Why was post #11225925 deleted? Considering it is on the exact same level of quality as post #8717450
Posted under General
Why was post #11225925 deleted? Considering it is on the exact same level of quality as post #8717450
post #11241260 just curious on why this wasn’t approved I don’t see a quality difference between any of the other post so I found it odd.
post #10860178 (S) (Thanks!)
This one is A-OK, I believe.
----------
DanB888 said in forum #436015:
All my uploads were deleted for no stated reason
My personal guess is that the lack of sourcing on those posts is a major factor. I went through your deleted posts and counted 9 out of 14 as having either a non-web source or a completely blank one, which in my limited experience causes a hit to approvability.
post #10841086, for example, strikes me as appeal-worthy, but I don't know where it came from. Even the page for the artist tag is empty.
Updated by StarfishAtLarge
DanB888 said in forum #436015:
All my uploads were deleted for no stated reason
I looked through some of your deleted uploads, and I think the lack of sourcing and tagging may be a major factor.
Some posts did not seem to meet the 20+ tag expectation, and some had no source listed at all. Quality may also be an issue in some cases, but tagging and sourcing are things anyone can improve, so I would recommend focusing on those first.
Even if an image is borderline in terms of quality, proper tags and a clear source can help a lot with approvability.
Splash_Numbers said in forum #436035:
proper tags [...] can help a lot with approvability.
Wait, this statement is confusing to me. I could have sworn that on multiple occasions I've seen Approvers state that an image's tags are unrelated to whether or not it gets approved.
StarfishAtLarge said in forum #436056:
Wait, this statement is confusing to me. I could have sworn that on multiple occasions I've seen Approvers state that an image's tags are unrelated to whether or not it gets approved.
It's true that tagging is not related to whether the post gets approved. But the sourcing of the post does, I usually skip sourceless posts and bad sources.
More failed appeals time
GENERAL
post #10835443 (wondering why this is poor quality; it looks messy because they're in rain...)
post #10836326post #10838288 Thanks!
post #10838289
SENSITIVE
post #10824183
post #10828308
post #10828652
post #10836328
QUESTIONABLE
post #10828883
post #10830797
Thanks!
Updated by andlabs
dividebyzero said in forum #435764:
This higher res, transparent PNG version of an approved child got denied on appeal
post #11137725
Still got no feedback on this one and for post #10761234
post #11246935
post #11246896
post #11242620
Would like some feedback as to why these didn't go through? They all look nice in my own opinion
andlabs said in forum #436139:
More failed appeals time
GENERAL
post #10835443 (wondering why this is poor quality; it looks messy because they're in rain...)
post #10836326
post #10838288
post #10838289SENSITIVE
post #10824183
post #10828308
post #10828652
post #10836328QUESTIONABLE
post #10828883
post #10830797Thanks!
Please don't use this thread as an appeal thread. It's a feedback thread, not a place to post all your failed posts/appeals.
Updated by ANON TOKYO
Any reason as to why this wasn't approved? Did I miss something?
post #11246332
ANON_TOKYO said in forum #436155:
Please don't use this thread as an appeal thread. It's a feedback thread, not a place to post all your failed posts/appeals.
All right, thanks!
I wanted to know what might be wrong with this post that it didn't get accepted
post #11214937 (E)
why this posts got rejected?
post #11091173
post #11091163
post #11091157
post #11251924 (11 approvers)
post #11247931
post #11247892
Would love to know why these didn't go through? I don't see any problems with the anatomy, or anything wrong with the quality
post #11232361
post #11256004
why not approved :(
Hello, any feedback on why these posts weren't approved? Please give a second chance:
post #6232083
post #6320201
Updated by SidBarrett