By the way, how about having posts that only ever received "no interest" get automatically appealed once? After all, this is pretty much the "falling trough the gaps" that we would talk about all the time
Posted under Bugs & Features
Borrator said:
By the way, how about having posts that only ever received "no interest" get automatically appealed once? After all, this is pretty much the "falling trough the gaps" that we would talk about all the time
This is not strictly defined as "no interest" but may also mean "not liking enough" or generally "meh".
I don't think an auto appeal is good idea - seeing after deletion that large number of mods had voted for "meh" doesn't give much hope for success, even if there is no "bad quality" annotations. With smaller number I'd give a shot though.
Trivia time: a picture which failed moderation with let's say 50 votes for "meh" and 0 "bad quality" is 99,9% guaranteed to stay deleted forever.
The very same picture if only posted not by normal user but by contributor instead is 99,9% guaranteed to stay forever accepted (as "meh" is not correct reason for flagging).
Borrator said:
By the way, how about having posts that only ever received "no interest" get automatically appealed once? After all, this is pretty much the "falling trough the gaps" that we would talk about all the time
I disagree, it would clutter the appeals process, pulling attention from images that users actively want to defend, to stuff that the moderation staff has given up on , even if it's "OK", but not worth approving. Plus, images aren't getting past moderation the way they used to, thanks to a larger staff, and the user base is active in their appeals. The appeals system as it stands is quite fine.
richie said:
a picture which failed moderation with let's say 50 votes for "meh" and 0 "bad quality" is 99,9% guaranteed to stay deleted forever. The very same picture if only posted not by normal user but by contributor instead is 99,9% guaranteed to stay forever accepted (as "meh" is not correct reason for flagging).
So the problem you're having isn't really the moderation process by itself. You're actually talking about how easy it is for poor contributors to get mediocre images past any form of moderation without worry, which has been discussed in multiple places before.
I'm genuinely curious what your solution to that issue is. Do you have an idea of how to review contributors in a way that respects their uploading freedom but still maintains quality? or which subjects them in some manner to the moderation queue?
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.
There is actually a relevant scientific study by Salganik, Dodds and Watts in 2006. They set up a music download site which would let people listen to music and then decide to download it or not. Some of the people could see the number of previous users who had downloaded the music. Unknown to the users, they were divided into eight "worlds", and users in each world only saw downloads from other users in the same world. The eight "worlds" ended up with very different scores for each song. In comparison, users who couldn't see the previous download counts gave much more consistent results. They conclude that letting users see the decisions of previous users greatly increases the unpredictability of the results.
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*
I feel your concerns are exaggerated. Janitors should know to not let the numbers influence their decision (I hope anyway). I ignore the hide count (and the score for that matter) and I expect many other janitors would say the same too. There are also safeguards like appeals and forum #45532. In any case, I doubt it's even possible to tell if a post was deleted due all of the janitors "going with the flow".
Showing the hide count does raise some concerns about negative comments from users, but I feel the transparency is more important.
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.
It seems like a good idea, but I don't think I go through the queue often enough for it to be useful to me.
buehbueh said:
So the problem you're having isn't really the moderation process by itself.
These are two different problems, though indeed - the latter one with contributors is much more serious.
And it's not me having problem with that - it danbooru has.
I'm genuinely curious what your solution to that issue is. Do you have an idea of how to review contributors in a way that respects their uploading freedom but still maintains quality? or which subjects them in some manner to the moderation queue?
It's not the first time I've mentioned about this. I hope forum #105658 will satisfy your curiosity.
eidolon said:
I feel your concerns are exaggerated. Janitors should know to not let the numbers influence their decision (I hope anyway). I ignore the hide count (and the score for that matter) and I expect many other janitors would say the same too.
Oh, but I do believe you. And others from mod team too.
I do believe that the numbers won't influence your decision
...deliberately and conciously, that is.
There are also safeguards like appeals and forum #45532.In any case, I doubt it's even possible to tell if a post was deleted due all of the janitors "going with the flow".
That's exactly the point - we'll never be sure if this had any real influence or not on a case-by-case basis. And that's exactly why it's the best to stop this useless and potentialy harmless thing.
Showing the hide count does raise some concerns about negative comments from users, but I feel the transparency is more important.
I'm not buying the transparency thing only for transparency sake.
Who and how is going to benefit by the fact that the hide counter is visible while post is still in moderation?
richie said:
Who and how is going to benefit by the fact that the hide counter is visible while post is still in moderation?
Users anxious for feedback. I remember that was a huge problem in my early days, not knowing if there's some problem with a post I don't see or just nobody really cares about it. I, for one, don't think the "no interest" will influence people even on a subconscious level - after all, it is in no way negative, and I am sure everyone knows that
lkjh098 said:
There is actually a relevant scientific study by Salganik, Dodds and Watts in 2006. They set up a music download site which would let people listen to music and then decide to download it or not. Some of the people could see the number of previous users who had downloaded the music. Unknown to the users, they were divided into eight "worlds", and users in each world only saw downloads from other users in the same world. The eight "worlds" ended up with very different scores for each song. In comparison, users who couldn't see the previous download counts gave much more consistent results. They conclude that letting users see the decisions of previous users greatly increases the unpredictability of the results.
I'd wager the applications here are different. In that case they are rating the songs, in this case we are doing a binary approve/disapprove, if even one person says 'yes' it goes in and the prior decisions by other mods disappear forever. Only in the case that lots of users don't really like a post will those prior decisions remain for review. We are told to approve what we like. If I like a post, and it at least has a baseline level of quality, I'm going to approve it. If I'm on the fence (maybe I like the subject matter, but the quality is on the fence), only then would I consider the prior ratings.
If previous mods said they thought it was poor quality, now's my chance to let that confirm my already present reservations and I can help provide feedback to the uploader by saying that I agree. It simply prevents me from approving a marginal post that probably shouldn't be included anyway. If previous mods said they simply didn't care for the image, and I know I like it, then that will give me the peace of mind knowing it's probably not too bad to approve.
If something is unambiguously decent quality this system changes nothing, things will go in immediately. Only in borderline cases will it have an effect. That affect will certainly bias an approver in that case, but it's probably a good thing. It takes the decision from one person's snap judgement or deferral on a borderline post to one that should have some semblance of a consensus, both on which side of the quality threshold we want to be on, and in providing feedback for the uploader as to why it didn't pass muster. In this case, I don't think that bias is a bad thing. Again if I really like it, and I know it passes muster, it goes in anyway. Only posts that are iffy to begin with get affected and it's likely not bad to err on the more conservative side with that sort of post anyway.
As for scoring setting up a feedback loop, it likely exists, but only with the actual score rating on a post. This rejection/deferral reason counter goes away as soon as anyone says 'yes'.
If quality supposed to be a huge factor in deciding which images get approved, doesn't multiple approvers not liking a pic enough imply something bad or mediocre about the image even if that's not what they meant by it? (this is mainly about the non-fetishy extreme images) I don't think anyone wants to be approving "meh" images.
animeboy12 said:
If quality supposed to be a huge factor in deciding which images get approved, doesn't multiple approvers not liking a pic enough imply something bad or mediocre about the image even if that's not what they meant by it? (this is mainly about the non-fetishy extreme images) I don't think anyone wants to be approving "meh" images.
Probably yes, and you'll get this sort of feedback even if you did hide the number of hides and hide reasons, simply due to the fact that some images will linger in the queue much longer than others (and eventually fall out the other side).
Shinjidude said:
I'd wager the applications here are different.
The core result, that people who can see what other people have already done tend to "follow the crowd", still applies. The only way to get an unbiased opinion from each reviewer is to not tell them what other reviewers thought. Otherwise you are effectively only getting a real opinion from the first few reviewers to look at a post; everyone else will tend to subconsciously go "well, other people didn't like it, I shouldn't like it either".
eidolon said:
I feel your concerns are exaggerated. Janitors should know to not let the numbers influence their decision (I hope anyway).
In the study, people were deciding whether to download the music to listen to later or not, and they had already heard the music. Logically the previous download count should have had no effect on their opinion. Yet it did.
I might come off as a dick for saying this to some, but I'm not really trying to be.
Regarding this whole "Post has been reviewed by X moderators" thingy, to be frank I don't really like it. I've ran into - even uploaded - a whole slew of images that are actually quite excellent, well scored and favorite'd, from reputable and well liked artists on here - yet they seemingly come off as shafted by mods and approvers. Take post #2082578 for example. Loved artist, loved character, quality as expected of said artist, high score and a number of folks favorited it. Yet while it was in the queue, it was reviewed by 7 moderators neither of which liked it enough to approve it.
It's fine if a few folks don't like stuff here and there. Artistic preferences and all. But when you have a number of mods/approvers sort of....move against the grain as a whole, all it does is serve to make them look like judgmental, elitist douchebags. Not to mention I imagine it's disheartening to a lot of people who post something that is, for all intents and purposes, awesome and well liked, yet the few people in power don't seem to like it enough to make it stick.
I obviously can't tell what's going on in people's heads, but at the very least I like to think I can understand perceptions. And me personally, I'd much rather like to believe that the reason why a post is still in the queue is because said queue is swamped, or not enough mods/approvers - or really, ANYTHING, other than them being judgmental, elitist hipsters.
Earlier I was thinking it might've helped to list the names of mods/approvers who didn't like an image on the post page, but thinking on it now that would just open the floodgates and far too easily invite personal attacks. I like to think scores are a good enough indicator of post quality - which is exactly why they're there.
Updated
I mean, it's ultimately up to you guys to do things how you best see fit. If you think the the pros outweigh any cons I or someone else might've mentioned, then that's that.
I've never really voiced my thoughts on the inner workings here before, so I apologize if I came off as ignorant or something. I was just speaking as an uploader.
It's wasn't a bad image, I'd have probably approved it if I had seen it first. That it ultimately got approved was more important. Even if a dozen approvers don't care about an image, someone will approve your uploads if they're good enough, and that should matter more. We all have our personal preferences of what we will approve or not.
MikeTheV said:
But not fair?
What do you mean, fair? Approver sees the image, then either approves it if he likes it, or presses "not interested" if he doesn't like it, to not return to it later. I'm pretty sure they are supposed to work that way, manual moderation is subjective by definition. It was always that way, just never shown to uploader until recently.
Type-kun said:
What do you mean, fair? Approver sees the image, then either approves it if he likes it, or presses "not interested" if he doesn't like it, to not return to it later. I'm pretty sure they are supposed to work that way, manual moderation is subjective by definition. It was always that way, just never shown to uploader until recently.
Hm. And someone might take that the wrong way. As buehbueh said, all it takes is one to approve, but while someone is waiting on that one, they'll see a bunch of others not liking it so much and take it the wrong way - get disheartened, who knows. What I'm saying is, as it stands, its only purpose is a secondary score. I don't get it honestly.
As for fairness, well, check this out: post #1831671. I can't tell you how many moderators reviewed it because that feature obviously wasn't around then, but I do recall that it sat in the queue for around 2 days (or maybe day and a half) - I remember because I tried uploading almost immediately after someone else got it first and and I kept my eye on it since. Anyway, 2 days - I'm gonna take a guess and say....at least 7 moderators before someone decided to approve it. And given how beautiful it is, it was pretty much guaranteed anyway. The thing that I'm referring to as "fairness", or rather lack of, is being disingenuous. Look at that image. Look at the score. Look at it again! Look at the score! Now look back here. :<
It seems a bit unfair to go "Well, *I* personally don't like it, so I ain't approvin'! Myah!", doesn't it? You're right in that approvers need to be judgmental, but that doesn't mean that your judgment is accountable only to your own personal taste, right? Other factors have to be taken in. Community response, for an example. Check out post #677476. Personally speaking, I fucking hate that image. If I had the power, I would still approve it simply because of the quality and feedback. Y'know?