I noticed there was a duplicate post of post 1152142, however this post was of lower quality than the other post (1122927).

Post 1122927 got deleted, despite being of higher quality than post 1152142 (1.6 MB vs 880 KB).

yung said:
I noticed there was a duplicate post of post #1152142, however this post was of lower quality than the other post #1122927.

post #1122927 got deleted, despite being of higher quality than post #1152142 (1.6 MB vs 880 KB).

Just tidied up your numbers so people can click them to lead to the post.

I can immediately see that the res size is lower, which may be why it was deleted, and file size is a toss in the air.

Message the mod who deleted post #1122927 and ask them to reverse it. Just say the other one was higher quality.

Siral_Exan said:
I can immediately see that the res size is lower, which may be why it was deleted, and file size is a toss in the air.

But the res size is only a tiny bit lower and the quality is much better, so that version is of much better quality.

leomole said:
Message the mod who deleted post #1122927 and ask them to reverse it. Just say the other one was higher quality.

Was going to do that, but felt like a post here would be better first. Will do that now.

Filesize isn't the be-all, end-all.

The one kept was not only larger, it was uploaded by the commissioner, who likely has access to the larger file in the first place. Extraneous data can get added to files that mean nothing for the actual image appearance, so don't use that as a rule.

Ratte said:
Filesize isn't the be-all, end-all.

The one kept was not only larger, it was uploaded by the commissioner, who likely has access to the larger file in the first place. Extraneous data can get added to files that mean nothing for the actual image appearance, so don't use that as a rule.

Fair enough. The bigger file size image did look higher quality to me but I could be wrong.

OP is correct, post #1122927 (the Hentai Foundry version) is actually higher quality than post #1152142 (the commissioner uploaded version ). Zoom in on the text and check out the compression artifacts.

yung said:
But the res size is only a tiny bit lower and the quality is much better, so that version is of much better quality.

Regular viewers can't see quality, since they can't see the image. That is where the staff is involved, they can actually see the image.

*edit* spoke of the devil... took too long when I should of submitted immediately.

leomole said:
OP is correct, post #1122927 (the Hentai Foundry version) is actually higher quality than post #1152142 (the commissioner uploaded version). Zoom in on the text and check out the compression artifacts.

Thanks, I'll message the user who deleted it now.

In this case both are compressed JPG files to begin with, so higher resolution is usually preferred when visible conversion difference is that low.

In these kind of cases where the quality is larger than from public source, upscale or paid content is possibility which need to be looked up, but like ratte said this was uploaded by commissioner so changes are they have access to best version of the image.

leomole said:
Message the mod who deleted post #1122927 and ask them to reverse it. Just say the other one was higher quality.

We do make mistakes, but really rarely, so instead of asking or demanding for reversal, please simply ask for more information if you need it and we can explain the reasoning and take second look if necessary.

Siral_Exan said:
I can immediately see that the res size is lower, which may be why it was deleted, and file size is a toss in the air.

There are so much more things that are taken into account. Usually the filesize is thing that isn't even looked at.

Mario69 said:
There are so much more things that are taken into account. Usually the filesize is thing that isn't even looked at.

Like? 'Cause I can only see three relevant things: the source, the uploader (as Ratte noted), and the resolution. That's the only things I can say, and any others I can't assume.

Siral_Exan said:
Like? 'Cause I can only see three relevant things: the source, the uploader (as Ratte noted), and the resolution. That's the only things I can say, and any others I can't assume.

Actual image quality.

As I've said at least a dozen times in the past now, filesize doesn't mean much because it can be artificially inflated with bullshit that means nothing for the actual image itself. If I hide an archive of files in an image to increase filesize (and yes, you can do this), that doesn't somehow magically make an image better quality just because the image I fucked with has an inflated filesize.

Thus, filesize is not something we usually regard, only the actual appearance of the image, and those will primarily be image dimensions and image quality.

So what do we do in this case when one has slightly larger dimensions but the other is clearly higher quality?

leomole said:
So what do we do in this case when one has slightly larger dimensions but the other is clearly higher quality?

If the bigger one is lower quality, it may've been resized.

In the case of these two images the increase in size is more significant than the decrease in quality, thus we will keep the larger file.

On the other hand, the uploader of that image is the commissioner and if anyone has access to the lossless original it would be him. So feel free to poke him if he might be willing to upload that version for us.

BlueDingo said:
_{^{Is "may've" even a word?}}

It's a contraction not a word, so it's definitely valid even if maybe not stylistically "pleasant".

NotMeNotYou said:
In the case of these two images the increase in size is more significant than the decrease in quality, thus we will keep the larger file.

I was lead to believe that we don't bother with file sizes. Can you provide an explanation for this?

Siral_Exan said:
I was lead to believe that we don't bother with file sizes. Can you provide an explanation for this?

Filesize =/= dimensions
Filesize = amount of space the file of the image consumes from storage

We are talking about the image dimensions, not the size of the file (as in, the amount of data it holds). These are not the same things.

Ratte said:
Filesize =/= dimensions
Filesize = amount of space the file of the image consumes from storage

We are talking about the image dimensions, not the size of the file (as in, the amount of data it holds). These are not the same things.

Then, as much as I hate to grammar nazi, the specification to "size" instead of "dimensions" confused me, especially because "file" was the last word.

Apologies for the confusion.

Siral_Exan said:
Then, as much as I hate to grammar nazi, the specification to "size" instead of "dimensions" confused me, especially because "file" was the last word.

The subject is the image, I also directly referenced the quality of the image. Since file size doesn't have a "quality" component the file itself is ruled out as possible subject, leaving only the actual image portion.

But apologies accepted.