Moderation changes

jxh2154 said:
Wasn't me but... ::looks:: I have to agree with whoever did it. At least one of those was unapproved (the scary looking Komachi one) and most of the others were borderline. As for the three deleted ones... honestly, please take a second look at those.

I recommend liberal use of the Can/Can't Approve toggle by mods if this policy is going to stay in place.

Er, if the komachi one is the one I think you mean, I must have approved it by mistake, because I didn't mean to approve that one. As for the rest, I was sort of struggling to find something to approve, I guess. However, I must say, I think for most of them, I did a fairly good job. I've looked through albert's huge amount of uploads before and try to keep my standards level with what he posts.

But, oh well...when shit like akr's art has been approved, I guess I shouldn't take to heart what db's mods think of my tastes.

abcadeff said: As for the rest, I was sort of struggling to find something to approve, I guess.

Nobody should ever feel compelled to approve anything. If nothing good is left, approve nothing.

But, oh well...when shit like akr's art has been approved, I guess I shouldn't take to heart what db's mods think of my tastes.

For what it's worth, I think that artist is horrible. Also, the newest accepted post is 11 months old.

jxh2154 said:
Nobody should ever feel compelled to approve anything. If nothing good is left, approve nothing.

You might want to have a word with whoever put post #47668 back.

That's pretty horrible.

recklessfirex said:
You might want to have a word with whoever put post #47668 back.

*deals with it*

recklessfirex said: You might want to have a word with whoever put post #47668 back.

I've done so.

I just noticed that if I do choose to hide something from the mod queue and then revisit/refresh the post page, the option is still there and still results in a "post updated" message if clicked again. Is this adding 1 to the number of hides every time I do it? And if so, shouldn't the link be hidden/disabled after use?

It only hides the post from the moderation queue itself. Hiding multiple times will not continue to increment the hide count beyond once per user, and has no effect on the moderation bar you see on pending image view post pages except for the fact that it superficially hides the bar using javascript when you click 'hide'. It always comes back once you refresh / reload that post's page.

Shinjidude said:
Hiding multiple times will not continue to increment the hide count beyond once per user

That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

I came here wanting to post that I'm seeing Moderator Tools > Invites on my /user/home page, but then I saw this thread, and I guess that's the least of everyone's concern right now...

Shinjidude said: except for the fact that it superficially hides the bar using javascript when you click 'hide'. It always comes back once you refresh / reload that post's page.

Though it would be neat if it would instead change to "You hid this post previously." or "You approved this post previously."

I'm not at all sure about this. It means I can approve things (which I thought was a bug until I came to the forum & saw this topic) but the posts that've gone unapproved that I would've approved are few & far between anyway. Browsing through right now I don't see anything that's worth approving.

What with Contributors now able to delete comments, I am finally able to do away with those little annoying memes (DAT ASS, anyone?) or the remarkably inane things that people seem so obligated to bump ancient posts with.

Despite what the majority of Janitors and above have suggested with leaving the comment moderation alone, it's just... nice to do away with some of the minor eyesores. Keeping in mind what has been said about keeping evidence of offenders, I'm only targeting the really little things.

That said, it would be rather helpful to have the buttons on the Comment Moderation page at the top of the page (as well as leaving it at the bottom) so that we can do quick(er) flag-and-deletes. Sure, it's nothing a quick tap to the 'End' key won't solve, but it can't hurt, right?

Just something I pondered, really.

Lalaca said: Keeping in mind what has been said about keeping evidence of offenders, I'm only targeting the really little things.

Urgh. Little things add up though.

I started doing the opposite last night, approving comments that were completely innocent to try and make the list shorter without actually affecting anything, but in the end there doesn't seem to be much point in it.

albert said:
Janitors are trusted. They're expected to differentiate good art from bad. They're a finite group; if you remove one, he won't be immediately replaced. Despite this trust they aren't always perfect. Sometimes they approve bad art.

Contributors (at least those promoted for their uploads, I'll get into this later) are trusted. They're expected to differentiate good art from bad. They're a finite group. Sometimes they upload bad art.

In my opinion, these two groups share a lot of overlap. A lot of people have made the argument that some contributors might approve a bunch of bad art. There's a hard limit to how much they can approve however: up to the last three days. And surely they're not going to approve every single piece of shitty artifacted artwork. If a dozen bad images end up getting approved a day (out of the hundreds that are uploaded and approved), I consider this acceptable.

Have you read forum #30755 at all? Where I explain in great detail why this reasoning is flawed despite being apparently logical?

Especially since the larger team can deal with unapprovals quicker.

??? What does that even mean? They will be able to let three days pass quicker?

And if they do consistently approve bad art, this (should) be easy enough to find. I may add an approver: metatag search. Two or three bad apples are dealt with in return for 30+ semi-active approvers.

Again, forum #30755. The problem isn't one person consistently approving crap, although even that has proved hard enough to deal with in practice. The problem is the lack of a small, coherent core group where everyone understands the direction completely. And where did you get the number 30 from anyway? AFAICT, you've given the right to 280 contributors.

I apologize for springing this without any discussion, but I felt that the potential for damage would be limited to 2-3 days of mass approvals. Most people seem to be telling me to revert it but I want to try it for at least a week. I don't think we're giving contributors enough credit here. If it turns out I'm horribly wrong, I will revert.

The danger is exactly not the first week, when everyone will be extra-cautious. The danger is the long-term effects of this change. I'm now convinced you haven't even looked at my writeup.

I'm still heavily opposed to this change and want it reverted, and will continue to do so even after a week of tweaking. This is not the way changes like this are made. Make a consistent proposal we can discuss, explain how you see it working a year from now, and address our concerns we spent time on putting in writing, instead of operating on the live site and ignoring what we said.

Oh, and for the record, the current rush for the comment queue is exactly what I meant. We've already seen people mass-delete comments right in the middle of discussing how they need to be logged before we can moderate them properly. As far as I'm concerned, the experiment has shown to be a failure already.

0xCCBA696 said:
On the other hand there is something to be said for WP:BB, perhaps. At least something was done, and now we have a chance to see what will come of it. So it's not all bad. Anyway, we can always revert to backups if horrible shit occurs.

You can already be bold by editing tags. Randomly assigning mod powers to people who weren't selected to be mods isn't bold, it's asking for trouble. Please read the page you're linking to.

葉月 said:
Please read the page you're linking to.

Jesus, this isn't Wikipedia, this is danbooru. There is no obvious analogy to make here, other than that in a system where things are possible to revert, it is good to slash through red tape. So I don't think I have "misread" anything, nor can you say I am misquoting or abusing authority in my argument.

And yes, I am aware that things such as comments are not possible to revert when deleted, but hopefully albert will fix that with time; in extreme situations, he could always just downbooru the whole thing and restore certain tables from database backups.

1. *I* didn't link to wikipedia in case you haven't noticed
2. We're not wikipedia, which was one of my points.
3. The article linked refers to *editing the pages*, not admin actions. And you can already do that on danbooru. Which I pointed out.
4. Making deep changes to how the system itself works is not something that can be reverted. So any kind of policy applicable to easily reversible actions has fuck all to do with that, and trying to justify it with WP:BB only shows you haven't bothered to read what you link to.

There are no "pages" on danbooru in the first place, except maybe tag wiki pages. That danbooru is not wikipedia is so patently obvious that it is meaningless to point this out to me. It seems you didn't understand my last post - I was not "justifying" anything with WP:BB (quote: "nor can you say I am [...] abusing authority"), nor do I think that WP:BB in any way applies to danbooru, other than that "in a system where things are possible to revert, it is good to slash through red tape".

Of your four points only 4 is relevant, and I will address it:

Deep changes to how the sytsem itself works can be reverted (painfully) by a total backup restore of the site and many major db tables. Beyond that contingency (and perhaps forestalling it), I hope that albert, apparently liking to be bold, will in the future implement more journaling and reversion capability into the system.

Once again, in case you didn't catch that: I am not trying to justify albert's new system or his actions with WP:BB. In fact, for what it's worth, I agree with you in that this step should have been taken only after some discussion.