Requested feature overview description.
The current system for replacing a post with a larger version of that post is as follows: Upload the larger version as a new post. Set the smaller version to be the child of the larger version. And request to delete the smaller version with the reason that it is inferior to the larger version. Then you wait for someone to come by, see that it's all good, and approve the new picture while deleting the old one. Oh, and don't forget to copy and paste the tags from the small version to the big one.
Not only is this needlessly complicated to newcomers who might want to help but have no idea where to start, but this also wipes everything else attached to that post, such as comments, tags if you forget to bring them over, upvotes and downvotes, favorites, original upload date, notes, etc.
Rather than this nonsensical process, it'd be great if there was a button that said "Upload larger/better version". You'd go to it, it'd ask you to upload the picture, and then you wait for someone to come by, see that it's all good, and allow it to go through. The post gets updated with the superior version, everything else is maintained. Except for the positioning of the notes, that would be screwed up a little, but it's an easy enough manual fix.
Why would it be useful?
The main use this would have would be to preserve comment sections. There are some quality gems in those, and a larger version overtaking it can lead to those gems being inaccessible. There's also the preservation of notes, which is important because there's a lot of translation work in those, and it's time-consuming to recreate them in the larger post at the moment. This would also guarantee that the tags make it over to the new post, as well as the description, views, rating, votes, etc. And finally, it limits the number of new deleted posts coming in, which is good for the system as a whole.
What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
It affects very little on the site pages. There's one new page, the Upload Superior Version page, and there's a new button on posts that leads to it, but otherwise, it's roughly the same. There could always be changes to the upload date/user stat, with two dates, corresponding to the original upload date/user, and the update upload date/user, but it's not that important.

A question: who'd keep the post?

A statement: a deleted posts impose a penalty to uploads over time (if repeated). It'd be just as easy to tell a person to BVAS, and if they don't listen then read my prior sentence.

You can imagine this working, but it only goes so far and people can only keep correcting for so long (bless Slyroon & co. for keeping up with BVAS).

This would be so much better than the current system. Tags, notes, comments is the additional data that e6 generates, and it all gets wiped just to get somewhat larger resolution.

Siral_Exan said:
A question: who'd keep the post?

Uploaded by user1
Updated by user2
Updated by user3

Keep the post id the same, but break its 1:1 relationship with the image hash. Instead it should be 1:n, multiple resolutions (of the same image) for a single set of tags.

hslugs said:
Uploaded by user1
Updated by user2
Updated by user3

Keep the post id the same, but break its 1:1 relationship with the image hash. Instead it should be 1:n, multiple resolutions (of the same image) for a single set of tags.

That severely hampers any influence of the deleted post penalty and most of the influence to actually follow BVAS. If a user doesn't get the benefit of adding to their upload count for correcting others, then why fix it other than for the shoot-the-moon positive record. Unless we start regularly giving neutral/negative records for not following BVAS.

Siral_Exan said:
That severely hampers any influence of the deleted post penalty and most of the influence to actually follow BVAS.

No? Just keep some sort of superseded flag on each file (hash) and count them against user's uploads count.

Although I don't think deleted post penalty should apply to higher-res uploads in the first place. At least not as much as for properly deleted posts, like off-topic, DNP and such. One more argument for this change, really, as it would allow different penalties for superseded and deleted uploads.

Siral_Exan said:
A question: who'd keep the post?

A statement: a deleted posts impose a penalty to uploads over time (if repeated). It'd be just as easy to tell a person to BVAS, and if they don't listen then read my prior sentence.

You can imagine this working, but it only goes so far and people can only keep correcting for so long (bless Slyroon & co. for keeping up with BVAS).

Uh, BVAS?

ShylokVakarian said:
Uh, BVAS?

BVAS; Better Version at (the) Source. Kinda the whole system for making sure the site has the best version publicly available by the artist. Certain people go out of their way to tell users about BVAS, even linking the BV (Best Version), and yet are still ignored... that should speak for how your suggested system would work. It'd still fall apon the shoulders of the few whom aren't rewarded with anything other than more uploads.

This reminds me of a user, name not thrown, whom purposely uploaded artificially produced better versions and flagged the "inferiors", which would have been problematic had there not been source evidence that fixed incorrect deletions... how would your system work if there is no deleted post to default back to?

Siral_Exan said:
BVAS; Better Version at (the) Source. Kinda the whole system for making sure the site has the best version publicly available by the artist. Certain people go out of their way to tell users about BVAS, even linking the BV (Best Version), and yet are still ignored... that should speak for how your suggested system would work. It'd still fall apon the shoulders of the few whom aren't rewarded with anything other than more uploads.

Well, in my opinion, people shouldn't be necessarily punished by not uploading the best version. If anything, their reward should be taken away (i.e. subtract the one that was added to the approved uploads number), but there certainly shouldn't be punishment for it. So, technically, "who'd keep the post" is the latest approved updater.

Siral_Exan said:
This reminds me of a user, name not thrown, whom purposely uploaded artificially produced better versions and flagged the "inferiors", which would have been problematic had there not been source evidence that fixed incorrect deletions... how would your system work if there is no deleted post to default back to?

Well, this would take a bit more work, but presumably, there would be some sort of image history, like the Wikipedia page revision history feature. In this case, the space the entirety of e621 takes up would remain about the same, slightly higher due to the new code, but more pointers that would otherwise be used on deleted posts would be freed up for more posts, slightly delaying inevitable server expansions.

ShylokVakarian said:
Well, in my opinion, people shouldn't be necessarily punished by not uploading the best version. If anything, their reward should be taken away (i.e. subtract the one that was added to the approved uploads number), but there certainly shouldn't be punishment for it. So, technically, "who'd keep the post" is the latest approved updater.

That is what I'd rather too, in your system, but the punishment serves as an ultimate stance: you learn, either by listening when informed or by reading the masses telling you when you inevitably complain in the forums, of you don't until you can no longer upload, in which case you have to ask Notme to change it and they should tell you about BVAS. You, again, being not literal.

A really big hole in the deleted penalty is the records you get when you upload paid, DNP, or previously deleted, content. It's 4 strikes and you're out, so the loss of posting is more or less salt on the wound... unless you pick up what to do and what not to do. I see it as incentive to learn from your mistakes because it is relatively lax compared to the ACTUAL punishments.

Siral_Exan said:
That is what I'd rather too, in your system, but the punishment serves as an ultimate stance: you learn, either by listening when informed or by reading the masses telling you when you inevitably complain in the forums, of you don't until you can no longer upload, in which case you have to ask Notme to change it and they should tell you about BVAS. You, again, being not literal.

A really big hole in the deleted penalty is the records you get when you upload paid, DNP, or previously deleted, content. It's 4 strikes and you're out, so the loss of posting is more or less salt on the wound... unless you pick up what to do and what not to do. I see it as incentive to learn from your mistakes because it is relatively lax compared to the ACTUAL punishments.

Well, there are times when the person couldn't upload the best version for some reason. Either it wasn't on the internet at the time, or was locked behind a paywall. Should someone really lose uploads over that? I know it's a bit petty, but it's the principle of the thing, not to mention if you mass upload, and people find a better source that you couldn't, you could practically lose all your uploads overnight.

I can see some similarities with some feature requests that I would like to throw in,

• forum #204284 [Denied]
• To "edit/update" a post's image, rather than deleting and replacing it with another post.

(Personally, I don't think changing a post's original submission is a good idea, as some conflict may occur with the content that has been changed.)

• forum #216197
• To merge comment sections from the inferior to the superior.

(Going against as to some conflict between out-of-place comments/people updating flashes would bring over hundreds of comments about the previous flash. However, I do go for revealing the comments on the deleted post.)

ShylokVakarian said:
Well, there are times when the person couldn't upload the best version for some reason. Either it wasn't on the internet at the time, or was locked behind a paywall. Should someone really lose uploads over that? I know it's a bit petty, but it's the principle of the thing, not to mention if you mass upload, and people find a better source that you couldn't, you could practically lose all your uploads overnight.

• forum #209917
• Deleting and replacing your own inferior posts without loss

(My suggestion in circumventing punishment for doing something that is sometimes unavoidable, while also promoting self-initiative to replace your own posts with better ones once they're found/available. If you don't care/check, people can still delete/replace your post with a new one.)

----

But of course in the end, the final aim of the OP is to preserve comment sections, preservation of notes & limit the number of new deleted posts.

So for the sake of preserving comment (and maybe note) sections, I would like to see a feature that carries over the inferior post's comment section to the superior's, if Harry.lu deems it "similar" enough. It would presumably work flawlessly if the superior is just a higher res.