Requested feature overview description.

A function that allows the original uploader and privileged+ users to edit the submitted image on an existing post.

Why would it be useful?

Rather than forcing an entirely new upload which takes up server space and causes a host of other problems (lost comments/favs etc) as well as adding deletion records to someone's account, allowing the user or a trustworthy member to upload a new version that overwrites the original image would save on post count, deletions, server space, headaches and allow artist users to update a piece of art that they may have made an error on and fixed after uploading.

To get around abuse of the system any submitted edit would have to be Re approved by janitors and if denied the originally approved version is returned.If approved the original version is deleted.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?

Post View Page, Image Upload Tool

GDelscribe said:

Requested feature overview description.

A function that allows the original uploader and privileged+ users to edit the submitted image on an existing post.

Why would it be useful?

Rather than forcing an entirely new upload which takes up server space and causes a host of other problems (lost comments/favs etc) as well as adding deletion records to someone's account, allowing the user or a trustworthy member to upload a new version that overwrites the original image would save on post count, deletions, server space, headaches and allow artist users to update a piece of art that they may have made an error on and fixed after uploading.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?

Post View Page, Image Upload Tool

While I agree with this, I don't know how feasible this would be, because you are right, losing the comments/faves can be irritating to no end. I don't know if such a thing can be implemented easily, I feel your pain and I hope something like this can be addressed in the near future.

How will this be compatible with Harry.Lu ? What would prevent trolling by people using this, by replacing appropriate images with completely irrelevant images? What would stop people from uploading paid content leaks by "masked" images, by uploading the appropriate quality, waiting a couple of days and then uploading the paid version?

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
How will this be compatible with Harry.Lu ? What would prevent trolling by people using this, by replacing appropriate images with completely irrelevant images? What would stop people from uploading paid content leaks by "masked" images, by uploading the appropriate quality, waiting a couple of days and then uploading the paid version?

I'm not sure of the first question. I can't comment on the backend of e6 cause I haven't seen it so it's a moot point.

Second trolling is no more an issue with this than it would be regularly. Report the offending user and move on. It would be easy enough to implement an uploader history feature to see who changed the image and when. And considering only the original uploader or a trusted privaleged+ user could change it under the proposal that means that a that user would be doing no different from uploading a troll image to their account regularly.

To get around abuse of the system any submitted edit would have to be Re approved by janitors and if denied the originally approved version is returned. If approved the original version is deleted.

As to your paid content question it would be handled no different from what we already have and with the re-approval proposal becomes a complete non issue.

Well, for the second, let's put a soft cap at 100 images that are changed to RL pornography. Regardless of whether or not it needs to be approved, it still happened, and how it's normally controlled is you'd need to have an upload rate of 100 to post 100 images. Instead, this gives them the ability to do it at will...

And, to be more specific of the paid content, I've already dealt with a person who recently tried flagging and replacing "inferior" images with paid content. This wasn't the first time, and it was quickly noticed. But, say they decided to upload the non-paid, and then change it under the guise that it's superior. Since people don't check sources for superior/inferior quality, it can go unnoticed. Ergo, replacing for paid content that would take more time to invest and prevent than the users simply flagging when duplicates occur that show evidence of paid content.

Again in regards to paid content. If theres a janitor system in place it will literally not change at all.

Second. Again. Uploading that would be strikes on your own account and guess what. Thats a negative record or a ban or a permabanned user.

Do you really think someone would make an account. Upload a lot of good properly curated images and then throw all of their account away on a whim? Or that a privaleged user would either?

Its an argument based on a worst case scenario that is both unrealistic and unfeasible. The amount of time taken to upload change that quantity of images would be noticed and likely shut down before it got off the ground.

And again. Through the approval system it wouldn't matter.

Lastly you could have upload edits tied to its own number or the same number as the user upload limit as it currently is. I don't see any reason to make stuff you need to reapprove stop counting towards the uploaded in waiting count and those users WOULD run out of uploads likely very quickly.

*repost because of iPhone buttons... accidentally hid the post*
Alright then, time to bring better points: circumventing admin intervention, tagging rules, lazy posting privileges for being "first".

If an admin says a tag goes, a tag goes. Cuntboy images can be replaced by images that the artist wants, but keep faves and the comments, including the argument, which instead would have to be gotten by scratch if you did a takedown and replace.

What a tag/rating says, it goes. But you could circumvent that by replacing images that are getting flak (kinkshaming, for instance) with idealistic versions. Again, against takedown requests.

If I upload a better quality image by finding it, then what is to stop the first poster from taking my source, and reuploading my image under their post. If you don't have the best version, you lose the post (eventually), but this will reward lazy posting by letting them claim "first", arguably.

I have absolutely no idea what you're even getting at as tagging rules have no bearing on the given discussion atm so. I'm not gonna even touch that bait. I'm not an idiot.

Like. That is so so far removed from the discussion and I can guarentee you 1000% someone isn't gonna change their character in artwork just to meet the needs of a tag that we shouldn't even have to argue about to begin with.

Its an entirely subjective archaic issue that is unrelated to the current feature discussion.

And your second argument really doesn't make any difference either from the current system.

None of these arguments actually make this any different from our current system and all this adds is extra functionality for admins and users alike. In regards to people stealing your post it would fall to the admin as to which version to keep or whether to just update the original post themselves.

It doesnt change a thing in the end though. Its the same as our current system.

You yourself said "people don't often check sources" etc.

Whos gonna legitimatell eagle eye every single image to make sure they don't get sniped. With people like slyroon uploading as fast as they do who cares it's literally impossible. And not only that. With this, to save server space janitors like slyroon won't have to disturb the original poster at all and can just edit the original post. Voiding the need for a new upload.

GDelscribe said:
Do you really think someone would make an account. Upload a lot of good properly curated images and then throw all of their account away on a whim? Or that a privaleged user would either?

Its an argument based on a worst case scenario that is both unrealistic and unfeasible. The amount of time taken to upload change that quantity of images would be noticed and likely shut down before it got off the ground.

As an admin of 3 years this is definitely what's going to happen, and chances are in the first week. People being butt hurt are a force that don't follow rational logic.

Personally I'm against this feature, because as an archive touching the original document to alter it is undesirable in every single circumstance.
Personally I'd prefer it that a post could be "cloned", eg. that you can tell the server that you'd like to upload a superior version of post xyz, and that it automatically adds the tag, notes, description history, all comments, and then flags the old one for deletion.