My first image I uploaded was flagged for "Not meeting the Minimum quality Standards". I thought this was because the image was black and white and was not shaded or detailed. So I colored it for the artist, and yet, it was deleted again.

So what does Minimum Quality Standards actually mean then?

(I looked it up a bit and the only thing I think I got wrong was the image quality, but how can I get any better quality image when I took the image right from the creator?)

They were deleted because the mod felt the art was bad.

ippiki_ookami said:
They were deleted because the mod felt the art was bad.

So it's a Mod problem? So, would it be alright for me to upload the art again later?
Oooor avoid it all together?
(I've definitely seen worse art, but who knows Haha)

re-posting deleted pics is a no-no.

Only time I've seen bad art approved is either when the image has humor in it or the mod accidentally pressed the "approve" button

Hm.. I thought it was good art honestly. But I guess not. Wasted time coloring it (probably would have made it if I had Photoshop Haha).. But oh well, I'll just give the colored art to the artist or something..

My misunderstanding that "Didn't meet Minimum Quality Standard" really means "Your art sucks and doesn't belong" was what caused me to repost. I wont do it again..

Because the art itself, or rather the anatomy is really wonky and all over the place and it kinda looks like it was scribbled.

Columben said:
Hm.. I thought it was good art honestly. But I guess not. Wasted time coloring it (probably would have made it if I had Photoshop Haha).. But oh well, I'll just give the colored art to the artist or something..

My misunderstanding that "Didn't meet Minimum Quality Standard" really means "Your art sucks and doesn't belong" was what caused me to repost. I wont do it again..

A colored version isn't a re-post.
So, no big deal there.

NotMeNotYou said:
Because the art itself, or rather the anatomy is really wonky and all over the place and it kinda looks like it was scribbled.

Ah. Good to hear it from the one who deleted it, because now I know the mystery of why it was deleted Haha.
Yeah, he said it was a 'doodle', so he probably drew it up within 20 minutes as practice or something. I thought it looked good, but I guess it doesn't. No matter, I'll just keep to watching his art on Deviantart.

Halite said:
A colored version isn't a re-post.
So, no big deal there.

Yes it is...if a black and white image is deleted, then someone colors it in....its still the same image just with color. So it is still kinda a re-post if it was already deleted. Besides...people tend to forget we have a black and white tag.

Conker said:
Yes it is...if a black and white image is deleted, then someone colors it in....its still the same image just with color. So it is still kinda a re-post if it was already deleted. Besides...people tend to forget we have a black and white tag.

And if the coloring significantly improves the quality of the image?

Halite said:
And if the coloring significantly improves the quality of the image?

Which isn't the case for this image.

Butterscotch said:
Which isn't the case for this image.

Certainly, but if you call any colored image a repost, then you risk the loss of quality re-working of poor quality works.

Halite said:
And if the coloring significantly improves the quality of the image?

Personally I wouldnt re-upload a image that was deleted by an admin even if it was colored. If I wanted to however....I would ask the admin before uploading to see if its okay.

Conker said:
Personally I wouldnt re-upload a image that was deleted by an admin even if it was colored. If I wanted to however....I would ask the admin before uploading to see if its okay.

You don't see how toxic an environment it is for someone to feel like they're in that much of a stranglehold by an administration? "Don't repost deleted stuff" is intended to stop someone trying to have an upload/delete/upload/delete slapping contest (like a tag war on a wiki). If someone feels like they're "in danger" or "pushing it" by trying to improve their art style and re-submit it, then the system has failed, is shit, and needs to be redone immediately.

Foobaria said:
You don't see how toxic an environment it is for someone to feel like they're in that much of a stranglehold by an administration? "Don't repost deleted stuff" is intended to stop someone trying to have an upload/delete/upload/delete slapping contest (like a tag war on a wiki). If someone feels like they're "in danger" or "pushing it" by trying to improve their art style and re-submit it, then the system has failed, is shit, and needs to be redone immediately.

You know, you're constantly slamming the system as being shit and having failed and going on and on on how bad it is, yet you never offer any sort of constructive feedback or suggestions on how the system can be improved. How do you think that sort of negativity is going to help anything?

If you've got suggestions on how the system can be improved, everyone, myself included, would be way more than happy to hear them and discuss them. If you don't, then stop being so pointlessly negative, because it severely undermines our desire to take you even the least bit seriously.

Foobaria said:
You don't see how toxic an environment it is for someone to feel like they're in that much of a stranglehold by an administration? "Don't repost deleted stuff" is intended to stop someone trying to have an upload/delete/upload/delete slapping contest (like a tag war on a wiki). If someone feels like they're "in danger" or "pushing it" by trying to improve their art style and re-submit it, then the system has failed, is shit, and needs to be redone immediately.

Good thing this isn't the case then, we'll only take action if the post was either DNP to begin with or otherwise clearly against the rules (someone uploaded a picture of (I assume) his penis, I deleted it and gave him a neg, he uploaded it again, he got a 3 day vacation from the site functions).
No idea why you feel the need to hyperbole straight into the apocalypse.

NotMeNotYou said:
Good thing this isn't the case then, we'll only take action if the post was either DNP to begin with or otherwise clearly against the rules (someone uploaded a picture of (I assume) his penis, I deleted it and gave him a neg, he uploaded it again, he got a 3 day vacation from the site functions).
No idea why you feel the need to hyperbole straight into the apocalypse.

Wasnt there that one user who uploaded a image of a random 3d dragon with a tiny nude man, and when that was deleted he said he just move the camera angel so its technicality not the same image to get around the "dont repost the same deleted image" thing? ...Still its the same image. If it was already deleted, I dont think any amount of angle or color changes will effect it :V

Conker said:
Wasnt there that one user who uploaded a image of a random 3d dragon with a tiny nude man, and when that was deleted he said he just move the camera angel so its technicality not the same image to get around the "dont repost the same deleted image" thing? ...Still its the same image. If it was already deleted, I dont think any amount of angle or color changes will effect it :V

If I take a block of granite and chisel Adonis out of it that'd make the old greek artists jealous, is it still just a (much smaller) block of granite or is it a piece of art?

This will depend from case to case, if the coloring doesn't add anything in terms of quality it will very likely go, if the coloring and possible shading do improve the quality it will stay.
And if someone like scappo would decide to give a sketch a complete overhaul, would you still want us to delete it for being sub-par quality?

NotMeNotYou said:
If I take a block of granite and chisel Adonis out of it that'd make the old greek artists jealous, is it still just a (much smaller) block of granite or is it a piece of art?

Thats changing the shape of the object....think of it like this, a man makes a ugly panting, and then puts glitter ontop of it in an attempt to get it approved....is it the same image? yes. But yeah this is case to case.

As for your question: But he didn't really create the statue; it was always there in the rock. He just chipped away at the excess pieces until the statue was exposed. :P

Conker said:
Thats changing the shape of the object....think of it like this, a man makes a ugly panting, and then puts glitter ontop of it in an attempt to get it approved....is it the same image? yes. But yeah this is case to case.

As for your question: But he didn't really create the statue; it was always there in the rock. He just chipped away at the excess pieces until the statue was exposed. :P

A bad sketch coloured is still a bad sketch. A bad sketch reworked to remove the aspects considered bad is a good sketch.

It's subjective but it's the best there is.

Conker said:
Personally I wouldnt re-upload a image that was deleted by an admin even if it was colored. If I wanted to however....I would ask the admin before uploading to see if its okay.

The first image, I kind of knew why it was deleted (the admin who deleted it confirmed my suspicions), because the lines were "sketchy" and it looked a little lazy, which the artist even said it was lazy, so I colored it, thinking that maybe it would improve the look of the image, instead of it looking like sketchy black and white sketch. I guess the second admin didn't like it.
But we all have different tastes. I think it looked better colored, an admin didn't (Or else he deleted it for a different reason, he didn't respond to this forum post like NotMeNotYou did).
I personally didn't know admins judged art on "quality" (meaning it lines looked scribbled or whatnot)[Because like I said before, I've seen some bad art make it through the admins before], I've only uploaded a few images, and those were ones I just colored, so I was confused on what "Didn't meet Quality Standards" meant, I thought it meant the image had to be shaded if in black and white or colored, so I colored it. Looks better colored, but I guess the second admin didn't like the anatomy or something.

I'm pretty sure you an re-upload an image colored. If the uncolored image made it through the admins, then it would be a "Child Post", if it didn't, maybe it would improve the look of the image, and an admin would find it more suitable than the "sketchy" black and white image.

I personally wish they accepted the artwork, but they didn't.. Kind of bums me out, and I told the artist, and of course he was proud of his work, and was bummed that people noticed his "scribbles" within. But Constructive criticism always helps Haha.

Obviously they set the minimum quality standards for this site far too low, looking at the enormous amounts of so-called "artwork" here that appear to be crayon scribbles from 5 year olds.

Furry porn has gone downhill, there's very few images of 'quality' anymore.

Lynx7386 said:
Obviously they set the minimum quality standards for this site far too low, looking at the enormous amounts of so-called "artwork" here that appear to be crayon scribbles from 5 year olds.

Furry porn has gone downhill, there's very few images of 'quality' anymore.

You think our standards are low? Have you ever been to this place called Fur Affinity?

Lynx7386 said:
Obviously they set the minimum quality standards for this site far too low, looking at the enormous amounts of so-called "artwork" here that appear to be crayon scribbles from 5 year olds.

Furry porn has gone downhill, there's very few images of 'quality' anymore.

That's bullshit, the worst stuff is computer generated cookie-cutter crap. A lot of the older furry stuff I've seen is like looney tunes gone filthy which doesn't really appeal to me. There's enough good-to-great artists out there as there's ever been, it's just that there's more mediocre-to-poor-to-fucking diabolically bad than there's ever been too. And this site makes it more easy to filter out shit than any other, so quit yr whinin

Lynx7386 said:
Obviously they set the minimum quality standards for this site far too low, looking at the enormous amounts of so-called "artwork" here that appear to be crayon scribbles from 5 year olds.

Furry porn has gone downhill, there's very few images of 'quality' anymore.

Go to FA
You will find what would happen if all art was accepted...

Lynx7386 said:
Obviously they set the minimum quality standards for this site far too low, looking at the enormous amounts of so-called "artwork" here that appear to be crayon scribbles from 5 year olds.

Furry porn has gone downhill, there's very few images of 'quality' anymore.

Dude

ippiki_ookami said:
You think our standards are low?

Honestly? Yes...would you call this high quality?
post #225509
*Approver: ippiki_ookami*

Conker said:
Honestly? Yes...would you call this high quality?
post #225509
*Approver: ippiki_ookami*

I still have a chance!! TTuTT

Conker said:
Honestly? Yes...would you call this high quality?
post #225509

That one makes me laugh every time. So maybe it was allowed based on being funny? Kind of like this one I suppose. Although ones like this I don't think I'll ever come to understand (between her face and her butt, I don't even know where to stare anymore).

furrypickle said:
That one makes me laugh every time. So maybe it was allowed based on being funny? Kind of like this one I suppose. Although ones like this I don't think I'll ever come to understand (between her face and her butt, I don't even know where to stare anymore).

Well it seems ippiki_ookami approved one of them...so it seems e621's quality bar is pretty low

Conker said:
Well it seems ippiki_ookami approved one of them...so it seems e621's quality bar is pretty low

Joking right? Because 3 out of 300,000+ images [what is the actual number of images on this site?] is in the range of human error and actually pretty close to perfect for a bunch of humans. I wouldn't call that "pretty low" by any standard, so I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. When you add in that 2 out of those 3 were humorous and could have qualified under that criteria...1 out of 300,000 is an almost miraculously good record. So, I really don't get your point. I know the numbers for both are probably much higher [more actual total images on the site, and more questionable art quality images] but the ratio is still phenomenal, and not abysmal like you're implying.

In fact, it says a lot that the most downvoted images are almost entirely over content, failure to blacklist [content], butthurt [content] and old downvoting campaigns [drama] instead of the actual art quality of the image. We just don't have very many extremely low art quality images on here. Certainly not many in ratio to everything else we have on here. So *shrug* I really don't get what you mean. Even if we turned Varka into a robot, I don't think we could improve those results by much. And that's actually the definition of doing a pretty damn good job.

Lynx7386 said:
Obviously they set the minimum quality standards for this site far too low, looking at the enormous amounts of so-called "artwork" here that appear to be crayon scribbles from 5 year olds.

Furry porn has gone downhill, there's very few images of 'quality' anymore.

Quality is on perception in my opinion. I thought the images I uploaded looked pretty good (not exactly a Picasso, but normal in my standards) and it was deleted for looking bad, which I can see why it was.
But I have to say, I see 1000x more good material accepted than bad.

I kind of want to upload another drawing from the artist I uploaded from, but I don't think it meets the "minimum quality standards", unless I get the right admin to accept it xD

furrypickle said:
Joking right? Because 3 out of 300,000+ images....-snip-

There is a lot more then 3, trust me. You just have to search up the right tags.

furrypickle said:
That one makes me laugh every time. So maybe it was allowed based on being funny? Kind of like this one I suppose. Although ones like this I don't think I'll ever come to understand (between her face and her butt, I don't even know where to stare anymore).

See, shit like that pisses me off. I uploaded some old comics from back in the agnph days where Char was before e621, for nostalgia and history, and they certainly looked better than that shit, but were deleted. Fucking "quality standards" just an excuse to delete whatever the fuck you want. Just stop with the "low quality" and "irrelevant to site" bullshit and put the real reason for deletion: "mod didn't like it". Let's have some more transparency.

Foobaria said:
See, shit like that pisses me off. I uploaded some old comics from back in the agnph days where Char was before e621, for nostalgia and history, and they certainly looked better than that shit, but were deleted. Fucking "quality standards" just an excuse to delete whatever the fuck you want. Just stop with the "low quality" and "irrelevant to site" bullshit and put the real reason for deletion: "mod didn't like it". Let's have some more transparency.

You have no idea how many posts I liked but had to delete because irrelevant or sub standard quality, but yeah, no idea why these agnph comics were deleted.

Emphasis on "were".

Foobaria said:
See, shit like that pisses me off. I uploaded some old comics from back in the agnph days where Char was before e621, for nostalgia and history, and they certainly looked better than that shit, but were deleted. Fucking "quality standards" just an excuse to delete whatever the fuck you want. Just stop with the "low quality" and "irrelevant to site" bullshit and put the real reason for deletion: "mod didn't like it". Let's have some more transparency.

https://e621.net/post/index/1/agnph

But seriously though, if you hate E6 so much, go away or start contributing to it to make it better.

corgi_bread said:
https://e621.net/post/index/1/agnph

But seriously though, if you hate E6 so much, go away or start contributing to it to make it better.

They must have been undeleted (NMNY?), but they were deleted for quality reasons. I remember them being 5 or 6, though.

Edit: Yep, they were undeleted (NMNY). They appear as recently uploaded in Foobaria's uploads but with the time as "6 months ago"

Yes, it's blindingly obvious they were undeleted from his saying "emphasis on were". I wish they had been undeleted for the right reason, rather than them being undeleted for the same reason they were deleted (i.e., a particular mod had a particular judgement about them), but it is good that they're back.

Foobaria said:
Yes, it's blindingly obvious they were undeleted from his saying "emphasis on were". I wish they had been undeleted for the right reason, rather than them being undeleted for the same reason they were deleted (i.e., a particular mod had a particular judgement about them), but it is good that they're back.

>particular judgement

Relevant because Char, very likely something ktkr didn't know.
And honestly, can't blame him for that, I wouldn't know this if I hadn't heard talk about them on the IRC.

But besides that, the quality isn't that good, these are simply pasted sprites and some text thrown onto them.

And yet the question still stands, what would YOU change to make the system better?
It is kinda dumb be so agitated about something without either trying to change something or being able to present a solution for the problem.

Just leave at Beauty or this case quality is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone here have the same tastes.

Foobaria said:
See, shit like that pisses me off. I uploaded some old comics from back in the agnph days where Char was before e621, for nostalgia and history, and they certainly looked better than that shit, but were deleted. Fucking "quality standards" just an excuse to delete whatever the fuck you want. Just stop with the "low quality" and "irrelevant to site" bullshit and put the real reason for deletion: "mod didn't like it". Let's have some more transparency.

I see that you have problem with comprehension of very simple system. Real reason for deletion of anything is not "mod didn't like it". Pics can't be deleted just because mods don't like it Pics can be deleted because they have bad quality or are not furry and mod didn't find any redeeming value for them. If picture is furry, and good quality it's going to stay even if no mod likes it.

Also I really fail to see what system would be better than current. Either removing everything bad or not furry, or allowing everything would make this site really bad.

What I want is for more than one person at a time to be responsible for making a decision. I may not agree with the decisions made when multiple eyes are on a thing, but I can't honestly argue them, because majority rules in a reasonable society. I severely dislike a system where one person can see a thing, go "this is bad", and it is gone, just like that.

I don't expect this to ever be the case, because these are unpaid volunteers and as such reduction of redundant labour is extremely important to not piss off those volunteers, but that is what I have always wanted.

Foobaria said:
What I want is for more than one person at a time to be responsible for making a decision. I may not agree with the decisions made when multiple eyes are on a thing, but I can't honestly argue them, because majority rules in a reasonable society. I severely dislike a system where one person can see a thing, go "this is bad", and it is gone, just like that.

I don't expect this to ever be the case, because these are unpaid volunteers and as such reduction of redundant labour is extremely important to not piss off those volunteers, but that is what I have always wanted.

It's a nice idea in practice, but it'd be a system where you'd basically need 2 out of 3 moderators to vote on every single deletion before it was carried out. Stuff would take ages to get done.

Under the present system all you need to do is ask another admin nicely after an image has been deleted and ask if he agrees with it.

Foobaria said:
What I want is for more than one person at a time to be responsible for making a decision. I may not agree with the decisions made when multiple eyes are on a thing, but I can't honestly argue them, because majority rules in a reasonable society. I severely dislike a system where one person can see a thing, go "this is bad", and it is gone, just like that.

I don't expect this to ever be the case, because these are unpaid volunteers and as such reduction of redundant labour is extremely important to not piss off those volunteers, but that is what I have always wanted.

I would support having that practice.
It's good to have an idea on how to improve, instead of just ranting and protesting.
There are flaws to that system though, although it takes away the "bias" aspect, it does jam up the system and make things slower. But there are flaws to every system.

If a mod deletes my image (which happened...Twice...) I'd find it safer to just move on. It's honestly better to know why it was flawed as "Doesn't meet minimum standards" sometimes, especially if you're the artist and you have the mindset that your image is quite well made, and it was flagged for being "bad", I'd at least like to know why.

I personally like the system of siphoning out "bad art", for it honestly makes this site better. I can go on this site, and rely on seeing what I want, and I also get to see some pretty good art. Some crap art falls through the cracks, but I just 'thumb down' and move on. Although, when being an artist (or a contributing artist, for I colored the image, I did not draw it), and your content is flagged as "crap", it is debilitating lol.