I know that "not furry" is not a good FFD reason, but where's the line between not flagging it and flagging it because it's irrelevant to the site?

:33 said:
I know that "not furry" is not a good FFD reason, but where's the line between not flagging it and flagging it because it's irrelevant to the site?

irrelevent to the site is different from not furry.

Good he cleared that up :D

Since all the pictures have to be approved, I don't really see much need for flagging "irrelevant" pictures. After all, if the people in charge didn't find them relevant then they wouldn't be here.

Shatari said:
Since all the pictures have to be approved, I don't really see much need for flagging "irrelevant" pictures. After all, if the people in charge didn't find them relevant then they wouldn't be here.

^this

I personally don't see the difference between flagging for not furry and flagging for irrelevant. At the risk of sounding stuck up, it's the mods' call what's relevant, so if it was approved, then it's relevant. If it hasn't been approved yet, then it's still in our queue so there's no reason to flag it anyway.

The only complication here is the fact that contributors don't require our approval, so it IS possible for irrelevant pics to slip through. We just have to trust that our contributors don't abuse their privileges.

Long story short, don't flag for irrelevant.

I never do because I just don't think it's very clear what is relevant and what isn't. I know screencaps and (usually) meme's aren't, but other than that, no clue. There are occasions where I feel like there's an image that ought not to be here because it's irrelevant, but I don't flag it because I don't want to get a bad mark for FFD abuse.

Irrelevant to the site and "Not furry" are both bad reasons to flag for deletion. "Irrelevant to the site" is what the moderators use to delete something that has no business being here.

That said, Flagging an item as "Not relevant to the site" usually brings us to look at it and pass judgement. Flagging something as "Not Furry" Just makes us want to hurt you, as again, this is not a "Furry Exclusive image archive".

Something being approved depends on the mod it hits. And there is a HUGE difference for what gets accepted by some mods. So flagging like that might be a way for something that shouldn't have got through to get a double check

Again though, they wouldn't have the mods pick what is relevant unless they trusted the mods to have good judgement. I suppose they could set up a system where multiple mods have to approve something for it to be accepted (or rejected), but that's a lot of extra work for minimal gain. After all, if even one of the mods likes it then it's likely none of the others will object to it staying.

And really, does it matter if there's a few images floating around that aren't "relevant"? I don't think it hurts the site, and users can blacklist the tag "not furry" with ease.

CamKitty said:
Good he cleared that up :D

I'm not a he.

I flagged a couple of irrelevant Cyanide & Happiness pictures from JoeX (noticed he got banned for a while) as being not_furry,and was told that is 'not a valid flagging reason'.

The wiki entry for not_furry states that

if a post is not furry nor otherwise anthropomorphic, it probably doesn't belong on e621.

However,it also states that

Anything that can not be considered remotely furry gets this tag.

Which implies there are subjects with the tag that are allowed,such as the ones listed in the wiki (humans,robots,elves and the like).

I guess common-sense is paramount when dealing with situations like these

titaniachkt said:
I flagged a couple of irrelevant Cyanide & Happiness pictures from JoeX (noticed he got banned for a while) as being not_furry,and was told that is 'not a valid flagging reason'.

The wiki entry for not_furry states that
However,it also states that
Which implies there are subjects with the tag that are allowed,such as the ones listed in the wiki (humans,robots,elves and the like).

I guess common-sense is paramount when dealing with situations like these

Let's keep in mind that the entirety of the not_furry wiki was created by non-mods, so it doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff. Also, this is why I updated the FFD help page to (hopefully) remove any ambiguity regarding proper flagging reasons. So far, the only clear cut rule on non-furry images is that there isn't one; if the mods like it, it stays. Not that I wish to imply we're always in agreement over it. It's just another one of those case-by-case things. If you feel your post was unfairly deleted, feel free to stop by the IRC and bring it to our attention.

ippiki_ookami said:
Let's keep in mind that the entirety of the not_furry wiki was created by non-mods

I was not aware of this,my apologies in that case

I suggest we revise that wiki page to better reflect how the site actually works. Instead of:

Note that if a post is not furry nor otherwise anthropomorphic, it probably doesn't belong on e621.

We instead use:

Note that non-furry images may be deleted at the mods discretion.

Sound good?

Most definitely,that sounds more representative than the current definition.
Some might feel that it's leaning towards the biased side though