Now why would you go and upload the same exact image but at a much larger file size? The first one was just fine, it wasn't even stupidly ridden with jpeg artifacts.

Nevermind I just now noticed the smaller file size version of this. Now how was I suppose to know it was already here, it's too big for Danbooru's image search to work properly.

Now I don't even know where you get this ridden with jpeg artifacts from as I can't see any sign of jpeg artifacts on either copy (and I've been studying both of them for like 30 minutes now). Why are even complaining about something when neither picture are crappy in quality and it was a clear mistake on my part.

Er... Just assuming, but I think Ars meant that since the jpeg version wasn't artifact ridden, there wasn't a notable need for a lossless version to be uploaded on top of it. That point, of course, being addressed by your first paragraph.

Well if that's what Ars meant then my bad..again. Didn't see nor known the jpeg version was posted before mine until now.

Mr_GT said:
Nevermind I just now noticed the smaller file size version of this. Now how was I suppose to know it was already here, it's too big for Danbooru's image search to work properly.

Ooooh, riiiight. Max filesize is ~8MB, right. Well, in my defense, the first one was right on the front page. I assumed you would have been able to see it. Ah well.

And as for the second part, what Moebius said.