But if admins are allowed to use this as a valid reason to flag/delete images, then so should the rest of us.

Just sayin'

And if they're going to remove such "irrelevant" submissions, they may as well do the same with the hundreds of others already on the site.

It depends on the screencap's quality.

You fail to understand the purpose of the flagging system.
Flagging isn't the same as deletion reason.

It's there to assist the admins in finding problems that are difficult to identify easily.

If it's not an image relevant to the site, it won't get approved by an admin in the first place.
By flagging an approved image as irrelevant you're saying you know better than the approving admin what is relevant to the site.

NotAPervert said:
It depends on the screencap's quality.

Then it should have been deleted for that reason, not for simply being irrelevant.

Halite said:
Words

That's not my point, I should have worded it better. My point is that there needs to be continuity for all this. Some staff say that the site is only for furry-related content, others say that it doesn't have to be furry in order to be posted. Which is it? And on top of all that, some of the staff that say it has to be furry-related art approve non-furry art. There's a lot of "do as I say, not as I do" going around and seems like another TWYS debacle brewing.

It doesn't matter one bit to me what content gets posted on the site. Furry, human, hentai, clean, whatever. I'd just like to see this policy formally addressed and laid to rest so we don't have to revisit it.

logitech said:
if admins are allowed to use this... then so should the rest of us.

I think you completely missed the idea of an "admin".

We already know what's relevant/irrelevant to the site, flagging it with that reason is unnecessary and it creates extra work on our end. Plus, it's like telling us that we don't know how to do our job so there's no reason to flag it with that reason.

Also, with human art, it depends on which admin gets to it first. For example, ippiki and NMNY rarely approve human art. I sometimes do and I sometimes don't.

logitech said:
Then it should have been deleted for that reason, not for simply being irrelevant.

That's not my point, I should have worded it better. My point is that there needs to be continuity for all this. Some staff say that the site is only for furry-related content, others say that it doesn't have to be furry in order to be posted. Which is it? And on top of all that, some of the staff that say it has to be furry-related art approve non-furry art. There's a lot of "do as I say, not as I do" going around and seems like another TWYS debacle brewing.

It doesn't matter one bit to me what content gets posted on the site. Furry, human, hentai, clean, whatever. I'd just like to see this policy formally addressed and laid to rest so we don't have to revisit it.

Any content that's furry is allowed.
Anything else is up to admin discretion.

Reason we don't allow that as a flagging reason is we don't need users telling us what to approve and what not to approve. Calling it backseat moderation may be a bit of a stretch, but it's certainly the right ballpark. The mods are the sole deciders of what constitutes relevant content. If you want to get in on that, become a mod.

We also don't make a habit of deleting art that has already been approved unless it's DNP or a repost or inferior version of an existing post, so we're not going in and mass-deleting all the human posts.

ippiki_ookami said:
Reason we don't allow that as a flagging reason is we don't need users telling us what to approve and what not to approve. Calling it backseat moderation may be a bit of a stretch, but it's certainly the right ballpark. (+ stuff)

I've always just seen it as: admins look at an image before approving it. That means they determine whether the subject matter and/or quality is acceptable for the site. As an admin has already judged those things, other users have no grounds for flagging it for those reasons. If curious about why a particular image was acceptable, we can always message the approver... politely.

Us lower ranked users flag things that can't be judged just by looking at it: whether image has been posted before (and labeling which is higher quality), if it is traced art or falsely claimed by a different artist as theirs, if the art is from a paysite or DNP artist.

An admin *may* recognize when that happens from time to time, but there's a lot any individual one wouldn't catch in those categories. That's why we get to help you all find 'em.

TheHuskyK9 said:
We already know what's relevant/irrelevant to the site, flagging it with that reason is unnecessary and it creates extra work on our end. Plus, it's like telling us that we don't know how to do our job so there's no reason to flag it with that reason.

I got off on the wrong foot with the "irrelevant" argument. I understand that staff has the final say it what is considered to be irrelevant, but we as members don't have that same insight as to what that entails, nor does there appear to be any standards that dictate it. As it stands now it appears to be purely subjective based on whatever staffer gets to it first. If these guidelines were shared, then we could police ourselves and reduce the amount of "irrelevant" conflicts that would arise. Much in the same way we adhere to a DNP list for artists, we would be able to do the same based on an image's relevance to the site's scope of approved content.

Like I said earlier, I could care less about the outcome of it. If e6 wishes to become furry-only, that's fine by me. There are a dozen other imagehosts like this one that cover a wide array of interests that can easily fill in any gaps such a decision would create. If they wish to expand it to include other non-furry images, I welcome it. I love a one-stop shop.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or be a drama-mongerer, here. I've been a member here through several iterations of the site and just want to try and make it better. I poorly worded my initial post and if it rubbed you the wrong way then I apologize, it wasn't my intention to put anyone on the defensive. I'd like to see this drawn to a thoughtful conclusion, if possible. I'm interested to hear the staff weigh in on it and I'll honor what they have to say on it

It's simple.
If it's furry, it's good.
If it's not furry, assume it has a chance of being deleted.
If you're not ok with the risk of it being deleted, don't upload it.

Edit: Small addendum, if it's a well made flash, game or animation, it is more likely to get approved even if it's not furry than normal art in my experience.
So, if it's a good flash you're probably ok to upload it.

Might I add, it also says not to flag it with that reason on the how to flag page

Your image helps illustrate the disconnect that exists in terms of image relevance. The flagging article seems to say non-furry stuff is allowed, but the FAQ reads as if it should be avoided, and the uploading article says it doesn't fall under the site's scope and isn't allowed at all. Three articles saying three different things.

The FAQ and flagging articles make mentions to what is relevant to the site, but never define what relevant is. It's not until you look at the uploading article that it even becomes clear. It seems that info like that should be front and center, not in an article that isn't even listed on the front page of the wiki. I had to search for "relevant" to even find the uploading article, seems a basic (and very important) site function like that should be afforded a bit more importance in the grand scheme of things.

Creating continuity across these articles would be a good start and would at least explain some of the subjective takedowns of posted images. Until that area of subjectivity is removed (much in the same way that TWYS was enacted), however, the ire and confusiuon currently surrounding such subjective takedowns (or approved images) isn't likely to go away.

This is a bit of a tangent, but since screenshots were mentioned..
I'm a bit confused about those. The rules list them under the 'Posting Abuse'-rule, but I see them approved all the time. Game screenshots, movie screenshots, etc.

So what actually counts as a screenshot for that rule? Is "screenshot" a valid reason to flag something for deletion?

logitech said:
Your image helps illustrate the disconnect that exists in terms of image relevance. The flagging article seems to say non-furry stuff is allowed, but the FAQ reads as if it should be avoided, and the uploading article says it doesn't fall under the site's scope and isn't allowed at all. Three articles saying three different things.

The FAQ and flagging articles make mentions to what is relevant to the site, but never define what relevant is. It's not until you look at the uploading article that it even becomes clear. It seems that info like that should be front and center, not in an article that isn't even listed on the front page of the wiki. I had to search for "relevant" to even find the uploading article, seems a basic (and very important) site function like that should be afforded a bit more importance in the grand scheme of things.

Creating continuity across these articles would be a good start and would at least explain some of the subjective takedowns of posted images. Until that area of subjectivity is removed (much in the same way that TWYS was enacted), however, the ire and confusiuon currently surrounding such subjective takedowns (or approved images) isn't likely to go away.

If you want to know what's relevant, it's basically this below

Halite said:
It's simple.
If it's furry, it's good.
If it's not furry, assume it has a chance of being deleted.
If you're not ok with the risk of it being deleted, don't upload it.

TheHuskyK9 said:
If you want to know what's relevant, it's basically this below

I can't help but feel I spend far too much time around here.
That's not the first time this month that an admin has said that to one of my posts :P

Halite said:
I can't help but feel I spend far too much time around here.
That's not the first time this month that an admin has said that to one of my posts :P

It just means that you know how things run around here :I

TheHuskyK9 said:
If you want to know what's relevant, it's basically this below

So there's no hardline stance on what is relevant, then?

logitech said:
So there's no hardline stance on what is relevant, then?

If you upload something non-furry related, don't be surprised that it's deleted. If approved, be surprised by that

TheHuskyK9 said:
If you upload something non-furry related, don't be surprised that it's deleted. If approved, be surprised by that

So why is it when we as members point out our surprise we get such a harsh pushback?

It just seems odd to me that a site that has an established track record of removing ambiguity whenever possible is fine with fostering that same ambiguity when it comes to its core principle of relevant content.

The site's documentation says anything non-furry is not relevant to the site's core purview and will be deleted.

The staff says don't tell us what is or isn't relevant, that's for us to decide.

This thread says eh, just post whatever.

If what you say is the sovereign truth regarding "relevant" material, then I guess that's that and we'll never have a clear cut answer.

logitech said:
It just seems odd to me that a site that has an established track record of removing ambiguity whenever possible is fine with fostering that same ambiguity when it comes to its core principle of relevant content.

Just because something is not relevant to the site does NOT mean it will be deleted. The rule basically is that if it's not furry, it's not relevant, period. That means that anything that is uploaded that is not furry is immediately subject to being deleted for not being relevant. If, however, the administrator decides that there are other redeeming qualities to the post that warrants us holding onto it because we think users might still enjoy it anyways, then it may be approved.

We don't want to outright ban non-furry content from the site, but saying stuff like "we'll allow non-furry content as long as it's "very good" or "very funny"" or things like that does nothing at all to remove the ambiguity. There are no solid guidelines, and it does depend on which admin gets to it first. It's also entirely possible that the post could be brought to another administrator's attention and the other admins at that point might discuss it and decide that it's really not worth holding onto.

That's why the rule is furry-only content, but we're not guaranteed to delete it if it's not furry, it's just likely; it's the risk you take when you upload something that's not furry. So if you don't want to take the risk, don't upload something that's not furry, cause we don't really want you uploading stuff that's not furry to begin with.

Ontop of what char said, Image's can only be flagged once. So using a "Flag" for irrelevency, which in the end comes down to an admin judgement call, is basically wasting that flag since the image may or may not be deleted.

logitech said:
...
This thread says eh, just post whatever.
...

This thread isn't saying that at all.

logitech said:
So why is it when we as members point out our surprise we get such a harsh pushback?

I think in this case it was the more aggressive phrasing of the opinion: "If admins can do 'X', we should be able to too."

Just sounds more like an "I demand my rights!" than a "Why is this so?"

Genjar said:
screenshots

That confuses me a bit, but it seems like it's handled same as non-furry, but with more leniency. I assume Rule of Funny and Rule of Cool exceptions seem to be what decides if they stay or go.

Though I admit - to me, a lot don't seem to fall in either category very well.

Nyteshade said:
I think in this case it was the more aggressive phrasing of the opinion: "If admins can do 'X', we should be able to too."

Just sounds more like an "I demand my rights!" than a "Why is this so?"

That confuses me a bit, but it seems like it's handled same as non-furry, but with more leniency. I assume Rule of Funny and Rule of Cool exceptions seem to be what decides if they stay or go.

Though I admit - to me, a lot don't seem to fall in either category very well.

Do you have any examples?

Princess_Celestia said:
Ontop of what char said, Image's can only be flagged once. So using a "Flag" for irrelevency, which in the end comes down to an admin judgement call, is basically wasting that flag since the image may or may not be deleted.

That was fixed a long time ago.

ippiki_ookami said:
We also don't make a habit of deleting art that has already been approved unless it's DNP or a repost or inferior version of an existing post, so we're not going in and mass-deleting all the human posts.

Strange to hear that, because I remember you deleting an edit I had uploaded, several days after it had been approved by someone else.

Jugofthat said:
Strange to hear that, because I remember you deleting an edit I had uploaded, several days after it had been approved by someone else.

"Don't make a habit" is worlds away from "never".

Eh, can't argue with that.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Do you have any examples?

About the screenshots? I don't have links saved to reference, but a lot of times they've got meme text added to them.

It's entirely subjective I guess. I don't find most at all humorous, but memes start because other people do, so...

I was just stating my opinion that screencap approvals were likely handled much the same as non-furry art: the opinion of the approving admin.

If you really want examples of ones I find pointless or unamusing (remember: subjective), I can track some down and message you.

Nyteshade said:
About the screenshots? I don't have links saved to reference, but a lot of times they've got meme text added to them.

It's entirely subjective I guess. I don't find most at all humorous, but memes start because other people do, so...

I was just stating my opinion that screencap approvals were likely handled much the same as non-furry art: the opinion of the approving admin.

If you really want examples of ones I find pointless or unamusing (remember: subjective), I can track some down and message you.

Perfect. If nothing else, maybe I can clarify why they weren't obliterated.

Jugofthat said:
Strange to hear that, because I remember you deleting an edit I had uploaded, several days after it had been approved by someone else.

Are you talking about that krystal pic? That was over a year ago.

ippiki_ookami said:
Are you talking about that krystal pic? That was over a year ago.

Seems your memory's as good as mine. ;) Why yes, that's a while ago but I haven't forgotten.

Not like I've lost sleep over it, but I remember putting some effort into that thing, I was actually a bit proud of it, though I'll admit that was partially because I had made something decent-looking using worthless software and no experience. Which of course isn't very interesting to anyone but me. And it wasn't perfect by any means, I could definitely do better today.

Still, I would never upload something if I wasn't convinced it would meet quality standards. And let's be honest, there's edited stuff on here that's done more shoddily.

So I gather my courage and post it, it gets approved by an admin, gathers upvotes for a few days, everything's fine and dandy, and then you just come along and bin it because of (or at least that's how it appeared) some personal dislike. Bad edit, goodbye.

When I quite politely asked for a more substantial explanation and perhaps some useful critique you never replied. So yes, that stung a bit.

Char said:
Just because something is not relevant to the site does NOT mean it will be deleted. The rule basically is that if it's not furry, it's not relevant, period. That means that anything that is uploaded that is not furry is immediately subject to being deleted for not being relevant. If, however, the administrator decides that there are other redeeming qualities to the post that warrants us holding onto it because we think users might still enjoy it anyways, then it may be approved.

We don't want to outright ban non-furry content from the site, but saying stuff like "we'll allow non-furry content as long as it's "very good" or "very funny"" or things like that does nothing at all to remove the ambiguity. There are no solid guidelines, and it does depend on which admin gets to it first. It's also entirely possible that the post could be brought to another administrator's attention and the other admins at that point might discuss it and decide that it's really not worth holding onto.

That's why the rule is furry-only content, but we're not guaranteed to delete it if it's not furry, it's just likely; it's the risk you take when you upload something that's not furry. So if you don't want to take the risk, don't upload something that's not furry, cause we don't really want you uploading stuff that's not furry to begin with.

Fair enough. If that's the end judgement call then I'll roll with it. d('_'d)

I just want to make it absolutely clear I'm not buttmad about any of this or have an axe to grind with the staff. It's just something I've noticed a lot and thought that bringing it up to address it would help clear up how things work "behind the scenes" and it's done just that.

Before bowing out of the conversation now that I've said my piece, I think condensing your quote above and putting it into the applicable wiki articles would at the very least get everyone on the same page and clear up some of the continuity errors between guidelines.

Jugofthat said:
Seems your memory's as good as mine. ;) Why yes, that's a while ago but I haven't forgotten.

Not like I've lost sleep over it, but I remember putting some effort into that thing, I was actually a bit proud of it, though I'll admit that was partially because I had made something decent-looking using worthless software and no experience. Which of course isn't very interesting to anyone but me. And it wasn't perfect by any means, I could definitely do better today.

Still, I would never upload something if I wasn't convinced it would meet quality standards. And let's be honest, there's edited stuff on here that's done more shoddily.

So I gather my courage and post it, it gets approved by an admin, gathers upvotes for a few days, everything's fine and dandy, and then you just come along and bin it because of (or at least that's how it appeared) some personal dislike. Bad edit, goodbye.

When I quite politely asked for a more substantial explanation and perhaps some useful critique you never replied. So yes, that stung a bit.

Ouch. Well if I'd known you were the one who made it I'd have chosen a different deletion reason or left it for someone else to decide (No, I didn't read the comments first). And sorry for not responding, mods get a lot of private messages, and sometimes they can get lost in the mix. For a belated explanation, Dr Comet used to be known for not allowing his art to be posted on very many sites, and allowing edits runs the risk of upsetting artists, especially high profile ones like him. So that was my reasoning.

ippiki_ookami said:
Ouch. Well if I'd known you were the one who made it I'd have chosen a different deletion reason or left it for someone else to decide (No, I didn't read the comments first). And sorry for not responding, mods get a lot of private messages, and sometimes they can get lost in the mix. For a belated explanation, Dr Comet used to be known for not allowing his art to be posted on very many sites, and allowing edits runs the risk of upsetting artists, especially high profile ones like him. So that was my reasoning.

Aww, thank you. Knowing it wasn't entirely due to my (lack of) craftsmanship does give me some peace of mind. And my message going missing in the crowd makes sense, it's what I back then hoped had happened.

You know what's the funny thing with those Dr Comet Krystal pics, however? I didn't know it at the time of posting, but according to some people in that comment section a few of them (which happened to include the original of mine) weren't actually drawn by the doc, but rather some anon imitating his style.

Never found solid proof of that though, so I can at least understand removing it just to be sure, if the guy is known to take offence to edits or frequently puts himself on DNP lists. Even if I wonder if he'd ever come looking here, he's been so inactive lately.

Also, what seems off now is that there's kinda a bunch of edits here that for some reason did make the cut. Not that I want to see those deleted as well, not at all, just pointing out there's perhaps some error in consistency going on.

But that's not really important, at least now I know what was up and that's enough for me. Again, thanks. :)