Not that I support an action like that, but I am just curious. Would it work, or would it not work?

It would significantly change what this site is for the worse, I think. And it would be incredibly difficult to change at this point. So I'd say that no, it would not work at all.

no

No. Work needed to enforce such a policy would be tremendous and pointless, other than the few conditional DNPs.

No. e6 is not a personal gallery site, it's a search index.

> Should e621 only allow artists to upload content?

Should only white people be allowed to vote?
Not that I support an action like that, but I am just curious. Would it work, or would it not work?

That would make things harder and would make uploading rates slow down tremendously.

I'm guessing you're asking this out of the possibility that an artist might not want their art uploaded here, or only some of their art uploaded here. But that's what the DNP list is for.

JGG3 said:
That would make things harder and would make uploading rates slow down tremendously.

I'm guessing you're asking this out of the possibility that an artist might not want their art uploaded here, or only some of their art uploaded here. But that's what the DNP list is for.

But what if an artist doesn't know if their art is posted? How do we know EVERY artist wants their art here anyway? I highly doubt that all the art in the DNP list can account for these artists. I don't think it should be ruled out, it might slow things down but if we made this rule, we wouldn't even need a dnp list. All the art here would be here bevause an artist wishes it, which is something I think a lot of the rules help enforce. Why not give the moderators less work by doing this? It's not a bad idea at all really. It woild slow the speed at which art is uploaded, but that's a meager price to pay for all the art here to be appropriately shared as such.

Munkelzahn said:
> Should e621 only allow artists to upload content?

Should only white people be allowed to vote?
Not that I support an action like that, but I am just curious. Would it work, or would it not work?

That's a bit of an extreme metaphor for this, it's furry porn, not human rights.

Long story short, my answer is yes.whether it's acted upon is another story, but it seems like a just option for all our artists

no. we would have to redo entire goddamn site and delete like 90% of the content here. it would be massive hassle to figure out who owns the art they have post and who does not. it would also massively reduce the content we get here because this is an archive, not a private gallery so artists themselves rarely use this site to post their own art.

This is an archive not a gallery.

leomole said:
This is an archive not a gallery.

That's questionable, seeing as how not every artist can archive art here nor is all art allowed here, the only things making this an archive is how it's run. And literally only that. Not a single evidence can prove this site archives art, it only exhibits art that is high quality furry art and is free to view for the masses. Doesn't change the fact that letting only artists upload art would be a legit strategy in making moderating posts easier.

An archive would allow a lot more art than a gallery anyway, and by the new rules set in place, it's evident this is not an archive. Heck, even other moderators and what have you in the thread containing the new rules say this isn't an archive. But that was already clear, and my opinion still stands that this idea would be a pretty good one.
Edit: it wasn't moderators, but a certain individual who said this. He is right though, I don't think anybody comes to e621 because it's an archive. Definitely other reasons one might use the site. But this is as far as ever from being considered an archive.

While it'd be a tough thing to change the art currently exhibited on the site to fit such a thing, it would be worth it to see artists actively uploading and sharing their art instead of others doing it for them. I appreciate artists and believe that they should be able to have some clear control over where their art is posted, the new rule wasn't enough in my opinion.

GruesomeToast said:
An archive would allow a lot more art than a gallery anyway, and by the new rules set in place, it's evident this is not an archive. Heck, even other moderators and what have you in the thread containing the new rules say this isn't an archive. But that was already clear, and my opinion still stands that this idea would be a pretty good one.
Edit: it wasn't moderators, but a certain individual who said this. He is right though, I don't think anybody comes to e621 because it's an archive. Definitely other reasons one might use the site. But this is as far as ever from being considered an archive.

So, basically, because e621 isn't perfectly run, your suggestion is to wreck it so badly that everyone stops using it and goes to other websites where the response towards an artist asking for DNP status is to tell them to choke on a flaming bag of dicks?

As bad ideas ago, this one is actually impressive in a way.

Terrible idea, won't happen.

I think it's a great idea if you want e6 to die.

There is already place that does this, it's called FurryNetwork.

and have artists (not) tag their images like they do on FA?

If the site only lets artists upload art, how far a step is it to only allow artists to tag? Then the site becomes as useless as FA for actually finding things.

And it is an archive. The fact that it can be picky about the content doesn't make it not an archive.

If you want a site that isn't owned by, paid for by, and a potential liability to a US based commercial company, there are other options.

Well, there are other options if you don't care about searchability that is achieved by strict moderation, and the security that every other ad isn't doing its best to install malware on your device.

The transparency of moderation actions doesn't hurt either.
Every action to users is visible to everyone, which is invaluable.

Hell no. It would basically kill the site. Just look at any artist's gallery on FA, DA ,FurryNetwork or others. How well tagged? How consistent with tags on other posts, or tags across the whole site? Are variant pictures easy to access and presented in a uniformly easy to understand manner?

It's rare that they even begin to approach the standard of tagging and organization we have on e621. Making artists solely or mainly responsible for uploading would make it into a much more narcissistic, less collaborative exercise.
I suspect we would also get more shitty art and more outrage over deletion of shitty art, since artist==uploader means the uploader is inherently more invested in the artwork.

savageorange said:
Hell no. It would basically kill the site. Just look at any artist's gallery on FA, DA ,FurryNetwork or others. How well tagged? How consistent with tags on other posts, or tags across the whole site? Are variant pictures easy to access and presented in a uniformly easy to understand manner?

It's rare that they even begin to approach the standard of tagging and organization we have on e621. Making artists solely or mainly responsible for uploading would make it into a much more narcissistic, less collaborative exercise.
I suspect we would also get more shitty art and more outrage over deletion of shitty art, since artist==uploader means the uploader is inherently more invested in the artwork.

Well that's as easy as simply deleting the art and moving on

Random said:
If the site only lets artists upload art, how far a step is it to only allow artists to tag? Then the site becomes as useless as FA for actually finding things.

And it is an archive. The fact that it can be picky about the content doesn't make it not an archive.

If you want a site that isn't owned by, paid for by, and a potential liability to a US based commercial company, there are other options.

Well, there are other options if you don't care about searchability that is achieved by strict moderation, and the security that every other ad isn't doing its best to install malware on your device.

The transparency of moderation actions doesn't hurt either.
Every action to users is visible to everyone, which is invaluable.

This is not an archive dude, you even brought evidence to support it's not. An archive is not strict on the historical pieces posted on it, unlike a gallery.

Knotty_Curls said:
and have artists (not) tag their images like they do on FA?

I said to have them upload, not that no one can edit tags. If you can post new rules, you can post a how to on tagging. Not like it's gonna be harder to tell people to tag things than it already is. Are yiu saying EVERY image is alrrady properly tagged? If that's the case, why do we have an option for anyone to edit them?

Mario69 said:
There is already place that does this, it's called FurryNetwork.

And water is wet. I know this site exists, and how it's run, and it's definitely a better first choice of a decent furry archive than e6 could be considered

Beeseverywhere said:
So, basically, because e621 isn't perfectly run, your suggestion is to wreck it so badly that everyone stops using it and goes to other websites where the response towards an artist asking for DNP status is to tell them to choke on a flaming bag of dicks?

As bad ideas ago, this one is actually impressive in a way.

No, because e6 has a rule against people saying things like that to artists. It seems I just have more faith this could work than anyone else does. It isn't a bad idea, it not working would be the fault of the people running the site. I'm nit saying to be like FA, e6 is already going on a path too far to be anything like that site. I'm just saying this idea could work for here better than anywhere else because of how it's run compared to other sites.

A bit of advice: It's possible, and preferable even, to respond to multiple people in the same post rather than multiple-posting.

If you're worried about readability, use \

. Quite handy.

On topic, I don't think you understand the difference between a gallery and an archive. FN is not an archive, at all.

An archive can have quality and content standards. I don't know where you're getting this idea that an archive has to just take whatever someone dumps on them. No archive operates by that criteria.

Go to a historical archive and try to give them a rusty, old, barely legible penny. They're not going to care just because it's old. There are 120 million of them out there. It has to have some sort of historical value.

Look at that! A quality restriction!

Likewise, go to an art archive and try to hand them a scribble your two-year-old drew on a restaurant placemat with crayon. They're not going to want it.

Quality standards!

NotMeNotYou said:
Terrible idea, won't happen.

GruesomeToast said:
And water is wet. I know this site exists, and how it's run, and it's definitely a better first choice of a decent furry archive than e6 could be considered

*snicker*

GruesomeToast said:
But what if an artist doesn't know if their art is posted? How do we know EVERY artist wants their art here anyway? I highly doubt that all the art in the DNP list can account for these artists. I don't think it should be ruled out, it might slow things down but if we made this rule, we wouldn't even need a dnp list. All the art here would be here bevause an artist wishes it, which is something I think a lot of the rules help enforce. Why not give the moderators less work by doing this? It's not a bad idea at all really. It woild slow the speed at which art is uploaded, but that's a meager price to pay for all the art here to be appropriately shared as such.

Also last I checked people need to ask the artist if they can post thier stuff here and users get slapped when they post wihout permission. So pointless idea is pointless, besides rather quickly ending the site.

Also, please respond to multiple comments at once . . .

Hot_Stuff-_~ said:
This is not an archive dude, you even brought evidence to support it's not. An archive is not strict on the historical pieces posted on it, unlike a gallery.

then show one .exe file hosted on textfiles.com

What is the point, we already have sites like FA to fulfill the exact propose you are suggesting.

Also chances are such a change would remove most of the art on e621 that is not American made or western european because lets be honest here most uploaders likly do not contact the artists that dont speak English or obtained from non-english speaking websites and in turn those artists are not aware this site exists.

CamKitty said:
*snicker*

Also last I checked people need to ask the artist if they can post thier stuff here and users get slapped when they post wihout permission. So pointless idea is pointless, besides rather quickly ending the site.

Also, please respond to multiple comments at once . . .

not really a requirement, but a advisory. You can and many uploaders do post without requesting permission. Your just doing it at your own risk and are responsible if a artist should report you, it is kinda impossible to actually police, and staff arnt going actively be searching for an artist to notify whenever some random user posts a image of theirs.

Darou said:
What is the point, we already have sites like FA to fulfill the exact propose you are suggesting.

I actually purposefully didn't say furaffinity on my comment, because of how sites code is actively destroying artwork, which is exact opposite of archiving it and how furrynetwork is under same umbrella as e621.

Mario69 said:
I actually purposefully didn't say furaffinity on my comment, because of how sites code is actively destroying artwork, which is exact opposite of archiving it and how furrynetwork is under same umbrella as e621.

:?

i was referring to the OP and title, not you.

PS: I know FA is crappy and all as far as management goes and campy as far as the user interface goes but how exactly is FA site coding destroying artwork:?

Darou said:
PS: I know FA is crappy and all as far as management goes and campy as far as the user interface goes but how exactly is FA site coding destroying artwork:?

If artist uploads image over 1280px in either dimension (which is relatively small resolution in current year), the image will get downscaled in method that smooths out smaller details (this is why tumblr _1280 jpg files were much higher quality compared to furaffinity versions, even though in both cases they were downscaled and recompressed to same exact resolution) and relatively heavily compressed considering it's digital artwork being handled, even if artist uploaded PNG and site will keep extension as PNG, even though they just made it JPG, meaning they are keeping incorrect file extension, which can and has caused issues (e621 renames those files into JPG if they are uploaded here, because that's how it's supposed to be handled).

Easiest way to avoid this is to upload content smaller than 1280px in dimensions. Only way to circumvent this has been that artist has to upload their artwork again into same submission and FA staff instead of fixing this issue or improving their site, made it a feature and are advertising it on the upload page. Sadly, majority of artists do not use this method, resulting all of their artwork being handled poorly in there and all of their other sources - sometimes even twitter which compresses stuff even heavier - are usually superior. Problem are artists who only post on furaffinity and that majority of e621 users post artists content from furaffinity instead of those other sources.

Meanwhile FurryNetwork will only show sample embedded on page and has original quality behind simple download button. Still easy to view even largests of images and nothing is lost. Same with e621, altough dynamic scaling is used instead of samples by default.

Mario69 said:
If artist uploads image over 1280px in either dimension (which is relatively small resolution in current year), the image will get downscaled in method that smooths out smaller details (this is why tumblr _1280 jpg files were much higher quality compared to furaffinity versions, even though in both cases they were downscaled and recompressed to same exact resolution) and relatively heavily compressed considering it's digital artwork being handled, even if artist uploaded PNG and site will keep extension as PNG, even though they just made it JPG

So how do you tell the two problems apart? If you encode a JPG with low quality, it will destroy details anyway.

(I think it is likely that FA is using the inaccurate downscaling method of 'weighted average of the 4 nearest pixels in source image', lots of things do that because it's fast and not too bad when final scale >=50% of original image scale. But behind a wall of JPGification I would find it hard to tell)

GruesomeToast said:
Well that's as easy as simply deleting the art and moving on

When you designate a particular group of people as sole uploaders, and then call their fitness for that role into question, as well as the quality of things they are personally attached to..
I'm not sure why you would expect them to hang around.

All artists make shitty artworks. So a site where artists are sole uploaders either accommodates this fact (reducing the general quality of works found on the site -- and I would point out that e621's quality standards are not that high to begin with), or dies.

not one of the best ideas

All uploaded art should require the consent of the artist yes, absolutely. But for some reason its not an enforced rule here nor do the staff seem to care unless the artist makes a DNP which gets all the art taken down. Which can often happen in response to their art being posted without permission.

Doubly an issue for Japanese speakers whos art is posted here without consent.

So I dunno. Yes, artists should always have a hand in deciding, and so should commissioners.
I get this place is supposed to be an archive but permission should ALWAYS be obtained first. Something most people dont seem to give a shit about.

Demesejha said:
All uploaded art should require the consent of the artist yes, absolutely. But for some reason its not an enforced rule here nor do the staff seem to care unless the artist makes a DNP which gets all the art taken down. Which can often happen in response to their art being posted without permission.

Well, the alternative is to hold all art in limbo until the creators can be proactively contacted by someone that the site entrusts with the authority to post. That seems pretty unfeasible.

The only way to improve in this regard would be to explore computer image recognition, with the goal of automatically comparing new posts to previously posted content. In short, the Youtube method: Content ID.

If the tech is feasible, then I actually think it's not a bad idea for the site. It would cut down on duplicate posts, or at least provide a system for identifying them that isn't as dependent on the community. It could open the door for artists to specifically upload content that should remain DNP'd (as in they'd post it through a form that would keep the work hidden, but register it with the e621 image system so other versions of its could be identified and removed). Heck, there'd even be a chance for artists to monetize their work through advertisements, assuming e621 makes any kind of profit on its advertisements to share as an incentive for quality artists to post here.

ikdind said:

The only way to improve in this regard would be to explore computer image recognition, with the goal of automatically comparing new posts to previously posted content. In short, the Youtube method: Content ID.

The site actually already does that through checking the MD5 hashes of exact duplicates.

If the tech is feasible, then I actually think it's not a bad idea for the site. It would cut down on duplicate posts, or at least provide a system for identifying them that isn't as dependent on the community.

I actually would like to see new (image) uploads being run through http://iqdb.harry.lu/ before being posted. At least giving a heads-up that the artwork may have already been uploaded.

It could open the door for artists to specifically upload content that should remain DNP'd (as in they'd post it through a form that would keep the work hidden, but register it with the e621 image system so other versions of its could be identified and removed).

That would be very troublesome for both the artist and the site to keep a database of "invisible" DNP posts. Would be simpler to just flag the specific piece once it's up and/or be on the DNP list.

GruesomeToast said:
While it'd be a tough thing to change the art currently exhibited on the site to fit such a thing, it would be worth it to see artists actively uploading and sharing their art instead of others doing it for them.

I see what you’re getting at, it just wouldn’t work. The big issue is convincing artists to post their work on e6. They are already are posting on their medium of choice, FA, Tumblr, InkBunny, etc., why would they also post here?

ikdind said:
It could open the door for artists to specifically upload content that should remain DNP'd (as in they'd post it through a form that would keep the work hidden, but register it with the e621 image system so other versions of its could be identified and removed).

I agree with TheGreatWolfgang that this would be too troublesome. However, along this line of thinking, a system that recognizes when you have the artist tag as a DNP artist and then wouldn’t post it would be nice to prevent acidentally posting DNP artwork.

SharkFetish said:
I see what you’re getting at, it just wouldn’t work. The big issue is convincing artists to post their work on e6. They are already are posting on their medium of choice, FA, Tumblr, InkBunny, etc., why would they also post here?

To add to that the number of sites you can post to for forry art is kinda insane. FA, tumblr, twitter, weasyl, inkbunny, DA, Sofurry, furrynetwork, pixiv and e621 probably more its at least 10 and it gets crazy time consuming.
Its nice having someone deal with the upload process for you on here haha

wolvalix said:
To add to that the number of sites you can post to for forry art is kinda insane. FA, tumblr, twitter, weasyl, inkbunny, DA, Sofurry, furrynetwork, pixiv and e621 probably more its at least 10 and it gets crazy time consuming.
Its nice having someone deal with the upload process for you on here haha

Idk, seems pretty simple and not time consuming when you use some program or website like PostyBirb

wolvalix said:
To add to that the number of sites you can post to for forry art is kinda insane. FA, tumblr, twitter, weasyl, inkbunny, DA, Sofurry, furrynetwork, pixiv and e621 probably more its at least 10 and it gets crazy time consuming.
Its nice having someone deal with the upload process for you on here haha

https://e621.net/wiki/show/howto:sites_and_sources#table
Yes, there are quite a lot to choose from and then there's more specialized sites. I know even that table is incomplete.

DelurC said:
Idk, seems pretty simple and not time consuming when you use some program or website like PostyBirb

This is one of those things that doesn't sound like it would take that much time or effort, but in reality it does.

If you are posting things only by yourself, you do also have to manage your following, your content and remember differend rules, requirements and restrictions of each site.

Of course if someone does manage things out, always nicer to have high quality mirrors for content.

I certainly don't disagree that it would be burdensome for artists to upload things that they want to remain DNP'd. That was basically an idea extending from the Youtube analogy and its Content ID system.

Ditto the idea of allowing artists to monetize through revenue sharing from advertisements - which is at least something that could incentivize artists to post here, assuming there's any actual money in that. Most Youtubers don't make real revenue from ad incomes unless their videos happen to strike oil. Even then, a lot of the successful ones are supported through a diverse mix of ads, sponsors, and Patreon.

I don't know how big the e6 community is these days or if the site even sustains itself through advertisement (versus the goodwill of our benefactors at Bad Dragon), so this is all basically spitballing.

Well I see I made this thread liven up with a differing opinion, I mean hot damn.
This place is still not an archive in my opinion, and I still support it being a good idea. I don't care if it gets implemented or accepted because obviously that's out of the question and I don't like wasting time. But it seems like the only reasons anyone has brought to argue against it are that they just want the power to upload here what they want, or there are some people who don't speak the language, one is a matter of greed, the other a simple language barrier that could easily be overcome by literally google translate. I for one do not use e621 because it's an archive, and think the idea would fit where this site is headed, but I got bored of this argument so..gg? lol I don't know how else to end my part of this.
PS. Some comments made it seem like I was arguing for this to actually become like a new rule or something, but I wasn't, like this reply states I'm just the guy who thinks it's a good idea, and no one has yet to change my mind lol I'm not the only one with a casserole in the oven right? I made a delicious modified redneck one that I am totally sharing. Totally :3

Well AFAICS that's dishonest.
Several people have raised the 'it's actually troublesome to post on multiple sites' issue, with some detail, and you seem to have simply ignored it. The fact that it is troublesome is precisely why I don't post to multiple sites,
and don't necessarily even crosspost between tumblrs when it's relevant.

To put it another way, just because you want artists to have this responsibility doesn't mean they want this responsibility.

The practical ideal seems to me to be to have a) each person posting to one site, so it's easy to keep track of rules, and b) 'approved proxies'
(the approval being simply to get a thing from site X, make sure it fits with site Y, and post it in an appropriate manner). That both minimizes complexity and handles consent.

I have an even better idea!
*Nobody* should be allowed to post on e621.
And now I'm going to keep arguing for this idea because I have nothing better to do.
Also, e621 isn't an archive! Because I say so!

Munkelzahn said:
I have an even better idea!
*Nobody* should be allowed to post on e621.
And now I'm going to keep arguing for this idea because I have nothing better to do.
Also, e621 isn't an archive! Because I say so!

Wow, you read my mind! I'll get this to marketing rigjt away. We got something here man..