First post here but I wanted to ask how penalizations worked and what they do. Uploaded this image “3222126“ a while back and got penalized for it now as a larger version was uploaded by the artist recently.

Was wondering what effect this has on my account and if it’s fair to be penalized for an image that wasn’t available when uploading. Also sucks cause I added all of the tags for that image except for one..

101001 said:
First post here but I wanted to ask how penalizations worked and what they do. Uploaded this image “3222126“ a while back and got penalized for it now as a larger version was uploaded by the artist recently.

Was wondering what effect this has on my account and if it’s fair to be penalized for an image that wasn’t available when uploading. Also sucks cause I added all of the tags for that image except for one..

It looks like your post was replaced with a larger version, as opposed to outright being deleted for being inferior.
The difference between them is that Deletions would automatically incur a penalty on your Upload Limit, while Replacements can come with an optional penalty dependent on the circumstances.

Regardless, you were penalised anyways for the post, as seen as the - (1/4) on your Upload Limit (see help page ).
With every 4 deletions, you will decrease your upload limit by 1 (out of a total of 10). In contrast, with every 10 approvals, you will increase your upload limit by 1.

In regards to whether it is fair to be penalised or not, it can be up to debate. From what I see, you have uploaded from a smaller, second-party source rather than the larger, first-party source of the artist.
Ideally, you would want to make sure the image you are uploading is of the best quality during the time of upload, either by checking every source available or by requesting for the full resolution from the people involved.
Learning the posting behaviour of the artist is also key in knowing whether or not a larger version may be posted in the future, though the only guarantee is to ask it from them.

thegreatwolfgang said:
In regards to whether it is fair to be penalised or not, it can be up to debate. From what I see, you have uploaded from a smaller, second-party source rather than the larger, first-party source of the artist.
Ideally, you would want to make sure the image you are uploading is of the best quality during the time of upload, either by checking every source available or by requesting for the full resolution from the people involved.

In their defense, the artist only posted that larger version to FA very recently. Pixiv has a fullsize version but is censored, same with Twitter. The artist is also Japanese who has trouble with English, making communication difficult.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Learning the posting behaviour of the artist is also key in knowing whether or not a larger version may be posted in the future

Not that it would be applicable in this case, the artist had stopped using FA, and unexpectedly started using it again recently because they were getting annoyed with Pixiv's censorship. But either way, knowing the artist may post a better version later shouldn't mean you get penalized for uploading the best available version now, in my opinion. For one, there's no guarantee an artist will post a better version later (even if they say they're going to, extenuating circumstances may prevent it, or they may forget), and second, there's the possibility an artist will delete the version they did put up without posting the better version, and it would be a shame to not have any version of the art here just because the artist changed their posting behavior. e6 is an art archive, and not archiving a piece of art because a better version might come later seems counterproductive to me.

watsit said:
Not that it would be applicable in this case, the artist had stopped using FA, and unexpectedly started using it again recently because they were getting annoyed with Pixiv's censorship. But either way, knowing the artist may post a better version later shouldn't mean you get penalized for uploading the best available version now, in my opinion. For one, there's no guarantee an artist will post a better version later (even if they say they're going to, extenuating circumstances may prevent it, or they may forget), and second, there's the possibility an artist will delete the version they did put up without posting the better version, and it would be a shame to not have any version of the art here just because the artist changed their posting behavior. e6 is an art archive, and not archiving a piece of art because a better version might come later seems counterproductive to me.

+1 to this. When posts are replaced through the built-in system (rather than getting deleted due to another existing post), the janitors don't penalize users if the higher-res art was uploaded after the initial version. Or at least, that's the pattern I've noticed for my replacements. Seems a bit harsh to still penalize users if the higher-res art is a separate post.

watsit said:
In their defense, the artist only posted that larger version to FA very recently. Pixiv has a fullsize version but is censored, same with Twitter. The artist is also Japanese who has trouble with English, making communication difficult.

I meant that they had uploaded from the commissioner's FA gallery rather than one of the artist's. Looking at the Pixiv censored post though, that should be an indication that a larger version is available.
Asking from the commissioner about the uncensored fullsize is also a viable option, though not a lot of people would think about doing that.

But like I said, the penalty reason is up to debate. I personally wouldn't have included a penalty on the grounds that that was the highest quality non-censored version available at the time.
However, I don't think there is a way to "undo" the penalty under the current Replacement system, so they would have to tough this one out.

Not that it would be applicable in this case, the artist had stopped using FA, and unexpectedly started using it again recently because they were getting annoyed with Pixiv's censorship. But either way, knowing the artist may post a better version later shouldn't mean you get penalized for uploading the best available version now, in my opinion. For one, there's no guarantee an artist will post a better version later (even if they say they're going to, extenuating circumstances may prevent it, or they may forget), and second, there's the possibility an artist will delete the version they did put up without posting the better version, and it would be a shame to not have any version of the art here just because the artist changed their posting behavior. e6 is an art archive, and not archiving a piece of art because a better version might come later seems counterproductive to me.

I had noticed that with the artist as well, yeah. A lot of artists also post an auto-resized version on FA, only to later post the fullsized version on their Twitter, which can be annoying.

Funny thing is that, in the past, I had requested for self-flagged inferior posts to not be counted against one's own upload limit.
However, people argued that penalties would incentivise uploaders to do better and to learn from their mistakes (i.e., learn the artist's posting behaviour and wait for a better version), rather than allow them the chance to "snipe" artworks immediately with the bare minimal tagging (i.e., post now, fix later).

thegreatwolfgang said:
I meant that they had uploaded from the commissioner's FA gallery rather than one of the artist's. Looking at the Pixiv censored post though, that should be an indication that a larger version is available.
Asking from the commissioner about the uncensored fullsize is also a viable option, though not a lot of people would think about doing that.

But like I said, the penalty reason is up to debate. I personally wouldn't have included a penalty on the grounds that that was the highest quality non-censored version available at the time.
However, I don't think there is a way to "undo" the penalty under the current Replacement system, so they would have to tough this one out.

I had noticed that with the artist as well, yeah. A lot of artists also post an auto-resized version on FA, only to later post the fullsized version on their Twitter, which can be annoying.

Funny thing is that, in the past, I had requested for self-flagged inferior posts to not be counted against one's own upload limit.
However, people argued that penalties would incentivise uploaders to do better and to learn from their mistakes (i.e., learn the artist's posting behaviour and wait for a better version), rather than allow them the chance to "snipe" artworks immediately with the bare minimal tagging (i.e., post now, fix later).

Never really thought to compare the sizes when uploading the image. I only noticed when I got the reason for the penalization, I will keep an eye out for it next time though.

Another thing is that even if I did notice the censored image was larger, which would’ve meant that there was a better version like you said, I still would have gone ahead and posted the smaller version because it was the “best” uncensored version available at the time.

It beats posting the censored version even though it’s larger because I’ve seen people generally not like censored content. This can be seen with another post from this artist “ID: 3016137”, where people are upset at the censorship.

Also Wolfgang is a hard-ass name.

101001 said:
Never really thought to compare the sizes when uploading the image. I only noticed when I got the reason for the penalization, I will keep an eye out for it next time though.

Another thing is that even if I did notice the censored image was larger, which would’ve meant that there was a better version like you said, I still would have gone ahead and posted the smaller version because it was the “best” uncensored version available at the time.

It beats posting the censored version even though it’s larger because I’ve seen people generally not like censored content. This can be seen with another post from this artist “ID: 3016137”, where people are upset at the censorship.

Also Wolfgang is a hard-ass name.

Thanks, but yeah, you would need to watch out next time on the image size and where an artist posts.
Certain sites (like FA or Imgur) have autosizing features that basically ruin the original high quality of the artwork, prompting you to seek better alternative sources. Use the howto:sites_and_sources page to see whether a site is good to upload from and how to get the highest quality possible.

Alternatively, to avoid all the hassle, you can also get the original quality artwork from the artist or anybody else involved (i.e., commissioner, character owner, etc.).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Funny thing is that, in the past, I had requested for self-flagged inferior posts to not be counted against one's own upload limit.
However, people argued that penalties would incentivise uploaders to do better and to learn from their mistakes (i.e., learn the artist's posting behaviour and wait for a better version), rather than allow them the chance to "snipe" artworks immediately with the bare minimal tagging (i.e., post now, fix later).

I wouldn't agree with "learn the artist's posting behaviour and wait for a better version", but I could see an argument for "learn the artist's posting behaviour and get it from where they post the best version". If an artist posts to FA, Twitter, and Pixiv simultaneously, for example, if you post a low-res FA version, then find their Twitter and post the higher res version, flagging the FA one as a dup, then find their Pixiv and post the full-size PNG, flagging the Twitter one as a dup, you shouldn't get away scott-free because you didn't bother to check where they post. Punishing for upload sniping is also a good reason (which is something I've seen people get a record for, BTW; uploading a piece within minutes of the artist posting it online, with minimal tags, then adding a bunch of tags after it's been uploaded). Uploading the first version you see regardless of it being the best one so others don't think to upload it themselves, then finding the best one and uploading it to replace the first, shouldn't go without penalty.

Relatedly, I did bring up the idea of flagging a replacement request as something to penalize for or not. The flag would be completely optional, so whoever does the replacing can still penalize or not regardless of the flag, but it would help indicate to whoever's replacing it that there was a probable reason the better version couldn't have been uploaded before. The idea was shot down, with people saying that's what I can use the replacement reason field for. However, I guess when I wrote "Larger PNG artist recently uploaded to FA", it wasn't enough of a hint the larger PNG wasn't available for the original upload 3 months ago... or the replacer felt there was another reason worth penalizing over.

watsit said:
I wouldn't agree with "learn the artist's posting behaviour and wait for a better version", but I could see an argument for "learn the artist's posting behaviour and get it from where they post the best version". If an artist posts to FA, Twitter, and Pixiv simultaneously, for example, if you post a low-res FA version, then find their Twitter and post the higher res version, flagging the FA one as a dup, then find their Pixiv and post the full-size PNG, flagging the Twitter one as a dup, you shouldn't get away scott-free because you didn't bother to check where they post. Punishing for upload sniping is also a good reason (which is something I've seen people get a record for, BTW; uploading a piece within minutes of the artist posting it online, with minimal tags, then adding a bunch of tags after it's been uploaded). Uploading the first version you see regardless of it being the best one so others don't think to upload it themselves, then finding the best one and uploading it to replace the first, shouldn't go without penalty.

Relatedly, I did bring up the idea of flagging a replacement request as something to penalize for or not. The flag would be completely optional, so whoever does the replacing can still penalize or not regardless of the flag, but it would help indicate to whoever's replacing it that there was a probable reason the better version couldn't have been uploaded before. The idea was shot down, with people saying that's what I can use the replacement reason field for. However, I guess when I wrote "Larger PNG artist recently uploaded to FA", it wasn't enough of a hint the larger PNG wasn't available for the original upload 3 months ago... or the replacer felt there was another reason worth penalizing over.

I feel like it’s probably the first option but you can’t really blame anyone. You specified enough in my opinion with your reason because if you looked at the original upload date of the image, it was almost 4 months ago. However, the person who approved the new image might’ve saw the reason and since they probably have to deal with “upload sniping” frequently, assumed it to be that automatically without digging any further.

Can’t be easy to get everything right when you’re probably looking through hundreds of images a day. Plus, my account doesn’t really have any reputation, so that adds to that assumption too.

watsit said:
I wouldn't agree with "learn the artist's posting behaviour and wait for a better version", but I could see an argument for "learn the artist's posting behaviour and get it from where they post the best version". ..., you shouldn't get away scott-free because you didn't bother to check where they post.

Of course, if it is abused in such a way then you wouldn't get away without any punishment.

But as you have mentioned before, artists can be posting primarily on FA then maybe (or not at all) on Twitter on a later date.
This would end up with uploaders being wary of even reposting these posts in the first place, due to the potential of being slapped with a bvats situation in the future.

Punishing for upload sniping is also a good reason (which is something I've seen people get a record for, BTW; uploading a piece within minutes of the artist posting it online, with minimal tags, then adding a bunch of tags after it's been uploaded). Uploading the first version you see regardless of it being the best one so others don't think to upload it themselves, then finding the best one and uploading it to replace the first, shouldn't go without penalty.

Yeah, I was exaggerating on the sniping part. I was referring to your statement on "not archiving a piece of art because a better version might come later" part.

Before the Replacement feature was implemented, it is basically a hit or miss if you did not have the best quality version of the artwork. Artist may or may not post their artworks on more favourable sources, but you cannot predict when and whether or not they would.

Even now, the Replacement feature also somewhat penalises you for replacing an existing post with a higher res version (through the help of a staff). You may not get the -1 for the replacement, but you do lose 1 on your total uploads since the replaced post goes towards to the replacer's account.

Relatedly, I did bring up the idea of flagging a replacement request as something to penalize for or not. The flag would be completely optional, so whoever does the replacing can still penalize or not regardless of the flag, but it would help indicate to whoever's replacing it that there was a probable reason the better version couldn't have been uploaded before. The idea was shot down, with people saying that's what I can use the replacement reason field for. However, I guess when I wrote "Larger PNG artist recently uploaded to FA", it wasn't enough of a hint the larger PNG wasn't available for the original upload 3 months ago... or the replacer felt there was another reason worth penalizing over.

I think it's better to directly message a staff about having a post replacement while also asking for no penalty to be imposed. That's how I do it (since I am not in the beta).