So, I'm an infrequent uploader and more lately most of my posts come from a private source. This week I uploaded three pieces I was given directly by the commissioner, two of which had public posts on their respective artists' Twitter pages, so I linked both the twitter posts and the direct image links associated with them.

Seemingly on approval, one of these .png posts was Replaced with the Twitter .jpg
Was this

• An automated process due to direct-linking the Twitter .jpg?
• An automated process due to linking the Twitter post at all?
• A manual process instigated by the janitor due to either of the above?
• A manual process instigated by the janitor because the .jpg is somehow preferred? ^{With my perhaps little-above-layman knowledge of image files I hope it's not this one ut I'm willing to be proven wrong}

For now I've removed the direct .jpg image link for the other unapproved post that had one and messaged the janitor whose account is associated with this replacement, but I'm not sure if I still have to be concerned about that happening a second and slapping me with my second quarter-mark against my upload limit. If for some reason I should be uploading the .jpg I'd like to know!

magnuseffect said:
So, I'm an infrequent uploader and more lately most of my posts come from a private source. This week I uploaded three pieces I was given directly by the commissioner, two of which had public posts on their respective artists' Twitter pages, so I linked both the twitter posts and the direct image links associated with them.

Seemingly on approval, one of these .png posts was Replaced with the Twitter .jpg
Was this

• An automated process due to direct-linking the Twitter .jpg?
• An automated process due to linking the Twitter post at all?
• A manual process instigated by the janitor due to either of the above?
• A manual process instigated by the janitor because the .jpg is somehow preferred? ^{With my perhaps little-above-layman knowledge of image files I hope it's not this one ut I'm willing to be proven wrong}

For now I've removed the direct .jpg image link for the other unapproved post that had one and messaged the janitor whose account is associated with this replacement, but I'm not sure if I still have to be concerned about that happening a second and slapping me with my second quarter-mark against my upload limit. If for some reason I should be uploading the .jpg I'd like to know!

It's possible that someone thinks it's a paysite file. Normally, the PNG file is better, but if the PNG file is just resaved version of the JPEG, it can get flagged, as well. I've also seen JPEGs higher in resolution than the PNG file because they used a screenshot on a phone or something crazy (it's upsized).

alphamule said:
It's possible that someone thinks it's a paysite file.

I have a history of sourceless uploads of the character in question, and have not been contacted or record-ed at all about potential paysite violations before or after this incident.
So... should I not link the Twitter at all if its content doesn't match my private source?

Posts aren't replaced with an automated process. Someone has to manually replace it.

From the linked post's replacement reason, it says:

Source-matching JPEG version. The previous upload was converted to PNG.

Meaning whoever you got the PNG from just converted it from the Twitter JPEG, as they were pixel-for-pixel identical.

watsit said:
Posts aren't replaced with an automated process. Someone has to manually replace it.

From the linked post's replacement reason, it says:
Meaning whoever you got the PNG from just converted it from the Twitter JPEG, as they were pixel-for-pixel identical.

Oh! Hmm, I'll bring this up with the person who passed me the file.

Well here's what I've got so far

Myself —
SO
Allegedly that post was a .jpg converted to .png?
Commissioner —
Which is not true since what I gave you was from sta.sh, which was a PNG
Myself —
And you can 100% verify that you somehow weren't given a .png-ified version of the Twitter post?
Commissioner —
I'll need to dig through years old DMs for that. It'll take a bit

So, apparently I need to be more thorough in making sure my source is giving me the best possible source.
They've now also uncovered an even higher-quality post elsewhere, who should I be contacting to get that slotted in while possibly resolving the current mark against my record? I've also read elsewhere that the upload penalty is only applied in cases where the behaviour behind the original post is to be discouraged. Is this a case where I should have known better to begin with?

magnuseffect said:
So, apparently I need to be more thorough in making sure my source is giving me the best possible source.
They've now also uncovered an even higher-quality post elsewhere,

Yeah there are tons of pitfalls when you start out uploading. Ensure that higher quality post isn't another jpg -> png conversion and that there isn't any artifacting.

who should I be contacting to get that slotted in while possibly resolving the current mark against my record?

You can dmail @spe (or other admins) for replacements access so you can replace it yourself. As for resolving the mark against your record, I find it unlikely that it'll be removed.

I've also read elsewhere that the upload penalty is only applied in cases where the behaviour behind the original post is to be discouraged. Is this a case where I should have known better to begin with?

On the contrary, the replacements penalty is by default given unless there is a good reason (higher quality source is newer than the post (this is what the forum thread you linked to meant, how could you possibly have known better that a higher quality post would come out)), and/or you're replacing your own post.

magnuseffect said:
Well here's what I've got so far

[stuff about sta.sh that won't appear here when I click quote]

This may be the difference between right-click -> saving an image versus actually clicking the download button, I know I've had a similar issue in the past, but can't remember the specifics.

magnuseffect said:
read elsewhere that the upload penalty is only applied in cases where the behaviour behind the original post is to be discouraged. Is this a case where I should have known better to begin with?

That thread's not exactly up-to-date anymore, penalisation is now the default unless submitted by the original uploader and I'm not sure if it can even be appealed.

I wouldn't worry too much about it - I tried to avoid being penalised for the longest time too, but it ends up being an inevitable part of uploading. I ask artists for permission and for their best quality files, yet somebody always ends up making a takedown or uploading higher quality images somewhere that they didn't mention to me.

faucet said:
This may be the difference between right-click -> saving an image versus actually clicking the download button, I know I've had a similar issue in the past, but can't remember the specifics.

When doublechecked, the sta.sh post is titled in a way that acknowledges it's a "shrunk" version
Any specifics as to why are lost to time at this point, being I think three and a half years removed from now.

This is part of why I zoom in on suspiciously identical-resolution PNGs. I've actually seen a tiny PNG with 113 unique colors that IS the superior version compared to ginormous JPEG and even larger size of PNG file. Note that the larger 2 files were resized, and that's the reason for change in number of colors. Say, you go from 1200x600 to 1100x550. It'll resample those pixels with intermediate colors, and that'll generate thousands of new ones not in the original (higher-resolution, smaller filesize) PNG.

Another hint is the metadata. Pressing I in Irfanview lets you see some (but not all). If one mentions something like SAI or some Adobe program, and the other doesn't, there's a good chance of the source image mentioning the tool it was created with, in the first place. When you export the final results of making an image, you get the application name. Pixiv (used to?) lets you search by program.

alphamule said:
This is part of why I zoom in on suspiciously identical-resolution PNGs. I've actually seen a tiny PNG with 113 unique colors that IS the superior version compared to ginormous JPEG and even larger size of PNG file. Note that the larger 2 files were resized, and that's the reason for change in number of colors. Say, you go from 1200x600 to 1100x550. It'll resample those pixels with intermediate colors, and that'll generate thousands of new ones not in the original (higher-resolution, smaller filesize) PNG.

Another hint is the metadata. Pressing I in Irfanview lets you see some (but not all). If one mentions something like SAI or some Adobe program, and the other doesn't, there's a good chance of the source image mentioning the tool it was created with, in the first place. When you export the final results of making an image, you get the application name. Pixiv (used to?) lets you search by program.

Valid, and I'm going to be more thorough with even the images I get from a near-direct source in the future. It's the first time I've been hit by problems getting art straight from a commissioner, and if anything my biggest problem here is not triple-checking the artist-posted public sources, since, the full-res^{now here on site, got my upload penalty removed for it} was up on IB anyway so not even the original replacement was Best Possible Version.