Ok this is probably gonna get denied super fast but, in cases like post #965274

Requested feature overview description.

We should have more flag options for deletion, in specific, "Low Quality/Irrelevant to Site" is often listed as a deletion reason but we cannot flag for that reason.

Also consequently we cannot report an image quickly in the event that a specific image needs to be brought to attention but isn't available to flag for deletion.

Why would it be useful?

Mainly to allow for people to be able to report images that are not relevant to the site/designed to be harmful or are just spam.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
The Image view page.

That's what flags are for...
Though if it's irrelevant, it doesn't need to be reported. We have the approval process for that.

As for user reports, those are easy to access. The uploader's profile is linked under statistics.

Please use the right template when posting in this category.

[b]Requested feature overview description.[/b]
[b]Why would it be useful?[/b]
[b]What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?[/b]

[b]Bug overview description.[/b]
[b]What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?[/b]
[b]What is the expected behavior?[/b]
[b]What actual behavior is given instead?[/b]
[b]Time of incident (if applicable).[/b]
[b]Can you reproduce the bug every time?[/b]
[b]What steps did you take to replicate this bug?[/b]
[b]Errors or other messages returned (if any).[/b]

U

Hudson said:
Please use the right template when posting in this category.

Feature Request template

[b]Requested feature overview description.[/b]
[b]Why would it be useful?[/b]
[b]What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?[/b]

Bug Report template

[b]Bug overview description.[/b]
[b]What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?[/b]
[b]What is the expected behavior?[/b]
[b]What actual behavior is given instead?[/b]
[b]Time of incident (if applicable).[/b]
[b]Can you reproduce the bug every time?[/b]
[b]What steps did you take to replicate this bug?[/b]
[b]Errors or other messages returned (if any).[/b]

Updating the op now.

Genjar said:
That's what flags are for...
Though if it's irrelevant, it doesn't need to be reported. We have the approval process for that.

As for user reports, those are easy to access. The uploader's profile is linked under statistics.

I would have but "low quality/irrelevant to site" is not an available flag option.

The flag options are:
-This post is a duplicate or an inferior version of another post (smaller, lower quality, etc.)
The artist of this post is on the avoid posting list
This post is paysite or commercial content under two years old
This post is an uncredited trace of another artist's work
This image has been deleted before. Please leave any additional information in a comment below the image, or directly parent the original.
This post contains real-life pornography
The file in this post is either corrupted, broken, or otherwise doesn't work

GDelscribe said:
I would have but "low quality/irrelevant to site" is not an available flag option.

And as @Genjar pointed out, you're not supposed to (read as "never should need to") report such images, that's what the Janitor+ people are here for.

Guess thats fair. Maybe Im just a bit zealous.

My bad.

GDelscribe said:
Guess thats fair. Maybe Im just a bit zealous.

My bad.

Well, to be fair, I could still see it implemented (i.e. added as a flag option), it just depends on whether it helps those who approve posts or not.

GDelscribe said:

cant flag for that reason because what is and what isnt relevant to a site is too subjective, would be a real mess if everyone could flag for that reason. people would be flagging humanoids and not_furry and even some monsters left and right because they think these things dont fit their view of furry relevance.
The existing flag reasons are clear cut enough that you really cant do it wrong unless your intentionally trolling or vandalizing the site