It doesn't bother me.
My upload limit is 186, and I don't own the posts I upload.
If any of my posts has a bvats, please upload it.

Nah. I'm a little happy if someone ends up posting a better version of something I liked enough to post. I think if I was new and had a low post count it probably would though.

It doesn't bother me. I just like there to be high quality versions of things on the site.

That said, I'm not a big fan of absurd_res images in general, so replacing an image I like with one that is a pain to resize to a reasonable viewing level can sometimes be annoying.

Normally? Nope. absurd_res away, and tell people to enable resizing by default if they'd like to see consistently small images. There is, however, the occasional invalid bvats or flagging attempt.

For instance, someone attempting to replace an InkBunny PNG image with a Tumblr raw file of identical resolution. Since InkBunny removes metadata as a form of data-saving lossless compression, many users are getting the idea that the Tumblr version is somehow superior, when in reality there is no difference and it's simply a visually identical post of larger resolution.

In another case, a user deeming the :large Twitter version as superior to :orig due to marginally higher file size, despite better image clarity and less compression on the latter (although I strongly suspect even :orig compresses JPG-format images). File size isn't everything; sometimes it's important to gauge quality with your eyes as well and use your better judgement.

not really cause if needed, i always have that M. Sherman zip file i can go digging through to repair my upload limit. :P no one seems to bother with that much so i've always got it as a source of free uploads. i think there's still at least 8-900+ pics left in it.

If the uploader tags the higher res post with <10 tags and doesn't bother copying the tags from my post where I spent 5-10 minutes carefully adding tags, I get triggered. Otherwise, I check the source of the new post to learn where I can get a higher res next time I upload.

It bothers me when this guy artificially inflates the filesize of the raw file, just so he can claim my post was an inferior version. It bothers me even more that when I notified the admin that deleted it, my dmail was just plainly ignored.

Best part? He commented something along the lines of "This has been there the whole time? I could've took it for myself." before editing/hiding that comment

Otherwise, I don't care. It's my fault for not uploading the best available version and the site should not suffer because I'll be bothered by getting a deleted post, and I can hopefully learn from it and upload better in the future.

Johannes said:
It bothers me when this guy artificially inflates the filesize of the raw file, just so he can claim my post was an inferior version. It bothers me even more that when I notified the admin that deleted it, my dmail was just plainly ignored.

Best part? He commented something along the lines of "This has been there the whole time? I could've took it for myself." before editing/hiding that comment

Yeah, no, that's not even remotely okay. Even a cursory check of the source confirms that the file you uploaded matches the deleted post's size. The admin in question should've raised at least one red flag when seeing the sources were identical. :I

Johannes said:
It bothers me when this guy artificially inflates the filesize of the raw file, just so he can claim my post was an inferior version. It bothers me even more that when I notified the admin that deleted it, my dmail was just plainly ignored.

Best part? He commented something along the lines of "This has been there the whole time? I could've took it for myself." before editing/hiding that comment

Otherwise, I don't care. It's my fault for not uploading the best available version and the site should not suffer because I'll be bothered by getting a deleted post, and I can hopefully learn from it and upload better in the future.

Should have reported that immediately.

Johannes said:
It bothers me when this guy artificially inflates the filesize of the raw file, just so he can claim my post was an inferior version. It bothers me even more that when I notified the admin that deleted it, my dmail was just plainly ignored.

Reversed, enjoy.

Strongbird said:
Yeah, no, that's not even remotely okay. Even a cursory check of the source confirms that the file you uploaded matches the deleted post's size. The admin in question should've raised at least one red flag when seeing the sources were identical. :I

Indeed and there has been at least couple users now trying to get their count higher by blending into the mass of all the hundreds of replaced posts.

I have myself tried to make certain that all deletions I have handled has indeed been correct versions and needed to reverse several. One clear red flag is that if tumblr URL MD5 isn't the same as files MD5 on e6.

If you do see this kind of behavior, IMMIDIATELY report the user. We have already enough work right now, so these kind of uploads just add immensly into that. This is also abuse of the tools that has been given to user and usually requires some level of note for the user.

Doesn't really bother me. I did the same for some of meandraco's work on furaffinity simply by clicking the high res link courteously provided in the post's description. Furthermore, some of those lower res pictures had been on e621 for quite some time, so I figure it's just karma. Either way, having a better quality picture in our archive is more important than my upload limit.

It's not an issue. I've only hit my upload limit once since I got started uploading and that was a few days ago when I updated a bunch of posts, mostly my own.

Although I will admit some small measure of satisfaction in uploading post #1247618 to replace post #1184432 which previously replaced post #768218 that I posted.

The only problem I sometimes see is reuploaders failing to copy over the description or sources. For example I formatted a long description for post #893907 but the updater failed to copy it over. And I originally gave 2 sources for post #768218 but the updater didn't copy them, effectively removing 1.

Privileged Contributor Privileged Contributor Member
Privileged

Lol.

hslugs said:
Lol.

✓ it