I surely agree with you that it's up to the Janitors to decide what is "unacceptable" in the end. But I do wonder if this confusion is really that necessary, especially since it isn't the first time this complain came up.
Posted under General
The challenge is that 'unacceptably bad anatomy' is ultimately subjective but removing that qualifier opens up another can of worms where 'any bad anatomy whatsoever' is valid enough for flagging. I think that having flaggers and janitors exercising their judgement for unacceptable (whatever it may be) is preferable over a a guideline that casts a net that catches any and all. It will change from a quality control guideline into a purge/filter guideline that had no regard to quality.
post #2662885
"no mole"
That feel when all three flags sound like they came from the same person.
Like, seriously... at this point I'm thinking it's a sockpuppet of a certain someone cough
Mikaeri said:
That feel when all three flags sound like they came from the same person.
Like, seriously... at this point I'm thinking it's a sockpuppet of a certain someone cough
Dashboard is down for now, but I can assure you the recent flag is from a longtime user unrelated to the person you might think of.
Mikaeri said:
post #2626272
That feel when all three flags sound like they came from the same person.
Like, seriously... at this point I'm thinking it's a sockpuppet of a certain someone cough
Careful with the theories there. To me, all those flags sound concise, factual and objective, without insults, banter and spelling or grammar errors, which is exactly how I think flags should be written, and I try to write my own flags just like that as well. Good to see that there are some users who know how the flag system works and who are capable of writing flags that don’t end up in this forum thread.
Sacriven said:
No matter how concise those flags are, I think people should read the flag history before flagging things. Flagging an image with reasons that focused on same thing over and over again isn't factual or objective, but madness.
It does carry an objective meaning, though. If a post gets flagged multiple times for the same reason, that means either (a) the flagger disagrees with the previous approver on whether these flaws are bad enough to merit deletion, or (b) the flagger happened to come to the same conclusion as someone else completely independently.
I feel post #2626272 is nanoless's strongest image from a technical standpoint, and would rather see their other posts go before that one, but I also feel that "vandalism" is being used all too commonly to passive-aggressively denounce flags that are simply disagreeable.
On Mikaeri's post, to be re-reviewed by two moderators in two occasions are more than enough. At this point, if the flagger keeps flagging the same image with same reason, it is logical to treat it as vandalism because it shows how dissatisfied the flagger is to moderator's decision and wishing to get rid of it.
Of course, it's different case if the flagger is not the same person and coincidentally make the same reason like the one from before. However, it's encouraged to at least check the flag history on every posts from Builder+ users with approval marks from moderator/approver on it.
The flagger cannot be the same person. It is completely, entirely impossible for one user to flag the same post twice, no matter what the interval is between flags. I've been stopped from flagging an image before because I forgot about a flag I'd made on it four years earlier.
Occasionally people will bring up the possibility of sockpuppets, but as far as I am aware, there are no documented cases of anyone actually using sock accounts to flag a single image over and over. I think this is, again, people assuming bad faith from people they disagree with in order to more easily prop up an argument against them.
Updated
Perhaps, but the possibility is still there. That, or they could have just asked someone else to make that flag for then one way or another.
I'm fine with images getting flagged for the same reason (since the standard ever so changes over time) but when it happens as frequently as that, for all the same reasons listed previously, I can't help but think it's just an effort to undermine the approver team and force their hand. Call it a mild paranoia.
But if it's from a different user as dean exia has said, then I'm assuming they didn't read the previous flags and it's just a coincidence. In that case, whatever.
feline_lump said:
The flagger cannot be the same person. It is completely, entirely impossible for one user to flag the same post twice, no matter what the interval is between flags. I've been stopped from flagging an image before because I forgot about a flag I'd made on it four years earlier.
Occasionally people will bring up the possibility of sockpuppets, but as far as I am aware, there are no documented cases of anyone actually using sock accounts to flag a single image over and over. I think this is, again, people assuming bad faith from people they disagree with in order to more easily prop up an argument against them.
Sockpuppet accounts.
It's why I'm dissatisfied with the way flagging & re-flagging is handled, as it gives too much power in favour of deletion.
Kikimaru said:
Sockpuppet accounts.
It's why I'm dissatisfied with the way flagging & re-flagging is handled, as it gives too much power in favour of deletion.
feline_lump said:
Occasionally people will bring up the possibility of sockpuppets, but as far as I am aware, there are no documented cases of anyone actually using sock accounts to flag a single image over and over. I think this is, again, people assuming bad faith from people they disagree with in order to more easily prop up an argument against them.
I'll say what I've experienced as someone on the other end of the situation. I like to keep tabs on flagged posts, and on occasion, I'll see one where I really think it was poor judgement to reapprove it, so I'll throw another flag in that direction. (This hasn't happened so often since recent demotions caused the approval floor to fall out for a lot of borderline posts.) I've always assumed most repeat flags have happened in much the same way - some third party witnesses a decision (or remembers one from many moons ago), disagrees with it, and decides to make a flag. Maybe I'm wrong, but in the absence of any contradictory evidence, it seems to be what makes the most sense.
Kikimaru said:
Sockpuppet accounts.
It's why I'm dissatisfied with the way flagging & re-flagging is handled, as it gives too much power in favour of deletion.
Actually, the problem is an overwhelming bias against flagging, to the point where the major topic on the forums about whether flagging should even be allowed or not is called "flag vandalism", as though ALL flags are assumed to be in bad faith until such time as proven otherwise.
It is also VASTLY more inconvenient to flag things than it is to have things approved. There is a whole system explicitly designed to make finding and approving images as convenient as possible, whereas the only way to go out looking for things to flag (and there is zero incentive for anyone to actually WANT to go out and flag) is to either "drink from the firehose" and go through literally every image uploaded to Danbooru, to follow specific tags (and who tags their own uploads with "bad anatomy"?), or to follow specific artists or users with a suspect track record... in which case flaggers are harrassed or suspected of bias for consistently flagging the same artists' works time and again.
Flaggers are made anonymous while approvers have their records made public for a reason - few people break out the pitchforks to torment approvers.
The fact that every part of Danbooru is stacked towards approval and against flagging is what makes flagging so rare that its mere existence, even when nearly always overturned, is considered an affront and a scourge to be excised from the website completely.
Mikaeri said:
That feel when all three flags sound like they came from the same person.
Like, seriously... at this point I'm thinking it's a sockpuppet of a certain someone cough
Actually, that last flag came from me.
Someone made a link to a (different) forum post complaining about how certain posts were being flagged, linking to that one among several, and after looking at the forum post, then the examples in the forum post, I agreed with the judgement that it really did have bad anatomy. (Seriously, that line on the upper arm around the shoulder really makes it look like her arm is folding like a wet noodle, and if you mentally remove the breasts, there is no space in that torso for internal organs.) This would also be why my flag came about one month late to the party.
As for flagging something that has been re-approved more than once... why shouldn't we? Why does the onus fall so much more heavily on flaggers than on approvers? Couldn't it ALSO be a possibility that two approvers had bad judgement if there are people lining up to flag the same post? Why does the fact that multiple people are independently concluding it has terrible anatomy have to be outweighed by two people who disagree?
Updated
I'm assuming here, but maybe because it was only up until recently with both NOOU and Provence's departure that we've had to deal with the aftermath of either really bad approvals or really strict flags. Most approvers don't want to encroach on the borderline in risk of their approvals being flagged, and the few users that actively spend time flagging everyday have spurred on animosity because of the fact that the very few approvers that will give grave (zaregoto, for example) will instead be looked down on for their approvals.
As approvers, we don't get praise (or at least often enough) for approving borderline images. In fact, that's what makes the role so difficult -- somehow it's fine when you approve great uploads, but the job is to be as acceptably lenient as possible. It's tough to do that right now.
Mikaeri said:
I'm assuming here, but maybe because it was only up until recently with both NOOU and Provence's departure that we've had to deal with the aftermath of either really bad approvals or really strict flags. Most approvers don't want to encroach on the borderline in risk of their approvals being flagged, and the few users that actively spend time flagging everyday have spurred on animosity because of the fact that the very few approvers that will give grave (zaregoto, for example) will instead be looked down on for their approvals.
As approvers, we don't get praise (or at least often enough) for approving borderline images. In fact, that's what makes the role so difficult -- somehow it's fine when you approve great uploads, but the job is to be as acceptably lenient as possible. It's tough to do that right now.
And that's kind of the problem with Danbooru's current incentive structure... a deletion is so rare as to be a "plane crash" rather than a "car crash", to use a metaphor I've heard recently, but I'm not going to be assed to actually look up who said for right now... People ignore car crashes because they're common, but a plane crash is so rare as to be a huge deal.
Therefore, ANY flag is treated as a major event, just because everyone has near-spotless records that are being "ruined forever" by the first flag. I'm not sure what kind of cutoff there should be, exactly, but I remember there is an old joke about baseball where it's the only kind of job you can have where doing it properly 50% of the time (that is, hitting pitches), is considered doing a good job. We're rather ludicrously particular if having a 99.7% approval rate is considered a bad job.
Right now, there are only two approvers with a deletion confidence above 1%, and those are both because they approved less than 100 images, so their one deletions stand out.
The current incentive structure is one where approvers never discuss guidelines, while the guidelines themselves are excruciatingly vague and open to individual interpretation. (I.E. the problem with "stricter standards" for non-Anime art being absolutely disregarded by some approvers.) This opens up the Ring Species Problem mentioned for years about how approvers are drifting further and further apart in their tastes and interpretations of the rules, such that the only thing they agree upon is that if anyone messes with THEIR uploads or THEIR approvals, it's WAR!, so keep to your own corner, and don't touch their stuff!
Also, if there's pressure against approving things that are borderline until maybe you check with other people... isn't that kind of what we should be doing? Especially with how unlikely anything being successfully flagged for reasons other than being an image sample are, the mod queue is basically the first and last line of defense, so there really should be some pressure on approvers to be judicious. If your only concern is keeping the most spotless record possible, then you really should be trying to stick to the safe stuff you know there is consensus around. I don't think most approvers work like that, however, and are out to approve things they like, even if it means going to bat for them if someone tries to flag it. And that's really not a problem in and of itself... The problem is that the current system functionally incentivizes this way of seeing things as personal confrontations every single flag.