Mario69 said:
What is bit problematic here, is that now all those deleted posts earlier versions are better_version_at_source, so everyone can still access those files themselves, even if they are not on this site.

However artist is aware of this now and this is definitely something that all artists should be aware of more instead of keeping quiet, especially if their artwork monetization is based on resolution or if artist does leave scaling to sites like furaffinity.

Since users are going to continue to upload these high resolution versions on accident, should the artist get the conditional_dnp implication? That question is for NMNY.

This can be used for tracking more of these takedowns (or just read all of the takedowns): source:tumblr*_raw status:deleted delreason:takedown -marblesoda

Lance_Armstrong said:
Since users are going to continue to upload these high resolution versions on accident, should the artist get the conditional_dnp implication? That question is for NMNY.

This can be used for tracking more of these takedowns (or just read all of the takedowns): source:tumblr*_raw status:deleted delreason:takedown -marblesoda

I'm hoping Marblesoda instead manually resorts to resizing images to 1280, but a conditional dnp won't hurt too badly.

o.O well, we did foresee a spike in threads about replaced posts with this happening but it's like 1 or more every day now. what a mess this project is.

edit: help, please? the "raw" method doesn't seem to work on post #657701. it just lead to this error page.

and wow, those old posts i uploaded are huge. i had no idea just how big they really were till this discovery was made.

shoot! looks like i have a few posts where i didn't include a direct pic link.

post #847893, post #847897, post #847903, post #847904, post #847949, post #847951, post #848075, post #848076, post #848078, post #848079, post #848080, and post #848081

how do i go about replacing those when i didn't leave a direct image link back when i uploaded them AND the tumblr in question is gone?

treos said:
edit: help, please? the "raw" method doesn't seem to work on post #657701. it just lead to this error page.

It doesn't work for posts older than something around december 2012.

treos said:
how do i go about replacing those when i didn't leave a direct image link back when i uploaded them AND the tumblr in question is gone?

Search for the image with Reverse Google Search.
If you're lucky, someone has reposted it, and you can get the direct image link that way.

edit:
please make the posts you listed clickable

Munkelzahn said:
Search for the image with Reverse Google Search.
If you're lucky, someone has reposted it, and you can get the direct image link that way.

edit:
please make the posts you listed clickable

Also, if the artist had some text in their post such as a description or whatever, you can google search that and find reblogs that are still intact. This has helped me a few times.

Munkelzahn said:
Search for the image with Reverse Google Search.
If you're lucky, someone has reposted it, and you can get the direct image link that way.

edit:
please make the posts you listed clickable

ok and post edited.

edit: :/ i see nothing but rule34.xxx and e621.net coming up in the results. and the rule34.xxx posts are the same size as those i uploaded here.

hmmm... yeah, looks like rule34.xxx has a bot account for uploading stuff.

"join date: 2013-04-15

posts: 1,919,249
deleted posts: 93,375"

yep, definitely a bot cause it has every single wycicus post i uploaded here, added to rule34. only the artist tag is japanese and untranslated over there. and the upload times are all within the same day as when i added them here.

user:treos wycicus

bot's uploads of my posts

Question:

Why is the file size of Tumblr 'raw' PNG files sometimes lower than that of their 1280 versions? For instance, post #1169845 vs post #1253844.

I decided to upload the latter anyways since the image clarity zoomed in to the same resolution was superior, without any visible artifacting, but I'd like to hear some thoughts on what could be causing this. Does Tumblr somehow increase file size when compressing images to the 1280 limit, and if so, why?

Strongbird said:
Question:

Why is the file size of Tumblr 'raw' PNG files sometimes lower than that of their 1280 versions? For instance, post #1169845 vs post #1253844.

Differences in metadata. Tumblr downscales can sometimes have more data than the originals.

Ratte said:
Differences in metadata. Tumblr downscales can sometimes have more data than the originals.

Alright, thank you for the swift response. That alleviates some concerns.

Strongbird said:
Alright, thank you for the swift response. That alleviates some concerns.

It's fine. This is why we go for visual appearance instead of filesize, as a lot of metadata (such as exif data) doesn't mean anything for how the image actually appears.

Ratte said:
Differences in metadata.

Not entirely, especially not in this case.

PNG filetype relies on optimizing redundancy aka lossless compression. If you look at the posts on pixel level, you can see the original is aliased/binary drawing, it's insanely easy for the alghorith to go that "this whole exact area is only this one particular color".

Now, when you downscale content like this using some method of filtering, suddenly the pixels aren't perfect pixels anymore, but they are smoothed around with next areas pixels, so there's much more data need that needs to be saved. Instead of telling that some area is one particular color, now the areas are smaller and the edges of the area needs to be saved differendly and there's much less patterns to look for.

This is also why you can sometimes have insanely HD resolution gif file which only takes a 1 MB and sometimes gif for ants can be 40 MB instead - GIF is lossless filetype similar to PNG, so easier the patterns, easier they are to optimize meaning they take less space.

Now if you take that particular image and save it as JPG, filesize will actually get MUCH larger and quality decreases. This is because JPG is lossy filetype designed specifically for photograps, so it tries to look up for stuff it can compress and solid colored clear lines and solid colored areas are the worst as those shouldn't happen in photos.

But the main point still stands, never look for the filesize, but the actual content that is being used and always prefer the lossless compression where possible. Sometimes it's difference in metadata, sometimes in compression level, sometimes somewhere else. And this applies to all cases, not just images from tumblr.

Mario69 said:
file size...stuff

so, which should be flagged in such a case (for future reference when i find posts like those i DMailed you about last night)? the post with the larger file size?

So, just to be certain, the policy is to go off of visual differences, not filesize? I'm thinking about things like post #1253565 where the filesize of the tumblr version is larger than the previously uploaded (inkbunny full-res PNG) version, but there is no visual difference, even when compared using something like resemble.js.

Is the policy that if they are both the same resolution and both are (natively) PNG images, the old upload will stay, even if the filesizes are different?

ChineseImmigrants said:
So, just to be certain, the policy is to go off of visual differences, not filesize? I'm thinking about things like post #1253565 where the filesize of the tumblr version is larger than the previously uploaded (inkbunny full-res PNG) version, but there is no visual difference, even when compared using something like resemble.js.

Is the policy that if they are both the same resolution and both are (natively) PNG images, the old upload will stay, even if the filesizes are different?

Inkbunny only strips non-visual metadata on uploads to the best of my knowledge, regardless of format. For the sake of archival, it's debatable whether metadata has any use, but for loading and viewing images, it's preferable to a post without additional non-visual file size bloat.

In the past janitors/admins have deleted visually identical reuploads from non-Inkbunny sites (SoFurry, Weasyl, and Tumblr all don't do the metadata stripping), so I'd imagine that policy is still standard today.

treos said:
so, which should be flagged in such a case (for future reference when i find posts like those i DMailed you about last night)? the post with the larger file size?

Filesize, does, not, matter.

E: It's quality that matters and filesize can vary according to how the data was handled to store that quality. If unsure, content matching provided source should be preferred, which means hashes matching.

Strongbird said:
Inkbunny only strips non-visual metadata on uploads to the best of my knowledge, regardless of format. For the sake of archival, it's debatable whether metadata has any use, but for loading and viewing images, it's preferable to a post without additional non-visual file size bloat.

In the past janitors/admins have deleted visually identical reuploads from non-Inkbunny sites (SoFurry, Weasyl, and Tumblr all don't do the metadata stripping), so I'd imagine that policy is still standard today.

Exactly. Inkbunny is actually nice enought to actually have proper wiki explaining their policy on this, which is included in source here: https://e621.net/wiki/show/howto:sites_and_sources#inkbunny

At least with PNG files I think the process to be non-destructive as the filetype holds less metadata than JPG and it mostly seems to do optimization, which would actually be preferred to be done by artist before uploading. With JPG files, especially photographs we are also talking about stripping personal information like GPS locations, which can be argued to be about security of identity of artist.

Inkbunny does also save every single versions MD5 hash, so if you would like to double check easily that if the file from tumblr is the same as inkbunny upload earlier, simply generate MD5 from tumblr post and compare it to "Initial" hash on inkbunny page. "Full size" hash is for version inkbunny serves and what the e6 handles as identical file, meaning that first version uploaded from two is preferred.

ChineseImmigrants said:
So, just to be certain, the policy is to go off of visual differences, not filesize? I'm thinking about things like post #1253565 where the filesize of the tumblr version is larger than the previously uploaded (inkbunny full-res PNG) version, but there is no visual difference, even when compared using something like resemble.js.

Is the policy that if they are both the same resolution and both are (natively) PNG images, the old upload will stay, even if the filesizes are different?

Yeah, older upload stays in this case. Handled.

RAW

.
.
.
Sorry, I had to.

Anyways, I'm kinda glad I don't upload. This makes things even more complicated. I wish you posters luck...

...inb4 tumblr finds this out and, being tumblr, decides to "fix" it D:

Clitheroe said:
...inb4 tumblr finds this out and, being tumblr, decides to "fix" it D:

Tumblr's not a little site by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, it's been purchased by Verizon as part of its new subsidary Oath Inc.

Aside from the obvious conflict of interest (and potential censorship) this will result in, there is very little reason for Verizon to care about a handful of anthro artists complaining that the website stores their data in the resolution they uploaded it in. The onus will continue to fall squarely on artists to upload material in 1280x1920 max -or- go Conditional_DNP on e621 with 'raw' links prohibited to save sub-30-seconds of resizing. The former is the better solution for Patreon resolution paywalls as many other sites will simply not care about takedown requests.

Strongbird said:
it's been purchased by Verizon as part of its new subsidary Oath Inc.

Technically, Verizon glomped Yahoo, which had already glomped Tumblr, so Tumblr's just along for the ride.

Strikerman said:
Technically, Verizon glomped Yahoo, which had already glomped Tumblr, so Tumblr's just along for the ride.

Before June 13, 2017, Yahoo was not part of Verizon. Verizon announced they would purchase Yahoo since July 25, 2016, but the deal has not realized until nearly a year later. Now that Verizon owns Yahoo, and by extension Tumblr, they've transferred the Tumblr brand to Oath Inc., a direct subsidiary to Verizon with no influence from Yahoo.

I'll not derail the thread, but I figured I should clarify the situation.

down voted for leaving a comment to try and help the uploader on post #1253972.

normally i wouldn't complain about a few down votes but it also seems odd that, at first, my longer comment there got 2 down votes and after my 2nd comment they BOTH got 2 more down votes which strikes me as rather odd. getting down votes for trying to help someone.

treos said:
down voted for leaving a comment to try and help the uploader on post #1253972.

normally i wouldn't complain about a few down votes but it also seems odd that, at first, my longer comment there got 2 down votes and after my 2nd comment they BOTH got 2 more down votes which strikes me as rather odd. getting down votes for trying to help someone.

Welcome to the bastion of intelligence that is the e621 userbase.

Ratte said:
Welcome to the bastion of intelligence that is the e621 userbase.

post #300820

-_- best description of internet. even better than NMNY's "stop taking the internet so seriously" post.

i'm actually a little surprised i remembered this specific post but then again, it's kinda hard to forget that particular type of person that discord is.

https://i.imgflip.com/1remsj.jpg

I wish I would have known this YEARS ago! MY WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN A LIE!

Honestly though I noticed long ago that you could change the 1280 to a 540 and get a smaller size...so I knew that was the secret to getting the original size. I seriously tried so many words there: original, orig, high, highest, hires, highres...no dice. To think that "raw" was the magic word and I never found it...ARGH >.<

Dyrone said:
I wish I would have known this YEARS ago! MY WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN A LIE!

Honestly though I noticed long ago that you could change the 1280 to a 540 and get a smaller size...so I knew that was the secret to getting the original size. I seriously tried so many words there: original, orig, high, highest, hires, highres...no dice. To think that "raw" was the magic word and I never found it...ARGH >.<

Now that you've mentioned it, I'm really curious as to how this was discovered in the first place. Was someone experimenting with urls like yourself and just got lucky? Was it a leak from someone working with Tumblr? Or did someone just dig into the site's mess of an API and find what was overlooked by everyone else for the past half-decade?

Dyrone said:
I wish I would have known this YEARS ago! MY WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN A LIE!

Honestly though I noticed long ago that you could change the 1280 to a 540 and get a smaller size...so I knew that was the secret to getting the original size. I seriously tried so many words there: original, orig, high, highest, hires, highres...no dice. To think that "raw" was the magic word and I never found it...ARGH >.<

I tried different combos too back then, but it didn't occur to me to try (it) raw.

DelurC said:
I tried different combos too back then, but it didn't occur to me to try (it) raw.

lol, it never occurred to me that the original size would be publicly available (or stored anywhere on tumblr's servers)
i thought tumblr would create the 500 / 540 / 1280 versions and discard the original image
with the uploader being responsible for keeping the original version on his hard disk, in case he needed it again later

treos said:
down voted for leaving a comment to try and help the uploader on post #1253972.

normally i wouldn't complain about a few down votes but it also seems odd that, at first, my longer comment there got 2 down votes and after my 2nd comment they BOTH got 2 more down votes which strikes me as rather odd. getting down votes for trying to help someone.

Downvotes tend to snowball here, pay them no mind

Oh dear, guys. (TEXT WALL AHEAD)

Clitheroe said:
Oh dear, guys. (TEXT WALL AHEAD)

A PROBLEM...

Some people, as a method of getting more patrons on their patreon, post images on tumblr because it would scale it down, and they have the hig res version on patreon.

But as we discovered... All you have to do is add the "raw" at the end, and BAM - High res version.

People are already sending takedown forms and generally bitching. People are too dependent on tumblr resizing, and it'll be unavoidable to stop people from getting the high res now.

So, what the hell do we do now? This is a rather unexpected consequence...

we ask

Clitheroe said:
Oh dear, guys. (TEXT WALL AHEAD)

A PROBLEM...

Some people, as a method of getting more patrons on their patreon, post images on tumblr because it would scale it down, and they have the hig res version on patreon.

But as we discovered... All you have to do is add the "raw" at the end, and BAM - High res version.

People are already sending takedown forms and generally bitching. People are too dependent on tumblr resizing, and it'll be unavoidable to stop people from getting the high res now.

So, what the hell do we do now? This is a rather unexpected consequence...

In all honesty, I expected it. I even said it to another user in IRC. Give people a tool, and they'll use it... regardless of how it's meant to be used. Second verse, same as the first when raw tumblr was found out.

I can't tell us what we can do, but I suggest asking artists if it's OK to post X resolution images from Y account (site). Be really clear, hold their hands through the process, because in my experiences artists tend to be quick to judge negatively on actions they do not understand.

Clitheroe said:
Oh dear, guys. (TEXT WALL AHEAD)

that's not a text wall. my posts in the video game thread, those are text walls. :P

but yeah, kinda predictable.

Perhaps warn artists about this...

...I never thought I'd suggest warning artists about how people can view their images in original resolution now, what with everyone on tumblr complaining about the resizing... You can never make anyone happy.

Clitheroe said:
So, what the hell do we do now? This is a rather unexpected consequence...

Wait for more takedown requests.

It wasn't really unexpected for anyone who bothered to think about it. This whole re-upload craze however showed that the core people on the site apparently have no idea what they are doing, what the purpose and the goal of the site is.

So basically what this means is the literal tens of thousands of images I have saved in the 1280 form are now obsolete, and I'm going to have to spend the next several years tracking down and replacing every single one with the superior versions.

Great...

Siral_Exan said:
In all honesty, I expected it. I even said it to another user in IRC. Give people a tool, and they'll use it... regardless of how it's meant to be used. Second verse, same as the first when raw tumblr was found out.

I can't tell us what we can do, but I suggest asking artists if it's OK to post X resolution images from Y account (site). Be really clear, hold their hands through the process, because in my experiences artists tend to be quick to judge negatively on actions they do not understand.

My experience is usually the opposite. "I have no idea what this e621 thing is, but if you're crediting me sure!", maybe with "as long as you aren't profiting from it" but not so commonly a no.

Furrin_Gok said:
My experience is usually the opposite. "I have no idea what this e621 thing is, but if you're crediting me sure!", maybe with "as long as you aren't profiting from it" but not so commonly a no.

I applaud those artists' optimism. I guess it could be contextual, I've asked artists whom draw comics or shorts, more of the prior than the latter; the latter being the ones who say "OK", but I usually have to (re)specify what I'm uploading to get that answer.

Clitheroe said:
Oh dear, guys. (TEXT WALL AHEAD)

A PROBLEM...

Some people, as a method of getting more patrons on their patreon, post images on tumblr because it would scale it down, and they have the hig res version on patreon.

But as we discovered... All you have to do is add the "raw" at the end, and BAM - High res version.

People are already sending takedown forms and generally bitching. People are too dependent on tumblr resizing, and it'll be unavoidable to stop people from getting the high res now.

So, what the hell do we do now? This is a rather unexpected consequence...

That's pretty low amount of text for wall. Trump would be dissapoint.

Educate artists. They can and are free to even use our takedown system, but just getting rid of copies in here doesn't make them vanish from source and everyone can just go and get the content regardless. Make them aware of these kind of things, instead of trying to be stealthy and hoping they don't notice. They deserve and are supposed to know. Artist simply seeing high resolution files floating around makes them think content has leaked instead of they themselves serving it.

Not understanding something always puts you in defensive mode by default and if it seems like something bad then of course you want to shoot first, then ask and solve things later if there's someone alive.

This is also the reason why we handle _raw like any other source, because it's still source that's publicly freely available and provided by artist themselves. This is also exactly the same way we handle all other sources already, I think most notabely includes twitters :orig files, so it would be pointless to handle tumblr differendly.

Tell artists to downscale content beforehand by themselves if they do not want higher resolutions to be public, especially if they try to monetize from them. Excluding furaffinity which sucks, most sites do save original file regardless if it's served to regular users or not. And if including furaffinity into the mix, downscaling content yourself before sending quarantees higher actual quality when sending to websites as sometimes sites use downscaling methods not optimal for the artwork and FA even JPG compressing too large images (FA large = actually medium/low sized images).

Siral_Exan said:
I can't tell us what we can do, but I suggest asking artists if it's OK to post X resolution images from Y account (site). Be really clear, hold their hands through the process, because in my experiences artists tend to be quick to judge negatively on actions they do not understand.

Problem here is that we prefer superior versions here, meaning that if one user asks nicely and gets permission to only post from site X and not Y, if other user does go and upload better version from site Y which is freely publicly available, that version is preferred and first persons post is deleted.

In similar way, if source or even image itself states "do not repost" somewhere, we do not take that into account with approvals. User saying that artist isn't allowing posting from site Y changes nothing and artist themselves are required to use our takedown and/or apply for DNP.

Mario69 said:
Problem here is that we prefer superior versions here, meaning that if one user asks nicely and gets permission to only post from site X and not Y, if other user does go and upload better version from site Y which is freely publicly available, that version is preferred and first persons post is deleted.

In similar way, if source or even image itself states "do not repost" somewhere, we do not take that into account with approvals. User saying that artist isn't allowing posting from site Y changes nothing and artist themselves are required to use our takedown and/or apply for DNP.

Those problems occur regardless of my suggestion. My suggestion aids against prior takedowns, not the unavoidable ones.

I mean, yeah, the site demands we get a superior version if it's FREELY available... Which raw images are.

But now we're gonna have to start getting the purposely crappy quality versions (even though we can VERY EASILY grab the better version) just because an artist says so?

I'm not trying to disrespect artists at all, I mean they gotta make money somehow, but that kind of seems a little too unrealistic. And people are going to constantly reupload the raw version, no matter how many times it gets taken down, because that's just what you're supposed to do on this site.

Clitheroe said:
I mean, yeah, the site demands we get a superior version if it's FREELY available... Which raw images are.

But now we're gonna have to start getting the purposely crappy quality versions (even though we can VERY EASILY grab the better version) just because an artist says so?

I'm not trying to disrespect artists at all, I mean they gotta make money somehow, but that kind of seems a little too unrealistic. And people are going to constantly reupload the raw version, no matter how many times it gets taken down, because that's just what you're supposed to do on this site.

(sorry if I sound drunkish, I took some nyquil because insomnia's a bitch)

Artist's wishes are always honored. Pretty simple really; nothing I've seen has contradicted that yet.

Clitheroe said:
I'm not trying to disrespect artists at all, I mean they gotta make money somehow, but that kind of seems a little too unrealistic. And people are going to constantly reupload the raw version, no matter how many times it gets taken down, because that's just what you're supposed to do on this site.

Not if the artists request the "_raw" version of pictures to be added to the DNP list. Artists can request that certain sites and type of artwork can be excluded from being uploaded (resulting in "conditional_dnp"). I don't see why Tumblr "_raw" images can't be given the same treatment without excluding all Tumblr uploads.

Friendly request: Please include at least both a link to the Tumblr post the image originated from and direct image URL.

Given only the former, it's not feasible to salvage the original high resolution image if the post is ever deleted, and it's harder to rule out posts whose highest resolutions has already been found (such as both 1280 and raw at 1280x1920).

Given only the latter, it's not easy to find the original Tumblr post, and reverse searches to do so often don't work well. Lack of accreditation to the artist and other metadata (year, for instance) is a sad omission to see in a tag list that is also harder to rectify with just an image link.

With both, all those issues are avoided--people can see where you sourced the image from, it's easier to rule out when searching for more images to replace in better quality, and we can salvage images from being lost to time if blogs or posts are ever deleted.

That is all, thank you.

There's now likely a lot of deleted thumbnails in the wiki. No way to actually search for those as far as I know, so that'll take a while to fix..

(When fixing those, try to keep the post rating as low as possible. Safe-rated are preferred, so those can be viewed on e926. Personally, I also try to pick low post IDs. Since those are less likely to be taken down.)

Edit: Never mind. I checked them all. Might've accidentally skipped a page or two, but most deleted thumbnails should be replaced now.

UnusualParadox said:
Not if the artists request the "_raw" version of pictures to be added to the DNP list. Artists can request that certain sites and type of artwork can be excluded from being uploaded (resulting in "conditional_dnp"). I don't see why Tumblr "_raw" images can't be given the same treatment without excluding all Tumblr uploads.

This has already been done (takedown #6186). If an artist wants to take down all raw posts but leave the 1280 versions it's a lot of work for the mods but they'll do it.

If someone wants the raw version, all they have to do is follow the source link on the post to the 1280 version and change the URL themselves. It's not being directly posted here in that case. It takes the person a few seconds longer to get the image, but no DNP rules are being violated.
I mean, the raw versions are freely available from Tumblr. It's not like people are hacking into Tumblr itself and stealing them.

leomole said:
This has already been done (takedown #6186). If an artist wants to take down all raw posts but leave the 1280 versions it's a lot of work for the mods but they'll do it.

They did this and also flagged the posts as paid content, because they were thinking that it was paid content from their patreon as they area advertising the resolutions released on patreon on their submissions. They are now aware of this, meaning they can fix it themselves in the future, instead of making pointless DNP requests here.

And this gets back to my point, make artists aware of how the sites handle their content.

How can we tell which marblesoda images are DNP? Are all of them supposed to be DNP above 1280x1920, or are only some high res images Patreon-only? Their last 4 posts are above 1280x1920, in spite of the takedown. post #1258033 is 5000x5000, yet the Tumblr source for that says "Support me on patreon and get full resolution files (5k), videos and psd’s c:". :/

Unfortunately, it's not such a manageable policy, especially when an artist intends to paywall the full res versions of only some of their gallery. Worse, the artist can publicly release full res versions a few months after the Patreon-only release, but those high res versions may already be deleted on e621. Reversible, but still... not every such theoretical deletion would get reversed due to inconsistent reporting and apathy from users. Messy situation.

abadbird said:
How can we tell which marblesoda images are DNP? Are all of them supposed to be DNP above 1280x1920, or are only some high res images Patreon-only?

That depends entirely on whether they make a public statement regarding their policy going forth. Otherwise, the only safe option is to not post any 'raw' Tumblr art of theirs at all since they're open to takedown requests.

Ideally, artists would recognize that they unintentionally leaked Patreon-intended resolutions to the public and come to terms with the mistake, allowing previous hi-res images to be posted elsewhere while manually resizing new images going forth. That would be the best option for the artist PR-wise, and other sites that don't respect artists' wishes will continue to post those 'freely available' images irrespective of demands since they're technically not behind a paywall (barring deletion of all Tumblr posts to completely prevent public access).

abadbird said:
How can we tell which marblesoda images are DNP? Are all of them supposed to be DNP above 1280x1920, or are only some high res images Patreon-only? Their last 4 posts are above 1280x1920, in spite of the takedown. post #1258033 is 5000x5000, yet the Tumblr source for that says "Support me on patreon and get full resolution files (5k), videos and psd’s c:". :/

Unfortunately, it's not such a manageable policy, especially when an artist intends to paywall the full res versions of only some of their gallery. Worse, the artist can publicly release full res versions a few months after the Patreon-only release, but those high res versions may already be deleted on e621. Reversible, but still... not every such theoretical deletion would get reversed due to inconsistent reporting and apathy from users. Messy situation.

I don't even know how many times I have to repeat what I have said already for it to get trough anymore.

Artist has not requested DNP, so artist itself is not DNP. Content on tumblr is publicly and freely available content, so they do not fall under our under two years old paid content rule either. So from sites rule and guideline standpoint, same things apply as with everything else, so if you get the file from artists own tumblr account, it's OK here.

However artist has full right to request those files to be taken down from here if they so desire. They used the takedown already, but the details and effected posts aren't visible. If the reason for it has been they do not want highest resolution here, then we simply host the second highest resolution and use better_version_at_source tag. If they aren't using further takedowns on newer higher resolution posts, that's also up to them.

If there comes situation that earlier leaked patreon only content does get released freely and the hash makes it impossible to upload here, please be in contact with staff and situation can be manually handled. However if content has been deleted by takedown, confirmation from who made the takedown is most likely required.

Strongbird said:
That depends entirely on whether they make a public statement regarding their policy going forth. Otherwise, the only safe option is to not post any 'raw' Tumblr art of theirs at all since they're open to takedown requests.

Ideally, artists would recognize that they unintentionally leaked Patreon-intended resolutions to the public and come to terms with the mistake, allowing previous hi-res images to be posted elsewhere while manually resizing new images going forth. That would be the best option for the artist PR-wise, and other sites that don't respect artists' wishes will continue to post those 'freely available' images irrespective of demands since they're technically not behind a paywall (barring deletion of all Tumblr posts to completely prevent public access).

Damn ur good :|
Wouldn't have said it any better.

How far along is the Tumblr reupload project?

Lance_Armstrong said:
How far along is the Tumblr reupload project?

Most of the 100+ voted posts have been cleared out where possible by other posters. I'm currently going through an order:score'd list based on width limit to catch stragglers (already checked page 1), then will have to do the same for the height limit.

It'll be a good, long while until those posts are recovered. Some artists have made new Tumblr blogs altogether and deleted their old ones, which is a good place to start if the older Tumblr has been deleted/hacked.

For instance, links to Eroborus's old Tumblr (ero-boros instead of ero-borus) currently only redirect to a malware download portal, and it'd be wise from both an image preservation and security standpoint to find raw versions through the archive function (accessible by appending any base Tumblr URL with /archive) to replace older uploads that link to malicious pages ASAP.

Mario69 said:
DNP

Jargon. My mistake. DNP and takedown have special meaning on e621 and e621 only. I confused what I assumed were the artist's wishes with the form the artist filed and how we're able to process that form.

They used the takedown already, but the details and effected posts aren't visible.

That's not entirely true. We can list the deleted posts with marblesoda delreason:6186, and the reason is public: "The high resolution images are for patreons only."

Doesn't seem like a good idea to continue posting marblesoda's full res art after they asked us to remove a slew of other full res art.

abadbird said:
That's not entirely true. We can list the deleted posts with marblesoda delreason:6186, and the reason is public: "The high resolution images are for patreons only."

Doesn't seem like a good idea to continue posting marblesoda's full res art after they asked us to remove a slew of other full res art.

Deletion reasons are nowhere near as visible as a big bright 'Conditional DNP' tag right next to the artist's name. It's not reasonable to expect users to sift through every deleted post from every artist to find every deletion reason to avoid making the same mistake. Having that tag and a restriction stated by the artist under the full DNP list is preferable to the extra hassle incurred for everyone else.

I've noticed something strange happening with some images.
When I go to the source and try to do the _raw thing, the URL doesn't work.
It gives me an 'Access Denied' error. It only happens for some images, however.
Could some artists have caught on and done something to stop people from accessing the raw files? Is that even something they can do?

VibrantLordiction said:
I've noticed something strange happening with some images.
When I go to the source and try to do the _raw thing, the URL doesn't work.
It gives me an 'Access Denied' error. It only happens for some images, however.
Could some artists have caught on and done something to stop people from accessing the raw files? Is that even something they can do?

You have to manually replace the # prefix on these. Tumblr stores some 1280 and raw files under different values. Common ones range from 25-40 and 60-70, usually at 25, 37, 66, 68, and some others.

Sadly, it'll be a process of trial and error on many posts to fix this, but at least the content can be salvaged.

Edit: NEVERMIND. You can avoid the issue entirely by omitting the prefix altogether and simply have 'media.tumblr.com'. I'm not sure why their system functions this way, but it works, so that takes out a lot of unnecessary trial and error.

Strongbird said:
Edit: NEVERMIND. You can avoid the issue entirely by omitting the prefix altogether and simply have 'media.tumblr.com'. I'm not sure why their system functions this way, but it works, so that takes out a lot of unnecessary trial and error.

This should probably be added to the howto:sites page since this seems to be happening to all newly posted pictures on Tumblr. I've gotten five in the past ten minutes.

Strongbird said:
You have to manually replace the # prefix on these. Tumblr stores some 1280 and raw files under different values. Common ones range from 25-40 and 60-70, usually at 25, 37, 66, 68, and some others.

Sadly, it'll be a process of trial and error on many posts to fix this, but at least the content can be salvaged.

Edit: NEVERMIND. You can avoid the issue entirely by omitting the prefix altogether and simply have 'media.tumblr.com'. I'm not sure why their system functions this way, but it works, so that takes out a lot of unnecessary trial and error.

This fixed a problem I had just now. Too bad media.tumblr.com isn't whitelisted yet, though.

Strongbird said:
You have to manually replace the # prefix on these. Tumblr stores some 1280 and raw files under different values. Common ones range from 25-40 and 60-70, usually at 25, 37, 66, 68, and some others.

Sadly, it'll be a process of trial and error on many posts to fix this, but at least the content can be salvaged.

Edit: NEVERMIND. You can avoid the issue entirely by omitting the prefix altogether and simply have 'media.tumblr.com'. I'm not sure why their system functions this way, but it works, so that takes out a lot of unnecessary trial and error.

Good find, I was worried for a minute. Swapping 68.media.tumblr.com/ with data.tumblr.com/ also works.

Dogenzaka said:
Good find, I was worried for a minute. Swapping 68.media.tumblr.com/ with data.tumblr.com/ also works.

data.tumblr.com threw an invalid certificate error for me when altering a media.tumblr.com URL. This is because Tumblr direct link URLs are auto-encrypted for me, likely due to HTTPS Everywhere.

I think 'media' would be preferable since it has TLS support, unlike the data version.

Strongbird said:
data.tumblr.com threw an invalid certificate error for me when altering a media.tumblr.com URL. This is likely because Tumblr direct link URLs are auto-encrypted for me, likely due to HTTPS Everywhere.

I think 'media' would be preferable since it has TLS support, unlike the data version.

I guess 'media' is our safest bet then.

Strongbird said:
Edit: NEVERMIND. You can avoid the issue entirely by omitting the prefix altogether and simply have 'media.tumblr.com'. I'm not sure why their system functions this way, but it works, so that takes out a lot of unnecessary trial and error.

It's not just "Access Denied" errors.

post #384686
Take the https://68.media.tumblr.com/73e8bfb3bc952a29e77256f1215adc58/tumblr_mhmkbwnA2D1s3ro99o1_1280.jpg link
Replace _1280 with _raw = https://68.media.tumblr.com/73e8bfb3bc952a29e77256f1215adc58/tumblr_mhmkbwnA2D1s3ro99o1_raw.jpg
=> 404 Not Found
Now remove .68 and replace _1280 with _raw => https://media.tumblr.com/73e8bfb3bc952a29e77256f1215adc58/tumblr_mhmkbwnA2D1s3ro99o1_raw.jpg
=> 2400x1800 version

Maybe this is how all direct Tumblr links should be normalized

Munkelzahn said:
Maybe this is how all direct Tumblr links should be normalized

I've gone through the 2+ pages of uploads I've done and removed the prefix already, and it seems that this scheme works on all of them. Of note is that that prefixed versions sometimes won't work within a week of upload, whereas starting the URL with media always seems to function as intended.

So, uh... Pretty much all of these have larger versions available: eroborus width:1280. That's about 400 posts.

If you can find them in his archive. Some have sources, many don't.

Can't say that I envy whoever uploaded the 1280 width ones. It's gonna hit their ratios hard... if anyone ever gets around to uploading those.

Genjar said:
So, uh... Pretty much all of these have larger versions available: eroborus width:1280. That's about 400 posts.

If you can find them in his archive. Some have sources, many don't.

Problem with a good amount of those is that Nintendo's been active in taking down all Pokemon-related artwork. Slyroon's been removing sources where this is the case, but you can test the images in question regardless by looking at source history, copying link location, and removing the number prefix and changing 1280 to raw, landing you on a 'This image has been removed at the copyright holder's request' page.

Strongbird said:
Problem with a good amount of those is that Nintendo's been active in taking down all Pokemon-related artwork. Slyroon's been removing sources where this is the case, but you can test the images in question regardless by looking at source history, copying link location, and removing the number prefix and changing 1280 to raw, landing you on a 'This image has been removed at the copyright holder's request' page.

Also for some reason, some of eroborus' tumbr links redirects to shady get rich quick sites and something called expired.tk post #816418 (http://ero-boros.tumblr.com/post/138205017867)

slyroon said:
Also for some reason, some of eroborus' tumbr links redirects to shady get rich quick sites and something called expired.tk post #816418 (http://ero-boros.tumblr.com/post/138205017867)

That you can fix by replacing 'ero-boros' with 'ero-borus'. In most cases, the rest of the URL is the same, so I'd assume he got support from Tumblr at some point to port things to a new domain.

Genjar said:Can't say that I envy whoever uploaded the 1280 width ones. It's gonna hit their ratios hard... if anyone ever gets around to uploading those.

Hmm, why everyone cares about the deleted post ratio so much? I know it's designed to prevent newbies from posting lots of crap, but that hardly applies to anyone in this thread. Or is it just about "prestige" of sorts?

Besides, I'm pretty sure the admins would reset the deleted post counter for anyone who would actually get hit hard because of this Tumblr exploit.

ConsciousDonkey said:
Hmm, why everyone cares about the deleted post ratio so much? I know it's designed to prevent newbies from posting lots of crap, but that hardly applies to anyone in this thread. Or is it just about "prestige" of sorts?

Deleted posts can easily add up, especially for people who have uploaded hordes of posts.

ConsciousDonkey said:
Hmm, why everyone cares about the deleted post ratio so much? I know it's designed to prevent newbies from posting lots of crap, but that hardly applies to anyone in this thread. Or is it just about "prestige" of sorts?

Besides, I'm pretty sure the admins would reset the deleted post counter for anyone who would actually get hit hard because of this Tumblr exploit.

It takes 10 approved posts to increase your upload limit by 1, but only 4 to decrease it by 1. So it would not be shocking to see your upload limit crash to 0 or less if you uploaded a lot of Tumblr images.

Like you said, admins are willing to step in to fix limits.

this doesn't work at all. i've tried dozens of images across 3 browsers.

every image gives me either access denied, 404 NOT FOUND, or throws me some code.

fareydoon said:
this doesn't work at all. i've tried dozens of images across 3 browsers.

every image gives me either access denied, 404 NOT FOUND, or throws me some code.

Didn't you read forum #236324 and forum #236386? Just get rid of the numbers at the start of the url so it's "media.tumblr".

Ugh, I've literally fallen into re-blog archive hell scraping all of the raw images I can that interest me before this might get removed.

Seeing the recent changes to move from ##.media to just media makes me think they are tinkering with the back end to close this off.

rysyN said:
Ugh, I've literally fallen into re-blog archive hell scraping all of the raw images I can that interest me before this might get removed.

Same. Have spent too much time browsing reblogs, didn't really find many better versions. Feels like others have already been through the same blogs, repeatedly, within the past few days.

But at least I've stumbled on some forgotten gems that were never uploaded in the first place. So not a complete loss.

And yep, it definitely feels like Tumblr will patch this soon.