero+status%3Adeleted+japanon&z=5
These are HIGHER RES and TRANSPARENT OGs of approved pictures, and they went completely ignored for three days, tanking my upload slots.
Then there are these fluffkaiser pictures, who are very much worthy of approvals.
post #10718563
post #10817769
post #10901478
post #11126011
post #11126032
post #11126058
post #11126061
And then, why is post #11124466 approved but not post #11124380 and post #11124329 ?
Hi! I would like to know why post #11157200 and post #11157188 went unapproved. They are continuations of another work, so I'm confused as to why they were left out.
dividebyzero said in forum #433667:
[..]
Once again - I don't know how many times this needs to be said to you - but part of the problem is your lack of proper sourcing or tagging (e.g. commissioner upload, protected link, second-party source, etc). A random file name is not entirely helpful, how am I supposed to tell where you got it from?
post #11149882
It us the second day,and I am appalled by the fact that for these 11 approvers, NOBODY thinks the post deserves to be approved. It has become infuriating that despite my personal view that it is fine enough to be approved. There are 11 or so approvers think otherwise. Like I said,I think the illustration should be approved because I find no apparent errors on this art. Even after closer examinations. I still think the so-called “Limb department looks off” part did not ruin the overall quality.
In my opinion,in terms of what arts should get approved while other do not, should have some kind of middle grouns. In which some arts still deserves to stay more than 3 days even when some minor,trivial errors are present in said illustrations.To me, as long as the overall quality or the grand scheme of things stays great or solid,some of the minor errors or “looking off” should be tolerated or viewed as acceptable. There should be differences between “Obviously low/poor quality” and “Overall a fine art despite sporting minor errors.”
However,after joining the site as a member for about 4 months. I do think some of the approvers are so nitpicky that it seems there are just black and white and no middle ground. Whenever I think some arts should get a pass,they just throw the same “Limbs feels off” stuff,as if meaning every uploads that suffers from “Some body parts looks off”is an instant death sentence and even the appealing function could not help you as the overall success rate has been rather low.
Updated by Mr.Ritsuka
WRS said in forum #433686:
Once again - I don't know how many times this needs to be said to you - but part of the problem is your lack of proper sourcing or tagging (e.g. commissioner upload, protected link, second-party source, etc). A random file name is not entirely helpful, how am I supposed to tell where you got it from?
For 4chan posts, the number of an image can be looked up through 4plebs, leading to the same image type being displayed.
I figured that in itself would be a source
And for the fluffkaiser pics, he gave these to me directly.
why this has 2 poor quality?
dividebyzero said in forum #433699:
For 4chan posts, the number of an image can be looked up through 4plebs, leading to the same image type being displayed.
I figured that in itself would be a source
And why would you expect the Approvers to think to do that? A long random number in a filename doesn't necessarily tell you it's from 4chan. Besides, if you can find the image that way, you should also be able to obtain the image's URL with the same method.
Sources like "/pol/" (post #10753090) are even worse because of the sheer size of those boards. No one's going to search the entire board to find the picture.
And for the fluffkaiser pics, he gave these to me directly.
Well, if the commissioner_upload wiki is to be believed, you technically don't need a source for those, but I don't think that's how it should be. We should at least have a tag for these. Not sure what we'd call it, though, and I don't think our current gift_art tag would be appropriate.
Blank_User said in forum #433710:
And why would you expect the Approvers to think to do that? A long random number in a filename doesn't necessarily tell you it's from 4chan. Besides, if you can find the image that way, you should also be able to obtain the image's URL with the same method.
Sources like "/pol/" (post #10753090) are even worse because of the sheer size of those boards. No one's going to search the entire board to find the picture.
Well, if the commissioner_upload wiki is to be believed, you technically don't need a source for those, but I don't think that's how it should be. We should at least have a tag for these. Not sure what we'd call it, though, and I don't think our current gift_art tag would be appropriate.
If "imageboard desourced" is a valid source, then a string of numbers that can be looked up is even more so. Not approving good quality pictures because it dosn't have a link is wrong.
dividebyzero said in forum #433714:
If "imageboard desourced" is a valid source, then a string of numbers that can be looked up is even more so. Not approving good quality pictures because it dosn't have a link is wrong.
It is not a valid source, it is a remnant of a sourcing policy that's now considered to be a mistake and which should be undone wherever possible (mentioned in the wiki if you cared to read). It is you, the uploader's responsibility to source your posts to where they came from, nobody else should be required to do that work for you, no matter how simple finding it is.
Blank_User said in forum #433710:
...
Well, if the commissioner_upload wiki is to be believed, you technically don't need a source for those, but I don't think that's how it should be. We should at least have a tag for these. Not sure what we'd call it, though, and I don't think our current gift_art tag would be appropriate.
Mentioning it in the source would be sufficient, just something like "Provided by artist".
dividebyzero said in forum #433714:
If "imageboard desourced" is a valid source,
Imageboard desourced is a tag that was meant to be used for post from image boards that had their sources messed up. I'm pretty sure it was not meant to be used for new posts, and the only reason it is is because users are just typing in "image board" and calling it a day.
then a string of numbers that can be looked up is even more so.
Again, what makes you think Approvers will think to check it on 4chan specifically when there's absolutely no indication it came from there? And if it can really be looked up so easily, why don't you look it up and add a proper source?
Not approving good quality pictures because it dosn't have a link is wrong.
Regardless, it's still your responsibility to make sure the sources point to the image, or if that's impossible and you have to use a non-web source, that you provide sufficient information about where it came from. This is especially true when it comes to different versions of existing posts since there's always the possibility of it being edited by a third party, thus reducing its chances of approval.
ANON TOKYO said in forum #433717:
Mentioning it in the source would be sufficient, just something like "Provided by artist".
Then I think that should be stated as necessary in the wiki itself. Allowing users to keep the source blank or with the filename does not give any incentive to include this information.
Updated by Blank User
ANON_TOKYO said in forum #433717:
It is not a valid source, it is a remnant of a sourcing policy that's now considered to be a mistake and which should be undone wherever possible (mentioned in the wiki if you cared to read). It is you, the uploader's responsibility to source your posts to where they came from, nobody else should be required to do that work for you, no matter how simple finding it is.
Mentioning it in the source would be sufficient, just something like "Provided by artist".
No one should be doing the job to justify an unwarranted behaviour with an unsound basis for the mere amusement of playing bureaucrat, especially when you have dead sources or mega links that could be fleeting.
If finding a source was the only reason behind those not being approved, then they would already have been approved the moment you saw my message. Unfortunately, approver bias exists and does not care if a picture is in every sense better than an already-approved one that isn't a paid reward.
Blank_User said in forum #433718:
Imageboard desourced is a tag that was meant to be used for post from image boards that had their sources messed up. I'm pretty sure it was not meant to be used for new posts, and the only reason it is is because users are just typing in "image board" and calling it a day.
Again, what makes you think Approvers will think to check it on 4chan specifically when there's absolutely no indication it came from there? And if it can really be looked up so easily, why don't you look it up and add a proper source?
Regardless, it's still your responsibility to make sure the sources point to the image, or if that's impossible and you have to use a non-web source, that you provide sufficient information about where it came from. This is especially true when it comes to different versions of existing posts since there's always the possibility of it being edited by a third party, thus reducing its chances of approval.
Then I think that should be stated as necessary in the wiki itself. Allowing users to keep the source blank or with the filename does not give any incentive to include this information.
I mostly kept the file names because they are part of a picture's lore when given directly by an artist, if you check the latest fluffkaiser pics as example.
But then, why is it better to scratch that and put "imageboard" or another text-based source? Is it mere aesthetics? If it was only that, then the pics i brought up would have long been approved.
Hello, any feedback on why these posts weren't approved? Please give a second chance:
post #7738550
post #7251209
Updated by SidBarrett
dividebyzero said in forum #433755:
[..]
There are many different ways you can convey the required information expected of you as an uploader without expecting people to read your mind. A random file name isn't one. It's not apparent to me that I'm supposed to plug your specific numbers into some archive viewer that I've never heard of for a site that I've never interacted with. If I don't know where it comes from, then I can't be expected to trust that it hasn't been edited, recompressed or altered in any way and then encourage uploading from a proper first-party source.
A refresher on the various ways you can source or otherwise indicate something about where the post came from:
There's no reason why this should be a debate, and I'm not interested in a drawn out discussion in this topic or trying to decipher your awkward wording choices. The rules are simple; if you don't source your posts properly, I'm not inclined to approve them. End of.
post #11161753
Guys, check this one.In case of any misunderstanding: this is drawn based on 3d model view, not just screenshot from like MMD or Koikatsu.
Updated by T-447AVBM
Pretty good Nyanners art, would love to know why it didn't go through
Updated by TheGamingRodent
tamuraakemi said in forum #433720:
Should the tag be deprecated if it's not meant to be added to new posts and meant to be gradually removed as posts are fixed?
As long as we have users who mistakenly nuke their source and just add in 'Imageboard' or 'Image board' or whatever, we cannot reasonably deprecate the tag. It would be like saying bad link should be deprecated. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't bother fixing it, because just like archived source we've got to properly source the posts in question, except even more important here since it is about undoing the sins of past sourcing practice.