There is a trend seen nearly on every image on this site that is bothering me. I am hoping to bring this to light and get others' opinions on the subject.

Nearly every image has a 1 to 3 ratio of up-votes to favorites. Many of them are up to a 1 to 8 ratio. and I have even seen a few with nearly a 1-300 ratio. This can be seen easily by searching "order:favcount".

I am not blaming the users, but this is caused by people favoriting images and not voting them up. Some have stated that it maybe from a lot of vote downs. As some probably are, this does not account for the 90%+ images that have this heavy ratio of fav's to vote score.

---- MY PROPOSAL:
I am requesting that upon a click of an image to add it to the favorites of said user, that the up-vote is added automatically. This will still allow the user on the rare chance of favoriting something that they hate, to change their vote score downwards, but still allows for most images to display a more accurate portrayal of score than what is currently shown. I AM NOT PROPOSING THE REMOVAL OF EITHER FAVORITES OR THE VOTE SYSTEM, JUST THAT A FAVORITE ADDS AN UP-VOTE AUTOMATICALLY AS IF THE PERSON PRESSED BOTH BUTTONS.

EXAMPLE of image with current and proposed system when it comes to scoring:

I am going to use a hypothetical image example. Said image has been posted for 24 hours.

The image was viewed many times, but most people do not favorite or vote, so be the nature of most images and users of this site.

24 viewers liked it enough to up-vote the image. 15 viewers hated it and voted it down. 40 viewers liked it enough to favorite it.

In total: we have 64 viewers like it enough to click a button, and 15 viewers hate it enough to click a button

CURRENT SYSTEM would show that the image has a vote of positive 9 with 40 favorites.

PROPOSED SYSTEM would show that the image has a vote of positive 49 with 40 favorites.

With said image like enough by 64 viewers to go out of their way to click a button, what makes more sense for a vote score for said image: 9 or 49?

I am trying to make both the search ability of the up-down vote system more accurate as well as provide more accurate feedback for those artists that we are trying to keep allowing/posting images to this site.

This is for a discussion of a proposal I have made months ago that seem to be skipped by without an explanation of why this idea is problematic/inappropriate/just bad.

Thank you for your time and please discuss!
Waffles

Agree 100%

https://e621.net/forum/show/100886

CamKitty said:
https://e621.net/forum/show/100886

I can show you two other times I have brought this up in the forums and twice that I have brought it up to the "Feature Request Thread". I can link those as well.

The problem is that they just get swept by. Unanswered and unacknowledged by most. Either intentionally or unintentionally.

I started this thread not as just a proposal, but to actually discuss it with others to find out why it just keeps getting looked over and ignored.

_Waffles_ said:
I can show you two other times I have brought this up in the forums and twice that I have brought it up to the "Feature Request Thread". I can link those as well.

The problem is that they just get swept by. Unanswered and unacknowledged by most. Either intentionally or unintentionally.

I started this thread not as just a proposal, but to actually discuss it with others to find out why it just keeps getting looked over and ignored.

How about this from that thread from tony311 9one of the main admins and developer for the site):

"We're definitely never removing the ability for members to manually vote on images."

So the last thread was acknowledged, by a couple of people of importance.

The threads die because people believe it is unnecessary automation. People fave and upvote for different reasons and thier is no need for them to be inclusive

CamKitty said:

"We're definitely never removing the ability for members to manually vote on images."

I thought I explained this in my original post: "I AM NOT PROPOSING THE REMOVAL OF EITHER FAVORITES OR THE VOTE SYSTEM, JUST THAT A FAVORITE ADDS AN UP-VOTE AUTOMATICALLY AS IF THE PERSON PRESSED BOTH BUTTONS."

CamKitty said:

The threads die because people believe it is unnecessary automation. People fave and upvote for different reasons and thier is no need for them to be inclusive

If this was the case, why do they already have it for Privileged members/accounts? It was to make this exact idea easier for a select view. I have no problem with this, but not allowing it to be done by all members makes the system inaccurate as I showed in my example.

CamKitty said:
How about this from that thread from tony311 9one of the main admins and developer for the site):

"We're definitely never removing the ability for members to manually vote on images."

So the last thread was acknowledged, by a couple of people of importance.

The threads die because people believe it is unnecessary automation. People fave and upvote for different reasons and thier is no need for them to be inclusive

That's not acknowledged. That's ignoring what was being stated to nitpick one line (erroneously, no less) about reversing the priv+ function so they can manually upvote as well as fav+upvote that everyone would get. It's almost as bad as when Dave ignored discussion about Pinkamena to restate what he'd already stated without addressing the arguments that were given in the thread.

Your last sentence though has merit, as others have pointed out they see the system as different from how I use it, or someone else uses it... but if that's the case, then what's the point to it even existing if it's as completely meaningless as that implies?

_Waffles_ said:
If this was the case, why do they already have it for Privileged members/accounts? It was to make this exact idea easier for a select view. I have no problem with this, but not allowing it to be done by all members makes the system inaccurate as I showed in my example.

Well, in part you are right, but that's the benefit of Priv+ users, a second vote. I actually don't mind Faving and Upvoting separately. If you want to sort them by votes and faves you can do order:fav order:score (yes, you can combine them like this, but take in mind that not all combinations are possible)

123easy said:
Your last sentence though has merit, as others have pointed out they see the system as different from how I use it, or someone else uses it... but if that's the case, then what's the point to it even existing if it's as completely meaningless as that implies?

Usually because people vote based on the current moment, and faving is for saving later. A few people have said they have fav'd bad pics out of humour or to use later

Xch3l said:
Well, in part you are right, but that's the benefit of Priv+ users, a second vote. I actually don't mind Faving and Upvoting separately. If you want to sort them by votes and faves you can do order:fav order:score (yes, you can combine them like this, but take in mind that not all combinations are possible)

I understand that it is a benefit, and I am not saying it shouldnt be.

privileged users get the up-vote added when they favorite something AND!!! they get to vote again. Essentially a privileged user can make two up-votes on a single image.

I AM NOT PROPOSING TO TAKE THIS AWAY. Privileged accounts and account holders earn what they get. I understand this and have no problem with them getting a second vote. All I am asking is for the automation so that the ratios are not so differed and that most people do not have to click two buttons when going through A LOT of new images that are getting posted.

Again. I dont mind that they are separate either, but I feel that if you are favoriting an image that you should like it enough to vote-up the image as well. MOST USERS do not do this and cause the ratios stated above. For those few times that you want to favorite something you hate, you can still do that by changing your vote-score choice like any other image currently. The difference is pressing two buttons 99 out of 100 times, or two buttons 1 out of a 100 times (hypothetically).

Honestly I think uploaded should be able to lock the voting system so it displays 0 when done so and cant be used. Priv+ users too. It would stop the whiners who cant handle -votes. Hell even I am disappointed when I post something good, and get negs because either people Hate /me/ or dislike the subject matter... or I post a painting and because its not lobster (pron) its downvoted. Its...disappointing, depressing, aggravating....

Esme_Belles said:
Honestly I think uploaded should be able to lock the voting system so it displays 0 when done so and cant be used. Priv+ users too. It would stop the whiners who cant handle -votes. Hell even I am disappointed when I post something good, and get negs because either people Hate /me/ or dislike the subject matter... or I post a painting and because its not lobster (pron) its downvoted. Its...disappointing, depressing, aggravating....

Sounds like a decent proposal, especially for artists that post their own work here. Maybe a new thread or this posted in the "feature request" sticky would work?

Esme_Belles said:
Honestly I think uploaded should be able to lock the voting system so it displays 0 when done so and cant be used. Priv+ users too. It would stop the whiners who cant handle -votes. Hell even I am disappointed when I post something good, and get negs because either people Hate /me/ or dislike the subject matter... or I post a painting and because its not lobster (pron) its downvoted. Its...disappointing, depressing, aggravating....

Kinda defeats the purpose of voting. Votes are meant for feedback right? If you lock votes, you won't get the feedback some artists need. Like for example, if an artist wants feedback to improve his/her art and no one wants to comment, the votes can tell the artist if he/her art is good or not.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Kinda defeats the purpose of voting. Votes are meant for feedback right? If you lock votes, you won't get the feedback some artists need. Like for example, if an artist wants feedback to improve his/her art and no one wants to comment, the votes can tell the artist if he/her art is good or not.

True but if the uploaded locked the votes it means they don't want them or people are causing them trouble via votes.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Kinda defeats the purpose of voting. Votes are meant for feedback right? If you lock votes, you won't get the feedback some artists need. Like for example, if an artist wants feedback to improve his/her art and no one wants to comment, the votes can tell the artist if he/her art is good or not.

Some artists don't want that sort of feedback, though; it feels weightier than it honestly should, given how simple it is to click the button without giving it any real thought. Critiques or accolades written out in the comments or the forums do a better job of that feedback than a simple thumbs up/down will ever do, IMO.

CamKitty said:
Usually because people vote based on the current moment, and faving is for saving later. A few people have said they have fav'd bad pics out of humour or to use later

If it's so bad that they think it's worth, sharing, doesn't that make it So Bad It's Good?

123easy said:

If it's so bad that they think it's worth, sharing, doesn't that make it So Bad It's Good?

I understand this concept and agree with you.

BUT: not everyone agrees with us. This is why the proposed system will still allow a person to change their auto-vote-up to a vote down. Just the same way as someone who presses vote-up/down and wanted the vote to be the other "direction".

Allowing faving to upvote would create a loophole for users to cheat the system by creating multiple accounts and mass-faving shit to boost the score, since we can't very well tell people not to fave things across alternate accounts.

That was a long sentence.

ippiki_ookami said:
Allowing faving to upvote would create a loophole for users to cheat the system by creating multiple accounts and mass-faving shit, since we can't very well tell people not to fave things across alternate accounts.

That was a long sentence.

What is the the likelihood of that?

Is there currently a protection implementation from someone doing this already? From people creating multiple accounts and up-voting from each account?

If not, what would be the difference?

ippiki_ookami said:
Allowing faving to upvote would create a loophole for users to cheat the system by creating multiple accounts and mass-faving shit to boost the score, since we can't very well tell people not to fave things across alternate accounts.

That was a long sentence.

And people can already multi-account and upvote spam. They don't do that either, so... I don't see how this is a concern at all.

Perhaps its easier to track the upvote spamming on multis than it would be to track fave spamming? I'm not sure.

Why would this be important? If people want to up- or downvote something they can do so, if they want to fav it they can do so as well, I also can't imagine how this will make the vote system more accurate, it would just push the score up and then make the score and fav count basically the same thing.

I could understand a new option that lets you say "I'd like all my favorites to be upvoted automatically so that I save an additional click" but having it baseline makes the (current) vote system pointless.

This idea would have a merit if we had the number of down- and upvotes visible and searchable, not just the absolute score, but until then it simply would invalidate the vote system.

NotMeNotYou said:
Why would this be important? If people want to up- or downvote something they can do so, if they want to fav it they can do so as well, I also can't imagine how this will make the vote system more accurate, it would just push the score up and then make the score and fav count basically the same thing.

It is already essentially the same thing, the only difference is that the favorites are more diversified. there is a MUCH wider range of favorites, were as there is probably 75000 posts with a vote score of 30 to 40. Sadly I can not verify this and thus is only derived from what I have seen.

I could understand a new option that lets you say "I'd like all my favorites to be upvoted automatically so that I save an additional click"

I wouldnt mind that either. Sure, it would not solve the problem, but it would make it A LOT easier and faster for those of us that care to contribute through the vote system when we are going through a very long list of new submissions.

Optional would be easier for most, automatic implementation for all would make the vote system more accurate.

_Waffles_ said:
It is already essentially the same thing, the only difference is that the favorites are more diversified. there is a MUCH wider range of favorites, were as there is probably 75000 posts with a vote score of 30 to 40. Sadly I can not verify this and thus is only derived from what I have seen.

I'm too lazy to go search for examples but I can guarantee you that the score isn't supposed to work like that and your change will likely not have the effect you desire.
Yes, the score would likely end up more diversified than it is currently but you will never get close to any meaningful sorting of those images, with 400k images you will involuntarily hit a range of thousands of images within similar range, currently it may be at around 30-40, after the change it may be in 100-110.

The better solution to the problem may be a different sorting algorithm, like that score first sorts all posts after score and then after favorites, giving you the same effect while not muddling either, or sorting for faves and then score, maybe both options could get their own filter, programming it is possible, question would then just be how hard it'll hit the server.

NotMeNotYou said:
I'm too lazy to go search for examples but I can guarantee you that the score isn't supposed to work like that and your change will likely not have the effect you desire.
Yes, the score would likely end up more diversified than it is currently but you will never get close to any meaningful sorting of those images, with 400k images you will involuntarily hit a range of thousands of images within similar range, currently it may be at around 30-40, after the change it may be in 100-110.

The better solution to the problem may be a different sorting algorithm, like that score first sorts all posts after score and then after favorites, giving you the same effect while not muddling either, or sorting for faves and then score, maybe both options could get their own filter, programming it is possible, question would then just be how hard it'll hit the server.

Decent idea though.

This is all I ever really wanted: a true discussion about this.

Although it would take a lot more resources, programming lines, and ultimately a lot longer implementation than the automatic up-vote, this does serve as a better system for searching via order:votes and order:fav.

(I've been way behind on the forums recently due to several events in my life, so I apologize if this has already been said by someone).

I like NotMeNotYou's suggestion of this being an option that people could enable in their profiles if they desire, I think that'd be fine.

I also wonder, of the examples provided, how many of those that have a large number of favorites with a low score are posts that replaced older posts. If we parented and deleted properly, then all the faves from the old post would transfer to the new post, but the score/votes would NOT transfer, leading to tons of faves, but a low score. Has this situation been discussed yet? It'd make sense I think to transfer the votes onto the new post as well, since the vast majority of images that are replaced are lower quality versions of the same image. I don't think there'd be too many situations when a user would upvote one post, but not the post that it gets replaced by.

Char said:
(I've been way behind on the forums recently due to several events in my life, so I apologize if this has already been said by someone).

I like NotMeNotYou's suggestion of this being an option that people could enable in their profiles if they desire, I think that'd be fine.

I also wonder, of the examples provided, how many of those that have a large number of favorites with a low score are posts that replaced older posts. If we parented and deleted properly, then all the faves from the old post would transfer to the new post, but the score/votes would NOT transfer, leading to tons of faves, but a low score. Has this situation been discussed yet? It'd make sense I think to transfer the votes onto the new post as well, since the vast majority of images that are replaced are lower quality versions of the same image. I don't think there'd be too many situations when a user would upvote one post, but not the post that it gets replaced by.

I have noticed this and yes, it has been brought up.

I always thought this was the case, for simply, people dont go back and up-vote what they once favorited. Most probably dont know when it gets replaced with something new (Not a suggestion for that, that would be a notification nightmare)and thus dont go back and up-vote what they once did already.

This problem of the high ratios are seen with everything though. New images that are created recently have this problem within days of being on the site. It is simply due to many people just not wanting/willing/caring to press two buttons when the single favorite button suffices for them.

It is not a bad thing, it just human nature to only do what you have to to make your own life/account easier for you. No blame is placed, and should never be placed. But this does cause a problem for artists that try and measure their work through this site. It also does create a problem for those who are trying to search for a post that they remember being popular, but turns out only has a rating of positive 10 with 214 favorites.

Lastly, I would agree with the transfering of votes. It would not solve the ratio entirely (just simply because most people dont vote and only favorite to begin with), but it would help bring a bit more balance to those images that are replaced.

_Waffles_ said:
...It also does create a problem for those who are trying to search for a post that they remember being popular, but turns out only has a rating of positive 10 with 214 favorites.

Not really, if they remember it's popular, then said image will most likely have a nice number of faves (order:favcount) or comments (order:comments) too, score it's not the only way to search for something popular.

Fluttershy said:
Not really, if they remember it's popular, then said image will most likely have a nice number of faves (order:favcount) or comments (order:comments) too, score it's not the only way to search for something popular.

true, but then you run into the problem with it being the other way around.

With an image that you remember was popular enough to get over 75 favorites, but has a negative score even though there is no portrayal of "odd" fetishes (IE: Scat, vore, gore, watersports, cub, etc).

then those images start having a problem again via searching.

There really is no "best way" to do this... there really isnt.

I am just proposing a system that can make artists happy, help the ratios make a whole lot more sense, give people much truer understanding of what the fandom wants when it comes to images/pieces/commissions, and be able to search for things a little bit easier (although the search system as is is workable with the ability to seach by order comments, favs, and vote).

_Waffles_ said:
With an image that you remember was popular enough to get over 75 favorites, but has a negative score even though there is no portrayal of "odd" fetishes (IE: Scat, vore, gore, watersports, cub, etc).

then those images start having a problem again via searching.

Again, not really, nobody ever remembers just that "it was popular", using the order: search will help if you add other tags to your search (because really, if you only remember that "it was popular" without even knowing what the image was about, then that's not the system's fault), I'm just saying, I really see no problem with what you're mentioning, even less when you say that it affects searching.

NotMeNotYou said:
I could understand a new option that lets you say "I'd like all my favorites to be upvoted automatically so that I save an additional click" but having it baseline makes the (current) vote system pointless.

That sounds perfectly fine to me, too.

Fluttershy said:
Again, not really, nobody ever remembers just that "it was popular", using the order: search will help if you add other tags to your search (because really, if you only remember that "it was popular" without even knowing what the image was about, then that's not the system's fault), I'm just saying, I really see no problem with what you're mentioning, even less when you say that it affects searching.

I do have to agree with this. even if it's something like "Twilight Sparkle and Rarity with a dildo" that barely has two pages. You could search for it without favcount. Favcount and votecount would be better used for broader searches to find top quality/enjoyed artwork over little known artwork- or the reverse, by going to the opposite end of the search pages and starting there.

I'm actually not too fond of the auto-upvote for priv+ users when favoriting because, as many people have said, some people want their faves and their upvotes separate. But now, priv+ users are forced to upvote a post just because they're favoriting it (which doesn't mean they actually like it or think it's good).

I have no problems with adding a user setting (disabled by default) to automatically upvote an image when favoriting it. That way, you can enable or disable it instead of having it forced upon you by the system.

About transferring scores as well as favorites: Not so sure about that one. Transferring favorites is fine because you really don't want to lose a fav because a better version was uploaded, even if occasionally it gets transferred to a parent that wasn't actually the same image (an edit, uncensor, male/female versions, etc.). But if we transferred scores, then any time a child is deleted and the parent isn't the same image, then you now have a bunch of votes on a post that nobody actually voted on.

I still don't really see the point. On the one hand, you're saving those who do use the voting system one click. On the other hand, you risk inflating scores by FORCING an upvote on people who actively choose not to use the voting system.

RedOctober said:
I still don't really see the point. On the one hand, you're saving those who do use the voting system one click. On the other hand, you risk inflating scores by FORCING an upvote on people who actively choose not to use the voting system.

But this is where I am so confused.

How many people go through new posts and go "I really like this image, and I want to save it to my file system so I can view it later. But I dont think it is good enough for an upvote, even though I like it enough to favorite it."

I can understand that for an image very far and many between (and thus why you can still change the up-vote to a down-vote like any image you vote on currently), but this has to be such a small minority of images.

I am trying to wrap my mind around this logic, and it is really starting to hurt my mind...

Just as an example, I don't partake in the vote system, neither comments nor posts, and I favorite things for various reason, be it shock value, that I want to watch it later because I've no time at the moment or because I'm on my phone and the .swf file is to heavy for that Potato-CPU or that I want to show that image to someone else, whether for them to laugh at or to wtf at it. Images I like are going to get saved to my HDD, not put in the faves (except if I plan on linking to it in the future).

So really, having that upvote tied to the fave button isn't a no-brainer.

While I do see that this discussion is comparable to a discussion whether grilling in a non-stick pan or a iron-pan is better, it simply doesn't make sense to force people into one direction.
Different people do things differently, the point should be to accommodate as many as possible and let them do what they want as long as they don't inconvenience others.

And with the utility of the favcount: being what it is does make your proposal simply pointless, as it is already possible to use it.

_Waffles_ said:
But this is where I am so confused.

How many people go through new posts and go "I really like this image, and I want to save it to my file system so I can view it later. But I dont think it is good enough for an upvote, even though I like it enough to favorite it."

I am trying to wrap my mind around this logic, and it is really starting to hurt my mind...

As I've said: the voting system means nothing to me. I don't use it. I don't look at it, I don't think about it, I don't care about a post's vote count, I don't ever ever consider it in anything ever. Votes. Are. Worthless.

I favorite a thing because I want to look at it again sometime. It's hilarious, or superbly drawn, or gives me boners, whatever. I want to see it again. But at no point do I think "but it's not good enough for an upvote," because I don't even ever think about the votes at all. I don't favorite it for other people's sake, only my own. I don't ever feel compelled to let the rest of e621 know that "I like this image for some reason, but I won't tell you what." That's all the upvote is. A vague thumbs up. I don't vote not because I don't think images are worthy, I don't vote because I don't give a fuck. I dounno how to be any clearer.

If I really want to express my opinion on a piece of art I'll use the freaking comments.

NotMeNotYou said:
While I do see that this discussion is comparable to a discussion whether grilling in a non-stick pan or a iron-pan is better, it simply doesn't make sense to force people into one direction.
Different people do things differently, the point should be to accommodate as many as possible and let them do what they want as long as they don't inconvenience others.

And with the utility of the favcount: being what it is does make your proposal simply pointless, as it is already possible to use it.

Right. This. Again, not tying them together is only mildly, minorly, minisculely inconvenient for those who wish to use the vote system. Tying them together forces votes. I know I sound a little hypocritical, since as a Priveleged member my faves and votes ARE tied together, but if they weren't, I would not give a shit. Or even notice. I honestly think that was, rather than making it convenient, simply an easily coded way to allow Priveleged members a second vote. Which I don't use, by the way, 'cause I don't care 'bout no friggin' votes.

Hi guys, just popping in. Making sure we're all getting along.

123easy said:
And people can already multi-account and upvote spam. They don't do that either, so... I don't see how this is a concern at all.

Yeah they do; we've caught and smacked several people doing this.

NotMeNotYou said:
Just as an example, I don't partake in the vote system, neither comments nor posts, and I favorite things for various reason, be it shock value, that I want to watch it later because I've no time at the moment or because I'm on my phone and the .swf file is to heavy for that Potato-CPU or that I want to show that image to someone else, whether for them to laugh at or to wtf at it. Images I like are going to get saved to my HDD, not put in the faves (except if I plan on linking to it in the future).

So really, having that upvote tied to the fave button isn't a no-brainer.

While I do see that this discussion is comparable to a discussion whether grilling in a non-stick pan or a iron-pan is better, it simply doesn't make sense to force people into one direction.
Different people do things differently, the point should be to accommodate as many as possible and let them do what they want as long as they don't inconvenience others.

And with the utility of the favcount: being what it is does make your proposal simply pointless, as it is already possible to use it.

THANK YOU!

This has made the most sense to me on why someone wouldnt want this implementation. For you, it would really mess up the vote-system. I would hate to know how many favorites you have. I have been using this site for 4 years now and I have about 300. The best of the best to me. With your system, you must have 20,000+ favorites!

Curious though: would you still have a problem with an Opt-In ability to allow this for people who want it?

ippiki_ookami said:
Yeah they do; we've caught and smacked several people doing this.

Does the site have any safe-guard implementations against this? (currently, not against the proposal concept)

_Waffles_ said:
Does the site have any safe-guard implementations against this? (currently, not against the proposal concept)

There are a few admin tools that make it easy to find these people.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
There are a few admin tools that make it easy to find these people.

Would those need to be changed/be rendered ineffective with the addition of a mandatory/optional vote-up with favorite link?

ippiki_ookami said:
Yeah they do; we've caught and smacked several people doing this.

A couple people vs. how many who don't. It's not so common that it's a major concern, is the point I was getting at more.

tony311 said:
I'm actually not too fond of the auto-upvote for priv+ users when favoriting because, as many people have said, some people want their faves and their upvotes separate. But now, priv+ users are forced to upvote a post just because they're favoriting it (which doesn't mean they actually like it or think it's good).

I have no problems with adding a user setting (disabled by default) to automatically upvote an image when favoriting it. That way, you can enable or disable it instead of having it forced upon you by the system.

About transferring scores as well as favorites: Not so sure about that one. Transferring favorites is fine because you really don't want to lose a fav because a better version was uploaded, even if occasionally it gets transferred to a parent that wasn't actually the same image (an edit, uncensor, male/female versions, etc.). But if we transferred scores, then any time a child is deleted and the parent isn't the same image, then you now have a bunch of votes on a post that nobody actually voted on.

Great point, Tony; that's a consideration that I hadn't made regarding the vote transferal. Once again, +1 to a user setting over a forced decision either way. More choice is great.

123easy said:
More choice is great.

Fully agreed.

Actually I don't see a point of treating favorites as something else than favorites since all users now can create private sets for such things. The name is favorites, I don't see a point of assuming that people are using it as something else.
Though I'm also for adding choice for people whether fav should add upvote or not.

tony311 said:
About transferring scores as well as favorites: Not so sure about that one. Transferring favorites is fine because you really don't want to lose a fav because a better version was uploaded, even if occasionally it gets transferred to a parent that wasn't actually the same image (an edit, uncensor, male/female versions, etc.). But if we transferred scores, then any time a child is deleted and the parent isn't the same image, then you now have a bunch of votes on a post that nobody actually voted on.

In majority of cases when picture is deleted and favs are transferred to child then new picture is bigger resolution or improved version of old picture. I don't see why it's illogical to assume that people who upvote old picture wouldn't upvote new one. It's more questionable with downvotes but IMO not that much.

RedOctober said:
Votes. Are. Worthless.

It's, like, your opinion. I'm using score ordering very often and, while not perfect, it helps finding good art a lot of times.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:

In majority of cases when picture is deleted and favs are transferred to child then new picture is bigger resolution or improved version of old picture. I don't see why it's illogical to assume that people who upvote old picture wouldn't upvote new one. It's more questionable with downvotes but IMO not that much.

For this, and the OP's whole thing, because I don't need the site assuming my opinions on a pic

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
In majority of cases when picture is deleted and favs are transferred to child then new picture is bigger resolution or improved version of old picture. I don't see why it's illogical to assume that people who upvote old picture wouldn't upvote new one. It's more questionable with downvotes but IMO not that much.

And what if said updated post has something added than you don't like?

Fluttershy said:
And what if said updated post has something added than you don't like?

From my experience posts where something was actually added to the picture are very rare exceptions in pictures when favorites transfer occurs. (Most of them are bigger res, or png version of posts.) Favorites transfer does not occurs when new picture have scat and old picture does not.
IMO advantage for sorting by score overwhelm potential discomfort when very rarely someone would have because artist make change to WIP pic.

Moreover if someone does not want transfer upvotes to new pic then maybe xe don't want to transfer fav either. And yet favs are transfered.

And finally, you can always remove upvote/fav from pictures. It's not facebook.

Fluttershy said:
And what if said updated post has something added than you don't like?

If a post is different than the one before, doesnt become its own post?

Said image is the same from 1300x1300 and a 1600x1600 version is found, it is updated.

Said image is the "same image", but new one has a mountain in the background, is it not archived as a new different piece? If so, then how does the same pieces with different levels of cum (up to 10 different versions sometimes) all kept as different images?

_Waffles_ said:
If a post is different than the one before, doesnt become its own post?

No, if the artists decides to update whatever he/she drawed, the updated image replaces the old one. (most of the times because they either fix something or make it "better")

Fluttershy said:
No, if the artists decides to update whatever he/she drawed, the updated image replaces the old one. (most of the times because they either fix something or make it "better")

Ahh, my mistake then. I figured since we are an archival site, that we would save both versions.

Both versions are still their own posts, just, we usually delete the older one if the changes are minor (if a colored version of a sketch is uploaded, we keep both, if the same image is reuploaded with a missing shadow fixed, we delete the old one).

tony311 said:
Both versions are still their own posts, just, we usually delete the older one if the changes are minor (if a colored version of a sketch is uploaded, we keep both, if the same image is reuploaded with a missing shadow fixed, we delete the old one).

With that minor of a fix, would keeping the vote score matter then?

_Waffles_ said:
With that minor of a fix, would keeping the vote score matter then?

Lots of times the post gets updated and we don't really want to assume the user would want to vote in the same way as they did on the older post. Rare or not, we want to give them the option

Rainbow_Dash said:
Lots of times the post gets updated and we don't really want to assume the user would want to vote in the same way as they did on the older post. Rare or not, we want to give them the option

This. My opinion on all this. Normally the change is objectively better. Sometimes, usually with an artist requested update/change, it's a bit more subjective. Rarely, but I have seen it happen.

CamKitty said:
This. My opinion on all this. Normally the change is objectively better. Sometimes, usually with an artist requested update/change, it's a bit more subjective. Rarely, but I have seen it happen.

Then it makes perfect sense why vote-count is not kept then.

Rainbow_Dash said:
Lots of times the post gets updated and we don't really want to assume the user would want to vote in the same way as they did on the older post. Rare or not, we want to give them the option

Then how about option for Janitor+ to switch off vote transfer when child picture is one of those 0.01% of child pics that aren't just higher res, or better quality?

It can be also applied to fav transfering which is occurring now, and nobody gives a damn about people who wonder how certain posts got into their favorites. I really see no good reason why there should be different behavior for votes, and for favs.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Then how about option for Janitor+ to switch off vote transfer when child picture is one of those 0.01% of child pics that aren't just higher res, or better quality?

It can be also applied to fav transfering which is occurring now, and nobody gives a damn about people who wonder how certain posts got into their favorites. I really see no good reason why there should be different behavior for votes, and for favs.

That sounds like a really good idea as well.

A bit late but that sounds great gilda, that would be a good feature request