Requested feature overview description.

Adding a checkbox on upload to lock the rating of a post.

Why would it be useful?

Currently, I am only able to lock a post's rating once it has been uploaded. For explicit posts, this requires editing the post immediately after it has been uploaded just to lock it at that rating.

Skipping that step would be convenient for uploaders, reduce the number of posts that people forgot to lock, and reduce data consumption for people on metered connections.

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

The uploading page.

+1

Locking of ratings? Why's that a thing? If someone's changing it after the upload when it's not locked, shouldn't that either be because it was wrong and in need of changing or because they're screwing up on on the road to being reprimanded, same as if they were messing up other bits of metadata? What am I missing to lead me to ask why it wouldn't be better to just remove that feature?

The idea is to lock the rating when it's undeniably correct to prevent people from changing it to an incorrect one later. This feature would allow staff to immediately lock in the correct one as soon as the image is uploaded instead of having to lock it afterwards.

This feature would only be available to users who already have the ability to lock posts (ie. not us).

notnobody said:
Locking of ratings? Why's that a thing? If someone's changing it after the upload when it's not locked, shouldn't that either be because it was wrong and in need of changing or because they're screwing up on on the road to being reprimanded, same as if they were messing up other bits of metadata? What am I missing to lead me to ask why it wouldn't be better to just remove that feature?

Priviledged+ users lock the ratings because there are assholes who don't recognize that literal assholes are explicit. Second verse, same as the first: nipples, cameltoes, bulges, and plenty of other covert details often missed by the general tagger, are better locked as questionable so people don't make the mistake of changing them.

Scat, gore, revealing nudity, there is a metaphoric list I could provide that were initially misrated because of their view of the rating system. Locking the ratings benefits the people who aren't good at rating, often newcomers to the site, or binge cases between safe and questionable.

notnobody said:
Locking of ratings? Why's that a thing? If someone's changing it after the upload when it's not locked, shouldn't that either be because it was wrong and in need of changing or because they're screwing up on on the road to being reprimanded, same as if they were messing up other bits of metadata? What am I missing to lead me to ask why it wouldn't be better to just remove that feature?

Here's some context for this mystery.

ratinglocked:true

About 532,260 images.

ratinglocked:false

About 503,280 images.

If those numbers are correct, just over 51% of active images have already had their rating locked. Which required an incredible amount of work to achieve.

It is easier to take this simple and obvious measure to prevent misconduct in the first place.

+1

Should be an easy thing to add, I think?

notnobody said:
Locking of ratings? Why's that a thing? If someone's changing it after the upload when it's not locked, shouldn't that either be because it was wrong and in need of changing or because they're screwing up on on the road to being reprimanded, same as if they were messing up other bits of metadata? What am I missing to lead me to ask why it wouldn't be better to just remove that feature?

I understand your concern, but rest assured, those who can lock ratings people who fully understand the rules and rating system. Anyone who touches the rating lock will always double check and ask in a chat if there is any doubts. Most of the time we can safely say a image with any genitals can be rating locked to rating:e.
If a user believes a post is incorrectly rating locked, they are more than welcome to bring it up in a chat or by contacting a janitor or administrator!

I was just curious, really, not concerned. I never pay any attention to ratings or do any uploads, so I never really thought about the features. I was just thinking of the data the same way as tags and everything else - that if they were so obviously correct that it was worth locking them, they'd seem to also be so obvious that someone changing them would sort of be like tagging abuse. From the sound of what you guys are saying, it seems like we actually have had enough hassle dealing with it to make it worth protecting where possible.

Yep, it's extremely common. Especially among new users. For example, pretty much the only way to stop bare breasts from getting re-rated as explicit is by locking the rating. And then there's users who go 'there's cum on her face but nobody's having sex' or 'they're clearly fucking, but there's no visible genitalia' and switch the rating to questionable.

I've been slowly working on those. There's still numerous mis-rated posts among the ones that haven't been checked and locked yet.

Genjar said:
..or 'they're clearly fucking, but there's no visible genitalia' and switch the rating to questionable.

hattonslayden has so many of these I don't even know where to start.

Ijerk said:
hattonslayden has so many of these I don't even know where to start.

There's also quite a few japanese artists who do this.

sex -penis -pussy -anus -cum -balls

who would have access to such a feature? i wonder about the feasibilty of abusing it, setting explicit posts as "safe" as a weak troll.

fewrahuxo said:
who would have access to such a feature?

forum #228970

fewrahuxo said:
who would have access to such a feature? i wonder about the feasibilty of abusing it, setting explicit posts as "safe" as a weak troll.

That was already answered:

Siral_Exan said:
Priviledged+ users lock the ratings because there are assholes who don't recognize that literal assholes are explicit. Second verse, same as the first: nipples, cameltoes, bulges, and plenty of other covert details often missed by the general tagger, are better locked as questionable so people don't make the mistake of changing them.

There's already a mechanic for locking in place, this would just make it possible upon the upload page.

Friendly bump since there's an ongoing effort to replace 1280 Tumblr links with raw versions.

Many users are not locking reuploaded explicit posts, most likely due to the extra page reload required. Implementing this would expedite the process for people who habitually lock rating, encourage those who do not by reducing the time required, and allow janitors/admins handling flags to not have to manually lock reuploaded posts themselves whilst deleting flagged uploads.

Strongbird said:
Friendly bump since there's an ongoing effort to replace 1280 Tumblr links with raw versions.

Many users are not locking reuploaded explicit posts, most likely due to the extra page reload required. Implementing this would expedite the process for people who habitually lock rating, encourage those who do not by reducing the time required, and allow janitors/admins handling flags to not have to manually lock reuploaded posts themselves whilst deleting flagged uploads.

+1 for OP. I don't lock new posts I make as I do them in batches every so often so this would save time.

I like the idea. I'd probably use the feature more often if it was available on the upload page.

I'm definitely for this.
I had got ratinglocked:false rating:explicit down to about 25000 unchecked posts, but now there's nearly 30000 again thanks to this Tumblr upload spree.

(Incidentally, if anyone wants to help with that project..? Please do. There's still at least thousand topless females among those that should be questionable instead of explicit. And missing tags such as sex, penetration, and genitalia should be added.)

It's too bad there are no stats for rating locking, because Genjar is the rating lock hero.

Strongbird said:
Many users are not locking reuploaded explicit posts, most likely due to the extra page reload required. Implementing this would expedite the process for people who habitually lock rating, encourage those who do not by reducing the time required, and allow janitors/admins handling flags to not have to manually lock reuploaded posts themselves whilst deleting flagged uploads.

I might be being overly optimistic about e621's code, but isn't this particular case best handled as an automated part of the invalidation process? (confirmed invalidation of post Y as lower resolution version of post X should set ratinglocked to X | Y -- that is, ratinglocked should be set on Y if it is -already- set on Y OR if it is set on X)