I've been using the BVATS tag on images where the source image is not higher in resolution, but higher in quality such as a PNG or less-compressed JPG.

I make a note in the description "BVATS: Source image is a PNG versus this JPG." as I've noticed some users scan the BVATS tag to replace images and I don't want anyone to inadvertently remove my notice upon noticing that the source isn't necessarily higher in resolution.

I've been doing this for a while now. It seems appropriate enough, but I'm wondering if it's OK to keep doing it-- or if admins have something else in mind.

EDIT:
As Lance_Armstrong suggested, add alias: bigger_version_at_the_source -> BETTER_version_at_the_source.

As it is assumed that the users who browse BVATS to replace images are among the few who care enough about image quality to check format and compression artifacts in addition to resolution. Also still applies to images currently bearing the BVATS tag because bigger is better.

I've removed (hopefully not mistakenly) the bvats tag from a few images where the source and post's resolutions match up, assuming that the tag was left there by mistake after reuploading. I'd imagine not many people would check the file types and assume there's no difference. A specific tag for higher quality images at the source could be useful.

Tuvalu said:
I've removed (hopefully not mistakenly) the bvats tag from a few images where the source and post's resolutions match up, assuming that the tag was left there by mistake after reuploading.

I am among those who occasionally leave 'BVATS' on an image when copying tags on reupload. Though I often catch my mistake and fix it.

That is why I make a note of it in the description as well. But a tag specifically for this purpose would certainly be useful. Maybe higher_quality_version_at_the_source (HQVATS).

Bear in mind that it's not always an obvious JPG vs PNG situation. Not everyone is going to bother checking the file sizes of identical JPGs resulting from mobile uploaders compressing source JPGs.

On that note: Can we get that advisory to mobile uploaders on the upload page? We've got quite a few everyday uploaders who are unknowingly reducing the quality of their every upload. For example, every one of ChaosMaster12's uploads that you can find a source for is a PNG or JPG of a larger file size. I noted him about it and he confirmed that he's been using a mobile device to upload. (I also advised him to use direct link uploads instead.)

Examples:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61512916/716603_file_size_vs_source.png (post #716603)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61512916/716603_JPG_vs_source_JPG.png

Sometimes the difference is very subtle, even when looking closely.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61512916/709832-vs-Source.png

Also bear in mind that FurAffinity has an awful habit of keeping the PNG extension on its files when it resizes them to 1280px JPGs, so you cannot always trust FA source PNGs. (Be wary of any image format on FA if either dimension is 1280px) They're properly changed to JPG when e621 analyzes the file to rename it to the MD5 hash.

Example:
https://e621.net/post/show/720502 .JPG
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/17581173/ .PNG, but still laced with compression artifacts. So "HQVATS" wouldn't necessarily apply there.

_
Image quality preservation seems like a losing battle, but I care too damn much to yield.

alias tag to better_version_at_the_source

Lance_Armstrong said:
alias tag to better_version_at_the_source

They should be two completely different tags. As Tuvalu suggested, some users may only look at image resolutions without considering format and erroneously remove the tag.

I've just been using BVATS and making a note of the format/quality difference in the description because it seemed justified in that it lets users know a superior version of the image is at the source.

But I think there is the need for a new tag with how prevalent image quality depreciation appears to be.

Proposing higher_quality_version_at_the_source with HQVATS aliased to it. (I considered superior_version_at_the_source, but we already have SVATS aliased to smaller_version_at_the_source.)

chdgs said:
some users may only look at image resolutions without considering format and erroneously remove the tag.

That's exactly the reason it could be one tag. Uploaders should determine whether the *_version_at_the_source is actually better based on all factors like resolution (upscale isn't better), format, artifacts.

Lance_Armstrong said:
That's exactly the reason it could be one tag. Uploaders should determine whether the *_version_at_the_source is actually better based on all factors like resolution (upscale isn't better), format, artifacts.

True. I suppose the users who actually bother to browse BVATS to replace images are among the few who care enough about image quality to check for those.

chdgs said:
Image quality preservation seems like a losing battle, but I care too damn much to yield.

this
except cub porn, i refuse to upload bigger versions of that

I've made the following changes:

Alias: bvats, bvas, bigger_version_at_source -> bigger_version_at_the_source (deleted)
Alias: bvats, bvas, bigger_version_at_source, bigger_version_at_the_source, better_version_at_the_source -> better_version_at_source (approved)

I've added some basic stuff to the new wiki page, but it could probably benefit from an actual write-up/tutorial if anyone is interested.

I'm leaving the smaller_version_at_the_source alone for the moment since it doesn't really have the same kinds of issues that bvats does.

Related: forum #172181

Edit: I happened to notice the counts for these

bigger_version_at_the_source (-6066)
better_version_at_source (1024)

The negative number comes from deleted posts, which means that over 6000 posts with this tag have been replaced with a better version. :)

parasprite said:
I've added some basic stuff to the new wiki page, but it could probably benefit from an actual write-up/tutorial if anyone is interested.

If anybody is interested in making a list of ways to find "bvats" here is my current list on how i locate bvats

If anybody has some other way to find bvats please pm me about it.

parasprite said:
Alias: bvats, bvas, bigger_version_at_source -> bigger_version_at_the_source (deleted)
Alias: bvats, bvas, bigger_version_at_source, bigger_version_at_the_source, better_version_at_the_source -> better_version_at_source (approved)

I guess we're going to have to stop calling it BVATS now then, if it's all aliased to something without the "the". BVAS doesn't have the same ring to it though.

slyroon said:
If anybody is interested in making a list of ways to find "bvats" here is my current list on how i locate bvats

BVATS stuff

source:inkbunny.net/sub width:920 -bvats
Possible preview image
___________________________
width:1024 source:deviantart.com -bvats
Possible preview image
___________________________
width:900 source:deviantart.com -bvats
Possible preview image
___________________________
width:900 source:pixiv -bvats type:jpg
possible png at source or larger resolution
___________________________
width:1200 source:http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode= -bvats type:jpg
possible png at source or larger resolution
___________________________
source:tumblr -bvats -gif width:540
use this to find a bigger version
___________________________
source:tumblr.com/post -bvats -gif width:500
use this to find a bigger version
___________________________
source:tumblr.com/post -bvats -gif width:400
use this to find a bigger version
___________________________
source:tumblr.com/post -bvats -gif width:250
use this to find a bigger version
___________________________
source:touch.pixiv -bvats
possible bigger and png version at the source

If anybody has some other way to find bvats please pm me about it.

Impressive list.

Something like mpixels:>2 filesize:<100kb -bvats order:score might pull up a few. Probably has a pretty low hit rate compared to the targeted ones you listed though.

parasprite said:
Impressive list.

Something like mpixels:>2 filesize:<100kb -bvats order:score might pull up a few. Probably has a pretty low hit rate compared to the targeted ones you listed though.

I have kinda toyed with source:furaffinity width:1280 since it's the biggest resolution furaffinity allow (without cheating of cause). There is sometimes a bigger version, at sites like weasyl and sofurry. But i haven't spend much time on it. since it's too time consuming

filesize:1KB..100kb source:furaffinity -bvats width:1000..1280 have also given some results. for images with a bigger filesize. but again, it's too time consuming, to look through them. Also the search perimeter may need to narrow down abit to be truly useful. the only tip i can give is look for post with a lot of details they should be over 100kb

This last one is something i just made for sofurry
width:800 height:1..800 source:sofurry -bvats -gif -flash
width:1..800 height:800 source:sofurry -bvats -gif -flash
possible preview image
I haven't looked trough all of these but these fits with sofurry's preview image samples