Greetings!

This is just a heads up: It is now possible to report posts! Unlike FFDs this will not flag the image, and will instead create a new ticket. Reporting a post will also allow you to give additional information about the problem you're reporting.

The current options allow you to report a reason for Tagging Abuse, Note Abuse, Description Abuse, Malicious Source, and Malicious File.
The abuse options are pretty straight forward, if you believe someone did something to either of those that require admin intervention then please use them so we know where to look. Also include all relevant information. The two malicious file and malicious source options are for the rare case that either a source points towards a malicious page. A malicious file would also be if it has been tampered with in a way that inserts malicious code or has had other files attached to it. Again, please include all relevant information if you use either of those reporting reasons.

The link to report posts can be found under "Options" to the left of the submission.

If you have any suggestions for more reasons to report a submission please let us know and we'll see if they would be a useful to add.

NotMeNotYou said:
If you have any suggestions for more reasons to report a submission please let us know and we'll see if they would be a useful to add.

Low resolution or not high enough quality drawing(such as one with minimal effort put in) would be good. The 2nd one might be to opinionated though.

pieface said:
Low resolution or not high enough quality drawing(such as one with minimal effort put in) would be good. The 2nd one might be to opinionated though.

Those are both subjective and do not necessarily make a post bad.

Whether or not the quality of an image is acceptable will be determined by staff directly as they approve or deny them.

NotMeNotYou said:
The two malicious file and malicious source options are for the rare case that either a source points towards a malicious page, or that the uploaded file has been tampered with.

By "tampered with", do you mean altering its appearance or injecting code into it?

BlueDingo said:
By "tampered with", do you mean altering its appearance or injecting code into it?

Injecting code or other files into it, I should clarify that.

Edit: This has been clarified.

Is "hi there i'm new to this please help me add tags and if you know the artist plz add them <3 <3 <3" description abuse?

Idk, I just feel that all of these(except for malicious post/source) can already be covered by the "Report User" system.

Also,

...if you believe someone did something to either of those that require admin intervention then...

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Idk, I just feel that all of these(except for malicious post/source) can already be covered by the "Report User" system.

Maybe if one user is doing it repeatedly across multiple posts.

Munkelzahn said:
Is "hi there i'm new to this please help me add tags and if you know the artist plz add them <3 <3 <3" description abuse?

No, that's not description abuse.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Idk, I just feel that all of these(except for malicious post/source) can already be covered by the "Report User" system.

This is mainly to make it quicker to report things, and to also allow to report things that have multiple users cruising for a bruising.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Also,

...if you believe someone did something to either of those that require admin intervention then...

This is what happens when I talk to Ratte while typing.

Might be useful to add 'incorrectly locked' to the reasons. For instance, many older posts from the first administration era are locked to the wrong rating (such as topless nudity as explicit). Those get fixed if spotted by high-ranking users, but regular users can't currently do much about it.

On the other hand, maybe that's already covered well enough by the 'tagging abuse' category.

BlueDingo said:
Maybe if one user is doing it repeatedly across multiple posts.

NotMeNotYou said:
This is mainly to make it quicker to report things, and to also allow to report things that have multiple users cruising for a bruising.

Ah, I see. But I just have this feeling that it's going to cause more work than intended. Like instead of having a single User Complaint ticket for tag abuse, you'd have 10 different Post Report tickets of the vandalized posts.

Might want to add something here to reduce unnecessary reports, https://e621.net/wiki/show/e621:report_post

Cropped images. I don't think using the inferior flag works well for it.

Axolotl said:
Cropped images. I don't think using the inferior flag works well in this case.

Hasn't stopped me. What's the point in having a section of a larger image if we already have the larger image?

BlueDingo said:
Hasn't stopped me. What's the point in having a section of a larger image if we already have the larger image?

I meant using the report system for crops is more specific than making a duplicate/inferior flag.

Axolotl said:
I meant using the report system for crops is more specific than making a duplicate/inferior flag.

The duplicate/inferier flag does say "(smaller, lower quality, etc.)". The cropped version is almost always smaller than the original.

BlueDingo said:
The duplicate/inferier flag does say "(smaller, lower quality, etc.)". The cropped version is almost always smaller than the original.

In that case I'll start using it that way when the time comes.

Axolotl said:
In that case I'll start using it that way when the time comes.

Please do, flagging it as inferior is the way to go.

NotMeNotYou said:
Injecting code or other files into it, I should clarify that.

Edit: This has been clarified.

How the he'll does that actually work? I remember there was a handful of posts a year or two ago that had entire site rips inside them, most of it DNP content. But how does that even work... and how do you recognize when that occurs? I remember that I was totally confused, I'd DLed a post just to see what everyone was yelling about and ended up deleting it from my HD cuz I couldn't figure it out...

This is regarding the news post for October 18th. Can this also go towards labeling MLP content under equine rather than horse? I'm sick of having that content being posted under the horse tag, even with the blacklist feature.

Esme_Belles said:
How the he'll does that actually work? I remember there was a handful of posts a year or two ago that had entire site rips inside them, most of it DNP content. But how does that even work... and how do you recognize when that occurs? I remember that I was totally confused, I'd DLed a post just to see what everyone was yelling about and ended up deleting it from my HD cuz I couldn't figure it out...

Putting an entire file system inside a jpeg is actually pretty easy.

FoxofGrey said:
This is regarding the news post for October 18th. Can this also go towards labeling MLP content under equine rather than horse? I'm sick of having that content being posted under the horse tag, even with the blacklist feature.

Anything with earth_pony on it will get the horse tag automatically so there's not much you can do about it besides blacklisting/excluding earth_pony.

So, I'm an artist and will upload my art soon. But I was thinking, that then I would like it that my pics are only uploaded by myself to ensure it is the good quality file and has proper data, also it's more controllable in case I have an issue in the future.

So if someone else uploads something before I do, or they upload a duplicate of something I already uploaded, should use the report or flag for deletion? Or?

BlueDingo said:
Anything with earth_pony on it will get the horse tag automatically so there's not much you can do about it besides blacklisting/excluding earth_pony.

And that sucks.

I do like MLP but I usually just want normal equines on this site but it's nearly impossible, even with using the negative tag, half of the results are still MLP.

MLP ponies should be considered their own species.

Storm-Engineer said:
So, I'm an artist and will upload my art soon. But I was thinking, that then I would like it that my pics are only uploaded by myself to ensure it is the good quality file and has proper data, also it's more controllable in case I have an issue in the future.

So if someone else uploads something before I do, or they upload a duplicate of something I already uploaded, should use the report or flag for deletion? Or?

Our page is a community page, unless there's a reason to do it differently everybody is allowed to upload things. If someone uploads an inferior version of some of your art simply upload the better version and flag the inferior version for deletion.
We still have terabytes of storage left so duplicates are of very little concern.

Beyond that you will want to use the flag for deletion tool with the reason of inferior/duplicate for your examples.

It's also impossible for you to delete any art you upload directly, just as you can't delete uploads from other people. Any deletion like that will only happen as a result of a takedown request.

Esme_Belles said:
How the he'll does that actually work? I remember there was a handful of posts a year or two ago that had entire site rips inside them, most of it DNP content. But how does that even work... and how do you recognize when that occurs? I remember that I was totally confused, I'd DLed a post just to see what everyone was yelling about and ended up deleting it from my HD cuz I couldn't figure it out...

A lot of archive formats / archivers (eg.zip, rar, 7z) are designed so that the start of the archive data doesn't need to be the start of the file.
So you basically just concatenate the jpg file with the zip file;
on Linux that's as simple as cat myimage.jpg myarchive.zip > image_with_archive.jpg.

Because that tolerance is built in to archivers, you just unpack it like a normal zip
(unzip image_with_archive.jpg)

In terms of GUI interaction, I think it's just a matter of asking for the file to be opened in your archiver rather than your image viewer.

Image viewers also generally have the converse necessary property -- they ignore 'junk data' beyond what the image headers tell them to read.
So that side of it also "just works" (in general - jpg, png, tiff etc. GIFs don't seem to be compatible with the concatenation strategy, although if you are fine with the image side of the content being broken, you can still use this method). The image viewer sees the file as an image, the archiver sees it as an archive.

Thanks for the clarification NotMeNotYou :)

savageorange said:
[...]

There is actually a whole field of computer science called Steganography that deals with the concealment of data inside other data, what orange explained is one of the basic examples of it.

Depending on the details the result may be an image file that has artifacts as if it was a damaged images (like when a JPG has part of it missing and pure black), or simply an image that appears completely normal, but unusually large file size - in case of large data. If the data is small it may be impossible to know it's there until you look inside the file.

This is actually one of the methods used for tracking files (eg images) online.

And of course also used by malware but there it gets more complicated as it's not enough to hide the data there, you need to get the target computer to execute it unknowingly.

Storm-Engineer said:
There is actually a whole field of computer science called Steganography that deals with the concealment of data inside other data, what orange explained is one of the basic examples of it.

Depending on the details the result may be an image file that has artifacts as if it was a damaged images (like when a JPG has part of it missing and pure black), or simply an image that appears completely normal, but unusually large file size - in case of large data. If the data is small it may be impossible to know it's there until you look inside the file.

This is actually one of the methods used for tracking files (eg images) online.

And of course also used by malware but there it gets more complicated as it's not enough to hide the data there, you need to get the target computer to execute it unknowingly.

Yeah this isn't anything new. I remember "Stitching together" images into one file yeaaaaars ago just by hex editing them in the right places. Made it easier to get stuff up onto BBSes before archives became a common thing. Was also handy if writing a game to stick any info you might want to pass to or from the game directly into the sprite.

I'm confused about the distinction between flags and reports. I guess that flags are against the post itself, whereas reports are against some user action that happens to take place around the post? Is that correct?

Maxpizzle said:
I'm confused about the distinction between flags and reports. I guess that flags are against the post itself, whereas reports are against some user action that happens to take place around the post? Is that correct?

Yep, things like bad tagging, bad notes, etc.

Maxpizzle said:
I'm confused about the distinction between flags and reports. I guess that flags are against the post itself, whereas reports are against some user action that happens to take place around the post? Is that correct?

Basically flags are that the image might need to be deleted from one reason or another, whereas as the report function is that the submission requires attention without needing to be deleted.

NotMeNotYou said:
The current options allow you to report a reason for Tagging Abuse, Note Abuse, Description Abuse, Malicious Source, and Malicious File.

Does locked to the wrong rating fall under any of these? I'm not seeing an answer to that here. Thanks for your time and effort you put into maintaining the site!

LurkingLupinoyd said:
Does locked to the wrong rating fall under any of these? I'm not seeing an answer to that here. Thanks for your time and effort you put into maintaining the site!

You're referring to this, right? post #871249

Genitals and their orifices of any sort are automagically explicit. Pussies, penes, anuses, cloacas, genital slits, balls, perineums, and anything I may have missed, are immediately tagged explicit regardless of visibility; if you can see it, it's explicit. A cameltoe needs some form of barrier that impedes visibility, generally clothing, and that clearly does not appear in that image when you look at the crotch.

I suggest you read the Ratings Help page. It outlines exactly what I have said and more, and may answer any further questions.

LurkingLupinoyd said:
Does locked to the wrong rating fall under any of these? I'm not seeing an answer to that here. Thanks for your time and effort you put into maintaining the site!

In addition to Siral's fabulous post, I *think* one would want to message a moderator if you sincerely believe a post's rating is incorrectly locked. But most posts that seem to be locked in error are a result of a subtle set of sheath or genitals.

SnowWolf said:
In addition to Siral's fabulous post, I *think* one would want to message a moderator if you sincerely believe a post's rating is incorrectly locked. But most posts that seem to be locked in error are a result of a subtle set of sheath or genitals.

Just to wrap this up, I have come to understand and accept these things.