Posted under General
What should be the parent post and the child post if the pic is at the same size, the pixiv one or the twitter one?
I am just confused since there are post like this where the parent is the twitter one while other is the parent is the pixiv one.
Sorry if this is not in the right place to post this because this is the first post I make in the forum and i just don't know where I should post this.
Twitter posts are .jpg, Pixiv posts are usually .png, so if they are the same resolution, the one with .png and bigger filesize is better, since it holds more detail.
Sometimes Twitter has a higher resolution, so that becomes the parent, if I understood your post right
Edit: I probably don't have the correct understanding of this situation, so please disregard my post
Updated
If the images are completely identical in appearance and resolution, and completely or nearly identical in file size, then the one uploaded first is the parent, is my understanding.
It used to be that pixiv posts would almost always be the parent, because of how harshly twitter compressed images, but twitter no longer does that, so that's not true anymore for newer images. So now it's based on quality if there's a difference, or whichever one was uploaded first if there's no difference.
Also for the record, it's typically preferred you don't upload perfectly identical images that already exist on the site. People still upload twitter and pixiv versions of the same image despite them being identical, but they really shouldn't be doing that.
Also see “Choosing the Best Parent” in the Parent and Child Posts wiki, which is also linked from the wiki front page.
Dank.Knight said:
Sorry if this is not in the right place to post this because this is the first post I make in the forum and i just don't know where I should post this.
This is exactly the right place to ask whenever you are unsure about anything Danbooru-related.
Oh man... And here I've been making the Pixiv post the parent whenever I've seen the Twitter post as the parent because that's how I've been told that it's supposed to be.
And about not uploading from a new source when there's already an identical image from another source, I have to disagree. In my opinion, any gallery type source such as Pixiv and DeviantArt is always better than a linear type source such as Twitter and should be posted if only a Twitter source had been posted in the past. Twitter is just really inconvenient to browse for more art from an artist, unlike gallery sites.
Kapten-N said:
And about not uploading from a new source when there's already an identical image from another source, I have to disagree. In my opinion, any gallery type source such as Pixiv and DeviantArt is always better than a linear type source such as Twitter and should be posted if only a Twitter source had been posted in the past. Twitter is just really inconvenient to browse for more art from an artist, unlike gallery sites.
That really has nothing to do with Danbooru's archival purpose. The artist wiki always includes links to all known active media accounts. If you don't like using Twitter to view the rest of an artist's work, and I agree with you there, there is literally no reason to upload identical images, which uses up valuable space for no benefit, solely because they provide a link to the artist's Pixiv/DA account in the source field.
blindVigil said:
That really has nothing to do with Danbooru's archival purpose. The artist wiki always includes links to all known active media accounts. If you don't like using Twitter to view the rest of an artist's work, and I agree with you there, there is literally no reason to upload identical images, which uses up valuable space for no benefit, solely because they provide a link to the artist's Pixiv/DA account in the source field.
That is a good point, but sometimes artists have huge galleries and it may be hard to find the image in question without a direct link. It would be great if Danbooru had functionality for listing multiple sources for a post. That would solve both problems.
Kapten-N said:
...It would be great if Danbooru had functionality for listing multiple sources for a post. That would solve both problems.
One post ID can only be directly linked to one source. If it was posted from multiple sources, then the parent/child relationship will appear for the post and can be browsed there. Additionally, clicking the '?' beside the artist name will show you known links to where that artist posts their work.
Hope I didn't misunderstand your comment.
Kapten-N said:
That is a good point, but sometimes artists have huge galleries and it may be hard to find the image in question without a direct link. It would be great if Danbooru had functionality for listing multiple sources for a post. That would solve both problems.
Pixiv has a filter function for searching through an artist's gallery.
Listing multiple "sources" for a single image has a whole slew of problems, such as conflicting commentary, fetching meta data, additional things the site/users need to keep track of. The point of the source field is for linking to the source of that specific image, a Pixiv image is not a valid source for a post uploaded from Twitter, no matter how identical they may be.
blindVigil said:
Pixiv has a filter function for searching through an artist's gallery.
Listing multiple "sources" for a single image has a whole slew of problems, such as conflicting commentary, fetching meta data, additional things the site/users need to keep track of. The point of the source field is for linking to the source of that specific image, a Pixiv image is not a valid source for a post uploaded from Twitter, no matter how identical they may be.
I think he's saying that if a post comes from pixiv, and then the artist's pixiv gets deleted, it would be nice to not have to search their entire twitter gallery for that one image. This happens a bunch with some old artists, where their pixiv was deleted before the commentary was added, causing people to search things like blog and twitter posts, which are usually filled with pictures of cats or food or vacation pictures.
thelieutenant said:
I think he's saying that if a post comes from pixiv, and then the artist's pixiv gets deleted, it would be nice to not have to search their entire twitter gallery for that one image. This happens a bunch with some old artists, where their pixiv was deleted before the commentary was added, causing people to search things like blog and twitter posts, which are usually filled with pictures of cats or food or vacation pictures.
That's not what he was saying at all. He's specifically asking for Pixiv posts to be uploaded even when an identical Twitter post already exists on the site, solely because it provides a direct link to the image on the artist's pixiv. It has nothing to do with commentary and everything to do with having the most convenient access to the artist's Pixiv even if it means bloating the site with pointless duplicates.
I came here to ask the same question. Has the stance on uploading images from multiple sources changed at all?
I thought that if an image was uploaded to twitter and then to Pixiv that both should be uploaded and then whichever one was the higher resolution should be made the parent, even if it's not higher resolution by a lot - say, a few KB.
So now is it more policy that unless an image is of significantly higher quality at a different source that it should not be uploaded? Just want to know going forward because a couple of things I've uploaded lately have been tagged as duplicates, and I don't know whether that's a bad thing or not.
Grahf said:
I thought that if an image was uploaded to twitter and then to Pixiv that both should be uploaded and then whichever one was the higher resolution should be made the parent, even if it's not higher resolution by a lot - say, a few KB.
This has never been the case. You should always try to only upload the best version of a picture if they're identical to each other. If they're the same exact picture in terms of pixel then there's no point in uploading another version.
nonamethanks said:
This has never been the case. You should always try to only upload the best version of a picture if they're identical to each other. If they're the same exact picture in terms of pixel then there's no point in uploading another version.
Thank you for the clarification. I'll be sure to keep in mind that only differences in resolution should be taken into account moving forward.
Grahf said:
I thought that if an image was uploaded to twitter and then to Pixiv that both should be uploaded and then whichever one was the higher resolution should be made the parent, even if it's not higher resolution by a lot - say, a few KB.
Not sure if a typo but I just wanted to point out that resolution =/= filesize, only the latter is measured in bytes.
I'd like to request further clarification on this if possible just due to a couple of parent/child situations that have sprung up recently.
post #4312142 was uploaded today from pixiv, and made parent of post #4216737
Likewise post #4312347 was uploaded today from pixiv, and made parent of post #4311428
There's no difference in terms of resolution in either set of images, only in filesize and source. Have these been parented correctly, or should the first version uploaded be the parent and the subsequent image be the child?
Grahf said:
I'd like to request further clarification on this if possible just due to a couple of parent/child situations that have sprung up recently.
post #4312142 was uploaded today from pixiv, and made parent of post #4216737
Likewise post #4312347 was uploaded today from pixiv, and made parent of post #4311428
There's no difference in terms of resolution in either set of images, only in filesize and source. Have these been parented correctly, or should the first version uploaded be the parent and the subsequent image be the child?
Resolution and file size should be taken into account, not just resolution. The ones uploaded today are PNGs with larger file sizes, meaning they weren't compressed as much as the previously uploaded JPG versions of the images, making them a higher quality version. Being higher quality, they should be the parents.
Just to reinforce what blindVigil is saying using post #4312142 vs post #4216737, the larger PNG file means less compression which means that the image is cleaner and has less compression artifacts and that has a visual impact (thus why it is higher quality). Here is a link to an example of an expanded closeup of a portion of the posts. Visually the small jpg post #4216737 has a lot more artifacts in the image compared to the larger png post #4312142.
