What percentage of the posts on e6 has been bvatsed?

delreason:inferior
287 pages @ 320 posts per page (269 on the last)
286*320+269=91789
91789/1653129= 0.05552440251184269346191374054898

5.55%

Zenti said:
delreason:inferior
287 pages @ 320 posts per page (269 on the last)
286*320+269=91789
91789/1653129= 0.05552440251184269346191374054898

5.55%

Would maybe even reach 10% if the current strict quality rules were suddenly applied to all the old images, wouldn't it?

Volphied said:
Would maybe even reach 10% if the current strict quality rules were suddenly applied to all the old images, wouldn't it?

delreason:minimum is not delreason:inferior.

Zenti said:
delreason:inferior
287 pages @ 320 posts per page (269 on the last)
286*320+269=91789
91789/1653129= 0.05552440251184269346191374054898

5.55%

is going to get you a lot of duplicates, not just BVAS posts. status:deleted bvas is probably a much more accurate number. That's 33971 BVAS'd posts, a percentage of

~2.25%

of posts have been replaced by better versions.

Doesn't any figure also need to account for the fact that the same image can be and sometimes is bvatsed >1 time -- for example, when max res versions are made available only after a significant delay? (so ideally you'd be able to search for the superior posts rather than the posts which they replaced.)

savageorange said:
Doesn't any figure also need to account for the fact that the same image can be and sometimes is bvatsed >1 time -- for example, when max res versions are made available only after a significant delay? (so ideally you'd be able to search for the superior posts rather than the posts which they replaced.)

It also dosn't account for posts that were once replaced for BVAS but the posts that now replace them have been deleted because of takedowns, but I'm not going to go through every single one of those 3.4k posts to check, that number is about the best you're going to get. The amount of posts that have been BVAS'd twice and posts that have been BVAS'd and then got takedowned are probably extremely few, and I doubt that it'd change the final number more than about a few thousandths of a percentage.

Double replacements seem relatively common to me.. the same image will show up three times in the RSS feeds for the same query, days apart.

(although this has mainly been for pool: queries, so potentially could have been pool editing rather than bvatsing)

bvats hasn't always been around and in use either

SnowWolf said:
bvats hasn't always been around and in use either

Exactly.
I have actually fixed some like 10 years old posts, one situation where artist posted original file themselves and then got record for posting that when site already had clearly compressed version of it.

So it really seems like in the far past, nobody cared what condition the post was as long as you could look at it.