1-2 days ago, I uploaded a female human when I wasn't sure if it would be accepted because it's too human for this kind of image archive :

post #195947

I still took a chance and uploaded it, if it got refused, I would know from now it's not a good idea to upload this kind of image. Shortly after, it was approved.

I then uploaded two pictures from the same kind : Same human female character, explicit, etc. There were some usual pictures between these two I upload everyday. The second one was on standby for a while, then get approved today :

post #196101

However, the third one was deleted 1-2 days ago. I though it was because the artist wanted it removed, but I checked the reason and I saw "Irrelevant post".

I'm not making this thread because I'm mad when the stuff I upload got deleted, I almost don't mind. The problem is I'm the kind of user who tries to upload relevant stuff here (Except the one time I uploaded a resized pixelated edited version of a picture I would use to make a bigger version of the picture and uploaded by mistake instead of the original one, but that's another story). If the first one got deleted, I would never uploaded these next two.

What I also don't understand is why the third one got deleted but not the second one I uploaded 10 minutes before. What was different from the second one that made it irrelevant ?

Again, I'm not making that thread because I cried on the corner from that deletion, I just really don't understand that logic behind that deletion. I'm not asking for it to be approved, just wanting some explanations

Because different mods have different opinions on what constitutes relevant content.

I may be out of line saying this but doesnt it seem like a good idea to set standards about what is and isnt relevant for the site? I know there are certain rules and guidelines about what not to post.

Gamerlynx said:
I may be out of line saying this but doesnt it seem like a good idea to set standards about what is and isnt relevant for the site? I know there are certain rules and guidelines about what not to post.

Basically, non-furry content will be approved or not based on the whims of the first moderator or administrator who sees it. Standards for this will be different from staff member to staff member. If you don't want to run the risk of your post being deleted, then just don't post non-furry content.

As null said. And let me be very clear here.

"Pictures that are not relevant to the site {Non furry} May or may not be deleted at any time, based on the whims of whatever moderator gets to it first." Their is no guarantee it will stay, or be deleted, and by uploading it you do run the risk of it being deleted if the particular mod that gets it first doesn't like it.

and as a subnote, DO NOT FLAG FOR DELETE FOR NOT FURRY. That is a very good, and very quick way, to get yourself kicked in the head by one of the mods/admins. If you absolutely MUST flag a picture that is "Irrelevant to the site" mark it for "Irrelevant to the site"

Sorry that we're not more consistent, I usually approve non-furry content so long as there's something interesting about the image. Please don't let this discourage you from uploading images you feel people here would appreciate.

e621 staff: it is a mystery

So we just...
what?

So for all the rules we like to make up here, we don't have one for this (and I'm not calling "Mods do whatever, first come first act" a legit rule)?

Actini said:
So we just...
what?

So for all the rules we like to make up here, we don't have one for this (and I'm not calling "Mods do whatever, first come first act" a legit rule)?

Not everything is set in stone. With a site like this, it's impossible to have a black and white ruling over what stays and what doesn't. We *could* say nothing that isn't furry is allowed, but then we'd miss out on a lot of great art, or we *could* say everything is allowed, and risk the site devolving into an nebulous medley of random crap like other countless vapid imageboards that pepper the internet. You REALLY want us to choose between these two?

Okay, so I was wondering why my not-so-furry Adventure Time post was deleted, and came here to see that it's up to whatever mod sees it first to determine if it stays or goes. I got it.

It really wouldn't be an issue, but as mentioned above, the site uses a formula that penalizes you for deleted posts.

It seems a bit unfair to have a post deleted, one that pretty much matches the content of other accepted posts, and then have the site arbitrarily penalize you for it because your post didn't suit the whims of the mod.

It's not like the formula will say "well, your post didn't sit well with mod #1, but I can see how you thought it would be accepted because there's a lot of adventure time stuff here, so I won't penalize you for it."

there really should be a standard for deleting images, not just the "opinion" of the moderator viewing it.

For those who might be thinking e6 is full of biased,selfish admins, most 'boorus follow that procedure as well due to the subjectivity of content

That being said,Neitsuke raises a good point with regards to being informed about that subjectivity somewhere other than the wiki it pertains to

There's a mention of it in the faq as well

Is the image furry-related or at least somewhat relevant to the site?

Maybe a forum sticky? (The blacklist or die topic does cover this,but it's not immediately apparent)

Acolyte said:
Okay, so I was wondering why my not-so-furry Adventure Time post was deleted, and came here to see that it's up to whatever mod sees it first to determine if it stays or goes. I got it.

It really wouldn't be an issue, but as mentioned above, the site uses a formula that penalizes you for deleted posts.

It seems a bit unfair to have a post deleted, one that pretty much matches the content of other accepted posts, and then have the site arbitrarily penalize you for it because your post didn't suit the whims of the mod.

It's not like the formula will say "well, your post didn't sit well with mod #1, but I can see how you thought it would be accepted because there's a lot of adventure time stuff here, so I won't penalize you for it."

I get PM's about this from time to time. They'll say something like "why did you delete *this* when *these* were approved? I usually say something along the lines of "Well I didn't approve those. It is what it is." (summarized) There really is no easy answer to this. Without completely disallowing anything not distinctly furry, deletions are almost always going to be subjective. That's just how it has to be.
And for future reference, PMing the mod directly instead of something like is probably a more efficient way of dealing with it. My two cents.

ippiki_ookami said:
I get PM's about this from time to time. They'll say something like "why did you delete *this* when *these* were approved? I usually say something along the lines of "Well I didn't approve those. It is what it is." (summarized) There really is no easy answer to this. Without completely disallowing anything not distinctly furry, deletions are almost always going to be subjective. That's just how it has to be.
And for future reference, PMing the mod directly instead of something like is probably a more efficient way of dealing with it. My two cents.

I actually did PM the mod. But I also wanted to see what other mods had said regarding this issue, as I'm sure it's come up in the forum before.

I completely get what you're saying about the deletions being subjective. But I'm saying that the penalty is not subjective. The algorithm doesn't care, it just sees a deletion, even though you thought you were doing the right thing by uploading images you've seen here before.

I guess what I'm saying is if you upload something that is flagrantly outside of accepted content and it gets deleted, you should be penalized by the algorithm.

But if you put up something that other admins have approved, and it's deleted because of the caprice of one admin, you should probably be exempt from the algorithm's restriction on your account.

ippiki_ookami said:
I get PM's about this from time to time. They'll say something like "why did you delete *this* when *these* were approved? I usually say something along the lines of "Well I didn't approve those. It is what it is." (summarized) There really is no easy answer to this. Without completely disallowing anything not distinctly furry, deletions are almost always going to be subjective. That's just how it has to be.
And for future reference, PMing the mod directly instead of something like is probably a more efficient way of dealing with it. My two cents.

post #204671 was relevant to the site; putting the reason to remove as "image macro" is just lazy, and as Joe stated he marked it by accident. And you better believe me; I'll be flagging every other "image macro" on the site if I am unable to appeal this one.

hg3300 said:
post #204671 was relevant to the site; putting the reason to remove as "image macro" is just lazy, and as Joe stated he marked it by accident. And you better believe me; I'll be flagging every other "image macro" on the site if I am unable to appeal this one.

I've actually already told several members of the administration that they can't use deletion reasons like that one there. They need to also specify that the image was deleted at their discretion. Saying they're deleting something because it's an "image macro" is kind of silly when we obviously allow image macros on the site sometimes. I think maybe KTKR just hasn't heard me talk about this yet, so I'll make sure he knows as soon as I see him again.

Char said:
I've actually already told several members of the administration that they can't use deletion reasons like that one there. They need to also specify that the image was deleted at their discretion. Saying they're deleting something because it's an "image macro" is kind of silly when we obviously allow image macros on the site sometimes. I think maybe KTKR just hasn't heard me talk about this yet, so I'll make sure he knows as soon as I see him again.

Thank you for taking action on this issue.

I'll be honest...I kind of like that macro. Posts like that give people something to talk about.

Can we make a sticky at the top titled "Why your Image Got Deleted" and set out the fact that due to the nature of the site, there can be no hard and fast rule, that it's up to mods? These threads seem to crop up like once a month.

RedOctober said:
Can we make a sticky at the top titled "Why your Image Got Deleted" and set out the fact that due to the nature of the site, there can be no hard and fast rule, that it's up to mods? These threads seem to crop up like once a month.

So a request for deletion rationale topic?
But then I will have to be held accountable for my actions! :(

Nah, man; that's a negative attitude! Think of it more of a bragging thread.

RedOctober said:
Can we make a sticky at the top titled "Why your Image Got Deleted" and set out the fact that due to the nature of the site, there can be no hard and fast rule, that it's up to mods? These threads seem to crop up like once a month.

I don't think it's a bad thing to have a deletion looked at and explained from time to time. Trust blindly and if the system is ever not good we would have no indication

Shatari said:
Nah, man; that's a negative attitude! Think of it more of a bragging thread.

Well, I do love talking about myself and how great I am...

Just a thought about a deletion challenging thread: It'd be a little hard to request an undeletion when not everyone can get a good look at the post you're asking to be undeleted, what with most people being unable to view deleted posts.

Hmm. How about having people file an undeletion request (similar to implication/alias requests), it's then examined by the moderators to determine whether or not it's worth a discussion. If the post is worth it, then they temporarily un-delete it and create a forum thread to discuss it. The discussion runs for a set amount of time (48 hours? 72?), and its conclusion determines whether the post is returned to deleted status or remains un-deleted.

KloH0und said:
Hmm. How about having people file an undeletion request (similar to implication/alias requests), it's then examined by the moderators to determine whether or not it's worth a discussion. If the post is worth it, then they temporarily un-delete it and create a forum thread to discuss it. The discussion runs for a set amount of time (48 hours? 72?), and its conclusion determines whether the post is returned to deleted status or remains un-deleted.

Sounds needlessly complicated and forum-jamming.

I meant more like a thread that stays locked and just says "Yes, sometimes mods delete things they deem irrelevant. It happens. It's in the rules. Where's the line? We don't know, it depends on the mod. Got an image deleted you think shouldn't be? PM the deleting mod politely. Still deleted? PM an admin politely. Still deleted? It's probably irrelevant to the site."

I understand that yes, it can be frustrating. And I understand that sometimes a post that was deleted should have a second look taken. I agree. But I don't feel like it needs to be brought to forum-wide attention every time, and every time a thread does crop up, 90% of the time the poster doesn't seem to have made any effort to contact the deleting mod to begin with, and seems completely unaware of the criteria that indicate an image was irrelevant (i.e. a mod said it was) because they either haven't looked at the rules, haven't looked for other threads discussing the same topic, or they already forgot.

Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to say that this is the case with Neitsuke and that this thread should never have happened. I am just saying that I notice a trend in forum posts about deleted images where the poster seems to have not taken any of the other steps available to clarify the situation before jumping straight in and making a forum post.

I mostly made that thread not about the fact I got the picture deleted, like I said, I don't mind at all when one of my uploads gets deleted. I know enough about myself, and I know for a fact that when I upload something here, I always make an effort to source the artist, upload quality/relevant stuff, check for reposts, tag my things correctly, etc.

That thread was mostly about why does that one got deleted, but not the first and third one. It was really illogical to me, and made my mind all screwed up for a moment.

Also, I just had no reason to contact a mod about that. The reason was "Irrelevant post" and I really don't like to argue with mods decisions.

Neitsuke said:
That thread was mostly about why does that one got deleted, but not the first and third one. It was really illogical to me, and made my mind all screwed up for a moment.

Also, I just had no reason to contact a mod about that. The reason was "Irrelevant post" and I really don't like to argue with mods decisions.

Right, and my point is that if we had it stated more clearly (and in more places) that things like this happen because irrelevancy is determined on a case by case basis, we wouldn't be seeing so many of these threads coming up, plus the fact that images being deleted for irrelevancy are discussed regularly and it is repeatedly stated that this is determined on a case by case basis, by whichever mod sees the post.

Contacting the mod doesn't necessarily involve arguing. You could have just said "Can you explain more what you meant, or why you chose to delete this one while the other two (link posts here) did not?" Mods, in my experience, tend to respond more positively to polite private contact (PM, private chat on IRC) than asking about their decision in the forum.

My main point is that 90% of these threads need not have even happened, if the posters had put a little more effort into finding out what's up before bringing it out into the forum. Again, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't have done this or that you put no effort in. I'm just making a general case about general threads generally similar to this one.

RedOctober said:
if we had it stated more clearly (and in more places) that things like this happen because irrelevancy is determined on a case by case basis, we wouldn't be seeing so many of these threads coming up

It's in the rules, right here.

"Off-topic images and any potential fallout from posting them are subject to the whims of the moderators."

null0010 said:
It's in the rules, right here.

"Off-topic images and any potential fallout from posting them are subject to the whims of the moderators."

Oh, I know where it is. I know it's in obvious places. I'm just saying, clearly it's not in enough places, and isn't obvious enough, because these keep cropping up.

null0010 said:
It's in the rules, right here.

"Off-topic images and any potential fallout from posting them are subject to the whims of the moderators."

Which brings up my earlier point. A deletion is always a strike against you, even if you're following the site rules, even if the mod leaves your record alone. The algorithm only sees the deletion and penalizes you for it.
If you upload content that you see here often, but a mod deletes it on a "whim," you really shouldn't suffer the site's automatic penalty.

Acolyte said:
Which brings up my earlier point. A deletion is always a strike against you, even if you're following the site rules, even if the mod leaves your record alone. The algorithm only sees the deletion and penalizes you for it.
If you upload content that you see here often, but a mod deletes it on a "whim," you really shouldn't suffer the site's automatic penalty.

Is perfection really all that important? It's just an image of negligible importance. And for the note, it can even happen even for proper reasons. Say you uploaded an image with the creator's consent, but the creater later decides that they want to take it down instead. It's perfectly following rules, mods didn't do anything wrong, you'll still get that mark.

tl/dr: Nobody cares about deleted image records unless it's excessive.

Lyokira said:
Is perfection really all that important? It's just an image of negligible importance. And for the note, it can even happen even for proper reasons. Say you uploaded an image with the creator's consent, but the creater later decides that they want to take it down instead. It's perfectly following rules, mods didn't do anything wrong, you'll still get that mark.

tl/dr: Nobody cares about deleted image records unless it's excessive.

Ontop of this, mods and admins can also "Increase" a users post count, and it takes 4 deletes to lower it by one. Soo...yeah.

Acolyte said:
If you upload content that you see here often, but a mod deletes it on a "whim," you really shouldn't suffer the site's automatic penalty.

There's a very simple solution to this problem if a user doesn't want to be negatively impacted for posting off-topic or otherwise "grey area" images.

Don't.

Don't know if this is the right thread or something, but post #205574 was deleted for being irrelevant to the site. I thought that humanized mlp was off the dnp?

Acolyte said:
Which brings up my earlier point. A deletion is always a strike against you, even if you're following the site rules, even if the mod leaves your record alone. The algorithm only sees the deletion and penalizes you for it.
If you upload content that you see here often, but a mod deletes it on a "whim," you really shouldn't suffer the site's automatic penalty.

Yes, but those consequences are negligible when you have about ten times more approved uploads than deleted ones.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
Don't know if this is the right thread or something, but post #205574 was deleted for being irrelevant to the site. I thought that humanized mlp was off the dnp?

It used to be that humanized MLP art was completely banned. Now it falls under the same rules as all other non-furry images.

I just think it's odd how it was deleted in like 15 minutes. It wasn't even a bad image.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
I just think it's odd how it was deleted in like 15 minutes. It wasn't even a bad image.

It's not odd, it's efficient. The image is not furry, it's not relevant, it was deleted at a moderator's discretion. That's how the site should work.

Acolyte said:
Which brings up my earlier point. A deletion is always a strike against you, even if you're following the site rules, even if the mod leaves your record alone. The algorithm only sees the deletion and penalizes you for it.
If you upload content that you see here often, but a mod deletes it on a "whim," you really shouldn't suffer the site's automatic penalty.

The penalty isn't exactly severe. As long as less than a quarter of your uploads are being deleted, your upload limit will still grow (the breakeven point is at 28.57% of your posts being deleted, unless I'm doing my math terribly wrong (completely possible at this time in the evening (DELICIOUS ETHANOL) (oh god I'm nesting parenthetical statements again)))

How about when an artist decides to pull posting rights? Most of my deletions are from that. Should that really count towards our deletions? And for some reason, it's only showing 42 of my deletions, when I have 80.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
How about when an artist decides to pull posting rights? Most of my deletions are from that. Should that really count towards our deletions? And for some reason, it's only showing 42 of my deletions, when I have 80.

The vast majority of takedown requests we receive would have been completely avoided if users had asked the artist for permission first. Feel free to browse our list of takedowns and check the reasons for each one: http://e621.net/take_down

Artists rarely say "I used to be ok with it but now I'm not." It's very often just simply "No one asked me for permission", and if they had been asked for permission, they could have then either let the user know to not bother uploading the art, or actually give them permission to upload the art. Both of those scenarios would avoid the user being penalized for having artwork removed, because the artwork wouldn't be removed.

That's why I feel that penalizing for deleted images, even as a result of artist takedowns, is appropriate. The user is taking a gamble that the artist (or character owners) won't mind the artwork being uploaded. That gamble is USUALLY a safe bet for the user, as it's true that the majority of furry artists have no problem with their artwork being uploaded as long as they're credited and linked back to (we have conducted research that supports this).

Penalizing as a result of artist takedowns is incentive for users to avoid landing themselves in a situation where they'd be penalized as a result of an artist takedown.

Seems fair enough. I did some looking around and found that SonicDash was one of the people who previously allowed his art to be posted, but apparently people from this site started being assholes to him or something along those lines, which cause him to pull posting rights.

and it is possible to lose posting privs because you post too much bad art. just cause the system says so :)

Char said:
Artists rarely say "I used to be ok with it but now I'm not."

In cases where they do, and it severely affects a user's posting limit, would staff consider adjusting the user's posting limit to make up for it?

Just out of curiosity.

Snowy said:
In cases where they do, and it severely affects a user's posting limit, would staff consider adjusting the user's posting limit to make up for it?

Just out of curiosity.

If you ask nicely, maybe :3

Snowy said:
In cases where they do, and it severely affects a user's posting limit, would staff consider adjusting the user's posting limit to make up for it?

Just out of curiosity.

Yes that is something we would consider.