12/12 moderators voted against this image last time I uploaded it months ago. Why? What's the problem with it?

Oh_My said:

12/12 moderators voted against this image last time I uploaded it months ago. Why? What's the problem with it?

If you want to ask why your posts are deleted, there is a thread for that here. Don't just upload the exact same image again. (Also, don't copy over the "translated" tag, but then slap "translation request" on it, just copy the notes.)

As for why, I can't speak for others, but it's kind of a plain drawing. The outline is rough, there is nearly no shading, there are few details, the face is kind of derpy, the water is scribbles, and the land behind it is a featureless gray rectangle.

NWSiaCB said:

If you want to ask why your posts are deleted, there is a thread for that here. Don't just upload the exact same image again. (Also, don't copy over the "translated" tag, but then slap "translation request" on it, just copy the notes.)

As for why, I can't speak for others, but it's kind of a plain drawing. The outline is rough, there is nearly no shading, there are few details, the face is kind of derpy, the water is scribbles, and the land behind it is a featureless gray rectangle.

I don't think an image loses it's merit for being simple, especially if it is a direct parody of an inherently simple, and "derpy" artsyle like tatsuki's (Post 2810225). I know you said you don't speak for everyone else, but I think it's silly that a simple out of focus background is not allowed when "white background" is a very commonly used tag.
IDK. I disagree and think it's cute enough to share, but if it's too low quality then there's nothing I can do.

Oh_My said:

I don't think an image loses it's merit for being simple, especially if it is a direct parody of an inherently simple, and "derpy" artsyle like tatsuki's (Post 2810225). I know you said you don't speak for everyone else, but I think it's silly that a simple out of focus background is not allowed when "white background" is a very commonly used tag.
IDK. I disagree and think it's cute enough to share, but if it's too low quality then there's nothing I can do.

Well, 12 approvers didn't exactly "vote against" the last image, they voted "not interested". You need one affirmative vote, which means you need one person to find it well drawn/amusing/interesting enough to add and/or overcome any shortcomings.

Yes, it's a parody, but it's a parody that's been done before in many different ways, and has therefore lost its novelty. It's not that it's an actively bad image, and nobody would object if there was someone who had approved it, it's just that it's not getting above apathy.

post #2810225 was uploaded by someone with unrestricted uploads, meanwhile. It therefore skips approval and only needs to worry about uploads being actively terrible enough to warrant flagging. (And there's enough old guard interested in defending their own privileges that they are actively hostile to the whole notion of flagging and spite reapprove many flagged images.) Welcome to the double standards of Danbooru.

NWSiaCB said:

Well, 12 approvers didn't exactly "vote against" the last image, they voted "not interested". You need one affirmative vote, which means you need one person to find it well drawn/amusing/interesting enough to add and/or overcome any shortcomings.

Yes, it's a parody, but it's a parody that's been done before in many different ways, and has therefore lost its novelty. It's not that it's an actively bad image, and nobody would object if there was someone who had approved it, it's just that it's not getting above apathy.

post #2810225 was uploaded by someone with unrestricted uploads, meanwhile. It therefore skips approval and only needs to worry about uploads being actively terrible enough to warrant flagging. (And there's enough old guard interested in defending their own privileges that they are actively hostile to the whole notion of flagging and spite reapprove many flagged images.) Welcome to the double standards of Danbooru.

Drain the danbooru swamp

I never really got the whole "delete" thing on this site in the first place. It's not like the images are removed from the servers so it doesn't save space or anything.

t0o8z8 said:

I never really got the whole "delete" thing on this site in the first place. It's not like the images are removed from the servers so it doesn't save space or anything.

There is a "double delete" that actually deletes things, however "deletion" is really more of a "hiding" that makes them not show up on searches that do not specifically include "deleted" images. This is presumably because Danbooru runs on servers with so much data storage that it's not a problem to carry the deleted images too, although there have to have been server migrations at some point or another after data storage has ballooned after years of collecting stuff.

The purpose of this is to:
1) Make "deleted" works functionally invisible unless one is specifically looking for them, meaning that presumably, only the high-quality approved works are immediately visible without having to wade through dozens of sub-par works the way that a tag search on pixiv or deviantart requires raking through the rough to find the diamonds.

2) Make recovery of "deleted" works fast and easy with no loss of data even in tagging or the like.

3) Make finding even "deleted" works possible for those who want to find them.

In essence, unless there's some reason to actively get something off the servers (such as putting Danbooru in actual legal jeopardy), the costs of keeping "deleted" images is so small that there isn't a burning impetus to actually delete anything.

[deleted]

MD5 mismatch of http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5vNoONUwAEr-tz.jpg:orig

Fullsize already exists at post #3288474