Hello, I'd like to ask why the post #4964508 wasn't accepted. Just asking, not complaining, haha.
Thanks in advance.
Posted under General
Hello, I'd like to ask why the post #4964508 wasn't accepted. Just asking, not complaining, haha.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry for misusing this thread, but I'm very curious. What makes post #4011828 worth of your approval?
It looks low quality and anatomically incorrect to me. Objectively viewed is it not?
I mean it has an ok amount of favorites and an admin removed the bad_anatomy tag.
I just can't figure out why it looks so weird to me, although I like the artist's work in general.
0F5654E9AC9AB9AAD5B9 said:
Sorry for misusing this thread, but I'm very curious. What makes post #4011828 worth of your approval?
It looks low quality and anatomically incorrect to me. Objectively viewed is it not?
I mean it has an ok amount of favorites and an admin removed the bad_anatomy tag.
I just can't figure out why it looks so weird to me, although I like the artist's work in general.
If you think it's bad, flag it.
FapAttak said:
Any logical reason why this wasn't approved in 9 reviewers? Pretty sure it wasn't paid content as I took it from the added pixiv link, and it was tagged.
Edit: based on history seemingly because its .png, I'll fix that.
Edit 2: I mean make a replacement request.
Edit 3: Someone said on that thread that mine is the same as the source, so I'm not sure anymore. I'll just make an appeal.
The appeal for this didn't get approved. What's going on?
It would be nice if someone could explain what is wrong here post #4962129
Mediahead said:
post #4956977
post #3827914
post #2742086
post #3200574
post #4311829
post #4530516Hi, I would like to appeal the following posts. To the best of my knowledge I followed the proper procedure when uploading these and used the best quality versions I could find, and yet they were still deleted. What was it about these that made them different from the others?
They're all just not that great. Lotta wonky proportions, sketchy framing, and odd perspectives.
FapAttak said:
Any logical reason why this wasn't approved in 9 reviewers? Pretty sure it wasn't paid content as I took it from the added pixiv link, and it was tagged.
Edit: based on history seemingly because its .png, I'll fix that.
Edit 2: I mean make a replacement request.
Edit 3: Someone said on that thread that mine is the same as the source, so I'm not sure anymore. I'll just make an appeal.
The filetype rarely matters as long as it's the original image. The issue is that it's not the best image. Once you get below her elbows it seems like the artist just phoned it in.
Adding protip: Don't appeal something until a month has passed from its deletion. Otherwise it will only be shown to those who didn't already vote on it. Although it says 10 approvers, it was likely seen by several others who skipped it without voting, as you can do that.
After a month, votes are purged and it will be shown to everyone once more.
Chimera99 said:
can you give these two another look at?
Amateurish smudge shading.
klorpa said:
Adjusting my earlier post, these posts are all variants of previously manually approved posts:
post #4939340
post #4963586
That's usually a sign to flag the child. Happens a lot.
MarkCaskett said:
Can someone please check post #4673226
I don't understand why this was not approve?
We definitely need this charlotte fanart
Her spine is practically a J.
Siraatarip said:
Hello, I'd like to ask why the post #4964508 wasn't accepted. Just asking, not complaining, haha.
Thanks in advance.
He's weirdly... elongated? Long neck and such. Also see the above tip about appealing after a month.
Kyusey said:
What's wrong with these?
post #4875899
post #4875920
post #4880804
post #4880886
post #4881017
The sketch ones feel really unfinished.
LYIB said:
It would be nice if someone could explain what is wrong here post #4962129
The general linework is fine but the proportions are kinda ehhh and the shading the pretty weak.
Hi, what were the problem with these uploads?
post #4973211
post #4973208
post #4973206
post #4973200
post #4973196
Where did I go wrong this time?
Why no like ze hot russian giving you a paizuri
vivoleko01 said:
Weird hands, especially the fingers.
FabricioDias said:
Hi, what were the problem with these uploads?
post #4973211
post #4973208
post #4973206
post #4973200
post #4973196
A classic case of "drew boobs, called it good". But the boobs are not very good.
OmegaStarNeo said:
Where did I go wrong this time?
That artstyle is risky. THe artist is usually fine, but that image is definitely one of their less-good ones.
16RCheese08 said:
Why no like ze hot russian giving you a paizuri
Cloth shading is lazy, you can still see the frame lines on the dude, and approvers are gonna see that third-party edit tag and be automatically wary. The queue actually highlights in red such tags. Although colorization isn't against the rules, it is discouraged and that image tells you why.
Protip: Fap before you upload. Not during.
post #2091690 BS this is poor quality. 4 people clearly voted that way because they didn't like the subject matter
Lobuttomize said:
post #2091690 BS this is poor quality. 4 people clearly voted that way because they didn't like the subject matter
"It has been reviewed by 16 approvers. 5 believe it has poor quality. 11 did not like the post enough to approve it."
We commonly get complaints that we don't have enough approvers who like <subject>. But when asked how many approvers are needed, the answer isn't a number. It's "however many it takes to make every image (I upload/like) flag-proof".
Her boobs look like she's detached and rotated them. Which is a problem since they're part of the focus of the image.
Veradux said:
"It has been reviewed by 16 approvers. 5 believe it has poor quality. 11 did not like the post enough to approve it."
We commonly get complaints that we don't have enough approvers who like <subject>. But when asked how many approvers are needed, the answer isn't a number. It's "however many it takes to make every image (I upload/like) flag-proof".
Her boobs look like she's detached and rotated them. Which is a problem since they're part of the focus of the image.
That's simply how they're going to look when they're that size on a relatively small chest. The "rotating" is from holding them up and in, real breasts aren't static domes
hey uhh, why wasn't this approved? it's my first upload so i might have made some mistakes, but i'm pretty sure i did everything right? (aside from the dtext, i kinda fucked it up.)
like hell it has poor quality too, a lot of posts by the artist have been aproved before.
plus the post got quite a bit of upvotes and favorites.
just want to know what i might have done wrong, it's not that important to me but i still felt like i should ask.