Posted under Bugs & Features
ultima said:
I just went through my nightly check of the queue and it was showing this information (how many times it was hidden and the reason for it) now. This is easily my favorite part of the change so far.
I said "who", not "how many".
such a feature would allow people to doublecheck who's clicking what on x/y/z's uploads- but only on a certain level and up.
let's say it's a transparency move.
Flandre5carlet said:
Quick question about the following message on deleted pictures:
Does this message display on pictures that were flagged but ultimately approved again?
It doesn't show on approved posts. It shows for posts that are deleted, pending, or flagged.
Also, it doesn't show on posts if there aren't any disapprovals on record (disapprovals older than 1 month are pruned from the database, so if you look at deleted posts from more than a month ago they won't have the message).
Toks said:
It doesn't show on approved posts. It shows for posts that are deleted, pending, or flagged.
Also, it doesn't show on posts if there aren't any disapprovals on record (disapprovals older than 1 month are pruned from the database, so if you look at deleted posts from more than a month ago they won't have the message).
Alright, thanks. Good to know it displays on flags too.
How on earth did it happen that we can see the numbers of janitors who HIDE posts while they're still pending in queue?!
Hiding posts because of lack of interest (or as it called "didn't like it enough to approve") - SHOULD BE strictly private, not influenced by any other person, janitor's decision. It has been explained in this topic many times. We've even introduced special "bad quality" case which - contrary to normal lack of approval - should give other janitors additional warning. And what for? Only to make all normal rejections clearly visible for everyone too *facepalm*
richie said:
How on earth did it happen that we can see the numbers of janitors who HIDE posts while they're still pending in queue?!
Hiding posts because of lack of interest (or as it called "didn't like it enough to approve") - SHOULD BE strictly private, not influenced by any other person, janitor's decision. It has been explained in this topic many times. We've even introduced special "bad quality" case which - contrary to normal lack of approval - should give other janitors additional warning. And what for? Only to make all normal rejections clearly visible for everyone too *facepalm*
"Hidden" counter was always visible for other approvers in the mod queue, so nothing really changed, except now people know their pending posts were not overlooked.
Type-kun said:
"Hidden" counter was always visible for other approvers in the mod queue, so nothing really changed, except now people know their pending posts were not overlooked.
I know, and this was terrible by design - influence of decision is obvious, we are only human beings and we all do (more or less) follow instinct of herd, even if this is the last thing we admit before ourselves.
But, of course - there is nothing on danbooru that can't be made worse: now even janitors who does not use queue are kindly informed that dozen of others already rejected such post to make our decision of not approving it easier, right??
It will be more than enough to give us such info only when the post was finally rejected after these 3 days.
Obvious? By what merit? Could you stop treating all of us like sheep? And why should we not know the decisions of others, ESPECIALLY now with more specific handles? Two of them are MADE to PREVENT approvals (and warn the users their upload is uncalled for). Sorry dear, but I've done had enough of crap posts going through, be it a terrible drawing or one artifacted beyond recognition. If there is a way of reducing the margin of those being approved (and now there is and you are valiantly against it for some reason), I'll gladly take it.
I see no reason to make it a secret ballot. If someone wants to approve something, they'll do so based on the look of it, and the list and counts of rejection justifications becomes entirely moot. We're told to only approve things we like in one way or another. Seeing the rejection counts prior to deletion just allows for approvers who were going to disapprove the post anyway to form a sort of consensus that provides better feedback for the uploader.
Being able to have this transparency encourages a rise in quality, as everyone will be less keen on approving content marked as poor quality or rule-breaking, and thus avoid drawing ire to themselves and possible corrective action; Considering people already were complaining about this with looser approvers.
The change is great for allowing peers to be able to know that others may have felt a certain way or not, or whether they're alone in that. Also, having the disapproval reports in the time it sits pending is only common sense, and lets uploaders know in the immediate whether to expect approval or deletion rather than fret in the dark about it, and adjust their future uploading accordingly.
To all approvers: just to bring it up again, what are your opinions on "snooze" or "pin" button, which would allow to temporarily hide or to hold the post at the beginning of mod queue, respectively? It is sort like favgroups, so it could be integrated with them; then again, it's somewhat different, and it depends on whether at all and how it will be used - perhaps, something else should be implemented.
Albert suggests to implement it via a button to temporarily disapprove post ("no interest"), and automatically remove disapproval after X hours, moving post back to the queue. I propose integrating with favgroups, so that the button would mark "no interest" and move post to favgroup named "watchlist". The problem I see with first approach is that post may fall off the queue before it reappears/before approver sees it. The problem with second one is that it requires more convenient way to remove posts from watchlist, and also that "watchlist" favgroup would count against favgroup limit, possibly leading to errors if a user already has 10 favgroups.
Lack of interest means "I didn't like this post enough to approve it" and "this is not my thing so I don't care," I fail to see how either of these things should influence your own choice to approve something.
As the one who brought up the idea: of course I'm still for the ability to pin posts. With the ability to mark posts with bad art sticking them to keep track of bad posts isn't such a big deal but keeping track of ones you're on the fence about still is.
buehbueh said:
Being able to have this transparency encourages a rise in quality, as everyone will be less keen on approving content marked as poor quality or rule-breaking, and thus avoid drawing ire to themselves and possible corrective action; Considering people already were complaining about this with looser approvers.
Depends on the approver. Disclosure is a positive with the added disapprovals, assuming people read them. With looser approvers, I don't see that changing at all. Given the amount of threads up to now based on cleaning up the approval process and taking some approvers themselves into question, if any looser approvers didn't care enough to even look at the threads or anything else people told them before, extra details on why posts aren't being approved by others probably aren't going to sway them.
Type-kun said:
To all approvers: just to bring it up again, what are your opinions on "snooze" or "pin" button, which would allow to temporarily hide or to hold the post at the beginning of mod queue, respectively? It is sort like favgroups, so it could be integrated with them; then again, it's somewhat different, and it depends on whether at all and how it will be used - perhaps, something else should be implemented.
I like the "Snooze" idea. There are times where I've been undecided on a post and skipped it without hiding to come back to it being approved by someone else or just deleted.
Wypatroszony said:
Obvious? By what merit?
It's called psychology, basic level. You may deny this as much as you want if it only helps you feel better.
Two of them are MADE to PREVENT approvals (and warn the users their upload is uncalled for).
And these which are made to prevent should be visible.
But hiding because of lack of interest is NOT made to prevent approvals hence shouldn't be visible. At least till it's in the queue. When it gets deleted then fine, it's good having possiblilty of seeing final results.
richie said:
It's called psychology, basic level. You may deny this as much as you want if it only helps you feel better.
And these which are made to prevent should be visible.
But hiding because of lack of interest is NOT made to prevent approvals hence shouldn't be visible. At least till it's in the queue. When it gets deleted then fine, it's good having possiblilty of seeing final results.
Seeing the number of approvers that clicked "no interest" doesn't decrease the chance of future approvers approving the image. If anything it could increase the chance of approval by a slight amount - if every approver that saw the image clicked "no interest" then they must have intentionally not clicked either "poor quality" or "breaks rules", so based on that alone the post can't be that bad, and is probably just from an unpopular copyright or something.
Toks said:
Seeing the number of approvers that clicked "no interest" doesn't decrease the chance of future approvers approving the image. If anything it could increase the chance of approval by a slight amount - if every approver that saw the image clicked "no interest" then they must have intentionally not clicked either "poor quality" or "breaks rules", so based on that alone the post can't be that bad, and is probably just from an unpopular copyright or something.
This is purely machine logic. Let's not forget we're humans though. In reality the bigger number of "not liking enough" the stronger suggestion that image is simply plain/boring and higher chance we'll follow the suit.
Anyway. I have yet to hear a reason why this number should be visble while moderation. The reason "because it was always there" is not good enough.
