Hi everyone, I'm just a little curious. I posted almost three days ago an image here and it hasn't been approved nor deleted.. Does it take longer or does everyone have it on their blacklist? ^^"

Its this one post #969903

Regards,
CallistoFox

CallistoFox said:
Hi everyone, I'm just a little curious. I posted almost three days ago an image here and it hasn't been approved nor deleted.. Does it take longer or does everyone have it on their blacklist? ^^"

Its this one post #969903

Regards,
CallistoFox

It took about 4 or 5 days for my recent uploads to finish the approval process. So! Id just wait on it.

Im also kinda curious if I could get a second oppinion on post #966720

Not that Im disagreeing, I just wanna know what makes this too low quality?

GDelscribe said:
It took about 4 or 5 days for my recent uploads to finish the approval process. So! Id just wait on it.

4-5 days? O.O my last picture was deleted in i think it was 12 hours...

I still don't get why a lot gets deleted because of low quality standarts..
A lot of my friends like the pictures and i just want to share them with everyone x3

Edit: I really dont know o.o It looks better than some images to me ^^

CallistoFox said:
4-5 days? O.O my last picture was deleted in i think it was 12 hours...

I still don't get why a lot gets deleted because of low quality standarts..
A lot of my friends like the pictures and i just want to share them with everyone x3

Edit: I really dont know o.o It looks better than some images to me ^^

They seem to do the images in random order. And yeah theres a lot lot worse stuff on this site so Im a little confused as to why it was cited as low quality.

Irrelevant to site maybe? But not low quality, I was pretty proud of that.

This is already been stated before on other threads, but: there is no priority list, and there is no random order, yours is currently being held off because of quality. There is no other noticable reason. There is a minimum quality standard, and that is the default reason for why images get approved or denied (others can be found in FFD or in the rules).

I will not judge the image's quality, but if a janitor or admin also does not want judge, they can choose to not approve or deny it. That just continues until someone decides.

I'll state and restate three things: just because a staff member didn't approve/deny just doesn't mean they were able to. They can get sick, go on vacation, have real life slap them across the face, etc.. Minimum quality is dependent can be dependent on the viewer. If they think they will be biased, too critical of a judge, or another myriad of reasons, they don't have to. And, the big one: if your image gets denied, you can ask an admin to offer input, like advice. You can use status:deleted to find it, but you won't be able to see the image, just the tags.

Otherwise, can't really say much. Be patient, and don't get your hopes too high or to low...

GDelscribe said:
Im also kinda curious if I could get a second oppinion on post #966720

Not that Im disagreeing, I just wanna know what makes this too low quality?

Slightly blurry and sketchy, if it were lined in digital media it would be okay...ish. Questionable relevance then because it looks human. Yes, there's a sheath, and the balls and cock are differently colored, and there's also a tail, but it still looks human at first sight.

Anyways, if people can't decide, it falls to NMNY to decide, and he's already a really busy fellow, so that can take a while.

Furrin_Gok said:
Slightly blurry and sketchy, if it were lined in digital media it would be okay...ish. Questionable relevance then because it looks human. Yes, there's a sheath, and the balls and cock are differently colored, and there's also a tail, but it still looks human at first sight.

Anyways, if people can't decide, it falls to NMNY to decide, and he's already a really busy fellow, so that can take a while.

That makes sense; the blurriness is a fair thing to comment on despite being intentional

Maybe I'll ask an admin anyway for final confirmation