Requested feature overview description.

I'm requesting a separate, automated field beneath reuploaded images that states which post was deleted as the inferior version.

For instance: Superior version of post #12345

Why would it be useful?

The current available options all have major drawbacks:

Leaving no message results in 'Reupload?' questions
Leaving a message in the description can be deleted by anyone on a whim
Leaving a message in a comment section makes folks who clicked on a post to read witty banter angry

Moreover, this would also reduce the amount of work for uploaders since they wouldn't have to modify the description field or leave a comment.

On the downside, this takes away some finesse when clarifying, such as whether the post is superior because it's larger or because it's a lossless version. However, I don't think the resulting lack of precision is all that big of an issue in practice.

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

Deleted posts and the superior versions of those.

But why are those comments needed in the first place? In most cases its clear cut to staff why something gets reuploaded and most normal users couldn't care less about it. As far as I can judge it it'd just create unnecessary clutter after the FFD on the inferior version has been dealt with.

NotMeNotYou said:
But why are those comments needed in the first place? In most cases its clear cut to staff why something gets reuploaded and most normal users couldn't care less about it. As far as I can judge it it'd just create unnecessary clutter after the FFD on the inferior version has been dealt with.

A lot of users ask why they are seeing posts again due to favorites transferring over. 'Reupload?', 'Why am I seeing this again?', 'Wasn't this uploaded before?', 'Didn't I favorite this already?' and more are pretty common questions since many don't understand that the older post was deleted to begin with, or why.

As a result, you have to either manually answer those types of questions as they pop up, leave people clueless, or make some type of note that it replaced another post. Recently, I started linking to the older, flagged post on uploads to show people why they're seeing that image again and why the old post was deleted. There's few users who know about harry.lu as a service, and I don't think it's a fair expectation that the average user will utilize it to check for older deleted uploads.

Strongbird said:
A lot of users ask why they are seeing posts again due to favorites transferring over. 'Reupload?', 'Why am I seeing this again?', 'Wasn't this uploaded before?', 'Didn't I favorite this already?' and more are pretty common questions since many don't understand that the older post was deleted to begin with, or why.

As a result, you have to either manually answer those types of questions as they pop up, leave people clueless, or make some type of note that it replaced another post. Recently, I started linking to the older, flagged post on uploads to show people why they're seeing that image again and why the old post was deleted. There's few users who know about harry.lu as a service, and I don't think it's a fair expectation that the average user will utilize it to check for older deleted uploads.

But everyone of those people only needs to see it once in their life that we replace posts by uploading better versions and then deleting them. As such this feature will be in most cases clutter after telling someone once that this is how it works here.
I don't mind educating people, but I don't think this is the proper way to go about it.

NotMeNotYou said:
But everyone of those people only needs to see it once in their life that we replace posts by uploading better versions and then deleting them. As such this feature will be in most cases clutter after telling someone once that this is how it works here.
I don't mind educating people, but I don't think this is the proper way to go about it.

Yes, they need to see it once in their life, but there's an abundance of users and commenters. Every 'once' of those times is another instance where uploaders have to spend time telling them about how deletions and reuploads work. From what I've seen, that's been dozens of times already. I don't have all the time in the world to answer those questions on everything I upload.

I just don't see how a small line, specifically only on reuploads, stating which post it replaced, is too much clutter. It's one line of immediately helpful information to people who are seeing it in their favorites again, without them even having to comment asking to learn.

Just shove it into the description field.

Yeah, I personally still haven't gotten around to why so many users care so much about comments and up/downvotes on deleted posts.

Mario69 said:
Yeah, I personally still haven't gotten around to why so many users care so much about comments and up/downvotes on deleted posts.

admit it, if someone posted a bvats of my avatar, that would be truly tragic

I don't know if it's better but there is a larger version here: https://www.yorokobu.es/johnny-ryan-el-gamberrismo-ilustrado-del-dibujante-mas-salvaje/ (Direct image link)

leomole said:
I don't know if it's better but there is a larger version here: https://www.yorokobu.es/johnny-ryan-el-gamberrismo-ilustrado-del-dibujante-mas-salvaje/ (Direct image link)

http://www.yorokobu.es/wp-content/uploads/69-11.png
it's a png with lots of jpg compression artifacts

They're the same compression artifacts the current image has (post #378180). It's just bigger.

leomole said:
I don't know if it's better but there is a larger version here: https://www.yorokobu.es/johnny-ryan-el-gamberrismo-ilustrado-del-dibujante-mas-salvaje/ (Direct image link)

that is artificial upscale and converted from jpg to png. artificial upscales are bad and jpg -> png conversions are bad. especially if they are used in attempt to have another post deleted.

Munkelzahn said:
admit it, if someone posted a bvats of my avatar, that would be truly tragic

..nah.

Ledian said:
that is artificial upscale and converted from jpg to png. artificial upscales are bad and jpg -> png conversions are bad. especially if they are used in attempt to have another post deleted.

You deserve this: 🍪

How do I tell if its been upscaled?

Well this is going way offtopic but I don't care as I can write wall of text!

leomole said:
How do I tell if its been upscaled?

With your special eyes™

As there are insane amount of differend kind of filters and methods to upscale/downscale content (that's why FA sucks, not only because of JPG compression, but method they use to downscale is awful), sometimes it can be slighlty more difficult to see if something is indeed upscaled. Especially when content is like this, where there's clear thicc lines and solid colors and apparently most superior version is insane JPG compressed mess, things get really hard to figure out. But even then, there's always the same things that should clue you in something being upscale: things appear really smooth and there does not appear to be the level of details you would assume with resolution given.

However contrary what I said, even this case is pretty easy thanks to upscale being so obvious. It's almost certain that some basic form of general upscaling has been used with this one, something like bilinear. This method tries to expand the pixels to fill the desired space similar to no-filter/nearest-neighbor, but also tries to estimate that how much of said pixels should show up in area. e.g. if 1 solid black pixel on white background was upscaled 4x scale, nearest neighbor would make it 4 black pixels while bilinear makes it 4 gray pixels. So in nutshell, everything looks insanely soft and blurry.

Look at the outlines and smaller detailed parts. On upscaled version, there's not single part where lines or dots would be single pixel large. Almost everything seems to be taking at least two pixels. Biggest giveaway is JPG compression. Macroblocks are always 8x8 large and pixels inside them are always sharp, this matches perfectly on excsisting post, but when looking at upscale, these take 13x13 space and all of the pixels are blurred and take either 2x1 or 2x1 worth of area. Because of this we can determine that if it was JPG saved as PNG, it was upscaled from lower resolution and not downscaled from higher resolution.

On that subject we haven't even touched the upscale being PNG. PNG is lossless fileformat, so it does not use visual trickery like dithering or macroblocks to store information. There is other magic that can be done with PNG files to reduce the filesize but this is all optimization or lossless compression meaning that content stays identical. So with this in mind, PNG files theoretically should never contain JPG compression artifacts on them ever. Only acceptable case is that if it's an edit and source material is JPG, at which point this is good to avoid further downgrade in quality. As that image was not edit, it's simply resave of JPG image, which is highly discouraged thing to do in any way, especially on this site.

Let's say that someone waifu2x that shit and tries to post it: https://puu.sh/wSAli/3ce0272c39.png
Again same things: lack of details and smoothness. What waifu2x does and some diffusion kind of upscales does, it makes especially outlines to look like they were done with marker. Even if nothing looks that blurry, everything still looks really smooth. Smaller lines have this waving motion on them and really small details are blurred.

I don't get the macroblock stuff but in summary I should look for

1. Absence of single pixels and other fine details
2. Compression artifacts in a PNG or other lossless file

I will do that. Although I must admit, that waifu2x upscale looks way better than the original to my untrained eye.

Mario69 said:
Well this is going way offtopic but I don't care as I can write wall of text!

With your special eyes™

As there are insane amount of differend kind of filters and methods to upscale/downscale content (that's why FA sucks, not only because of JPG compression, but method they use to downscale is awful), sometimes it can be slighlty more difficult to see if something is indeed upscaled. Especially when content is like this, where there's clear thicc lines and solid colors and apparently most superior version is insane JPG compressed mess, things get really hard to figure out. But even then, there's always the same things that should clue you in something being upscale: things appear really smooth and there does not appear to be the level of details you would assume with resolution given.

However contrary what I said, even this case is pretty easy thanks to upscale being so obvious. It's almost certain that some basic form of general upscaling has been used with this one, something like bilinear. This method tries to expand the pixels to fill the desired space similar to no-filter/nearest-neighbor, but also tries to estimate that how much of said pixels should show up in area. e.g. if 1 solid black pixel on white background was upscaled 4x scale, nearest neighbor would make it 4 black pixels while bilinear makes it 4 gray pixels. So in nutshell, everything looks insanely soft and blurry.

Look at the outlines and smaller detailed parts. On upscaled version, there's not single part where lines or dots would be single pixel large. Almost everything seems to be taking at least two pixels. Biggest giveaway is JPG compression. Macroblocks are always 8x8 large and pixels inside them are always sharp, this matches perfectly on excsisting post, but when looking at upscale, these take 13x13 space and all of the pixels are blurred and take either 2x1 or 2x1 worth of area. Because of this we can determine that if it was JPG saved as PNG, it was upscaled from lower resolution and not downscaled from higher resolution.

On that subject we haven't even touched the upscale being PNG. PNG is lossless fileformat, so it does not use visual trickery like dithering or macroblocks to store information. There is other magic that can be done with PNG files to reduce the filesize but this is all optimization or lossless compression meaning that content stays identical. So with this in mind, PNG files theoretically should never contain JPG compression artifacts on them ever. Only acceptable case is that if it's an edit and source material is JPG, at which point this is good to avoid further downgrade in quality. As that image was not edit, it's simply resave of JPG image, which is highly discouraged thing to do in any way, especially on this site.

Let's say that someone waifu2x that shit and tries to post it: https://puu.sh/wSAli/3ce0272c39.png
Again same things: lack of details and smoothness. What waifu2x does and some diffusion kind of upscales does, it makes especially outlines to look like they were done with marker. Even if nothing looks that blurry, everything still looks really smooth. Smaller lines have this waving motion on them and really small details are blurred.

Mario69 said:
Well this is going way offtopic but I don't care as I can write wall of text!

With your special eyes™

As there are insane amount of differend kind of filters and methods to upscale/downscale content (that's why FA sucks, not only because of JPG compression, but method they use to downscale is awful), sometimes it can be slighlty more difficult to see if something is indeed upscaled. Especially when content is like this, where there's clear thicc lines and solid colors and apparently most superior version is insane JPG compressed mess, things get really hard to figure out. But even then, there's always the same things that should clue you in something being upscale: things appear really smooth and there does not appear to be the level of details you would assume with resolution given.

However contrary what I said, even this case is pretty easy thanks to upscale being so obvious. It's almost certain that some basic form of general upscaling has been used with this one, something like bilinear. This method tries to expand the pixels to fill the desired space similar to no-filter/nearest-neighbor, but also tries to estimate that how much of said pixels should show up in area. e.g. if 1 solid black pixel on white background was upscaled 4x scale, nearest neighbor would make it 4 black pixels while bilinear makes it 4 gray pixels. So in nutshell, everything looks insanely soft and blurry.

Look at the outlines and smaller detailed parts. On upscaled version, there's not single part where lines or dots would be single pixel large. Almost everything seems to be taking at least two pixels. Biggest giveaway is JPG compression. Macroblocks are always 8x8 large and pixels inside them are always sharp, this matches perfectly on excsisting post, but when looking at upscale, these take 13x13 space and all of the pixels are blurred and take either 2x1 or 2x1 worth of area. Because of this we can determine that if it was JPG saved as PNG, it was upscaled from lower resolution and not downscaled from higher resolution.

On that subject we haven't even touched the upscale being PNG. PNG is lossless fileformat, so it does not use visual trickery like dithering or macroblocks to store information. There is other magic that can be done with PNG files to reduce the filesize but this is all optimization or lossless compression meaning that content stays identical. So with this in mind, PNG files theoretically should never contain JPG compression artifacts on them ever. Only acceptable case is that if it's an edit and source material is JPG, at which point this is good to avoid further downgrade in quality. As that image was not edit, it's simply resave of JPG image, which is highly discouraged thing to do in any way, especially on this site.

Let's say that someone waifu2x that shit and tries to post it: https://puu.sh/wSAli/3ce0272c39.png
Again same things: lack of details and smoothness. What waifu2x does and some diffusion kind of upscales does, it makes especially outlines to look like they were done with marker. Even if nothing looks that blurry, everything still looks really smooth. Smaller lines have this waving motion on them and really small details are blurred.

waifu2x is great for channel banners and tshirts though.

I will do that. Although I must admit, that waifu2x upscale looks way better than the original to my untrained eye.

malleablecrowbar said:
waifu2x is great for channel banners and tshirts though.

....OK, so I guess I need to clarify this so that you lot won't make some bad decisions:
You know how you can take raw egg, boil it and get boiled egg? And sometimes you want to eat boiled eggs, those are pretty good. But problem is that you cannot reverse the process, you can't get raw egg out of boiled egg in case you wanted fried eggs instead. And this is where the problem lies and why these tools exsist.

This is furry artwork archiving site, meaning that we want to store highest possible quality versions of everything. No matter how good upscaling methods pop up in future, all of them are considered as boiled eggs. We want the raw eggs as that's the source material and that way everyone can make them however they want.

With drawn content waifu2x is specialized tool for upscaling those, so even I have upscaled something like wallpapers with it, because that scaling method does look much nicer than general purpose ones or OS build in upscaling does. But the main point is right there, use them for your own personal use only when needed. These are still computer alghorithms calculating possibilities of how pixels are put on screen, this will most likely never be even near as accurate than having the original pixels.

And especially keep them as far away as you can from e621.

NMNY seems to be going on the idea that eventually everyone will just learn why they're seeing old posts again.

Yet I'd bet that most users don't even know there are forums, let alone will ever have any clue why they're seeing old posts again unless someone or something tells them.

It really wouldn't add much clutter, it would be immediately useful to likely a ton of users and, more so, it would always be useful to new users, which we seem to get a noticeable amount of daily.

There's always going to be young adults getting into this stuff, exploring themselves and their likes and dislikes as well as young teens exploring their sexuality and getting into likes and dislikes and lying about their age, and as they're curious about themselves they tend to question quite a few things frequently.

Most of these people won't go out of their way to find an answer as they have more pressing questions to spend their time on, but this should be answered regardless and it shouldn't be the responsibility of staff or other users to answer it when it can be answered by a simple line somewhere saying something along the lines of "This post is a superior version of x post and replaced it on X date."

It's a simple line of information that is valuable to all users because people simply want to know. While they can't do anything about it or the like, people really do just like to know this information, and for those who aren't familiar with the website and how it works it would inform and educate them all without anyone actually having to put in the effort.

It's a common enough question that if this were a real world customer service area in a store or office they'd print out and tape up a couple of signs along the lines of "If you're seeing X again it's because it's a higher quality version of what you saw previously." So I agree with OP and say we do one better and make the sign "dynamic" in the information it provides by doing what OP suggests and making it only appear in the way they suggest with the information they suggest.

Many may not see the point or the use, yet there absolutely is such. Anything that helps to educate the populace of this site without requiring manual interaction from others is a plus from me! Most don't read the rules, the explanation of things, the formatting, etc because they're inconveniently located, ie they're away from the media and they're not here for that thus they feel it just wastes their time.

Heck, I'd almost go one step further and suggest also adding a "Helpful Tips" bar somewhere in media posts that have a bunch of helpful tips with source links to other pages if people are interested by the tips. For example something like "Did you know that using a "~" allows you to search for posts that contain one or all of whatever tags that have the "~" in front of them? Find more ways to search by clicking HERE! "

You could refer to rules that are commonly broken, all number of helpful formatting/search tips (especially things that are asked frequently,) etc, etc. Make it a single short message that randomly pulls from a list of tips that the staff decide upon and update at their leisure and it would help cut back on questions and help make a more informed and educated user base. It'd be a win-win!