I noticed in my account profile instead of just deleted submissions, it also mentions replaced ones. However, the upload limit page doesn't explain how it works with the new removed post category.

Something overlooked, or just hadn't gotten there yet?

--

And on a related note, is there any way to update a user's deleted posts so that ones that were replaced with a better version are counted as "replaced", or are the old replacements before the change just going to be left as "deleted"?

Replaced posts currently do not impact the upload limit, that is something that still needs to be figured out.

Regarding deleted posts, those will stay that way. There's no way to convert one into the other

I think the only difference is that having posts replaced doesn't (actively) lower your upload limit. It can still lower your upload limit indirectly, though. For example, a brand new account has an UL of 10. After 14 approvals, the UL goes to 11. If 5 of those are then deleted, the UL goes to 8. If they are replaced instead, it goes to 9.

I don't think there is any practical way to implement that hypothetical update, but it sure would be nice...

Basically what gattonero said, the upload simply vanishes from your upload limit right now. In the future janitors will have the option of decreasing the upload limit if you post something where the superior version was already available.

For example:
You post the compressed twitter version while the uncompressed variant was available on the artists FA. This will affect your upload limit similarly to how deletions currently work.

If the artist uploads an updated version one week after you posted to e6, correcting a part of the image not being colored correctly => Nothing you could have done there, at the time of upload it was the best version. Your upload limit will not contain the post anymore, neither in a positive nor in a negative way.

Again, this isn't hooked up yet. While this information is already recorded right now, nothing is done with it.

earlopain said:
Replaced posts currently do not impact the upload limit, that is something that still needs to be figured out.

Callback to a thread I made a few years ago (topic #15043), I feel that self-flagging or post replacements of one's own posts should not count against one's own upload limit. That should be taken into consideration when implementing potential "penalties" for post replacements in the future.

bitWolfy made a similar point. I think putting an indicator for janitors that it is a self-replacement might be a good idea. Janitors basically have two buttons when approving replacements (penalize original uploader yes/no), and putting this information closeby sounds useful. Implementing the same for flags is another story though.

earlopain said:
Basically what gattonero said, the upload simply vanishes from your upload limit right now.

Millcore recently “replaced” a few of my posts with the same size image from the same source; if I’m understanding correctly, that means my total post count has gone down from that?

scaliespe said:

Millcore recently “replaced” a few of my posts with the same size image from the same source; if I’m understanding correctly, that means my total post count has gone down from that?

You uploaded jpgs when pngs were available. View the description/tag history on the posts, you'll see new sources were added.

lafcadio said:
You uploaded jpgs when pngs were available. View the description/tag history on the posts, you'll see new sources were added.

scaliespe was asking if their post count was affected

scaliespe said:

Millcore recently “replaced” a few of my posts with the same size image from the same source; if I’m understanding correctly, that means my total post count has gone down from that?

strikerman said:
scaliespe was asking if their post count was affected

A quick search (user:scaliespe shermugi skylar_zero) confirms that when your post is replaced, you no longer count as its uploader. In effect, your post count goes down by 1, and the associated post is removed when calculating how many approved/pending posts you have.

Okay, but what about post #2872216? There doesn’t seem to be any alternate source for that one, and the current source is still a JPEG. Why was that one replaced?

scaliespe said:
Okay, but what about post #2872216? There doesn’t seem to be any alternate source for that one, and the current source is still a JPEG. Why was that one replaced?

That seems like something you should directly ask whoever replaced it.

scaliespe said:
Okay, but what about post #2872216? There doesn’t seem to be any alternate source for that one, and the current source is still a JPEG. Why was that one replaced?

The source links you provided don't reflect this, but if I had to guess: you uploaded the worse version from the commissioner. For your other two replacements, the artist and commissioner similarly uploaded different versions of the same image.

Yeaaah, the replacement history page is pretty weird to parse, see the below.

The Post Replacements history page is a bit confusing about what's changed. If I'm reading it right, the first "replacement" is really the original upload, which is 2480x3508 (1.8491 MB, jpg). The second replacement is the one that's now active, which is 2480x3508 (1.8489 MB, jpg). The post's source has always been to the artist's full-size version https://www.furaffinity.net/view/43127744/ rather than the commissioner's lower-res copy, so unless scaliespe downloaded the commissioner's copy and uploaded that low-res saved version while supplying the artist's higher-res post as the source, I don't think that's what the issue was. There is a small difference in the filesize, so there is some difference, but at least with a side-by-side glance, I can't see a visual difference. If it was reencoded or if the artist made a slight update to the image compared to what scaliespe uploaded, I can't tell that.

Right, thanks for explaining that. The page is a bit confusing. I guess in this case the 0.0002 MB smaller image is preferred? It’s definitely the same source, as I follow the artist and saw the post through there; I had never even been to the commissioner’s profile. I assume the artist must have reuploaded it for some reason, though I also can’t tell any difference between the two.

scaliespe said:
Right, thanks for explaining that. The page is a bit confusing. I guess in this case the 0.0002 MB smaller image is preferred? It’s definitely the same source, as I follow the artist and saw the post through there; I had never even been to the commissioner’s profile. I assume the artist must have reuploaded it for some reason, though I also can’t tell any difference between the two.

Sometimes that can happen yeah.

While it is a good rule of thumb that bigger file size and bigger image resolution mean better quality.
Ultimately, the determining factor is how well it looks visually, this can be done by zooming into an image with the highest magnification and examining for any visual artefacts that may appear (i.e., the blurry, compressed, pixelated part of an image, most prominently appearing right next to smooth lines). Then, comparing it side-by-side with the other image and choosing the one with the least visual artefacts.

While I can't say for sure whether the one you had posted varied from the current one, it is not uncommon for files that have smaller file sizes be approved over larger ones based on these visual differences.

On even rarer occasions, smaller file-sized posts are retained over larger file-sized posts because they lack any differences (i.e., virtually similar to one another).
This commonly happens when a "smaller" file-sized Twitter post is posted first, then another "larger" file-sized FA post is posted later as a duplicate.
In that case, both images have the same resolution, but Twitter removes the embedded colour palette from the first image, resulting in a "smaller" file size but still a virtually identical image compared to that of the second image from FA.
Therefore, when one of them gets flagged as a duplicate, the one from Twitter is retained (for being the "first" to be posted) while the one from FA is deleted (for being a duplicate).

scaliespe said:
Okay, but what about post #2872216? There doesn’t seem to be any alternate source for that one, and the current source is still a JPEG. Why was that one replaced?

In this case your file and the new one from the replacement were visually identical. The replacement has been undone and the post is now back under your account.

earlopain said:
In this case your file and the new one from the replacement were visually identical. The replacement has been undone and the post is now back under your account.

Sorry, I missed your reply. Thanks for looking into that for me!

If I may ask about my own replaced posts, could I ask when I do and don't get penalized?

With post #2604430, the replacement had a larger resolution and fixed an error. penalized: no. With post #3106247, it was just higher quality (uploaded from a source w/o the Twitter compression). penalized: yes.

strikerman said:
If I may ask about my own replaced posts, could I ask when I do and don't get penalized?

In your case, I would send Mairo a DM. AFAIK, there is no written standard for replacement penalities yet.

gattonero2001 said:
In your case, I would send Mairo a DM. AFAIK, there is no written standard for replacement penalities yet.

If one has self-replaced posts before in the past (i.e., sent the higher-res file to an admin/janitor to replace with) but is not currently credited as being the "Replacer", would requesting a penalty removal be possible?

In addition, what are the ramifications of having "penalized: yes" written in your profile? Would it be used as a mark of shame, or would it be irrelevant once someone has the "unrestricted uploads" permission?

thegreatwolfgang said:
If one has self-replaced posts before in the past (i.e., sent the higher-res file to an admin/janitor to replace with) but is not currently credited as being the "Replacer", would requesting a penalty removal be possible?

I don't think that's possible, just from a technical perspective.

thegreatwolfgang said:
In addition, what are the ramifications of having "penalized: yes" written in your profile? Would it be used as a mark of shame, or would it be irrelevant once someone has the "unrestricted uploads" permission?

Posts that are replaced with "penalized: yes" are included in the upload limit formula as "deleted".
It's not terribly relevant for you, though. I wouldn't call it a mark of shame either way.

kemonophonic said:
I have the ability to replace posts. I replaced someone else's post with a better version and now their upload appears in my upload list.

post #3246904

Is that supposed to happen?

Yes. When a post is replaced, the post is removed from the original uploader's upload list and put into the replacer's upload list. They lose a point for the upload, though they don't get a point for a deleted upload (it's as if they never uploaded it, and you did).

watsit said:
They lose a point for the upload, though they don't get a point for a deleted upload (it's as if they never uploaded it, and you did).

No. Replaced post is counted for the original uploader like it was deleted. If you look at someones profile with an upload limit and hover the cursor over the counts, you'll see a count labelled "Deleted or Replaced Posts, Rejected Replacements". In some cases, the replaced post does not affect the limit. It's like for example when you replace your own post.

Also, when you look at your replaced posts, there is info if you were penalized for it or not. I'm not sure if it shows when you don't have upload limit, though.

ebea57 said:
No. Replaced post is counted for the original uploader like it was deleted.

Looks like that depends. As you say:

ebea57 said:
In some cases, the replaced post does not affect the limit.

and earlopain says:

earlopain said:
Janitors basically have two buttons when approving replacements (penalize original uploader yes/no)

In either case, the replaced post is removed from the original uploader's accepted uploads, while the deleted post count is optionally affected depending on what the Janitor selected when accepting the replacement, as I understand it.

I think it would be a good idea to give the replacement request page a toggle to suggest penalization. I've replaced posts with higher res versions, but the higher res version wasn't available at the time of the original upload (the artist didn't provide the higher res version until later), so it seems wrong to penalize the original uploader for it. Though there are other times when the better version was available that the original uploader didn't look for. The Janitor that approves the replacement could override the suggestion in either case, but having some way to indicate whether the original uploader did anything wrong with the original upload or not would be nice.

watsit said:
I think it would be a good idea to give the replacement request page a toggle to suggest penalization. I've replaced posts with higher res versions, but the higher res version wasn't available at the time of the original upload (the artist didn't provide the higher res version until later), so it seems wrong to penalize the original uploader for it. Though there are other times when the better version was available that the original uploader didn't look for. The Janitor that approves the replacement could override the suggestion in either case, but having some way to indicate whether the original uploader did anything wrong with the original upload or not would be nice.

You could just put that information in the reason field.

I guess I can give a small status update while I'm here. There are currently two things I want to do before considering a more general rollout. The first is a bugfix, there's currently a chance of the post loosing its file on approval in certain cases, requiring manual fixing. The other one is janitors being able to provide a reason for rejection, similar to how posts have it on deletion. I'm sure that over time a few other things will pop up, but this is where it's at currently.

watsit said:
Looks like that depends. As you say:
and earlopain says:
In either case, the replaced post is removed from the original uploader's accepted uploads, while the deleted post count is optionally affected depending on what the Janitor selected when accepting the replacement, as I understand it.

I think it would be a good idea to give the replacement request page a toggle to suggest penalization. I've replaced posts with higher res versions, but the higher res version wasn't available at the time of the original upload (the artist didn't provide the higher res version until later), so it seems wrong to penalize the original uploader for it. Though there are other times when the better version was available that the original uploader didn't look for. The Janitor that approves the replacement could override the suggestion in either case, but having some way to indicate whether the original uploader did anything wrong with the original upload or not would be nice.

Funny you mention that, I think I got hit with that (penalized for a 4 month old post, when the better inkbunny source is 1.5 months old) and was looking to see if anyone had thought about it. I'd imagine not a very common issue, but eh...