I don’t understand why you are so persistent about changing the source of some non-web_source posts to yande, konachan, e-hentai, or other online sites. Especially for many ASMR works that come with images, I don’t think it’s necessary to make changes. Moreover, you did not compare using duplicatebooru before making source updates on your own.
What also baffles me is that you especially like to add unrelated tags like game_cg to the images that come with ASMR works.
I don’t understand why you are so persistent about changing the source of some non-web_source posts to yande, konachan, e-hentai, or other online sites. Especially for many ASMR works that come with images, I don’t think it’s necessary to make changes. Moreover, you did not compare using duplicatebooru before making source updates on your own.
What also baffles me is that you especially like to add unrelated tags like game_cg to the images that come with ASMR works.
I was annoyed at seeing all these highres unsourced posts which were taken off other aggretator sites. But if you look at the change log, I did that for a short period in January 2023 when I was seeing these posts hitting front page. Thankfully, I've since stopped giving a fuck about this site & its ungrateful users. I'm just here until the urge to attempt uploads of cool art withers & I just bow out for good.
I was annoyed at seeing all these highres unsourced posts which were taken off other aggretator sites.
That's not entirely true, and it's one of the reasons why I found your previous actions presumptuous and frustrating. I’ve checked all your edits from that period, and most of them were changes to posts that I uploaded. I only discovered what happened a year and a half ago by accident today.
I personally prefer using the title of the work from DLsite rather than just providing the DLsite link as the source. Technically speaking, you can't directly access the images from that link unless you first purchase the item (which is usually a paid product) and then download the compressed file to extract the images.
I personally prefer using the title of the work from DLsite rather than just providing the DLsite link as the source. Technically speaking, you can't directly access the images from that link unless you first purchase the item (which is usually a paid product) and then download the compressed file to extract the images.
I don't think we have a super established precedent per se, but my reasoning is that the name is easily accessible from the URL, but not vice versa (save for just putting it into Google). The URL just gives the most options, should the person viewing this want to purchase it themselves. In practice it probably doesn't matter much though.
I don't think we have a super established precedent per se, but my reasoning is that the name is easily accessible from the URL, but not vice versa (save for just putting it into Google). The URL just gives the most options, should the person viewing this want to purchase it themselves. In practice it probably doesn't matter much though.
After giving it some thought, I believe it might be more appropriate to add the following in the commentary, rather than using the DLsite link directly as the source:
After giving it some thought, I believe it might be more appropriate to add the following in the commentary, rather than using the DLsite link directly as the source:
I think that's an adequate solution too, similar to posting a comment. Using the dlsite URL isn't wrong per se though, not all source links point directly at the exact image or post in question, sometimes we just have to accept a "close enough" (this only goes for non-supported sites obviously).
It's the same thing with how we handle uploads that come directly from filehosts like catbox and mega. The actual source is the direct link but additional information, like where the link was posted in the first place, should definitely go into the commentary.
It's also much better for both searchability and archiving as opposed to just sticking them in the comments.
It's not quite the same since there's no (meaningful) direct download link in this case (for Discord sources we also use the message URL, not the image URL). My personal preference would still be dlsite as source though, since it does allow source:*dlsite* and it doesn't lose any information like the work title, since it's still on dlsite itself.
It's not quite the same since there's no (meaningful) direct download link in this case (for Discord sources we also use the message URL, not the image URL). My personal preference would still be dlsite as source though, since it does allow source:*dlsite* and it doesn't lose any information like the work title, since it's still on dlsite itself.
As mentioned earlier, for me, only cases like the post #6076408 directly comes from a preview image on DLsite are reasonable to use DLsite link as the source. This is because only in such cases can the image be found directly on the webpage corresponding to the DLsite link.
I have made the following modifications to my own uploaded posts and their related posts: using the corresponding work title from DLsite as the source, and adding the DLsite link in the commentary.
As mentioned earlier, for me, only cases like the post #6076408 directly comes from a preview image on DLsite are reasonable to use DLsite link as the source. This is because only in such cases can the image be found directly on the webpage corresponding to the DLsite link.
I have made the following modifications to my own uploaded posts and their related posts: using the corresponding work title from DLsite as the source, and adding the DLsite link in the commentary.
I don't know why I need to repeat this but: there's a few cases where the source can correspond to a page where you still have to jump through a hoop or two. Ideally a direct or post is used, but this isn't always possible. If someone asks you for the source for this image, you don't send them a blob of text, you send them the dlsite link. Neither the work title nor the dlsite link are the "most direct" sources, but my argument is that the dlsite link at least gives you *more* information to work with in terms of findabiliry than the work's title as plain text.
I don't know why I need to repeat this but: there's a few cases where the source can correspond to a page where you still have to jump through a hoop or two. Ideally a direct or post is used, but this isn't always possible. If someone asks you for the source for this image, you don't send them a blob of text, you send them the dlsite link. Neither the work title nor the dlsite link are the "most direct" sources, but my argument is that the dlsite link at least gives you *more* information to work with in terms of findabiliry than the work's title as plain text.
I'm not arguing that including the work title in posts is better than the DLsite link—if I believed that, I wouldn't agree that adding the DLsite link to the commentary, as mentioned earlier, is a good idea.
I believe that, purely from a source perspective, the work title is preferable to the DLsite link. After all, links can sometimes become inaccessible. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, if the source is a link, I would prefer to have direct access to the original image associated with the post.
If possible, I believe it would be better to include both the work title and the link in the source or commentary.
Okay, to be honest, I changed my mind. Initially I didn't have a strong opinion as long as at least the link was preserved somewhere, but after this + the discussion on Discord, I think that the dlsite link should be the only correct source. It is the place where you would get this download, doesn't matter if you have to purchase it and download it from a different direct link. If you insist on saving the title (this does have value), I think posting it as a comment would be ideal since it's not *really* artist commentary.
Okay, to be honest, I changed my mind. Initially I didn't have a strong opinion as long as at least the link was preserved somewhere, but after this + the discussion on Discord, I think that the dlsite link should be the only correct source. It is the place where you would get this download, doesn't matter if you have to purchase it and download it from a different direct link. If you insist on saving the title (this does have value), I think posting it as a comment would be ideal since it's not *really* artist commentary.
I agree with this. The source should, as much as possible, point to wherever you would go to find the image. If it's a dlsite product, then dlsite is the source. Using the title as the source means someone wanting to actually figure out where this image comes from has to go through extra hoops to find it. Yeah, where to find it can be given as a comment or in the commentary instead, but that's what the source field is for. The title of the work is not the source.
Not wanting to use the dlsite link because the image isn't directly visible there (without purchasing the product) just feels like pedantry. It is still where the image can be found, if not as directly as our sources usually try to be.
I agree with this. The source should, as much as possible, point to wherever you would go to find the image. If it's a dlsite product, then dlsite is the source. Using the title as the source means someone wanting to actually figure out where this image comes from has to go through extra hoops to find it. Yeah, where to find it can be given as a comment or in the commentary instead, but that's what the source field is for. The title of the work is not the source.
Not wanting to use the dlsite link because the image isn't directly visible there (without purchasing the product) just feels like pedantry. It is still where the image can be found, if not as directly as our sources usually try to be.
Unless the admins provide specific source requirements for images from AMSR works, using DLsite work titles or DLsite links as sources will continue to be acceptable. In the meantime, perhaps we should initiate a forum topic for discussion and voting?
Additionally, regarding artist commentaries, there are currently many that are not real artist commentaries.
Don't use plaintext titles for the source. The source is the actual site you got it from. If you got it from Yande.re, the source is Yande.re. If you got it from DLsite, the source is DLsite. Don't say you got it from DLsite if you really got it from Yande.re. The files may not match and it will cause confusion over which file is the real file when someone uploads the real file from DLsite.
If that means it's a third-party source, so be it. That's what the third-party source tag is for. To say "this file didn't come from the original site, so it may not be the original file". There's no reason to hide that fact.
And don't invent commentaries that don't exist. The commentary is for what the artist actually said about the image, not for our own notes about the image. If the source is DLsite, then the commentary would be the title and description of the work from DLsite.
Don't use plaintext titles for the source. The source is the actual site you got it from. If you got it from Yande.re, the source is Yande.re. If you got it from DLsite, the source is DLsite. Don't say you got it from DLsite if you really got it from Yande.re. The files may not match and it will cause confusion over which file is the real file when someone uploads the real file from DLsite.
If that means it's a third-party source, so be it. That's what the third-party source tag is for. To say "this file didn't come from the original site, so it may not be the original file". There's no reason to hide that fact.
And don't invent commentaries that don't exist. The commentary is for what the artist actually said about the image, not for our own notes about the image. If the source is DLsite, then the commentary would be the title and description of the work from DLsite.
Alright, since you’ve shared your opinion, I have no objections. However, as there are currently no clear rules for using these types of sources and commentaries in wikis, I hope you can address this and inform everyone about it in the future, rather than maintaining the status quo.
Additional information can be found in many commentaries, rather than solely from the artists.
If the source is DLsite, then the commentary would be the title and description of the work from DLsite.
However, the system currently does not support automatically extracting commentary from DLsite links.
