https://e621.net/post/show/1930214

I see nothing wrong with this picture, it's well within the minimum quality standards, so why did your bot delete it?

This is stickied for a reason:
https://e621.net/forum/show/235851

Also imo that looks pretty bad (the shading is lazily done, the colors and composition is bland, and the anatomy of that rabbit thing is very broken). It's more one of those borderline cases rather than something that is "well within the minimum quality standards".

hiekkapillu said:
This is stickied for a reason:
https://e621.net/forum/show/235851

Also imo that looks pretty bad (the shading is lazily done, the colors and composition is bland, and the anatomy of that rabbit thing is very broken). It's more one of those borderline cases rather than something that is "well within the minimum quality standards".

Lantha ("the rabbit thing") always looked like that, there's already a bunch of other pics of her approved on here of similar qualities, so the anatomy argument is moot. The colour composition is a bit simple, but overall looks fine and suits the style. The shading is done like that to give the pic a kind of softer feel.

In my opinion not approving this pic is most likely a mistake on the admin/mods/janitors part.

hiekkapillu said:
This is stickied for a reason:
https://e621.net/forum/show/235851

While that does answer the original posters question technically, I do feel the information provided there for auto-deletion leaves a lot to be desired:

The Auto-Moderator purges the leftovers and gray areas that other staff don't want to either approve or delete. The images itself likely has been seen by more than one member of staff, but hasn't been deemed either good enough to pass, or as bad enough to require deletion.

(Emphasis mine). So it's not good enough to approve, but also not bad enough to delete. When it's subsequently auto-deleted without staff interaction, that of course leaves a big question to the uploader and/or artist about why it was deleted when it wasn't bad enough to be deleted. We're told not to re-upload an auto-deleted piece, and since the auto-moderator isn't a real person making a real determination, you can't ask them to reconsider like the sticky says or get a second opinion that it really should be deleted.

So the only apparent way to get information about what was wrong is to come here and ask. Was it an unlucky rare instance that managed to fall through the cracks? Would a second look give a clearer yes or no? If the image is modified/"improved" in some way (what way? how much?), can that be uploaded? How to avoid posting images that fall off the queue like that in the future?

Watsit said:

(Emphasis mine). So it's not good enough to approve, but also not bad enough to delete. When it's subsequently auto-deleted without staff interaction, that of course leaves a big question to the uploader and/or artist about why it was deleted when it wasn't bad enough to be deleted. We're told not to re-upload an auto-deleted piece, and since the auto-moderator isn't a real person making a real determination, you can't ask them to reconsider like the sticky says or get a second opinion that it really should be deleted.

So the only apparent way to get information about what was wrong is to come here and ask. Was it an unlucky rare instance that managed to fall through the cracks? Would a second look give a clearer yes or no? If the image is modified/"improved" in some way (what way? how much?), can that be uploaded? How to avoid posting images that fall off the queue like that in the future?

This site is supposed to be a furry art archive first and foremost, right? So deleting "gray area" art via bot seems counterproductive if you ask me.

Maybe a new rule should be put in place that art has to actually bad for it to be deleted, while gray area art is to be approved regardless of it being in the gray area, instead of being deleted by a bot that knows nothing about art quality.

At the end of the day someone might like the gray area art, while some might dislike it. It's all a matter of the individuals perspective on the particular piece.

Watsit said:
So the only apparent way to get information about what was wrong is to come here and ask.

They could send a private message to admin.

CCoyote said:
They could send a private message to admin.

Who though? The afore-linked post says to send a dmail to the admin that deleted the post if you want to ask about it, but the bot isn't a real person you can ask. No one else who looked at the image came to a determination about whether it was worth deleting either, so who's the appropriate person to ask for reconsideration or clarification in that case? And would it be fair for a single person to handle all auto-deletion queries?

Watsit said:
Who though? The afore-linked post says to send a dmail to the admin that deleted the post if you want to ask about it, but the bot isn't a real person you can ask. No one else who looked at the image came to a determination about whether it was worth deleting either, so who's the appropriate person to ask for reconsideration or clarification in that case? And would it be fair for a single person to handle all auto-deletion queries?

User Info:
This user is used to automatically remove posts from the e621 system. Please contact NotMeNotYou as this is not a real user.

Watsit said:
Who though?

KiraNoot said:

User Info:
Please contact NotMeNotYou as this is not a real user.

There ya go. :)

KiraNoot said:

User Info:
This user is used to automatically remove posts from the e621 system. Please contact NotMeNotYou as this is not a real user.

Is this something NotMeNotYou should be contacted for all questions about, given that they didn't actually delete the images (if they even saw it)? If so, then wouldn't it be better to attribute all auto-deletions to them instead of a bot?

I'm also curious, if the staff couldn't decide whether to accept or delete a post, why the system defaults to auto-delete instead of auto-accept? If it's not obviously bad enough for staff to delete it, what's the harm in auto-accepting instead of auto-deleting? Staff can still manually delete it regardless of being auto-accepted, whenever they happen to firmly decide. In contrast, if a piece is auto-deleted it can't be manually accepted afterward since it's gone and reuploading is against the rules (you can only try to convince an admin to take another look, but they still might not come to a firm decision either way).

PikachuLover said:
At the end of the day someone might like the gray area art, while some might dislike it. It's all a matter of the individuals perspective on the particular piece.

This is also something to consider, particularly when dealing with a less popular fetish, a small sub-category of a (less popular) fetish, or a fetish that inherently requires more effort to make art of. People who are really into such things may be more forgiving of and still enjoy lesser quality works as long as the subject matter is handled well enough for their tastes. Auto-accepting "gray area" pieces, leaving open the option to delete later should staff decide to do so, seems more beneficial in that case.

While I understand the rationale behind it, I want to point out one issue with auto-accepting "gray area" pieces is that it is likely to increase the both the absolute rate of submissions and the proportion of submissions that ultimately fall into that "grey area" category. At least, if you agree with the premise that people generally try to submit 'things that have a reasonable chance of getting approved'.

It wouldn't surprise me if the current choice to auto-delete was made in attempt to avoid that (and thereby limit the demand on mods).

Watsit said:
Is this something NotMeNotYou should be contacted for all questions about, given that they didn't actually delete the images (if they even saw it)? If so, then wouldn't it be better to attribute all auto-deletions to them instead of a bot?

I'm also curious, if the staff couldn't decide whether to accept or delete a post, why the system defaults to auto-delete instead of auto-accept? If it's not obviously bad enough for staff to delete it, what's the harm in auto-accepting instead of auto-deleting? Staff can still manually delete it regardless of being auto-accepted, whenever they happen to firmly decide. In contrast, if a piece is auto-deleted it can't be manually accepted afterward since it's gone and reuploading is against the rules (you can only try to convince an admin to take another look, but they still might not come to a firm decision either way).

Yes. Always be in contact with NotMeNotYou of whatever the automoderator does, this way all the feedback is in one place and we can adjust our proceedings in future. We can always restore content that has been deleted by the automoderator.

Also we do need more janitors to lessen these situations, I would seriously want to have more free time and many of janitors are busy with real life things.