Please add a possibility to either flag or report content that is low quality. Currently there is no such option neither in the "Flag" nor "Report" and while reporting such content, it may become classified by someone as a tool abuse, with is not the intention of the report or flagging

Any low-quality content will get taken care of by the janitors. If it's been approved to be on the site, then at least someone thinks it isn't low-quality.

kemonophonic said:
Yes, because that feature will definitely not be abused by trolls flagging content they don't like.

Honestly, I've never liked that reasoning. A lot of exiting tools on the site could be abused by trolls, and then they would get warned and banned.

strikerman said:
Honestly, I've never liked that reasoning. A lot of exiting tools on the site could be abused by trolls, and then they would get warned and banned.

This particular flag/report option definitely would be abused, though. Especially for older/grandfathered content, or content that's not approved yet. And since a post already goes through a quality check to get approved, it's unnecessary on top of that.

Flags are like how they are now because of this reason.

Looking at the ticket queue, there are a lot of images being reported for child porn or anti-semitism, or just things people don’t like, including posts that are ten years old or more. So yeah, that indicates adding a flag option like that would not be a good idea. Jannies have enough to do already, and the obvious shitposts and “my first furry drawing” stuff gets trashed pretty quickly anywsy.

mcgiwer said:
Please add a possibility to either flag or report content that is low quality. Currently there is no such option neither in the "Flag" nor "Report" and while reporting such content, it may become classified by someone as a tool abuse, with is not the intention of the report or flagging

It is not up to normal members to determine what is "low quality". The mods are the ones that are responsible for quality control, which is also why everything posted has to go through an approval queue.

The only way for a potentially "low quality" post to slip past quality control is when the uploader themselves have the unrestricted uploads privilege, which grants them the ability to self-approve posts.
However, that would be unlikely since this privilege is only given to artists or members who have an excellent track record of consistently uploading high quality artworks.

strikerman said:
Honestly, I've never liked that reasoning. A lot of exiting tools on the site could be abused by trolls, and then they would get warned and banned.

A huge number of reports are people literally assmad about people "not liking" their fetish in comments.

nightfire said:
A huge number of reports are people literally assmad about people "not liking" their fetish in comments.

Complaining about things you can blacklist is against the rules though. That's not abuse of site tools.

popoto said:
Complaining about things you can blacklist is against the rules though. That's not abuse of site tools.

There's a huge difference between discussing things you don't like then going "eewww gross"

"Use blacklist" is a shitty excuse to cover that up. It absolutely is an abuse in practice.

nightfire said:
There's a huge difference between discussing things you don't like then going "eewww gross"

"Use blacklist" is a shitty excuse to cover that up. It absolutely is an abuse in practice.

Sounds like somebody should've used their blacklist.

Flag reasons are, for the most part, all things that a moderator could reasonably miss on their first pass of an image. DNP artists who aren't tagged, duplicates, and so on. There's already systems in place for mods who want to get a second opinion on whether or not an upload is trash. There's really no benefit to this.

Remember I read somewhere in forum said e621 caters decent furry art.

I doubt whether most ppl think this is a decent one…
https://e621.net/posts/134500

Also from my opinion i tend not to blacklist artist because ppl could make progress.

watchdog22 said:
Remember I read somewhere in forum said e621 caters decent furry art.

I doubt whether most ppl think this is a decent one…
https://e621.net/posts/134500

That's what Watsit meant with:"...Especially for older/grandfathered content...". This one is 11 years old. It won't be deleted because the rule for minimum standards was added later.

I think we may need this feature sometime for post like this. No pending state and have no way to flag it as Does not meet the uploading guidelines.

watchdog22 said:
I think we may need this feature sometime for post like this. No pending state and have no way to flag it as Does not meet the uploading guidelines.

I think that's because only trusted members of e6 have that tool right now. If everyone could flag something for deletion as "does not meet uploading guidelines", it'll probably be abused far more often than it would be correctly used; we already have people try to FFD posts with the other reasons just because they dislike the post, so the one option that could easily be misinterpreted is probably not gonna be granted to everyone...

siral_exan said:
I think that's because only trusted members of e6 have that tool right now. If everyone could flag something for deletion as "does not meet uploading guidelines", it'll probably be abused far more often than it would be correctly used; we already have people try to FFD posts with the other reasons just because they dislike the post, so the one option that could easily be misinterpreted is probably not gonna be granted to everyone...

You're wrong. Anyone can flag a post as not meeting uploading guidelines as long as the post is pending approval. Once the post is approved and/or has status "active", using the said flag is no longer possible. (Which is btw. very stupid restriction and makes that flag useless in my opinion.)
The post mentioned above couldn't be flagged as not meeting uploading guidelines because it was uploaded by user with unrestricted uploads permission. With this permission their uploads skip approval queue and automatically become "active".
Here we have a perfect example why restricting the flag only to unapproved posts is a bad idea. Because mistakes happen, even to admins, janitors or trusted users. That flag restriction only takes away a chance of pointing out such mistakes.

ebea57 said:
You're wrong.... (Which is btw. very stupid restriction and makes that flag useless in my opinion.)

Oh. When I was checking earlier I had only tried flagging posts that were (auto)approved because I thought that was explicitly what that flag was meant for: posts that have been approved erroneously or auto-approved and shouldn't be on site. I must not have noticed that option when flagging pending posts...

I think post #3695400 a screen shot doesn't meet the Quality standards? and the post has been unapproved once post #3683145