Basically, would the censored version then be considered inferior to the uncensored version, and hence deserve flagging? (note: this implies that the uncensored version is an original, and not an outsider edit of the original image)

Especially with the stipulation that the uncensored one is an original and not an edit, I think it's a good idea

I think setting the censored version to the parent of the uncensored one would suffice.

I don't think removal of the censored versions is a good general policy. Sometimes they're more amusing than the uncensored ones; very occasionally they're hotter, too. Would it be too much work to say it should be considered case-by-case?

How about if an uncensored version done by the artist is posted, the censored version gets deleted, but if an uncensored version not done by the artist is posted, the uncensored version gets parented to the censored one?

Okay. What do we do about pairs of censored and uncensored images in which the original version is not readily discernible?

KloH0und said:
Okay. What do we do about pairs of censored and uncensored images in which the original version is not readily discernible?

Check if "edit" is in the tag list, or if the uploader is a regular poster of edits.
After that, look for a source with google or Furaffinity.
Still no luck, I would say parent the uncensored version to the censored version. It's more likely that the artist would release a censored version.

hs-hyena said:
I would say parent the uncensored version to the censored version.

I think we should just do this anyway.

Censored images seem pretty worthless to me if there's an uncensored version, and I'm almost certain there isn't someone in an office in Japan painstakingly combing through all the images on e6 to see which specific ones should be added to the national blocklist, besides isn't pixiv hosted in Japan, that's basically a hive of iniquity. So I would vote for outright deletion instead of cluttering up the image search with duplicate censored images.

Furmillionaire said:
Censored images seem pretty worthless to me if there's an uncensored version, and I'm almost certain there isn't someone in an office in Japan painstakingly combing through all the images on e6 to see which specific ones should be added to the national blocklist, besides isn't pixiv hosted in Japan, that's basically a hive of iniquity. So I would vote for outright deletion instead of cluttering up the image search with duplicate censored images.

They're useful because in the event that someone doesn't want to see what's under the censor bar they are given a choice not to look. If they do then they can open the child post.

If you don't want to see it, you don't have to.

If you do, you're free to do that, too.

KloH0und said:
They're useful because in the event that someone doesn't want to see what's under the censor bar they are given a choice not to look. If they do then they can open the child post.

If you don't want to see it, you don't have to.

If you do, you're free to do that, too.

Why would you even be on this site if you didn't want to see dog cock or whatever? What if I don't want my image search being cluttered up with rubbish?

Furmillionaire said:
Why would you even be on this site if you didn't want to see dog cock or whatever?

You've been here for two years. You know people don't come here tolerant of everything on the site, and they will bitch about it when it crops up.

What if I don't want my image search being cluttered up with rubbish?

-censored, bro.

KloH0und said:
You've been here for two years. You know people don't come here tolerant of everything on the site, and they will bitch about it when it crops up.

-censored, bro.

That also filters out images with no uncensored equilivant though.

Lyokira said:
That also filters out images with no uncensored equilivant though.

Exactly, I don't hate seeing censored images if they're really hot and have no uncensored dupe. Maybe there should be a 'censored_duplicate' tag? Then we'd all be happy.

Not to mention we sometimes get "censored" silliness such as post #191062

I'm with Furmillionaire on this one.

Furmillionaire said:
Exactly, I don't hate seeing censored images if they're really hot and have no uncensored dupe. Maybe there should be a 'censored_duplicate' tag? Then we'd all be happy.

I'm okay with this suggestion.

Furmillionaire said:
Maybe there should be a 'censored_duplicate' tag? Then we'd all be happy.

It's called a parent.

ippiki_ookami said:
It's called a parent.

True, but the point wasn't that there's no indication of tags that have censored (or uncensored) duplicates, the point was that there are no easy ways to search for that, or no ways to remove censored images that have no uncensored child/parent.

What if we put uncensored on the non-censored version? I realize that yes, sometimes the censored version is the copy, but that's irrelevant. The tag would allow people to keep from seeing any version of the image without censors, or conversely to only search for versions of an image without censors. And it's not as clunky as "censored duplicate." It's clear, it's simple, it's useful.

On a seperate note: the argument of people using "censored" tag to find properly censored images is flawed, since the censor tag doesn't necessarily mean the image is properly/completely censored to begin with. (e.g. post #191062 again)

And that's why I am in favor of a tag like useless_censor or ineffective_censor.

RedOctober said:
And that's why I am in favor of a tag like useless_censor or ineffective_censor.

Except that technically that image doesn't use "useless_censor" or "ineffective_censor" regardless, that poster at the back is correctly censored.

I'm in favor of keeping both images and parenting them. I was never a big fan of porn.

RedOctober said:
True, but the point wasn't that there's no indication of tags that have censored (or uncensored) duplicates, the point was that there are no easy ways to search for that, or no ways to remove censored images that have no uncensored child/parent.

What if we put uncensored on the non-censored version? I realize that yes, sometimes the censored version is the copy, but that's irrelevant. The tag would allow people to keep from seeing any version of the image without censors, or conversely to only search for versions of an image without censors. And it's not as clunky as "censored duplicate." It's clear, it's simple, it's useful.

It's still clunky because that way I can't blacklist anything and I still have to see the censored dupicates. I still can't understand what kind of maniac would want to look at censor bars if they had a choice, but they can just search for the already existing 'censored' tag if they want.

Sorry, for necrobump, but just wanted to know what's the final decision regarding this policy.

Don't flag censored images just because uncensored versions have been posted.

Oh yes and I did delete that one censored image simply because the uncensored was much better in quality and size

But that doesn't mean we need to get rid of all of them

Rainbow_Dash said:
Oh yes and I did delete that one censored image simply because the uncensored was much better in quality and size

But that doesn't mean we need to get rid of all of them

If assuming you're referring to the one related to the I uploaded, a higher quality one which the uncensored one was based on (and was clearly noted as an external edit in the comments) was flagged for deletion anyway.

Furmillionaire said:
It's still clunky because that way I can't blacklist anything and I still have to see the censored dupicates. I still can't understand what kind of maniac would want to look at censor bars if they had a choice, but they can just search for the already existing 'censored' tag if they want.

Since we're bumping this thread anyway, I thought I'd add my two cents. I'd rather see censor bars than cocks. I don't find them attractive in artwork. I don't find them appealing. And not all censored images have censor bars. Some are simply redone to make it clean, like the one by Kuma I had posted.

Perhaps as much to the point, I've seen some really horribly grotesque attempts to decensor images. In those cases, I'd much rather see censor bars, or even mosaic censoring, than some of the stuff that occasionally gets posted on various sites from fans with little or no artistic talent.

Of course, it's not up to me to decide for people what they want to see. I imagine some people love that stuff (like real life naughty bits shopped into a drawn image), but I don't. However, neither would I delete such images based upon my personal tastes. If it's clearly a bad edit, or has introduced really nasty compression artifacts, then it should go. Otherwise, it should stay. Just my opinion.

Will post #3133976 and post #3140285 be considered duplicated?

watchdog22 said:
Will post #3133976 and post #3140285 be considered duplicated?

Both stay, left is original right is an edit. Edits don't take priority over original copies. However, if there was an original that wasn't censored and both the censored and uncensored versions were of the same quality then the non-censored version would take priority. If there was a non-censored version but the censored version was higher quality file, then both would stay again.
Please don't necro 9 year old forums in the future

versperus said:
Both stay, left is original right is an edit. Edits don't take priority over original copies. However, if there was an original that wasn't censored and both the censored and uncensored versions were of the same quality then the non-censored version would take priority. If there was a non-censored version but the censored version was higher quality file, then both would stay again.
Please don't necro 9 year old forums in the future

So, create a redundant topic? :/ Old school argument of forums. Replacing censored version with uncensored is a landmine of "oops, turns out it was a different artist/the same artist." mistakes.

versperus said:
Please don't necro 9 year old forums in the future

The rule says "Excessively posting old threads without adding anything to the discussion".

"Posting" should probably be changed to "posting in". But you get the idea. It's allowed as long as there's a good reason to do it.

lance_armstrong said:
The rule says "Excessively posting old threads without adding anything to the discussion".

"Posting" should probably be changed to "posting in". But you get the idea. It's allowed as long as there's a good reason to do it.

Noted, though I wasn't accusing them of breaking any rules.