I can't find what the minimum quality standards are for posts. Five of my posts were deleted because of it, and I'd like to know exactly how low the minimum standards are.

Well...

:P
post #386800

post #134500

furballs_dc said:
Well...

:P
post #386800

post #134500

That image Varka posted oh man..

unf

Well, that depends what each admin considers minimum quality. Everyone has different opinions on what's considered "low quality".
Let's compare:
IMO, this is high quality
post #216799

This is good quality
post #284817

And this is low quality
post #187000

If your images that you uploaded were like the low quality image, that's reasonable

We really should have something more detailed written down somewhere. And it can vary from admin to admin a little bit. However, these are the best guidelines I can find:

There's a post here where one admin took the time to detail some of the things they look for and weigh when analyzing quality. It's helpful to see what they were looking for and why. It was specific to animations, but some things are still helpful to give an idea what kinds of things to be looking for.

On this page it warns against posting "Images where compression artifacts are easily visible."

And this page it says "Before you post anything, ask yourself the following questions:
Is the image furry-related or at least somewhat relevant to the site?
Is the image already here? This can be easily answered by performing a search.
Is this DNP ?
Is this of adequate quality and/or resolution? For a pic to pass E621's quality assurance check, it must meet the standards of the moderators approving it. In other words, images with glaring jpeg artifacts or otherwise poor quality or size may not be approved depending on the discretion of the moderators."

and that things deleted "..can include being small, blurry, meant just to incite drama, or overall lacking in quality or relevance. This is subjective and at the complete whims of the mod that gets to it first."

And this page says "Make an effort to post quality, finished, non-repost images. Avoid crap-quality things like tiny images, grainy images, motivational poster memes, screenshots, image macros, images with absurdly huge and extremely annoying watermarks, etc. Off-topic images and any potential fallout from posting them are subject to the whims of the moderators. In other words, don't post non-furry art if you aren't okay with it being deleted.
Only post the best quality, highest resolution version of an image available. If you find a better version of an existing post, for God's sake, upload it!"
And "Do not upload tiny images just to use as avatars. Standard posting guidelines still apply. Images under 200x200 are seldom approved. "

I think it's admirable that you're trying to learn what the standard exactly is so that you can improve your uploads.

And we really should have something more cohesive, detailed and clearer than this to offer people who want to make the moderator's jobs a little easier by policing their own content before uploading it. And it would help a lot of people to be taking the guesswork out of knowing whether something is close to uploadable or not. But for now, this scattering of clues is the best we have to go by. (And fyi, it's an often-debated issue so you're probably going to get more than one sarcastic comment about the whole situation. It's come up a lot recently.)

TheHuskyK9 said:
And this is low quality
post #187000

If your images that you uploaded were like the low quality image, that's reasonable

It's like null wanted me to gouge out my eyes.

Anyway, I deleted the pictures because your anatomy, while not as atrocious as in the picture above, is still all over place in your sketches.

If you're interested I could go into more detail later but I currently need some sleep.

furrypickle said:
We really should have something more detailed written down somewhere.

No, because the moment you give people a clearly defined line of 'anything below this point is unacceptable', they will immediately try to push those limits to the absolute max. Keeping it slightly nebulous and up to admin discretion keeps people on their toes.

corgi_bread said:
No, because the moment you give people a clearly defined line of 'anything below this point is unacceptable', they will immediately try to push those limits to the absolute max. Keeping it slightly nebulous and up to admin discretion keeps people on their toes.

I honestly find that logic too fallacious and slightly paranoid. No offense to you personally, because I know you're not the only one who's said this. But that line of logic has serious problems with it.

When it comes to rules, it is only a small minority who intentionally look at a rule and try to break it. And those types of people will do that regardless if the rule is a vague and nebulous one, or if it's clearly detailed and defined. So those people are a problem no matter how the rule is written. The only difference a detailed vs nebulous rule makes is to everyone else. It comes down to two main aspects: the ease of identifying, catching, disciplining people who intentionally and repeatedly break the rules. And the ability for conscientious members to stay on the right side of that rule at all costs.

What a vague rule does is make it harder to tell the intentional troublemakers from the innocent who just guessed wrong. And it leaves a lot of people feeling like 'if it's just guesswork, then why even bother? I'll let someone else do it. I'm not going to take that kind of risk because what if I guess wrong and get into trouble?'. Not everyone has the stomach for taking risks, especially if it really matters to them not to break a rule even accidentally.

Others swing the opposite way and say 'I'll just upload anything I find and let the admins decide since I don't know what they look for, so I won't even attempt to sort anything out'. Which places more of a burden on the admins approving or denying stuff that might never have been uploaded if there was a clear and easy set of guidelines to follow. Right now the admins seem to have a clear idea but no one else does. And some people when faced with guessing just become indiscriminate instead. However, if they had a detailed set of rules to follow, some would become complaint and helpful in short order. They don't guess well, but they do follow rules well.

Basically it comes down to: a well defined and detailed rule(s) allows the rule-abiding to separate themselves out and stay on the allowed side of that line, while those who intend to break the rules become obvious by doing just that over and over again. That makes them easier to discipline and then they either learn to behave or eventually leave/banned. The end result of more clearly detailed rules: more confident conscientious members actively involved and less intentional troublemakers being able to stick around, and less unnecessary work for admins of things uploaded by people who honestly didn't know what to look for. Vagueness in rules isn't helping anything. It just gets in the way of people trying to abide by them.

Deleted of my 5 posts by this reason, why?

Well I had this denied:

http://i.imgur.com/YYDj9vK.jpg

Which is understandable because it's messy.

In my mind there are several very basic reasons a post will not be allowed:

- Anatomy is fucked up beyond comprehension
- Basic line quality, if things are too messy it won't be accepted.
- Picture quality is down. For example being blurry or bad color quality.
- cleanliness. If things are not intentionally messy. (For example a rough sketch that's left rough because it looks nice) It won't be accepted. (See my link above, I screwed up by making it very messy.

This did not need to be necro'd.

To answer you, the art was MS Paint quality and very poorly drawn. The last one was a photo of one of the posts that got deleted.

In the future, if you wish to challenge the actions of an admin, moderator, or a janitor, get in touch with me via email, dmail, or Skype.