Given that some content that acquires the BVAS tag, has the tag due to the original post having file sizes or dimensions that exceed what e621 either can, or is willing to handle there is a good chunk of content under the BVAS which isn't able to be replaced with its best public version.

Thus I have a suggestion, and was wonder what others would think of making a new meta tag to put on these posts instead:
LEVAS: limit_exceeding_version_at_source

There is also the matter of content that despite having an accessible and archivable better version, there is restrictions on the content which also make archiving that better version, impossible. On this content I would suggest a tag to replace the BVAS with:
DNPBVAS: dnp_better_version_at_source

cool, now people can blacklist paywalls with one tag

aversioncapacitor' said:
dnp_better_version_at_source
cool, now people can blacklist paywalls with one tag

bvas actually isn't applicable to paywall content so that would be an invalid tag. The dnpbvas tag would be for things like, artists who are on the dnp list but for whatever reason the content in question is allowed on site, despite the archivist getting a less then ideal file. Or when the artist is cdnp but posts their own content, as there are some on that list that will grab content from their less ideal galleries to archive on e6 making a catch 22 of a better post, but only the artist is allowed to post. Meaning only they can replace their own archives.

as someone who has been working though these posts and this would be a god send to have.

versperus said:
bvas actually isn't applicable to paywall content so that would be an invalid tag.

description says "Support my work at my patreon for HD versions! <patreon link here>"
source is linked to the patreon post in question

this would be invalid for the proposed tag?

aversioncapacitor' said:
description says "Support my work at my patreon for HD versions! <patreon link here>"
source is linked to the patreon post in question

this would be invalid for this tag?

If there was a bvas tag with this description then yes, bvas is only intended for the best public versions of content. It's also mentioned in the tag wiki for bvas.
As for the proposed tag, I don't believe that paywall content should be subject to that one either personally, but it's still a proposal. So depending on consensus it could be applicable.

I feel that dnp_better_version_at_source may also be used in situations when a conditional_dnp artist posts a smaller version on e621, then proceeds to upload a larger version on their galleries; e.g., post #3199673.

versperus said:
If there was a bvas tag with this description then yes, bvas is only intended for the best public versions of content. It's also mentioned in the tag wiki for bvas

better_version_at_source wiki history:
I asked multiple people (including Kira) whether the bvas tag should include better versions locked behind paywalls. The unanimous answer was no, as bvas is a utility tag and this clutters search results for replacement purposes

if you're just using it as an internal site tool for cleaning the tag itself out, I don't see what would make it wrong for using dnp_better_version_at_source, since paid content falls under dnp. unless you're trying to use it on deleted posts. can you provide an example?

i'm just looking at it as a user searching for posts.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I feel that dnp_better_version_at_source may also be used in situations when a conditional_dnp artist posts a smaller version on e621, then proceeds to upload a larger version on their galleriesl; e.g., post #3199673.

I feel the same

aversioncapacitor' said:
if you're just using it as an internal site tool for cleaning the tag itself out, I don't see what would make it wrong for using dnp_better_version_at_source, since paid content falls under dnp. unless you're trying to use it on deleted posts. can you provide an example?

dnpbvas, *at least in my initial interpretation* would be a dnp list subsidiary tag.
It could be argued for a "payed_version_at_source" tag in regards to things like that though. But it could be seen as an advertisement tag if that existed, which the site might be against.

aversioncapacitor' said:
description says "Support my work at my patreon for HD versions! <patreon link here>"
source is linked to the patreon post in question

this would be invalid for the proposed tag?

Apart from the tag question, aren't source links supposed to be freely available as proof that the content is allowed on the site? The description is the place for paywall links.

wat8548 said:
Apart from the tag question, aren't source links supposed to be freely available as proof that the content is allowed on the site? The description is the place for paywall links.

there have been a few artists self archiving who've invalidly used the bvas tag like this.

aversioncapacitor' said:
if you're just using it as an internal site tool for cleaning the tag itself out, I don't see what would make it wrong for using dnp_better_version_at_source, since paid content falls under dnp.

It would end up on a lot of posts. Most artists that have a Patreon or SubscribeStar have higher res versions of their art behind the paywall, with the public version being smaller. If it was allowed for that case, it would end up on a lot of artists' images when there isn't a better public version to see. This would also then apply for artists that sell art CDs or digital art packs with higher res versions than they post online. Technically this would also apply to PNG vs JPG, so even if the public version is the same size, if the pay version is a PNG (or even a less compressed JPG), this would apply. That would heavily dilute the tag from its current use of a better version being publicly available that just can't be posted here for some reason.

Also, it being behind a paywall inherently means the public can't see it, which makes it harder to verify if a post actually has a better pay version (sometimes artists do post the full version publicly after a time, but can you know when the tag doesn't apply anymore if the paysite post is left behind a pay tier?). Especially for Japanese artists using Fanbox, or newer/lesser-known artists, which won't have as many users here subscribed to them. Also in many cases, the paysite source isn't included in the source list because it's not a publicly accessible source, making it harder to verify proper use of the tag.

I also bet people would end up using the tag on public "censored" SFW images that the artist has adult versions for pay (e.g. a clothed variant, or lacking genitals, for the public version). alternate_version_at_source and better_version_at_source are different tags, so dnp_* variants would be too, but I bet people would be all too willing to slap dnp_better_version_at_source on any public censored posts if there's an uncensored one behind a paywall. Bikomation beware.

watsit said:
I also bet people would end up using the tag on public "censored" SFW images that the artist has adult versions for pay (e.g. a clothed variant, or lacking genitals, for the public version). alternate_version_at_source and better_version_at_source are different tags, so dnp_* variants would be too, but I bet people would be all too willing to slap dnp_better_version_at_source on any public censored posts if there's an uncensored one behind a paywall. Bikomation beware.

Sounds like you're not in favor of this concept, at least not with this variation of a possible tag. Would you have a different proposition for a theorized name of this tag or are you against the idea completely?

versperus said:
Sounds like you're not in favor of this concept, at least not with this variation of description. Would you have a different proposition for a theorized name of this category or are you against the idea completely?

Personally I think if it's not publicly available to be verified, it shouldn't be tagged. Generally speaking, I think some kind of dnp_better_version_at_source tag can be useful for CDNP or other cases where e6 can only host a poorer quality version than other publicly available sources have (since better_version_at_source is used to indicate a better public version that should be posted here and replace the current one, being able to distinguish that from a better public version that can't be posted here would be good). Though if those higher quality public versions should go down (deleted, site closure, etc), the tag should be removed from the post when someone notices since it's no longer accurate. You, me, or anyone else on this site can look and see if the tag needs to be fixed. But if the only "better" source is a non-public pay version, the only people that could verify the tag still being accurate are people who recently paid for it and can check, and that doesn't seem like a good idea to me as then only certain people who paid money (or have a special relationship with the artist) can handle the tag.

watsit said:
Personally I think if it's not publicly available to be verified, it shouldn't be tagged. Generally speaking, I think some kind of dnp_better_version_at_source tag can be useful for CDNP or other cases where e6 can only host a poorer quality version than other publicly available sources have (since better_version_at_source is used to indicate a better public version that should be posted here and replace the current one, being able to distinguish that from a better public version that can't be posted here would be good). Though if those higher quality public versions should go down (deleted, site closure, etc), the tag should be removed from the post when someone notices since it's no longer accurate. You, me, or anyone else on this site can look and see if the tag needs to be fixed. But if the only "better" source is a non-public pay version, the only people that could verify the tag still being accurate are people who recently paid for it and can check, and that doesn't seem like a good idea to me as then only certain people who paid money (or have a special relationship with the artist) can handle the tag.

Ah, so we're of the same mind then. What's your opinion on calling the proposed tag dnp_better_version_at_source?

versperus said:
Ah, so we're of the same mind then. What's your opinion on calling the proposed tag dnp_better_version_at_source?

It does come across as a little clunky, how it's basically the same as another tag just with dnp_ slapped in front. better_dnp_version_at_source flows a bit better in my mind, but I'm hardly the best at coming up with names for things, so I wouldn't be surprised if others have a different idea/opinion.

I wonder how different the results for this new tag, whatever it ends up being called, will be from the results for conditional_dnp bvas in practice?

wat8548 said:
I wonder how different the results for this new tag, whatever it ends up being called, will be from the results for conditional_dnp bvas in practice

Essentially these tags would only be applicable parse parameters, cleaning up a lot of bloat from the bvas tag that people literally can't do anything about. Which would make actually cleaning out the bvas tag more streamlined as you wouldn't need to comb through content that's not bvasable

what about something like "POVAS: permission_only_version_at_source" instead of DNPBVAS

watsit said:
It would end up on a lot of posts. Most artists that have a Patreon or SubscribeStar have higher res versions of their art behind the paywall, with the public version being smaller. If it was allowed for that case, it would end up on a lot of artists' images when there isn't a better public version to see. This would also then apply for artists that sell art CDs or digital art packs with higher res versions than they post online. Technically this would also apply to PNG vs JPG, so even if the public version is the same size, if the pay version is a PNG (or even a less compressed JPG), this would apply. That would heavily dilute the tag from its current use of a better version being publicly available that just can't be posted here for some reason.

Also, it being behind a paywall inherently means the public can't see it, which makes it harder to verify if a post actually has a better pay version (sometimes artists do post the full version publicly after a time, but can you know when the tag doesn't apply anymore if the paysite post is left behind a pay tier?). Especially for Japanese artists using Fanbox, or newer/lesser-known artists, which won't have as many users here subscribed to them. Also in many cases, the paysite source isn't included in the source list because it's not a publicly accessible source, making it harder to verify proper use of the tag.

true. it kinda falls in line with artists mistakenly tagging BVAS when they post their public work. sure, it's one more tag to consider when posting, and sure it's likely going to be undertagged. but I'm more the group to tag absolutely everything so I don't particularly mind.

I also bet people would end up using the tag on public "censored" SFW images that the artist has adult versions for pay (e.g. a clothed variant, or lacking genitals, for the public version). alternate_version_at_source and better_version_at_source are different tags, so dnp_* variants would be too, but I bet people would be all too willing to slap dnp_better_version_at_source on any public censored posts if there's an uncensored one behind a paywall. Bikomation beware.

well, it is literally the dnp version at the source link.

The bulk update request #2600 has been rejected.

create alias levas (0) -> limit_exceeding_version_at_source (0)
change category limit_exceeding_version_at_source (0) -> meta
create alias bpovas (0) -> better_permission_only_version_at_source (0)
change category better_permission_only_version_at_source (0) -> meta

Reason: Discussion in related forum, alternate tags for different factors on a post.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2600 (forum #337019) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

The bulk update request #2601 has been rejected.

create implication better_version_at_source (2487) -> source_file_deviation (0)
create implication smaller_version_at_source (4466) -> source_file_deviation (0)
create implication unavailable_at_source (8631) -> source_file_deviation (0)
create implication limit_exceeding_version_at_source (0) -> source_file_deviation (0)
create implication better_permission_only_version_at_source (0) -> source_file_deviation (0)
change category source_file_deviation (0) -> meta

Reason: If the site agrees that levas and bpovas are valid tags to exist on site, grouping all these source deviating tags seems like it could be a good move as well.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2601 (forum #337021) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

versperus said:
Reason: If the site agrees that levas and bpovas are valid tags to exist on site, grouping all these source deviating tags seems like it could be a good move as well.

I don't agree that umbrella tags are worthwhile for the sake of having umbrella tags. Can you provide a scenario in which the tag source_file_deviation would be useful for searching or blacklisting?

wat8548 said:
I don't agree that umbrella tags are worthwhile for the sake of having umbrella tags. Can you provide a scenario in which the tag source_file_deviation would be useful for searching or blacklisting?

Specifically for the tags that are suggested for getting umbrella (I've left out avas) everything could have reason for checking whether the post in question is actually the best public version, or if there is missing sources for the the post. Meaning that people who do sourcing, would have an easy way to back check all these tags in one unit. As these posts for one reason or another have inferiority in the local file or the source file.

The bulk update request #2601 (forum #337021) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

The bulk update request #2600 (forum #337019) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.