Valid flag/appeal reasons

With all the flagging and appealing going on lately, I think the flag and appeal pages should include more information about what are and aren't valid reasons.

Some valid reasons for appealing include:

• Funny
• Weird
• Translated
• Part of a pool

The last reason, "Part of a pool", is too often misunderstood. It should include that this only counts for otherwise fully approved pools of sequential images (comics).
"Translated" is a very weird reason. I know that a lot of effort goes into translating posts, but a translation does not change the quality of the image at all. A really poorly drawn comic shouldn't be approved because someone translated it.
2 other annoying reasons I read time and time again are:

• "That's the artist's style!" and
• "It's a (style) parody"

Every time art is bad, it must be their "style". Even then, art drawn poorly on purpose is still bad art.

EDIT: Do janitors/mods even use the new appeal feature, or do you just look at the appeal thread?

The following are NOT valid reasons for flagging a post:

• Duplicate: just parent to the original

I would like to add to that the reason:

• "boring / uninteresting"

since this reason only reflects the flaggers opinion on what happens in the image (or of the user who posted the image). It doesn't measure the artistic value of the image. It is used to avoid having to come up with a real reason.

I also think "Weird" isn't really a valid appeal reason, since plenty of things are weird without belonging on the site, like a lot of what status:deleted.

S1eth said:
EDIT: Do janitors/mods even use the new appeal feature, or do you just look at the appeal thread?

I do.

It would also be nice if people didn't try to get cute with their appeals, Kikimaru is terrible about this. Cute/sexy aren't very good reasons either.

While we're on the subject of delete/appeal reasons, I'd like to ask what's the reason for duplicate images being kept? I get why we'd want to keep an image if it's, say, a higher resolution, or a slightly edited "fixed" version, but why would a duplicate that's exactly the same, or a lower quality not be deleted?

If it's significantly lower quality, then flagging it for quality usually gets it deleted, I've found.

forum #1327

Only do it if it's jpeg artifacted, a thumbnail, or a pixiv sample otherwise either jxh or I will reapprove it.

Log said:
forum #1327

Only do it if it's jpeg artifacted, a thumbnail, or a pixiv sample otherwise either jxh or I will reapprove it.

Hmm. It seems the part I was wondering the most about never got replied to there:

jxh2154 said:
What about images that are brand new that two different people upload within days (or even hours) of each other? This happens a lot when an artist eeeeeeeever so slightly tweaks an image, often imperceptibly. Or sometimes not at all. I don't think we need both in that situation.

The "not at all" scenario's the reason I asked it, where two people upload the exact same image. Wanted to know what's the reason for not wanting people to flag one copy if it's the exact same image.

If by "exact same image", you mean images with the same md5 checksum, then the second image cannot be uploaded and the tags submitted while uploading will be used as a tag update on the existing post.
edit: Wasn't sure if this is how it worked, but confirmed this and edited the post while/after? Log answered.

Yes, it's hash matches.

S1eth said:
The last reason, "Part of a pool", is too often misunderstood. It should include that this only counts for otherwise fully approved pools of sequential images (comics).

Given how it is often misunderstood, I suggest we go with "Part of a sequence"?

Every time art is bad, it must be their "style". Even then, art drawn poorly on purpose is still bad art.

To be honest, there are two recent pools that I can think of...
pool #4415
pool #3663

The former is saved because it has a translator to keep it translated.

The latter is currently filled with deceptively bad fanarts that are supposed to be parodies of the actual mediocre art by one certain member, given what a hype it is these days(And spread some weird meme while they're at it). Seriously, just by approving some of those make us no difference than gelbooru.

Perhaps we need to define what is good parody?

ShadowbladeEdge said:
I do.

It would also be nice if people didn't try to get cute with their appeals, Kikimaru is terrible about this. Cute/sexy aren't very good reasons either.

'sup?

i'd like to add, at the very least, the "not anime related" be changed to fully explain what that means. (personally i'd like that option taken off entirely but thats just me)
It's annoying to see an image flagged with "not anime related" and the image itself is just fine. I mean, what does not anime related mean for this site?

Zekana said:
I mean, what does not anime related mean for this site?

howto:upload seems to state it fairly clearly:

Art Style

Danbooru is an Anime Art Gallery first, and a high-quality gallery second. Only anime-style art will be accepted. Art which are done in other styles are highly likely to be rejected.

• Generally Accepted
• Anime-style illustrations.
• Anime-style renditions of characters from Western animation or comics.
• Photography of Anime-themed papercraft. Examples: paper_child

• Conditionally Accepted
• Doujinshi (especially long doujins covering many pages), must be a high quality untranslated raw. Please make it clear that you are uploading a long series if you have a download limit by grouping the pages into a pool.

• Generally Rejected
• Most Photography.
• Western style illustrations (commonly known outside Danbooru as 'cartoons' or 'comics').

i just like to brought up this issue as flag and appeal reasons of post #1040848 caught my attention.

is it a valid (or worth adding/considering) reason to flag a post if it has a sample watermark running across the image?

howto:upload said:

• Generally Rejected
• Images with needlessly invasive watermarks.

watermark said:

Uploading of watermarked images should generally be avoided, especially if the watermark is obtrusively located or its addition has caused jpeg_artifacts.

currently, one valid reason for a flag involving a watermark is:

Watermark: text or logo inserted by someone besides the original artist

what if the watermark is inserted by the source website or the artist himself perhaps? this is usually done by some to prevent unauthorized distribution of the same or higher resolution or uncensored versions.

another post worth considering:
post #1042086

post #1040848, the watermark is too big and serves no purpose.
however, post #1042086, I'd consider the watermark an intentional novelty_censor. It's part of the joke and works with the image.

basically, if the watermark is there for a reason and works with the image, i see no reason to flag an image with a watermark.

on a side note, post #1042086 looks low quality to me. may just be the soft colors.

>low quality
Both have jpeg_artifacts. The Japanese love mutilating the art they put so much effort into.

post #1038745 is a good example of how not to appeal.

Subjective: shadows and 3D, very hard work, especially the chest. Objective: 5 points here before downvoting (why?). On pixiv it has a score of 160+, one of the bestvoted R18 TLoZ fanarts of all time. Very popular at other image boards, too

Popularity, especially on other sites, it completely irrelevant to our approval process. It's also not objective at all.

i noticed that among flagging reasons there's no mention of artwork of uploader.

about:tos said:
Danbooru is NOT a place for showcasing your own art.

howto:upload said:
Uploading One's Own Art is Sacrilege
...
Admins and moderators are especially harsh on self-posting artists, lashing out penalties without remorse.

i'll just going to ask if flagging an uploader's artwork a valid reason since it's clearly an infringement of danbooru's policy.

i noticed that some artworks actually die in mod queue. probably helped by the artist name matching the uploader and the negative score. however, what if the post managed to slipped in and got approved?

i have a particular case in mind involving 3 posts. though i'll refrain mentioning the posts atm. the first 2 were approved and the third one died. i would assume the first 2 got approved because they were not properly tagged. the very first one is tagged with a very different artist. after getting approved it was corrected.

should these be candidates for a flag or request for deletion? i also have no clue if the artist is really the uploader other than the danbooru username matches or strikingly similar with the pixiv username. what are the chances that they are not the same?

hoping for guidance on the proper course of action to take.
---------------------

and also, sometimes, posts uploaded don't have artist tags. when i do my thing in completing the tags, of course i look for the source first to add anything necessary. this is where i get the matching source/site username/nickname and the danbooru uploader's username.

should i still complete the artist tag? should i leave a comment that i have a feeling the uploader is the same as the artist? will it be helpful? sometimes, the art itself is good btw.

thanks.

No, self-upload is not a valid flag reason unless the post is 5 years old. Self-uploading is discouraged it has never been banned outright.

Someone who uploads their own shitty art is more likely to be banned than someone who uploads someone else's shitty art is all the warnings mean.

ok, thanks for clarifying that up. i would assume the neutral reports issued by janitors and negative scores (even if the art itself is quite good) are just warnings that the uploader is doing something taboo.

however, banning as a disciplinary action is too severe, imho.