◥ ════ .｡.:*★ Posted with e621 ReBot ★*:.｡. ════ ◤

This is plastered in a number of posts' descriptions, which has nothing to do with the image itself, and doesn't come from the source description. Shouldn't this be considered spam/advertisement? As well as that, it seems to put the actual source description in a collapsed section regardless of its length, requiring the user to click on it to expand it regardless of its length, even if it's empty (and there's already an account option to have the description collapsed by default anyway, so I don't think we need bots to force it on for everyone; or for people who already have it on by default to have to click twice to get the actual description open).

Honestly, I agree.

ReBot is a good tool, there is no argument there. And I do understand the desire to promote a utility you've made. I know that I've pushed my own projects a bit here and there. But honestly, the "Posted with e621 ReBot" is plastered across 2.5 thousand posts now, in a pretty obnoxious way: description:ReBot.

I believe that the source description being in a collapsed section is done to highlight the advertisement as well.
Otherwise, the ReBot line would be pushed down underneath the description, instead of being front and center.

Kind of on the same subject – can people stop putting "Superior version of post #xxx" in the description?
It's not relevant information. Just flag the inferior version and move on – why are there almost ten thousand posts with that in the description?..
description:superior

bitwolfy said:
Kind of on the same subject – can people stop putting "Superior version of post #xxx" in the description?
It's not relevant information. Just flag the inferior version and move on – why are there almost ten thousand posts with that in the description?..
description:superior

I think that is to stop people from asking the "wasn't this posted already" question from time to time.
But I agree, if something is not relevant to the post it should be removed.

bitwolfy said:
Kind of on the same subject – can people stop putting "Superior version of post #xxx" in the description?

I put that on my uploads that are replacing old posts so people can go back and look at any comments and things. Sometimes there's funny/interesting/relevant things there. Part of the reason was to discourage people from reposting the old post's comments in a single comment in the new post, since it's not easy to find the deleted post and read them. I remember asking for a feature request that a post have a link back to its deleted inferior (since the system has a link to it anyway, you just can't see it), to avoid losing old comments or having them reposted, and was told to put a link in the description instead.

watsit said:
I put that on my uploads that are replacing old posts so people can go back and look at any comments and things. Sometimes there's funny/interesting/relevant things there. Part of the reason was to discourage people from reposting the old post's comments in a single comment in the new post, since it's not easy to find the deleted post and read them. I remember asking for a feature request that a post have a link back to its deleted inferior (since the system has a link to it anyway, you just can't see it), to avoid losing old comments or having them reposted, and was told to put a link in the description instead.

^^^ I've actually appreciated this sort of thing, if I was curious what might be on the inferior version. A feature that automatically links it (visibly) would be nice, but if we're not getting that, I'd rather keep the link in the description. It's only a single line in the description, and it's actually useful information.

I can't really comment too much on the ReBot line 'cause honestly, at this point, I think I've just toned it out so it doesn't even really bother me.

https://i.imgur.com/NE82GWG.png

Some people complain about expanded, other's about collapsed descriptions, hence there's a toggle (look at image above).
As for the post signature, it's for both control and advertisement I guess and was only added recently, and can also be changed (look at image above).
And I don't see it falling under e6 spam rule as e6 and users are the only ones benefiting from it.

aobird said:
https://i.imgur.com/NE82GWG.png

Some people complain about expanded, other's about collapsed descriptions, hence there's a toggle (look at image above).
As for the post signature, it's for both control and advertisement I guess and was only added recently, and can also be changed (look at image above).
And I don't see it falling under e6 spam rule as e6 and users are the only ones benefiting from it.

I am sorry, but this is nonsense.

First of all, whether the descriptions should be collapsed or expanded should be up to the user, not the uploader. You are taking that choice away from them, making that piece of site's functionality useless.

Second, "it can be changed" is not really an excuse for the signature being obnoxious by default. Two main things here:

• It's outside the collapsable section in the description to make it stand out, so that users would click on it.
• Having those "borders" on it (◥ ════ .｡.:*★ ... ★*:.｡. ════ ◤) is meant to attract attention to it.

Both of those things indicate that the primarily purpose of it is advertisement, not control.

Finally, I don't see an exception in the rules saying that spamming is okay if it's advertising a tool that benefits e621 users.

aobird said:
Some people complain about expanded, other's about collapsed descriptions, hence there's a toggle (look at image above).

Like bitWolfy said, that should be up to the user, not the uploader. There's already a user option "Description collapsed initially" under Account -> Settings -> Advanced, which applies to all posts regardless of who uploaded it (maybe it can go under Basic instead, if enough people really want to change it?). People who want expanded descriptions can leave that option off, and people who want collapsed descriptions can turn in on, and you don't have to worry about a tool forcing it on for everyone on some posts.

bitwolfy said:
First of all, whether the descriptions should be collapsed or expanded should be up to the user, not the uploader. You are taking that choice away from them, making that piece of site's functionality useless.

There are no rules regarding description formatting, can't please everyone. If there are no rules, it's entirely to up to uploader's wishes.
Besides, no one comes here to read descriptions.

bitwolfy said:
It's outside the collapsible section in the description to make it stand out

It's outside because it's not part of source text.

bitwolfy said:
Finally, I don't see an exception in the rules saying that spamming is okay if it's advertising a tool that benefits e621 users.

It's not spamming, it's one line in description of an uploaded post, at the end. There's 99.99% of other content uploaded along with it (and before it).

Not sure why you hate the Top Gun ascii art so much. It's only there because I though "some ascii art would be cool".

aobird said:
There are no rules regarding description formatting, can't please everyone. If there are no rules, it's entirely to up to uploader's wishes.
Besides, no one comes here to read descriptions.

I like how you completely ignored everything I said in that point and just went off about rules.
I'll repeat what I said - it should be up to the user, not the uploader to decide whether the description is expanded or collapsed. If you haven't taken that choice away from them, you literally could please everyone by letting them chose how the description is displayed for themselves.

I never said that it was rule-breaking, just harmful to the user experience.

aobird said:
It's outside because it's not part of source text.

I'm sure that the fact that it makes the advertisement more prominent is just a coincidence then.

aobird said:
It's not spamming, it's one line in description of an uploaded post, at the end. There's 99.99% of other content uploaded along with it (and before it).

Wait, are you saying that if it's just one line, it's not spam?..
Here's the definition of spam: irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients.

You are plastering information that is irrelevant to 99% of users across thousands of posts. I would say that it qualifies.

aobird said:
Not sure why you hate the Top Gun ascii art so much. It's only there because I though "some ascii art would be cool".

Again, I'm certain that it making the advertisement more prominent is just a coincidence, right?

aobird said:
There are no rules regarding description formatting, can't please everyone.

There are rules against spamming and being disruptive:

https://e621.net/wiki_pages/1638
...
Abuse of Site Tools
Using any of the site tools [...] in a fashion that can be construed as disruptive, spamming, or defamatory
...
Posting Abuse
Using post descriptions to express personal feelings, create drama, or otherwise take away from describing the attached post
...
Spamming or Trolling
Excessively communicating the same phrase, similar phrases, or pure gibberish

Notice how PostyBirb automatically excludes its "Posted using PostyBirb" message and link in the description when artists use it to post to e621, unlike other sites like FA where it does appear.

aobird said:
Besides, no one comes here to read descriptions.

Best not to presume what people do and come here for. I actually like (trying to) read the descriptions of art from japanese artists as an additional way to help learn the language. Or if it contains a story blurb related to the image, to help create a grander mental image. If no one used the descriptions, they wouldn't be there.

aobird said:
It's outside because it's not part of source text.

And the source text should be the primary focus of the description. Not hidden, or have focus drawn away from it to an ad for your tool.

aobird said:
Not sure why you hate the Top Gun ascii art so much. It's only there because I though "some ascii art would be cool".

And the description isn't for an uploader to put in their little ASCII art doodles. It's about providing additional information about the image, primarily from the image source, and secondarily any other relevant information (if an artist name was not taggable because you don't know how to translate it, for instance, or something about a character that appears in the image that the viewer should know).

bitwolfy said:
I'm sure that the fact that it makes the advertisement more prominent is just a coincidence then.

Believe it or not, yes.

I gain nothing from it other than motivation for writing code for new features that people suggest and bugs they report.
Anyway, I'll think about what you said, but not now, you killed my mood. And I won't be coming back to this thread.

aobird said:
Believe it or not, yes.

I gain nothing from it other than motivation for writing code for new features that people suggest and bugs they report.
Anyway, I'll think about what you said, but not now, you killed my mood. And I won't be coming back to this thread.

Amazing response.
Prediction: you'll just ignore everything said here.

aobird said:
Besides, no one comes here to read descriptions.

If nobody reads the descriptions, then what point is there in putting the line in the description?

The intention might not have been to create spam, but the final effect has turned into spam regardless. Getting defensive about it isn't the solution, but tweaking the output to make it less spammy is.

The spam doesn't make me want to use the app and even turns me off considering any apps at all. So, it's hurting not just that particular app, but everybody's app. But, of course, I can only speak for me.

There is some prior art involved here. We asked that the author of PostyBirb not to include the line in the description because it was being attached to an excessive number of posts, offered nothing to the users, and was not part of the original description. It's akin to inserting a link to your discord server on posts that you upload. It's just spammy advertising.

While there are few guidelines about description content, you would absolutely get a record if you went through and added that to a bunch of posts as edits. Which can be used as a general guideline for if it's good description content or not.

Throwing my hat in with the "this is absolutely spam and should be removed" crowd. I don't care what your intentions were. You say it's not intended to advertise, and honestly, who cares? I've seen big companies call their ads "short films", but that doesn't change what they are. It's an ad whether you intended it to be or not, whether you call it one or not.

It's not like we're telling you that you're evil or anything. You made a bad decision, for whatever reasons you had, and you could fix it easily if you so chose. There's no need to be defensive about it.

clawstripe said: If nobody reads the descriptions, then what point is there in putting the line in the description?

Additionally, what would the point of copying the artist's description to e621 if nobody read those?

clawdragons said: You say it's not intended to advertise, and honestly, who cares?

They literally said that the purpose of that line is for "both control and advertisement" in their original response to this thread.
And their only argument for keeping it so far has been that there isn't an explicit rule forbidding things like that.

bitwolfy said:
They literally said that the purpose of that line is for "both control and advertisement" in their original response to this thread.
And their only argument for keeping it so far has been that there isn't an explicit rule forbidding things like that.

Oh I missed that, saw them saying that the ASCII art only unintentionally advertised, mistook that for saying the entire thing wasn't intended as an advertisement.

Well in that case, if we're admitting it's advertising, then from e621's rules, this might be relevant:

Advertising
Suggested Suspension Length: 3 days
This category includes:

• Any non-beneficial, non-approved related businesses, organizations, or websites
• Can be linked with Spamming or Trolling if it is used multiple times in a short period of time

If you are the content creator of a given post, it is acceptable and encouraged for you to advertise products or services you may offer, in the 'description' field of your post. In the future, we hope to offer a more streamlined and useful system for the promotion of your own work.
If you wish to promote your product or service, please contact [email protected] with any questions/approvals
Visit https://e621.net/forum/show/10410 for more information

Since the advertising hasn't been approved (as far as I can tell), and since Aobird isn't the creator of the art the advertising is occurring under, it would fall under neither condition, nor any other relevant condition I can think of. So... there is an explicit rule forbidding it? Am I crazy, or misunderstanding something?

Also, as an aside, I really, really, REALLY wish the rules were given their own section rather than having to remember you can navigate to them through the "wiki" link. I always forget where they are and I don't find them easily findable in their current state, particularly because the "rules" link at the bottom of each page links to an entirely different rules page, which has completely different content and neither rules page links to the other.

Descriptions are meant to be for the art itself, not for (unrelated) information from uploaders of those pieces.

As such what Kira said is true, we'd absolutely hand out a record if someone were to edit that in after posting those submissions.

clawdragons said:
Also, as an aside, I really, really, REALLY wish the rules were given their own section rather than having to remember you can navigate to them through the "wiki" link. I always forget where they are and I don't find them easily findable in their current state, particularly because the "rules" link at the bottom of each page links to an entirely different rules page, which has completely different content and neither rules page links to the other.

There's a fancy "Rules" link in the footer of every page now, right now it only goes to the TOS but that'll change asap.

Edit: Kira found it's just a rendered wiki page so I've edited it to link to the full Code of Conduct instead of just having an excerpt.

aobird said:
Besides, no one comes here to read descriptions.

Alongside the original post's description, I actually add in the copyright details as well on the bottom of almost all of my posts.
E.g., Art © 2021 Artist, Characters - Char1 (male) © Owner1 & Char2 (female) © Owner2

I added that extra line in because it can help users figure out who the characters and character owners are in the post.
As an added bonus, I can use the description: function to see if I have posted an art piece belonging to a particular character owner.

clawdragons said:
Also, as an aside, I really, really, REALLY wish the rules were given their own section rather than having to remember you can navigate to them through the "wiki" link. I always forget where they are and I don't find them easily findable in their current state, particularly because the "rules" link at the bottom of each page links to an entirely different rules page, which has completely different content and neither rules page links to the other.

I'm seconding this because whenever I try to search for the Code of Conduct page, I will need to google for "e621 rules".
And the "Rules" link of the footer of every page just redirects to the Terms of Service page instead.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Alongside the original post's description, I actually add in the copyright details as well on the bottom of almost all of my posts.
E.g., Art © 2021 Artist, Characters - Char1 (male) © Owner1 & Char2 (female) © Owner2

I added that extra line in because it can help users figure out who the characters and character owners are in the post.
As an added bonus, I can use the description: function to see if I have posted an art piece belonging to a particular character owner.

That information could also be in the tags, and wiki pages for the character's tags. If it's not yet there would be neat if you could add it to those places as you encounter them.

Also the Rules link in the footer now also features a link directly to the big Code of Conduct.

notmenotyou said:
There's a fancy "Rules" link in the footer of every page now, right now it only goes to the TOS but that'll change asap.

Edit: Kira found it's just a rendered wiki page so I've edited it to link to the full Code of Conduct instead of just having an excerpt.

That was the link I was referring to. Glad to see that edited in, should be far easier to find in the future! Thank you very much.

notmenotyou said:
As such what Kira said is true, we'd absolutely hand out a record if someone were to edit that in after posting those submissions.

But not if the uploader themselves left something like that when posting the image?
I was not aware that there was such a fundamental difference in rule handling between uploading and editing a post.

All in all, what's the verdict? Should those ads go, or should they stay?

notmenotyou said:
Also the Rules link in the footer now also features a link directly to the big Code of Conduct.

That's nice, thank you.
Beforehand, I used to find the code of conduct by going to the feedback page and finding a link to it there. This is a lot more convenient.

notmenotyou said:
Descriptions are meant to be for the art itself, not for (unrelated) information from uploaders of those pieces.

Does this mean that "Superior version of post #xxx" should not be included in descriptions? If it should not be in the description then would a comment be the correct place? Like other have said I find it useful to know what the old post's id was to see if there were any useful comments for tagging characters or something.

idem said:
Does this mean that "Superior version of post #xxx" should not be included in descriptions? If it should not be in the description then would a comment be the correct place? Like other have said I find it useful to know what the old post's id was to see if there were any useful comments for tagging characters or something.

Personally, I'd like it if there was some more convenient option to find deleted inferior versions than entering "status:any parent:" + the post ID in the search field, like that useless "Replacements" link on every post.

Then again, I also thought the uploader's name should never have been taken off the main page (it's useful for seeing at a glance if the artist is posting), so clearly nobody cares what I think.

notmenotyou said:
That information could also be in the tags, and wiki pages for the character's tags. If it's not yet there would be neat if you could add it to those places as you encounter them.

It could be, but when a character owner can have up to 15 different characters under their name, it becomes a bit tough to keep track of their posts. Thus, the reason behind searching for description:character_owner.
Though I will keep in mind to include copyright details in the characters' wikis as well.

As a side note, is it still practical to be using individual copyright_* tags for character owners?

Also the Rules link in the footer now also features a link directly to the big Code of Conduct.

Nice, thanks for the swift update.

idem said:
Does this mean that "Superior version of post #xxx" should not be included in descriptions? If it should not be in the description then would a comment be the correct place? Like other have said I find it useful to know what the old post's id was to see if there were any useful comments for tagging characters or something.

I think leaving a comment behind would be a nice alternative as compared to leaving it in the description as redundant information.
But then again, it is basically just moving the spam from one place to another (description to comments), so I will just wait and see what the others think about it first.

wat8548 said:
Personally, I'd like it if there was some more convenient option to find deleted inferior versions than entering "status:any parent:" + the post ID in the search field, like that useless "Replacements" link on every post.

The "Replacements" section is related to the Post Replacements feature only used by the admins for the time being. It is used to keep track of the different MD5 hashes and direct sources.
I would see it be more appropriate to include a mention to the inferior post in the "Moderation" section instead, like as an additional approval of sorts.

Then again, I also thought the uploader's name should never have been taken off the main page (it's useful for seeing at a glance if the artist is posting), so clearly nobody cares what I think.

It was removed because of an inherent social problem on the site.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I think leaving a comment behind would be a nice alternative as compared to leaving it in the description as redundant information.
But then again, it is basically just moving the spam from one place to another (description to comments), so I will just wait and see what the others think about it first.

Having a link in the comments seems like a good compromise. Not sure whether that would count as spam either, though.
I've been leaving links to the original version of the post when I find one that was previously deleted. But that's more for Janitors, rather than normal users.

wat8548 said: Then again, I also thought the uploader's name should never have been taken off the main page (it's useful for seeing at a glance if the artist is posting), so clearly nobody cares what I think.

thegreatwolfgang said: It was removed because of an inherent social problem on the site.

I feel like having a "uploaded by the artist" label somewhere on the page would not be terribly difficult to implement. After all, an artist can link their account to their tag.
But that would require work, I guess. And just removing the uploader's name does not.

thegreatwolfgang said:
It could be, but when a character owner can have up to 15 different characters under their name, it becomes a bit tough to keep track of their posts. Thus, the reason behind searching for description:character_owner.
Though I will keep in mind to include copyright details in the characters' wikis as well.

As a side note, is it still practical to be using individual copyright_* tags for character owners?

We don't do copyright for character owners. What I was trying to refer to are character tags, and if needed appended with the character owner's name if there is more than one character under the same name, as well as then populating the wiki page for that character with the basic information like who it belongs to.