Since the "no source/i am the source" is no longer there as an option,
how am i supposed to list the thing if i'm uploading my own artwork which i created myself, and may not have posted anywhere else?
as in; the artwork i want to upload, is not an artwork i have saved/sourced from another site.

do i have to post it elsewhere first, or i can't post it on e621?

Are you not able to use No Available Source?

No available source should ONLY be used if the content has never been posted online anywhere else.

I see this when I go to https://e621.net/uploads/new under sources

"No available source / I am the source." was renamed to simply "No available source." because of the amount of artists that would check the box and not provide any source links even though they existed. The motivation behind this was that if source links exist, they should be linked - being the artist or not isn't really relevant to whether a source should be provided. PR #538

If in this case it hasn't been uploaded anywhere else, you're all good to check the "No available source." box.

faucet said:
"No available source / I am the source." was renamed to simply "No available source." because of the amount of artists that would check the box and not provide any source links even though they existed. The motivation behind this was that if source links exist, they should be linked - being the artist or not isn't really relevant to whether a source should be provided. PR #538

If in this case it hasn't been uploaded anywhere else, you're all good to check the "No available source." box.

This doesn't make any sense though - even if the art was posted somewhere else that doesn't make that other copy a source. For example, if I upload smth to Twitter, Bluesky, FA, and here, I'm not downloading the copy I just uploaded to a different site to post it to the next one - I'm just gonna upload the originally exported final copy that came from whatever program I used to finish the work. It literally is not being sourced from anything but my hard drive or phone.

It doesn't make sense to list another mirror of the work as a "source" when it literally has no "source" other than the fact I made the thing myself. Like it's me, I'm the source, not some other website I just so happened to open before this one when uploading.

snowferretfitzroy said:
This doesn't make any sense though - even if the art was posted somewhere else that doesn't make that other copy a source. For example, if I upload smth to Twitter, Bluesky, FA, and here, I'm not downloading the copy I just uploaded to a different site to post it to the next one - I'm just gonna upload the originally exported final copy that came from whatever program I used to finish the work. It literally is not being sourced from anything but my hard drive or phone.

It doesn't make sense to list another mirror of the work as a "source" when it literally has no "source" other than the fact I made the thing myself. Like it's me, I'm the source, not some other website I just so happened to open before this one when uploading.

90% of the e6 users are not the creators/ character owners of the images which is why this is really applicable, and if you are the artist, it lets people who enjoy your art here find and follow you on those other sources you've posted on.

snowferretfitzroy said:
This doesn't make any sense though - even if the art was posted somewhere else that doesn't make that other copy a source. For example, if I upload smth to Twitter, Bluesky, FA, and here, I'm not downloading the copy I just uploaded to a different site to post it to the next one - I'm just gonna upload the originally exported final copy that came from whatever program I used to finish the work. It literally is not being sourced from anything but my hard drive or phone.

It doesn't make sense to list another mirror of the work as a "source" when it literally has no "source" other than the fact I made the thing myself. Like it's me, I'm the source, not some other website I just so happened to open before this one when uploading.

it's partially because we generally don't want users to treat e621 as in the same way as a personal gallery site like FA or any personal social media website. e6 is a booru, an art archive and the way we handle posts is different, you do not own the page you post your art to, you still own the rights to your own art, of course, but the control over the post page is ceded to e621, her staff, and the larger community.

source links are meant to link to a location owned/controled by the artist or commissioner or whoever. we also have different standards, and in the case when something gets deleted it's nice to still have that source link to see what the image was even if it's no longer hosted here.

-so the consensus of the moderators writing the rules etc.
is basically that they prefer other people than the original artist to post the artworks?

and in the rare case it's the original artist wanting to post something,
they HAVE to have posted it elsewhere first, so there's a link to the post,

that's a pretty curious approach..

especially if it's not even the same version of the image, ie. if "the source" has size restrictions, and e621 allows for a much larger image,
then it would be wrong to link the site another version of the same picture was originally posted, since the version of the picture uploaded on e621 is much larger,

konani said:
-so the consensus of the moderators writing the rules etc.
is basically that they prefer other people than the original artist to post the artworks?

It's not preferred, it's just the way that boorus have always historically been, meaning that most rules and site features are written with that in mind. Only within the past few years has there been a surge of artists actually wanting to post their own artwork here, which is welcomed. New features like artist verification have been added to try and cater for this.

konani said:
and in the rare case it's the original artist wanting to post something,
they HAVE to have posted it elsewhere first, so there's a link to the post,

No, it doesn't have to be posted somewhere else first. That's what the "No available source." checkbox is for.

snowferretfitzroy said:
This doesn't make any sense though - even if the art was posted somewhere else that doesn't make that other copy a source. For example, if I upload smth to Twitter, Bluesky, FA, and here, I'm not downloading the copy I just uploaded to a different site to post it to the next one - I'm just gonna upload the originally exported final copy that came from whatever program I used to finish the work. It literally is not being sourced from anything but my hard drive or phone.

It doesn't make sense to list another mirror of the work as a "source" when it literally has no "source" other than the fact I made the thing myself. Like it's me, I'm the source, not some other website I just so happened to open before this one when uploading.

konani said:
especially if it's not even the same version of the image, ie. if "the source" has size restrictions, and e621 allows for a much larger image,
then it would be wrong to link the site another version of the same picture was originally posted, since the version of the picture uploaded on e621 is much larger,

The problem here is the naming is a bit misleading. You're using the literal definition for source while e621 takes a much wider approach to it, something more along the lines of "other places you can see this image" rather than the literal "the website this image came from" that you're expecting it to be. The site also allows you to provide multiple sources, which obviously also makes no sense if you're taking the word source as literally as you are.

It doesn't have to be the same resolution or even the exact same version, there's metatags that exist such as smaller_version_at_source or alternate_version_at_source that describe when an e621 upload is a superior/alternative version of the "source" post.

I don't see why people wouldn't want more links back to their other galleries, how are they going to gain followers through e621 otherwise? I think the vast majority of artists are happy that viewers can click a link from e621 to their Twitter profile and follow them there, rather than worrying about how the e621 post is a higher resolution PNG file linking to their Twitter post which is a 70% quality downsampled JPG file.

If they don't post anywhere else, they check the "No available source." box, it's that easy.

konani said:
-so the consensus of the moderators writing the rules etc.
is basically that they prefer other people than the original artist to post the artworks?

and in the rare case it's the original artist wanting to post something,
they HAVE to have posted it elsewhere first, so there's a link to the post,

that's a pretty curious approach..

especially if it's not even the same version of the image, ie. if "the source" has size restrictions, and e621 allows for a much larger image,
then it would be wrong to link the site another version of the same picture was originally posted, since the version of the picture uploaded on e621 is much larger,

... what consensus of moderators writing rules?
You had five people reply to you, none of which are site staff.

And what they told you is more or less the exact opposite of what you are asserting.
I am just deeply confused here.

As a greymuzzle of the site, I dimly recall some point in time, long ago, when some member of the site staff (and its very likely they are no longer here anymore) had expressed an opinion on the forums that an artist who posts their work directly to this site is probably setting themselves up for disappointment. If memory serves, this was also during a time when there were a particularly large volume of complaints on the forums about posts being auto-deleted after no one had approved or rejected them -- posts that were very marginal, such that nobody with the authority to approve posts believed the posts were worth approval, but also none of those individuals wanted to defend a decision to delete those posts. So, context probably matters.

If your posts are being approved, keep uploading. And if you haven't posted versions elsewhere, tick the checkbox that reads "No available source".

faucet said:
The problem here is the naming is a bit misleading. You're using the literal definition for source while e621 takes a much wider approach to it, something more along the lines of "other places you can see this image" rather than the literal "the website this image came from"

Then change the wording of the site to not be so confusing? That's not "misleading," it's just literally using the word WRONG. It's just literally not what the word means in literally ANY context whatsoever OTHER THAN specifically only on this one specific site in that one specific instance. This seems like it is still a problem with the site itself, not anyone using it. The obvious best solution is to use a different word.

snowferretfitzroy said:
The obvious best solution is to use a different word.

Such as?

clawstripe said:
Such as?

external links? although that name might imply that it's meant to contain some of the stuff that ought to be put into the post description.

It's really far too late to change Source to anything else

donovan_dmc said:
It's really far too late to change Source to anything else

True. We should think of the Source field as the place to put sources in the meaning of any place online where the picture can be publicly found and not the source that specifically provided that particular upload's picture.

ikdind said:
As a greymuzzle of the site, I dimly recall some point in time, long ago, when some member of the site staff (and its very likely they are no longer here anymore) had expressed an opinion on the forums that an artist who posts their work directly to this site is probably setting themselves up for disappointment.

We're currently primed to lose Dacad, a top-rated only the artist may post CDNP artist due to disagreements on what constitutes young art, so I'd say this still checks out.