tf you mean you don't believe it's relevant

piano0000000 said:
tf you mean you don't believe it's relevant

No idea, I think it is tho

iirmpii said:
I think the problem is the size, not the content. The resolution is too low for something that isn't pixel art.

Not likely, here's a few posts with equal or smaller resolution that are nowhere close to pixel art;
https://e621.net/posts/2747296
https://e621.net/posts/2738955
https://e621.net/posts/2726575
https://e621.net/posts/2726585
https://e621.net/posts/2722637

I think the (dis)approver is just extremely drunk

iirmpii said:
I think the problem is the size, not the content. The resolution is too low for something that isn't pixel art.

This one got approved and its not pixel art with near same resolution: https://e621.net/posts/2708241?q

iirmpii said:
I think the problem is the size, not the content. The resolution is too low for something that isn't pixel art.

We have two buttons: borderline quality and borderline relevancy. These are technically for janitor and above useage to notify other staff members that someone else was already thinking of something being deletion worthy, but they are publicly displayed because of so many people thinking nobody saw something that was automatically deleted in 30 days, when in reality basically everyone already saw it and didn't see it being worth keeping, but also didn't want the constant hate dmails from deleting something people liked or weren't sure if they could justify the deletion enough themselves.
(This still isn't pornsite and just because its porn and just because you like something, doesn't justify it's approval)

Quality means resolution, compression, transcoding, artistical quality, etc. etc.
Relevancy means there's no characters or characters which aren't relevant according to currently in place uploading guidelines. Here the character looks like gray human with no distinguishable anatomical features to differ it from humans outside the skin color, which according to the guidelines is irrelevant factor, hence the disapproval. Head shape is bit more unusual, but drawing style is also more cartoony.

If someone can point out anatomical feature here which makes this character not human excluding skin color, please reply. And if the reply is "but other similar/same character posts are approved" I will bonk with something stiff on head because that's not the reason, that's reason to delete previous posts instead.

Here it is clearly saying relevancy being the problem, not quality.
I hate this, when I delete stuff based on artistic quality and people assume that the resolution wasn't high enough, so then they just reupload the same thing upscaled, even when the deletion reason super clearly said the reason was artistic quality, not resolution.

her3aft3r said:
Not likely, here's a few posts with equal or smaller resolution that are nowhere close to pixel art;
<snip>
I think the (dis)approver is just extremely drunk

Guidelines currently state anything at or below 200px is too low resolution. Of course if the artwork generally looks unviewable, then sometimes it can be deleted even above that treshold. Additionally with pixel artwork, upscaling using integer values with nearest neighbor is acceptable which has gotten some of those lower resolution pixel stuff approved.
Purpose of the guideline is to stop people from taking e.g. profile pictures from websites and uploading those, but additionally keeping the content hosted here actually viewable on modern display resolutions, where 1080p is already norm even on mobile phones.

Also I rarely drink and when I do, I only do so much that I get giggly, never been drunk.

mairo said:

If someone can point out anatomical feature here which makes this character not human excluding skin color, please reply. And if the reply is "but other similar/same character posts are approved" I will bonk with something stiff on head because that's not the reason, that's reason to delete previous posts instead.

But it is a reason, they being approved means that the similarity was enough to pass approval already. Theres 5 more pictures of this guy already approved.

Besides for anatomical differences:

None of these animated ones have a visible nose:

https://e621.net/posts/2754027?q=basalt_%28inkplasm%29
https://e621.net/posts/2754014?q=basalt_%28inkplasm%29
https://e621.net/posts/2754012?q=basalt_%28inkplasm%29

These show that this being has abnormal shoulders:

https://e621.net/posts/2754027?q=basalt_%28inkplasm%29
https://e621.net/posts/2754012?q=basalt_%28inkplasm%29

Practically none of the animations indicate that it has any kind of hair, its head is a boulder. You could also count in the unnatural eyes but im not sure how big that counts.

mairo said:

even when the deletion reason super clearly said the reason was artistic quality, not resolution.

Its not really a clear reason when people clearly come down and argue what is the reason for the deletion.

Why not change that message to be a bit more clear like "Too anthro" or something? Because even with "artistic quality" people gonna argue that it doesnt look bad so where the quality problem is.

i think we might've found the one who doesn't think its relevant

tester29 said:
But it is a reason, they being approved means that the similarity was enough to pass approval already. Theres 5 more pictures of this guy already approved.

Besides for anatomical differences:

None of these animated ones have a visible nose:

These show that this being has abnormal shoulders:

Practically none of the animations indicate that it has any kind of hair, its head is a boulder. You could also count in the unnatural eyes but im not sure how big that counts.

Yeah, the issue here is that the character is on that gray area and those features are definitely present, but for some reason not in all posts and because the style is extremely cartoonish, sometimes it's down to drawing style to do stuff like omit the nose or drawing hair with odd shapes.
Posts are supposed to be handled by visuals of that specific post, not per character basis, e.g. Link posts do get deleted if their elf ears aren't visible on those specific posts.

I did talk with the janitor doing the previous approvals and they also said that these are definitely super hard cases, but they still felt like these are leaning slightly more towards acceptable.

I did approve the ones where there's more clearer rock formations part of the body, but rest is down to some other janitor as I cannot justify handling rest of these either way.
Regardless, this is website for furry content to begin with, not for humanoids. Humanoids are acceptable, but not in focus.

tester29 said:
Its not really a clear reason when people clearly come down and argue what is the reason for the deletion.

Why not change that message to be a bit more clear like "Too anthro" or something? Because even with "artistic quality" people gonna argue that it doesnt look bad so where the quality problem is.

Look at something like post #2753852 (you can check sources on post for the content), if you read the deletion reason, it should clearly state "[DELETION] Does not meet minimum quality standards. (Artistic)", where with something like post #2675383 it says the same but "(Resolution)" instead of "(Artistic)". I feel like this should be clear enough difference, so that if something is deleted with reason "(Artistic)" that the uploader wouldn't jump the conclusion that the reason for deletion was resolution.
Before I was janitor this suffix didn't exsist at all, so back then I could maybe see the issue of not knowing.

ethernalnail said:
i think we might've found the one who doesn't think its relevant

It's kinda surprising that with specific posts, everyone starts to care, even when this happens with tons of posts on daily basis, many ending up deleted, delreason:*irrelevant*.

mairo said:
Look at something like post #2753852 (you can check sources on post for the content), if you read the deletion reason, it should clearly state "[DELETION] Does not meet minimum quality standards. (Artistic)", where with something like post #2675383 it says the same but "(Resolution)" instead of "(Artistic)". I feel like this should be clear enough difference, so that if something is deleted with reason "(Artistic)" that the uploader wouldn't jump the conclusion that the reason for deletion was resolution.

To be fair, I've been using this site for years and up until last week I didn't even know you could search deleted posts at all, I was under the impression if you didn't have a direct link to the post that was deleted, you were unable to ever even know it existed in the first place.
This is also the first time I hear there is a separate "artistic" and "resolution" reason as an afterthought on the removal reason, I've been under the impression it's just the same text every time, mostly because I've never had to personally be invested in any cases such as these, like I would imagine the majority of the site's userbase being.

While you may be a janitor and you see deleted posts or disapprove posts on a daily/bi-daily basis. Most of the users long and short timers have practically no idea any of this stuff even exists because instead of being openly explained or easy to research, it's semi hidden and practically unreachable information to anyone who isn't held by the hand and directed to it.

On another note, there are extremely major downsides to having the site be operated by opinion based loose guidelines since that will make it seem to most people as if there's favoritism toward certain artists/characters and others get the boot for simply existing and while I understand why the site runs like this. It's no wonder people sometimes get heated and have uproar over stuff like this, it's simply about whether these cases fly under the radar or get noticed which is completely up to luck.

PS: You don't have to drink alcohol to be drunk, speaking from experience ;3c

so i don't think this should be called irrelevant since basalt is a golem, so they would most likely be a flat color, sure he looks a bit like a human, but i think that inkplasm didn't intend that, and her artstyle is probably what made him look too human

mairo said:
Posts are supposed to be handled by visuals of that specific post, not per character basis, e.g. Link posts do get deleted if their elf ears aren't visible on those specific posts.
...
It's kinda surprising that with specific posts, everyone starts to care, even when this happens with tons of posts on daily basis, many ending up deleted, delreason:*irrelevant*.

I admit that I’m not overly familiar with this kind of issue, and I don’t mean or want to be disrespectful, but as far as I’ve seen, there are at least a few configurations of being which can be featured exclusively in a post on this site whose visual differences from humans are quite minimal. For instance, a Gem from Steven Universe is basically a recolored human with a stone attached to them, which isn’t always visible. In this case, there is a non-human skin color, spikes which match the skin and do not match how this artist has depicted hair is the past, and a complete omission of ears.
In the case of the latter thing, entertainment of any kind works on an economy of time and attention, which everyone has in finite supply. Without proper exposure, anything will be completely ignored, and there’s not much reason to advertise a post on an image board. So it’s very easy for a post’s deletion (and very existence) to be ignored if there was not some reason for people to have known about it, such as it being authored by a relatively well-known artist.
I recognize that I’m not an authority on basically anything, but I like these posts and don’t want to see them deleted, so I thought I’d give my two cents on the matter. I hope I’m not being disagreeable.

idiotesthead said:
For instance, a Gem from Steven Universe is basically a recolored human with a stone attached to them, which isn’t always visible.

Conveniently enough, Gems from Steven Universe are not allowed on the site.

bitwolfy said:
Conveniently enough, Gems from Steven Universe are not allowed on the site.

I apologize for being crass, but..
Don’t bullshit me, Carl!

idiotesthead said:
I apologize for being crass, but..
Don’t bullshit me, Carl!

Most posts with the gem_(species) tag include multiple characters, at least one of which is non-human.
The ones that don't – those are most likely mistakes on the part of approvers. I will ask those to be reviewed again, especially post #2671228.

The official policy is that recolored humans, even bedazzled ones, are not relevant to the site.