Requested feature overview description.
Somewhat in relation to forum #207097, self-flagging on own posts would not get counted towards negative points for upload limit. In this case, self-flagging your own posts if you find a better version or when a higher res is available. Sometimes you would find better versions of your post tucked away in another gallery by the artist(like when artists move from FurAffinity to FurryNetwork or have inconsistent file res on different galleries) or when the artist one day decides to release hi-res versions to be available publicly.

Why would it be useful?
This would be useful to avid uploaders as we all know we don't like seeing our posts getting deleted for being inferior. It would promote self-flagging without getting the negative feedback.

To put it into perspective, imagine all your uploads being placed in the better_version_at_source page and watching it get slowly deleted in favor of the better version, wouldn't you want to do it yourself?

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

I have to agree with this. I mean, I have fallen victim to having to flag a post I made due to finding a superior copy being found, which had slightly dented my upload limit.

It would promote self-flagging without getting the negative feedback.

Agreed. Fixing our own mistakes shouldn't be punished. It's counter-productive. If I manage to find better versions of my previous uploads, why should I upload them if I only get punished for it?

This has been gone over with already (albeit not literally this feature).

And thus, my shorthand points: you should be keeping tabs on your posts, if that is too much work then... You shouldn't be making mistakes when it comes to posting, and even if you did make the mistake... Doesn't mean you'll have the initiative to fix it when someone else will or did, which means... You should be keeping tabs on your posts and don't make mistakes and no one else will have to fix them.

Siral_Exan said:
And, if you had the initiative to self-flag your own image, why didn't you upload the better version to begin with?

Sometimes the better version isn't immediately available. Once it becomes available, why should one go trough the trouble uploading it if the only reward for that is an -1 towards the limit?

Volphied said:
Sometimes the better version isn't immediately available. Once it becomes available, why should one go trough the trouble uploading it if the only reward for that is an -1 towards the limit?

Every four deleted images makes a -1... even with my statement on how common patreon posts occur, it is not that common, and you should know when the artist does this (eventually, picking up patterns doesn't occur immediately) and be posting more than what is deleted.

Volphied said:
Sometimes the better version isn't immediately available. Once it becomes available, why should one go trough the trouble uploading it if the only reward for that is an -1 towards the limit?

Either you suffer a +1/10 -1/4, or you suffer a +0 -1/4. I'd rather get the +1/10 than let somebody else take it from me.

Furrin_Gok said:
Either you suffer a +1/10 -1/4, or you suffer a +0 -1/4. I'd rather get the +1/10 than let somebody else take it from me.

Or you "suffer" a 0/10 0/4 by not even bothering to point out that a better version of an old picture has been released by the artists. When it comes to more obscure artist, the chance that somebody else will "take it from you" sharply decreases.

Volphied said:
Or you "suffer" a 0/10 0/4 by not even bothering to point out that a better version of an old picture has been released by the artists. When it comes to more obscure artist, the chance that somebody else will "take it from you" sharply decreases.

You do know we have Slyroon to thank for making BVAS a noticeable tag, right? They are the one who find, tag, and then upload (in that order, but not immediately) BVASes. Even obscure, patreon, and alternate sources are not exempt from them.

They know how to find BVAS, we have Munkelzhan who helps source images, and we have contributors and up for tag scripts for commonly missed or not-used (background and res tags) tags. It is a wonderful circle.

Volphied said:
Or you "suffer" a 0/10 0/4 by not even bothering to point out that a better version of an old picture has been released by the artists. When it comes to more obscure artist, the chance that somebody else will "take it from you" sharply decreases.

Siral_Exan said:
You do know we have Slyroon to thank for making BVAS a noticeable tag, right? They are the one who find, tag, and then upload (in that order, but not immediately) BVASes. Even obscure, patreon, and alternate sources are not exempt from them.

They know how to find BVAS, we have another janitor (placeholder, will fill when I get the name) who helps source images, and we have contributors and up for tag scripts for commonly missed or not-used (background and res tags) tags. It is a wonderful circle.

Slyroon's incredibly great at finding any and all BVAS, so if you find one yourself, you should take care of it yourself before he does.

I've literally just flagged dozens of my own posts because an artist had just released an archive link full of old uploads with higher resolution, pure bad luck I guess? (Because I've literally posted hundreds of the artist's artwork and now there's a risk of it all being inferior).

I need to add on that instead of just singular post mistakes, I'm talking of a larger scale. Like I pointed out before, what if an artist who solely use FA as a main gallery and decides to branch off to different sites, like SF IB WSL DA Twitter Tumblur or FN? Since FA limits the resolution of hi res posts while other sites don't, doesn't that potentially mean all of the previous uploads prior to moving sites have become inferior?

Furrin_Gok said:
Slyroon's incredibly great at finding any and all BVAS, so if you find one yourself, you should take care of it yourself before he does.

Another plus point, if we do it ourselves, we won't put on more burden for them. And thus promoting for all of us to work individually in uploading the best version instead of hiding them by removing valid sources(I know there's bound to be someone who has/had done this before).

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I've literally just flagged dozens of my own posts because an artist had just released an archive link full of old uploads with higher resolution, pure bad luck I guess? (Because I've literally posted hundreds of the artist's artwork and now there's a risk of it all being inferior).

I need to add on that instead of just singular post mistakes, I'm taking of a larger scale. Like I pointed out before, what if an artist who solely use FA as a main gallery and decides to branch off to different sites, like SF IB WSL DA Twitter Tumblur or FN? Since FA limits the reaolition of hi res posts while other sites don't, doesn't that potentially mean all of the artists uploads prior to moving sites become inferior?

Well, take what you can get. You can post them as fast as possible while making sure the tags apply (some aliases don't take into effect, editing the tags fixes that), but: You can ask an admin to fix negative or 0 upload limits; and you are not above anyone else for posting them. It is not your artwork, it is the artist's, and anyone can choose to upload the artist's imagery within the circumstances set by the artist, so if they didn't say anything about restrictions on uploading the images, you have just a fair of a chance as anyone else, for uploading said imagery. And this applies to both statements, and any BVAS post in general.

Siral_Exan said:
Well, take what you can get. You can post them as fast as possible while making sure the tags apply (some aliases don't take into effect, editing the tags fixes that), but: You can ask an admin to fix negative or 0 upload limits; and you are not above anyone else for posting them. It is not your artwork, it is the artist's, and anyone can choose to upload the artist's imagery within the circumstances set by the artist, so if they didn't say anything about restrictions on uploading the images, you have just a fair of a chance as anyone else, for uploading said imagery. And this applies to both statements, and any BVAS post in general.

I don't know, just saying it seems counter-productive imo.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I don't know, just saying it seems counter-productive imo.

Well, there are two rules about quality of images, which is: do not constantly upload low quality images (thumbnail quality, or etc.); and do not make better resolutions or other fake "better" images (paraphrasing, mind you). Said rules are further enforced by the posting limit, so being counterproductive also effects the people who break these rules. There has even been downtalk of a person who uploads lower-quality images and then uploads the better quality later, despite both knowing that the site prefers the better quality and has performed such sometimes even just hours after uploading the low quality.

The loss of posting amount by losing images is lenient if you fix it. For every 4 you deleted and fixed, you'll then only need to upload 6 more, and this also prevents you from losing another -1 by keeping your +X amount stable (you'll lose another 1 if it dips below a multiple of 10). It's a harder hit if they didn't fix it themselves... This is all about mitigating the situation, you have the ability to fix it in the long run.

Also, what about artist takedowns counting towards our upload limit? I know that posting something on the DNP list should definitely count, but it sucks when an artist decides to nuke everything and it takes a chunk out of your upload limit. It seems like at least a third of my deletions are from takedown requests.

I think that, logically, you can't blame the uploader if a better version of a post appears, if the post they made was the best version available at that moment. You simply can't say it's their fault. Similarily, you can't blame someone if an artist suddenly decides to go dnp.

You also can't demand that posters keep watching their own posts in case a better version appears. That's just not productive. It's something bots should do, not humans.

But in any case, if someone goes as far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like and finds a better version of a post he made himself, then he did everyone a favour and definitely shouldn't be penalized for correcting himself.

Delian said:
I think that, logically, you can't blame the uploader if a better version of a post appears, if the post they made was the best version available at that moment. You simply can't say it's their fault. Similarily, you can't blame someone if an artist suddenly decides to go dnp.

You also can't demand that posters keep watching their own posts in case a better version appears. That's just not productive. It's something bots should do, not humans.

But in any case, if someone goes as far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like and finds a better version of a post he made himself, then he did everyone a favour and definitely shouldn't be penalized for correcting himself.

"Blame"... why do you think the uploader is blamed?
"If"... do you not follow the artist to find out when a better version is available?
"Fault"... no one ever said it was their fault, you are projecting that.
""Demand"... watch the artist, make sure you tagged it correct, and keep an eye on the comments section for your posts, and voila, you are watching your posts.
"Favor"... it is expected that you have the best version available. If you don't, someone else can upload it in the site's favor. As in, the literal website. Not everyone, and uploading lower quality images is not benefiting the site if you know you can get a better version.

You've taken this far too personally...

I would like if self-flagging did not damage someone's upload limit. That's just punishing people trying to help the site. While staff can modify someone's upload limit, I don't really feel that someone checking on their own uploads should need this. It's kind of silly to expect absolutely everyone to always know where the best version of something is, especially when it comes to sites like FA or Tumblr, or even DA if someone blocks a higher-res version from being downloaded.

While yes, it's generally expected that a post is the highest-quality version available, we're all aware of the possibility of there still being a better version, especially anything at 540 or 1280.

Siral_Exan said:
"Blame"... why do you think the uploader is blamed?
"If"... do you not follow the artist to find out when a better version is available?
"Fault"... no one ever said it was their fault, you are projecting that.
""Demand"... watch the artist, make sure you tagged it correct, and keep an eye on the comments section for your posts, and voila, you are watching your posts.
"Favor"... it is expected that you have the best version available. If you don't, someone else can upload it in the site's favor. As in, the literal website. Not everyone, and uploading lower quality images is not benefiting the site if you know you can get a better version.

The uploader is blamed because they are the one who experiences a decrease in upload limit. That isn't rocket science.
Not everyone follows everyone else. All it takes is "I like this picture, I should post it to e6" to have it end up here.
Plenty of people will hide content behind paywalls or behind systems that disallow the download of a larger version, just to have those posts be deleted later if/when those things are finally made available. You don't see how silly this is?
Again, not everyone follows everyone else, nor should they be expected to, especially those who have hundreds of uploads. There is not enough time in the day to do this.
Not everyone always knows they can get a better version. Often they will hope that the one they found is the best available and ride it. With people having different account names, accounts difficult to find (or otherwise hidden) on various sites, and so on, these mistakes will happen.

Allowing someone to self-flag and/or to make new takedowns not count against someone's upload limit (the latter especially) I'd argue would be more beneficial to the site given the leniency toward the people who actually make the site what it is.

Siral_Exan said:
You've taken this far too personally...

It seems that way, doesn't it :P But the words I used have an entirely objective meaning.

Reduction in someone's upload limit is a sort of "punishment". One could see it as a consequence of being "blamed" for making a "fault".

Anyway, I simply expressed my opinion. I don't care about this feature so.. nothing personal!

Edit: Ah.. Rattle wrote everything I wanted to.

Delian said:
But the words I used have an entirely objective meaning.

http://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

Ratte said:
A lot. A...lot...

Well, I guess people will be getting better treatment... I'm glad you arrived, though. I assume that this all will be fixed? Because, when I had to handle the similar problem with BVAS I was told to deal with it. "You could literately have started replacing your own images at any point in time. after i told you how to do it.", "If you just had made a little effort" (they seem to use periods instead of commas, but this was preceded by a period), and "You had the time. you had the knowledge and still you just let your upload limit drop. You had over a month to do something about it.", and this is all through DMail with Slyroon... that 100~ excluding slyroon's deleted would look better if removed, but I had to clean up my own mess. I'll admit that I procrastinated and it bit me in the ass, and I complained literally like this.

All this looks like is another thread against BVAS, not unlike the one where people were entitled to what they post and that shouldn't be removed if it was BVAS'd. But now that someone is finally getting support, I'll support it as well.

I have nothing against bvats because it's good at what it does, provided it's used. This would be a supplemental tool more than it would be a problem especially when both bvats and self-flagging are used in conjunction. They both still work.

I don't mind when things get replaced or people find replacements, I mind when people get shitty about either one. That's a behavior problem, not a utility problem. Simple fact is that not everyone knows everything and people are likely to make honest mistakes and/or not immediately know how to do some certain thing.

-no-

Lance_Armstrong said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "I'm the uploader and I uploaded the file by mistake (only possible within 48 hours of uploading)" reason not hit your limit?

If so, at least twice I accidentally cleared this flag and used the Inferior Version/Duplicate reason instead to replace an image. Oops.

If the limit is not hit, then you simply set the parent image to the superior version, then flag the inferior with the 48 hour reason. When janitors+ attempt to delete an image, we get the option to transfer favorites only if a parent is set, so you setting the parent saves us some work.

Obviously, this only works if you catch it within two days, and some superior images will take much longer to surface.

There is no exemption for flag reason. It just totals up the number of posts marked as deleted that you uploaded. If this ever existed(and I cannot find evidence that it did) it was likely removed for performance reasons a long time ago.

KiraNoot said:
There is no exemption for flag reason. It just totals up the number of posts marked as deleted that you uploaded. If this ever existed(and I cannot find evidence that it did) it was likely removed for performance reasons a long time ago.

I remembered the absolute wrong posts in here.

Siral_Exan said:

All this looks like is another thread against BVAS, not unlike the one where people were entitled to what they post and that shouldn't be removed if it was BVAS'd. But now that someone is finally getting support, I'll support it as well.

I'm sorry if this thread had in any way offended you but like what @Ratte said I have nothing against BVAS or how the system currently operates.

I just feel that this feature would be beneficial for the site and its users. Because truth be told, in the starting days of me uploading on e6 I have always been sour when my posts get deleted for being inferior, but as time passed I learned to target specific sources when it comes to getting the most superior version available for the site. But sometimes you just can't avoid it.

We know how the deletion counter works. That's why this is a feature. To make deletion counter functionality a bit more.. sophisticated, and not crude as it currently is.

Siral_Exan said:
All this looks like is another thread against BVAS, not unlike the one where people were entitled to what they post and that shouldn't be removed if it was BVAS'd. But now that someone is finally getting support, I'll support it as well.

I have zero problems with BVAS.

Volphied said:
I have zero problems with BVAS.

Never specified anyone, just another thread. There is a thread dedicated against Slyroon's actions, https://e621.net/forum/show/176144 , and others where people (I included but not out publicly) wanted it changed.

Siral_Exan said:
Never specified anyone, just another thread. There is a thread dedicated against Slyroon's actions, https://e621.net/forum/show/176144 , and others where people (I included but not out publicly) wanted it changed.

If you didn't specify anyone, then why bring it up at all? Absolutely no one in here is arguing against BVAS, nor are we complaining about Slyroon (in fact, you were the first one in here to mention him). That thread you linked has nothing to do with us.

TheGreatWolfgang and Ratte said it better than I ever could, and now I'm hoping that we might one day see an improvement to the way self-flagging works.

Volphied said:
If you didn't specify anyone, then why bring it up at all? Absolutely no one in here is arguing against BVAS, nor are we complaining about Slyroon (in fact, you were the first one in here to mention him). That thread you linked has nothing to do with us.

TheGreatWolfgang and Ratte said it better than I ever could, and now I'm hoping that we might one day see an improvement to the way self-flagging works.

I'm gonna just assume you didn't understand what I wrote here and suggest you reread it.

Siral_Exan said:
I'm gonna just assume you didn't understand what I wrote here and suggest you reread it.

I understood it perfectly and stand by what I said. BVAS/Slyroon/the-thread-you-linked are absolutely unrelated to the current issue and this thread's topic.

Volphied said:
I understood it perfectly and stand by what I said. BVAS/Slyroon/the-thread-you-linked are absolutely unrelated to the current issue and this thread's topic.

Then, who deals with BVAS if you don't? And, what does "another" mean in https://e621.net/forum/show/210051 ? Furthermore, did I or did I not bring up a person, who is named Slyroon, and that they told me, for my reasons for why I said all of the prior, in https://e621.net/forum/show/210007 ?

I kind agree, considering nearly a hundred of my posts are replaced because they became inferior :P

Since I am the one, who mostly handle BVAS images. I am all for there are consequences, when people upload inferior images. It creates an incentive to do better.

slyroon said:
Since I am the one, who mostly handle BVAS images. I am all for there are consequences, when people upload inferior images. It creates an incentive to do better.

It always looks like it has the opposite effect. I will compliment you with this, you are one of the main reasons as to how I learned to source better, and made it a lot more apparent to use Harry.Lu for dups or previously deleted. People, myself included, don't initially like it, and there can be a better way to handle the deletion record (my silent gripe when it comes to seeing your posts).

slyroon said:
Since I am the one, who mostly handle BVAS images. I am all for there are consequences, when people upload inferior images. It creates an incentive to do better.

But this thread is not arguing against BVAS; this thread is arguing for improving the self-flagging process, which in its current form is the opposite of being an "incentive to do better".

^ +1. Consequences are good, -if- they are applied sanely. There hasn't really been a solid argument that they are applied sanely in the case of self-flags, and there have been a few solid arguments against.

Unfortunately I can also see how simply going 'self-flags don't count towards upload penalty now' would be gameable (think about the logical analog to the current practice of 'upload with few/no tags, fix up later'). 'self flags don't count if the flagging is at least X days after the post was uploaded' might be somewhat less problematic.

Volphied said:
But this thread is not arguing against BVAS; this thread is arguing for improving the self-flagging process, which in its current form is the opposite of being an "incentive to do better".

Not really. "Do better" would be ask the artist about every individual image. Or, heck, just ask if you can get full res of every release for upload to the boorus and see if they're willing to send you the direct files every time they create a new image.

Furrin_Gok said:
Not really. "Do better" would be ask the artist about every individual image. Or, heck, just ask if you can get full res of every release for upload to the boorus and see if they're willing to send you the direct files every time they create a new image.

Don't know about this though, it is mostly reserved for the commissioners and not random strangers. It can be troublesome for some artists, an extra burden if I might say, to request full res all the time.

Unless they are really fond to the site, they might as well just say "what you see is what you get". If you are lucky, the artist would post dropbox links in the description for full res downloads, otherwise you are on your own to find which gallery has the best version.

I know this has quieted down, but figure I'll say my bit anyway:

My understanding of "won't count against you" for flagging (ie. within 48 hours) isn't that it never counts in your total, but that if your upload limit drops too far the admins will take the self-flags into account as far as restoring your limit.

And as to people being afraid to self-flag because it will hurt their limit?

• First, most people never hit their limit anyway, so a minor ding isn't going to hurt that bad.
• Second, if you are uploading so much that you do hit your limit regularly then you're going to make up the difference almost immediately. (Just 2.5 uploads will make up for 1 deletion...)
• Third, self-flagging is still the best way to get the "negative" as if your limit drops to point you need admin intervention you can include in message to them that "I self-flagged a lot of inferior images I uploaded, could I get my limit restored?" and I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to work with you in a case like that.

Wodahseht said:
Second, if you are uploading so much that you do hit your limit regularly then you're going to make up the difference almost immediately. (Just 2.5 uploads will make up for 1 deletion...)

Take me: 50 upload limit! Helps that I go around asking artists if it's okay to post their stuff and once I get confirmation I keep it up.
Most users don't really bother with the artists that only seem to have one user to their name. Perhaps they're not sure if the artist is really fine with having their works uploaded, but in that case just go and ask the artist yourself. You can always find these artists and take over on some of the uploads yourself, I know I leave plenty of time for drachenmagier's for example.

Sometimes the problem is that you don't upload a lot. For me, I don't mass upload artwork from random artists. I take the time to check with each individual involved with the piece before posting, may it be the artists, commissioners or multiple character owners.

And for them to read my notes, it takes some time. So for me posting is a lengthy process.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Sometimes the problem is that you don't upload a lot. For me, I don't mass upload artwork from random artists. I take the time to check with each individual involved with the piece before posting, may it be the artists, commissioners or multiple character owners.

And for them to read my notes, it takes some time. So for me posting is a lengthy process.

That's how it was for me, too. Once you get going on an artist, it's easier to keep it up, but start out slow and steady, get permission and check around. The time this takes will give your other posts time to get approved, leaving your slots open. You're at 83 upload limit, even higher than I am :P
Even with 205 deleted count, you've got plenty of space to work with.