When I uploaded post #2472619, I noticed that it was not what I intended to upload and tried to request a post replacement on the link below it. I could search for info on the replacement of other posts but not anything else like creating a new one. Then, I flagged it for deletion and posted the superior version that I had intended to upload in the first place (post #2472626).

Is there any difference between both actions? Would a post replacement still count towards my upload limit? How do I request one? Is it possible to do one now since I uploaded both posts and flagged the incorrect one?

Currently, there are two ways of replacing posts on the site: the 'flag for deletion' & 'post replacement' feature.
The 'flag for deletion' feature is the currently the old and most common way of replacing posts.
You will need to upload the new post and then flag the old one to have it replaced.
This will delete the old post and move of the existing favourites to the new post.
This will count towards your upload limit if you are flagging your own posts, with every 4 deletions leading to a -1 on your limit.

The 'post replacement' feature is a new feature, but it is locked for site staff only.
You will need to message an admin to request for an old post to be replaced, also providing them with a link to the new image.
This will not delete the old post. Instead, the old image will just be replaced with the new image.
This will not count towards your upload limit, because the old post is kept and was not deleted.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Flag for deletion & post replacing are two separate things.
Currently, to replace an inferior post, you will need to upload the new post and then flag the old one to have it deleted.
This will count towards your upload limit, every 4 deletions will lead to -1 on the limit.

However, there is the 'post replacement' route.
This is a locked feature and you will need to message an admin to request for the existing inferior post to be replaced.
This will not count towards your upload limit, and the old post will be maintained (with a 'replaced' image).

I didn't know that. I uploaded both posts, would an admin be able to effect the replacement now? I messaged both NotMeNotYou and Mairo (who deleted the inferior post and approved the superior one) a few days ago and still haven't got an answer.

I know that it's a silly thing to be bothered by, but that (1/4) in my upload limit is triggering my OCD.

gattonero2001 said:
I didn't know that. I uploaded both posts, would an admin be able to effect the replacement now? I messaged both NotMeNotYou and Mairo (who deleted the inferior post and approved the superior one) a few days ago and still haven't got an answer.

I know that it's a silly thing to be bothered by, but that (1/4) in my upload limit is triggering my OCD.

Sorry, I just edited my previous comment because it was a little bit messy.

If you have uploaded a new post, you could ask for a post replacement from the admins.
But it wouldn't make a difference anyway since your new post will be deleted and counted towards your upload limit.

You don't have to worry about your upload limit too much. If it ever goes into the negatives, you can always ask for the admin to reset it.

gattonero2001 said:
I didn't know that. I uploaded both posts, would an admin be able to effect the replacement now? I messaged both NotMeNotYou and Mairo (who deleted the inferior post and approved the superior one) a few days ago and still haven't got an answer.

I know that it's a silly thing to be bothered by, but that (1/4) in my upload limit is triggering my OCD.

What I am asking is if a deleted post can be replaced with an existing post, to clarify.

If you already uploaded the replacement as a new post, and the old one was deleted as inferior, there's nothing else to do. The old image is gone, and the new image is up. At best they could undelete the old post, replace the image, then delete the new post, but there's no benefit to that. You made two posts, and one gets deleted.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Sorry, I just edited my previous comment because it was a little bit messy.

If you have uploaded a new post, you could ask for a post replacement from the admins.
But it won't make a difference anyway since your new post will be deleted and counted towards your upload limit.

The other day I was asking a bug related question and someone mentioned a way to "hard delete" posts. Would that be applicable?

gattonero2001 said:
The other day I was asking a bug related question and someone mentioned a way to "hard delete" posts. Would that be applicable?

No, they are not related at all.
All deleted posts are essentially 'soft deleted', meaning that you can still see the post (e.g., post #2472619) on the site but not the image.

If I recall correctly, 'hard deletes' are only done for illegal content (such as IRL porn, illegal stuff) and general site cleanup (e.g., post #1).
You will not be able to access 'hard deleted' content at all as they are essentially nuked from the site's database.

thegreatwolfgang said:
No, they are not related at all.

Sorry, what exactly is not related?

All deleted posts are essentially 'soft deleted', meaning that you can still see the post (e.g., post #2472619) on the site but not the image.
If I recall correctly, 'hard deletes' are only done for illegal content (such as IRL porn, illegal stuff) or general site cleanup (e.g., post #1).

Wouldn't this technically count as site cleanup?

At least there should be a guide to post replacement somewhere. There is nothing about it under "help" and "more". If I had known how it worked, I would have done it from the start. I interpreted the "help" section wrong (english is not my first language) and incorrectly assumed that posts flagged by their own uploaders before 48h would not count towards the upload limit.

gattonero2001 said:
At least there should be a guide to post replacement somewhere. There is nothing about it under "help" and "more".

Because it's not a user-visible feature yet. They're working on a system for users to request replacements.

gattonero2001 said:
Sorry, what exactly is not related?
Wouldn't this technically count as site cleanup?

Sorry, what I meant to say was that 'hard deletes' are something else entirely.
It has nothing to do with the 'flag for deletion' or 'post replacement' feature.

If a post is flagged for deletion, it will be 'soft deleted'. You can still access the deleted post and see the old tags and comments, but the image is locked from viewing.
Only artists can request for 'soft deleted' posts to be restored and the image be made viewable again, as if they were never deleted in the first place.

If a post replacement is requested, nothing is deleted. The old post will just be updated with a new (superior) file, and everything else will remain the same.

If a post contained illegal content or (if 'soft deleted') is extremely old, it will be 'hard deleted'. You will not be able to access the deleted post or see the old comments again.
'Hard deleted' posts are purged from the server either to save space or for legal reasons. These posts can never be restored again.

At least there should be a guide to post replacement somewhere. There is nothing about it under "help" and "more". If I had known how it worked, I would have done it from the start. I interpreted the "help" section wrong (english is not my first language) and incorrectly assumed that posts flagged by their own uploaders before 48h would not count towards the upload limit.

Again, the 'post replacement' feature is only reserved for site staff. It was only recently that they revealed this feature.
Normal users, like us, would not be able to get our hands on the tool in the first place. However, this feature may be released for normal users in the future.
Until then, a help page is not necessary as the 'flag for deletion' feature already does its job.

I see. Site features are trickier than I thought… Thank you for the explanation.

Is there any particular reason why every inferior version is not hard deleted to save space? Why waste money hosting something that nobody will see and that will never be restored because there is already a superior version?

I understand the difference between "soft delete" and "hard delete" and the circumstances in which they are effected. Would it be an inconvenience or a selfish request to ask for a hard deletion of post #2472619, even if it does not meet the usual criteria?

gattonero2001 said:
I see. Site features are trickier than I thought… Thank you for the explanation.

Is there any particular reason why every inferior version is not hard deleted to save space? Why waste money hosting something that nobody will see and that will never be restored because there is already a superior version?

I understand the difference between "soft delete" and "hard delete" and the circumstances in which they are effected. Would it be an inconvenience or a selfish request to ask for a hard deletion of post #2472619, even if it does not meet the usual criteria?

Because people change their minds and make mistakes. Having an easy way to change things up costs less than forcing people to upload things again, or deal with sourcing and obtaining a file that many not exist elsewhere. File storage is really cheap, especially if nobody is accessing it. So it's a matter of add another hard drive as needed and life goes on.

kiranoot said:
Because people change their minds and make mistakes. Having an easy way to change things up costs less than forcing people to upload things again, or deal with sourcing and obtaining a file that many not exist elsewhere.

Sorry, are you replying to the second paragraph, to the third paragraph or both? It's getting pretty late around here and my brain is starting to lag a bit.

Is it reasonable to hard delete post #2472619?