For example https://e621.net/posts/2241560 was deleted due to "whippytail" being on "avoid posting". You can see it shows nine (9) tags for "Nazboo".

Going to https://e621.net/posts?tags=nazboo at present however only shows eight (8)

I had attempted to upload this image not knowing that it was there, wasting time filling out the tags and all that.

If maybe we had some kind of indicator that an image was deleted by having it show up...

Like even if it was just a circle with a bar through it? That way I could at least click it and see the tags and the artist name could've tipped me off that someone had uploaded it and it was taken down and not to bother.

Another option which IMO seems fair might be to do something super-low-res as a thumbnail with an X through it, showing it was deleted, but still having enough detail to be sort of recognizable so people could avoid it on sight?

Maybe, I'm misunderstanding something...
But I'm pretty sure you are just describing nazboo status:any.

You should definitely be checking your uploads through the similar image search anyways.

Also if the post you tried to upload was previously deleted due to the artist being DNP, that sounds like you didn't check the DNP list beforehand. The image itself would be irrelevant if the artist is DNP, it might not have been posted before at all so it wouldn't turn up even if you could see deleted posts, but it would get deleted after posting regardless (and adding to your deleted post count). As it is, the law doesn't allow the site to continue providing any version of the image after an owner issues a takedown, so the site can't do that even if they wanted to.

bitwolfy said:
pretty sure you are just describing nazboo status:any.

Yes I think so, thanks for pointing out the status:any parameter to me, I was unaware of that and will hopefully remember about it's existence.

I think it's wonderful that e621 retains the metadata (upload date, comments, tags) for deleted images. That's much better than how places like Paheal just nuke the entire thing when an artist redacts or whatever other reason: it's great to retain at least the text history.

Do you happen to know if there's a shortkey for enabling status:any while browsing /posts or when searching a tag? Seems like a great feature for people to be aware of. Even hearing of it now I'm worried I'll forget about it.

Luckily at https://e621.net/users/home if you click profile > forum posts it's a way to find our threads here, otherwise it'd be very hard to find responses to Q&As. That too might benefit from a more accessible hyperlink included at top when browsing forum. Even for those who figure out it's in profile (not the most intuitive) it's multiple clicks away and inconvenient for that to be the only place to find the link.

You should definitely be checking your uploads through the similar image search anyways.

Wouldn't that strain the server because you upload the image twice?

What I've done in other boorus before when "half the stuff I want to upload is already there but not visible" (in other cases it's because people don't tag it, as opposed to being hidden/deleted here) is just upload an untagged imaged to save time, and then quickly write out the tags once it goes through.

I figure that's harmless so long as you do it expediently so that by the time a mod comes to review the submission the tags are there.

watsit said:
Also if the post you tried to upload was previously deleted due to the artist being DNP, that sounds like you didn't check the DNP list beforehand.

Admittedly did not think to do that, it's kind of a tedious extra step where e621 already has so many requirements like mandatory sourcing URLs. Also isn't exactly an obvious reminder since you need to first go to https://e621.net/artists to see "Avoid Posting" link to https://e621.net/wiki_pages/avoid_posting

This makes me wonder if another way might be done...

I seem to recall there are deprecated tags which display as grayed or a strikethru...

Might there be some way to do that for DNP artists, give them a different coloring/presenting compared to allowed artists?

If that were done then you'd get an indication of them being on the DNP once you had partly entered their name and completion was auto-suggested.

That wouldn't happen if you pasted the whole thing in all at once (as we are wont to do with mass-copying preexisting tags from other boorus before adding to them) but it would still be a simpler matter to go to end and backspace one (enabling the autosuggest dispaly) to see what color (or strikethru) shows up, than to check the DNP page.

In the very least, linking the DNP page on the upload page (perhaps after the "Please don't use anonymous_artist or unknown_artist tags unless they fall under those definitions on the wiki." ?) could help reduce steps so we could not only access it quicker, but also be reminded to.

watsit said:
the law doesn't allow the site to continue providing any version of the image after an owner issues a takedown, so the site can't do that even if they wanted to.

There's no "fair use" allowance of images in a journalistic sense of using a low-res version? Especially if we blurred/censored it?
I figure the general point in prohibition of replication is to avoid depriving someone of income in case someone wanted to purchase the image, which we wouldn't be doing in giving out a grainy unimpressive copy like Wikipedia tends to do when using fair-use copyrighted cover art when reporting on something.

tyciol said:
Yes I think so, thanks for pointing out the status:any parameter to me, I was unaware of that and will hopefully remember about it's existence.

I think it's wonderful that e621 retains the metadata (upload date, comments, tags) for deleted images. That's much better than how places like Paheal just nuke the entire thing when an artist redacts or whatever other reason: it's great to retain at least the text history.

Do you happen to know if there's a shortkey for enabling status:any while browsing /posts or when searching a tag? Seems like a great feature for people to be aware of. Even hearing of it now I'm worried I'll forget about it.

There are quite a few other useful metatags, just so you know.

There isn't a way to automatically switch to status:any while browsing - you just have to type it into the search box yourself.
I think that it might be because 1/5 of all posts on e621 have deleted at some point or another - leaving them in would clutter the search results, while not being terribly useful for most users.

tyciol said:
Luckily at https://e621.net/users/home if you click profile > forum posts it's a way to find our threads here, otherwise it'd be very hard to find responses to Q&As. That too might benefit from a more accessible hyperlink included at top when browsing forum. Even for those who figure out it's in profile (not the most intuitive) it's multiple clicks away and inconvenient for that to be the only place to find the link.

A shortcut to your own topics on the forum would be nice. Could also have a link to search for username mentions, which is barely documented anywhere...
I'll add it through my userscript, but whether it'll ever get added to the site itself is anyone's guess. Such a small change...

tyciol said:
Wouldn't that strain the server because you upload the image twice?

What I've done in other boorus before when "half the stuff I want to upload is already there but not visible" (in other cases it's because people don't tag it, as opposed to being hidden/deleted here) is just upload an untagged imaged to save time, and then quickly write out the tags once it goes through.

I figure that's harmless so long as you do it expediently so that by the time a mod comes to review the submission the tags are there.

You are definitely not supposed to just upload it, and tag it later.
Have you seen the upload limit calculation on your profile? Every 10 approved uploads increase it by one, but every 4 deleted posts decrease it by one as well. It would be safer to carefully check for duplicates, rather then just upload it blindly.

But the duplicates checking could be a lot more convenient than it is now.
I still don't quite understand why it just checks whether the md5 hash matches at the end of the upload process, instead of querying the similar image search at the beginning, like I've done in my script: https://i.imgur.com/nJ8gRcY.png

tyciol said:
Admittedly did not think to do that, it's kind of a tedious extra step where e621 already has so many requirements like mandatory sourcing URLs. Also isn't exactly an obvious reminder since you need to first go to https://e621.net/artists to see "Avoid Posting" link to https://e621.net/wiki_pages/avoid_posting

This makes me wonder if another way might be done...

I seem to recall there are deprecated tags which display as grayed or a strikethru...

Might there be some way to do that for DNP artists, give them a different coloring/presenting compared to allowed artists?

If that were done then you'd get an indication of them being on the DNP once you had partly entered their name and completion was auto-suggested.

That wouldn't happen if you pasted the whole thing in all at once (as we are wont to do with mass-copying preexisting tags from other boorus before adding to them) but it would still be a simpler matter to go to end and backspace one (enabling the autosuggest dispaly) to see what color (or strikethru) shows up, than to check the DNP page.

There was a discussion on the forum a little while ago, about automatically detecting whether the artist's tag is on the DNP list (which is actually quite simple, they all imply either avoid_posting or conditional_dnp). The argument against it was that malicious uploaders would straight up stop listing the artist's name altogether if they see the warning, instead of going through with the upload and getting that tag locked in, to be reviewed later.

Not sure if I agree with that argument, but it is what it is.

tyciol said:
I seem to recall there are deprecated tags which display as grayed or a strikethru...

Might there be some way to do that for DNP artists, give them a different coloring/presenting compared to allowed artists?

If that were done then you'd get an indication of them being on the DNP once you had partly entered their name and completion was auto-suggested.

There was a discussion about that not too long ago. While good in theory, I think it would end up causing more people to try and hide that an image is from a DNP artist by excluding the artist tag once they get an indication they're DNP. Whereas last year's site overhaul included a change to make avoid_posting autolock because bad actors would remove it after posting DNP art, making it less likely for others to identify and flag such posts, this would be self-defeating of that change by giving them a heads-up to not tag it in the first place, as well as provide a plausible deniability excuse by saying they didn't know who the artist was (we can't see if someone excludes a tag prior to uploading after noticing it's DNP, or if they legitimately didn't know who the artist is).

Maybe it could be a feature for trusted/privileged users, but I don't think it would be a good idea for normal users.

tyciol said:
In the very least, linking the DNP page on the upload page (perhaps after the "Please don't use anonymous_artist or unknown_artist tags unless they fall under those definitions on the wiki." ?) could help reduce steps so we could not only access it quicker, but also be reminded to.

It's there right at the top:

Before uploading, read the how to upload guide.

Make sure you're not posting something on the Avoid Posting List
Review the Uploading Guidelines
Unsure what to tag your post with? Tagging Checklist

tyciol said:
There's no "fair use" allowance of images in a journalistic sense of using a low-res version? Especially if we blurred/censored it?

If it's clear enough to see the image and match it by eye to what you want to upload, it definitely brings it into a questionable state. Maybe you could make the argument, but you'd have to be willing to fight it in court should someone want to take it that far, and different courts may disagree on where such a line would be.

I just noticed there IS a "Make sure you're not posting something on the Avoid Posting List" warning on the upload page, it's just right at the top instead of next to the "Artists" field: maybe should be listed in BOTH places? Thanks Watsit for pointing it out, though I noticed it a few seconds before catching up to your reply :)

bitwolfy said:
There are quite a few other useful metatags, just so you know.
There isn't a way to automatically switch to status:any while browsing - you just have to type it into the search box yourself.

Guess I was thinking some kind of button you could click that would automatically insert tags into search parameters, sort of like the buttons you click when uploading for some common tag traits.

bitwolfy said:
I think that it might be because 1/5 of all posts on e621 have deleted at some point or another - leaving them in would clutter the search results, while not being terribly useful for most users.

should definitely be hidden by default, though I wonder if there's some way when tabulating the tag count if there could be a dual result, like 10/15 where there's 10 undeleted images tagged with it and 5 deleted ones

bitwolfy said:
A shortcut to your own topics on the forum would be nice. Could also have a link to search for username mentions, which is barely documented anywhere...
I'll add it through my userscript, but whether it'll ever get added to the site itself is anyone's guess. Such a small change...

Sounds cool hope I can figure out how to implement a script to streamline stuff.

Are there ways, if we can't get an alias approved, to maybe script out own aliases for personal use of autoreplace?

bitwolfy said:
You are definitely not supposed to just upload it, and tag it later.
Have you seen the upload limit calculation on your profile? Every 10 approved uploads increase it by one, but every 4 deleted posts decrease it by one as well. It would be safer to carefully check for duplicates, rather then just upload it blindly.

Yep referenced it in another thread actually, that's a good point about dupes. I would want to make sure that if I added the same image it would be a higher-quality one.

That brings up an interesting concern though: if someone uploads an image which as far as they know is the best-quality version and then years later someone comes along submitting a higher-quality one to replace it: should that be held against the original uploader if they really had no access to the better one?

I'm wondering if maybe there could be a separate classification for "deleted due to improved copy" type things where the 25% penalty would not apply like it would to other deletions like it being an off-topic image or a DNP image.

That's probably another thing worth considering too: if someone upload's an artist's image when they're not on DNP and then the image is deleted later when the artist decides to go into DNP mode, should the deletion of that image be held against the uploader?

Those both seem like "shouldn't penalize" type situations because there was acting in good faith. Though it could be hard to assess.

bitwolfy said:
But the duplicates checking could be a lot more convenient than it is now.
I still don't quite understand why it just checks whether the md5 hash matches at the end of the upload process, instead of querying the similar image search at the beginning, like I've done in my script: https://i.imgur.com/nJ8gRcY.png

Not sure I understand what you mean, how do you query the similar image if not by md5 hashsum? AFAIK that's the process Paheal/ATF use for dupe detection.

bitwolfy said:
There was a discussion on the forum a little while ago, about automatically detecting whether the artist's tag is on the DNP list (which is actually quite simple, they all imply either avoid_posting or conditional_dnp).
The argument against it was that malicious uploaders would straight up stop listing the artist's name altogether if they see the warning,
instead of going through with the upload and getting that tag locked in, to be reviewed later.
Not sure if I agree with that argument, but it is what it is.

I can see the logic, though since images are added one at a time, they're probably going to notice it the first time they upload that artist's work, so they could still avoid using the tag to get around it.

It'd make more sense as a deterrant if this had a mass-upload tool like Paheal uses since when you submit like that you're not redirected the created pages and aren't prompted to inspect the tags in plain sight, and many won't.

watsit said:
There was a discussion about that not too long ago.
While good in theory, I think it would end up causing more people to try and hide that an image is from a DNP artist by excluding the artist tag once they get an indication they're DNP.

What are the odds a malicious uploader is going to be typing in the artist name from scratch instead of a mass tag copyover though?

watsit said:
If it's clear enough to see the image and match it by eye to what you want to upload, it definitely brings it into a questionable state. Maybe you could make the argument, but you'd have to be willing to fight it in court should someone want to take it that far, and different courts may disagree on where such a line would be.

I did just notice that per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Fair-use/Non-free_images it notes "not in most other jurisdictions" which could be a concern if e621 is hosted on non-US servers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

Fair use includes for purposes of commentary, which I think tagging should qualify as, not to mention the 'comments' section which could also include 'criticism'.

I honestly think these boorus qualify as research and scholarship too: we are art historians and anyone who wants to censor us from documenting and cataloguing history is engaged in cultural genocide.

That said: I think a big reason to respect an artist's request to not show certain works uncensored at full-res is to avoid a "chilling effect" where they will be less free in sharing their work, or maybe stop making work altogether.

I expect the vast majority of artists who want to be DNP would be okay with a "fuzzy silhouette you can't fap to with a red X through it" low-res thumbnail which just aids in giving a rough idea of what was removed.

Those opposing that are probably the "bleached underpants" types who want to erase their entire art history and never distribute it ANYWHERE in which case we're not chilling much because they stopped drawing furry lewds and went to animated at Disney or something.

I guess you could have a situation where an artist stops drawing lewds but draws cute clean art, so the reason you want to respect desire to censor their dirty art is so they don't opt to go DNP on their clean art too?

In that case basically you'd be DNP on their old hentai pseudononym but non-DNP on their new clean pseudonym?

tyciol said: Are there ways, if we can't get an alias approved, to maybe script out own aliases for personal use of autoreplace?

Not on the site itself, but you can do that with the script that I linked to.
For example, here are my custom aliases: https://i.imgur.com/vnKJFIH.png

tyciol said:
Yep referenced it in another thread actually, that's a good point about dupes. I would want to make sure that if I added the same image it would be a higher-quality one.

That brings up an interesting concern though: if someone uploads an image which as far as they know is the best-quality version and then years later someone comes along submitting a higher-quality one to replace it: should that be held against the original uploader if they really had no access to the better one?

I'm wondering if maybe there could be a separate classification for "deleted due to improved copy" type things where the 25% penalty would not apply like it would to other deletions like it being an off-topic image or a DNP image.

Well, the idea is that the uploader should do the due diligence and try to find the best-quality version of the image.
Sure, in some cases an artist may release a higher-quality version of the same image later - if it was a timed exclusive for patreon subscribers, for example. But in a lot of cases, the replacements are the result of someone just uploading compressed, downscaled previews from twitter instead of checking the artist's accounts on other sites like furaffinity or deviantart.

tyciol said:
Not sure I understand what you mean, how do you query the similar image if not by md5 hashsum? AFAIK that's the process Paheal/ATF use for dupe detection.

MD5 hash checking is a very straightforward thing - files have to be an exact match for each other, byte for byte.
E621's similar image search is a lot more advanced - you can check a downscaled version of an image, and it'll produce the full version if it has already been uploaded. I am nowhere near smart enough to explain how exactly it works, though.

Sometimes, even same-sized images can have different md5 hashes. Hosting sites can do some funky things with images (usually trimming some "non-essential" data).
Inkbunny and Derpibooru, for example, optimize their uploads, resulting in md5 mismatches despite the images being visually identical.

I'm guessing that this is what happened to your upload.
post #2503246 - md5:f59f9d556e224823f31a511928572204 status:any
post #2504961 - md5:e0dfb37f88d6bd94d4f6eb861b58c16e status:any
The similar image search produces both of those images, though: https://e621.net/iqdb_queries?post_id=2503246

bitwolfy said:

MD5 hash checking is a very straightforward thing - files have to be an exact match for each other, byte for byte.
E621's similar image search is a lot more advanced - you can check a downscaled version of an image, and it'll produce the full version if it has already been uploaded. I am nowhere near smart enough to explain how exactly it works, though.

Definitely sounds more useful, thanks for linking https://e621.net/iqdb_queries

do you know why this SIS / IQDB is not linked prominently in the upload field?

Seems like what you could potentially do is have that check be a first optional step.

If no match is found then perhaps the upload could stay cached for submission (avoiding need to upload 2nd time) as person types out tags after verifying it's absence?

Sometimes, even same-sized images can have different md5 hashes.
Hosting sites can do some funky things with images (usually trimming some "non-essential" data).

even when data looks same size I guess there could be some subtle difference that doesn't alter data to a high enough degree to show up? Less than a tenth of a kilobyte? Or maybe several KB if it's a >1MB image since then it would be rounding off more quantities.

Inkbunny and Derpibooru, for example, optimize their uploads, resulting in md5 mismatches despite the images being visually identical.

Can we really blame optimization if the images end up being roughly the same size though?

I'm guessing that this is what happened to your upload.
post #2503246 - md5:f59f9d556e224823f31a511928572204 status:any
post #2504961 - md5:e0dfb37f88d6bd94d4f6eb861b58c16e status:any
The similar image search produces both of those images, though: https://e621.net/iqdb_queries?post_id=2503246

that's kinda neat that SIS still works even when an image is deleted/invisible, I guess the data must still be there which unfortunately could cause storage bloat.

Is there maybe something we could do like "consent to purge" where we could upgrade that to a hard-delete and in exchange for that benefit of freeing up space get it taken off our 25% penalty?

tyciol said:
do you know why this SIS / IQDB is not linked prominently in the upload field?

Seems like what you could potentially do is have that check be a first optional step.

I have no idea why it's not checking the SIS by default. As I said before - it would definitely help avoid duplicates.

tyciol said:
even when data looks same size I guess there could be some subtle difference that doesn't alter data to a high enough degree to show up? Less than a tenth of a kilobyte? Or maybe several KB if it's a >1MB image since then it would be rounding off more quantities.

post #2503246 - 2223219 bytes
post #2504961 - 2223054 bytes

So, 165 bytes trimmed. I do wonder what was in there.
It's still optimization, just not a very good one.

tyciol said:
that's kinda neat that SIS still works even when an image is deleted/invisible, I guess the data must still be there which unfortunately could cause storage bloat.

Is there maybe something we could do like "consent to purge" where we could upgrade that to a hard-delete and in exchange for that benefit of freeing up space get it taken off our 25% penalty?

E621 does not actually delete files. They are still there, just inaccessible to the general public.
It's the same with a lot of modern hosting sites. Storage space is relatively cheap nowadays - can be as low as $0.02 per gigabyte.

There is little benefit to puring those images, but there is clear harm in no longer being able to find previously deleted posts.

tyciol said:
Can we really blame optimization if the images end up being roughly the same size though?

For lossless formats like PNG, the end result after decompressing it is pixel-for-pixel identical to the source. But there are various ways it can be compressed given how much time you want to allow the system to find the optimal compression strategy. If a site recompresses such a file and the resulting file size is within a few KB to the original (or in some cases, actually the same size in bytes), you can see the file with the same dimensions and same size in MBs with identical pixels, but the actual file data is different.

tyciol said:
Is there maybe something we could do like "consent to purge" where we could upgrade that to a hard-delete and in exchange for that benefit of freeing up space get it taken off our 25% penalty?

Whether or not a post is destroyed/purged is at the discretion of the admins. Deleted posts don't remain recoverable for the benefit of the original uploader, so whether or not you consent to it being purged doesn't change the reasons they have for keeping it recoverable (and if they wanted to destroy/purge it, the uploader's consent is likely among the least of their cares).

That said, there have been discussions on allowing users to request image replacements, in cases of better versions being found/released after the original upload, without having to upload a new one and flag the old one for deletion. Though if, when, and in what form that option will become available is anyone's guess. For now it can only be done by contacting an admin.

bitwolfy said:
post #2503246 - 2223219 bytes
post #2504961 - 2223054 bytes

how did you get that exact amount?

I know you can hover over "two months ago" to get an exact upload date but hovering over rounded KB size doesn't display exact byte size for me

E621 does not actually delete files. They are still there, just inaccessible to the general public.
It's the same with a lot of modern hosting sites. Storage space is relatively cheap nowadays - can be as low as $0.02 per gigabyte.

Huh, storage expenses was the reason told to me for why Paheal hard-deletes their stuff. Maybe e621 has better shopping skills?

I always figure the costs for transferring data tended to eclipse the costs for storing it.

watsit said:
there have been discussions on allowing users to request image replacements, in cases of better versions being found/released after the original upload, without having to upload a new one and flag the old one for deletion. Though if, when, and in what form that option will become available is anyone's guess. For now it can only be done by contacting an admin.

Sounds like a good feature. Maybe somehow if a replaced image number is redirected to a new one, that would cease the over-written page from counting towards the deleted files quantity?

tyciol said:
how did you get that exact amount?

I know you can hover over "two months ago" to get an exact upload date but hovering over rounded KB size doesn't display exact byte size for me

You can get some data through the API that is not accessible on the site normally.
https://e621.net/posts/2503246.json
https://e621.net/posts/2504961.json

tyciol said:
Huh, storage expenses was the reason told to me for why Paheal hard-deletes their stuff. Maybe e621 has better shopping skills?

I always figure the costs for transferring data tended to eclipse the costs for storing it.

Well, you don't have to pay for transferring data for the "deleted" images that are not accessible to the general public.
Either way, E621 is owned by Bad Dragon, which is exceptionally well funded through their sale of "silicone sculptures".

tyciol said:
Sounds like a good feature. Maybe somehow if a replaced image number is redirected to a new one, that would cease the over-written page from counting towards the deleted files quantity?

That's not quite how it works - instead of deleting a post, it just replaces the image attached to it. The upload limit is not affected at all.
It's a great feature - the only issue is that there is no moderation queue of any kind attached to it at the moment. So, opening it to the public will result in massive amounts of vandalism.
Honestly, can't wait for it to be implemented properly. It sounds incredibly useful.

I found myself forgetting how to search for similar images again so had to come re-check this thread...

https://e621.net/iqdb_queries

Thanks again for providing this link and hopefully they add it prominently to the top of the screen at https://e621.net/uploads/new

bitwolfy said:
You can get some data through the API that is not accessible on the site normally.

Neat 'size' field with specific data, would be cool to have it that thorough on a hover.
Is there some easy way how to remember the API link to these .JSON pages?
Maybe there's a link on the page I'm not noticing?

bitwolfy said:
you don't have to pay for transferring data for the "deleted" images that are not accessible to the general public.

True. I'm just thinking of my own experience with expenses: like say 40 a month to get 300gb of summed usage (most domestic-serving ISPs cap upload speeds but I assume websites shop for high-upload providers) but you can get a 12 terabyte drive for probably under 400 now. So to just hypothetically ballpark, 0.3tb upload vs 1.2tb storage same price, so uploading data costs 4x as much as storing it?

I expect since data doesn't actually need easy access it could also be compressed (zip/rar) to reduce footprint but not sure if that would interfere with matching.

bitwolfy said:
E621 is owned by Bad Dragon, which is exceptionally well funded through their sale of "silicone sculptures".

Had heard of the dildos so wasn't particularly interested, seems they've broken into onahole territory...

most aesthetic is "Janine" (kinda pricy compared to the cheap 20-30 ones I've seen on jlist and similar) though I'm curious who she is, like maybe a site mascot or something? "Wereables" is an interesting new concept I hadn't seen before, but I can't see myself finding a way to make use of that any time soon.

bitwolfy said:
That's not quite how it works - instead of deleting a post, it just replaces the image attached to it. The upload limit is not affected at all.

What I mean is that if you change a 'deleted post' to a 'replaced post' then it wouldn't be counted as a deleted image since deleted images automatically affect your upload limits at a 1/4 deduction.

bitwolfy said:
It's a great feature - the only issue is that there is no moderation queue of any kind attached to it at the moment.
So, opening it to the public will result in massive amounts of vandalism.
Honestly, can't wait for it to be implemented properly. It sounds incredibly useful.

Not sure I understand about the mod queue : if replacement can't actually happen without mod approval then how could it be used to vandalize?

tyciol said:
Not sure I understand about the mod queue : if replacement can't actually happen without mod approval then how could it be used to vandalize?

A replacement can't happen right now without mod approval, since mods are the only ones with access to the post replacement feature. The post replacement feature itself has no queue or approval process; whoever has access to it can use it to replace posts without being checked first. For it to become a feature for normal users, such a moderation queue will need to be added to it.

tyciol said: Thanks again for providing this link and hopefully they add it prominently to the top of the screen at https://e621.net/uploads/new

Currently, the only place it's listed is on the site map, under "Posts".
I've heard that it's running on somewhat weaker hardware compared to the main server stack, which is why it's harshly rate-limited and not prominently advertised.

tyciol said:
Neat 'size' field with specific data, would be cool to have it that thorough on a hover.
Is there some easy way how to remember the API link to these .JSON pages?
Maybe there's a link on the page I'm not noticing?

Just add .json to the end of the URL.

https://e621.net/posts/2503246
becomes
https://e621.net/posts/2503246.json

The same thing works for most pages on the site. Including this one.

tyciol said:
True. I'm just thinking of my own experience with expenses: like say 40 a month to get 300gb of summed usage (most domestic-serving ISPs cap upload speeds but I assume websites shop for high-upload providers) but you can get a 12 terabyte drive for probably under 400 now. So to just hypothetically ballpark, 0.3tb upload vs 1.2tb storage same price, so uploading data costs 4x as much as storing it?

I expect since data doesn't actually need easy access it could also be compressed (zip/rar) to reduce footprint but not sure if that would interfere with matching.

I have no idea how much e621 spends on transfer and storage.
However, my server that I use to host personal projects like tagme.dev only costs me $10 per month, and it has the network transfer limit of 2 terabytes per month.

Domestic-serving ISPs are just overpriced as hell.