Would you like to explain why none of these were approved? Other illustrations by the same artist were approved, but none of the following ones were without a reason being given for any of them - the first two were returned to the moderation queue with only 13 out of the purported 80 approvers even looked at it and apparently none at all for the second one. And I really do not want to hear the tired old excuse of "it's not good enough when some of these same approvers approve of other images with more "issues" or "less" quality either due to it being their favorite artist or character or art style. I will accept the decision if there is an actually thought out reason for the deletion beyond that and that reason was not excused for another similar image and if the rules or standards for the site's uploads were more clearly defined beyond "pick an image an approver likes roulette".
Would you like to explain why none of these were approved? Other illustrations by the same artist were approved, [...] And I really do not want to hear the tired old excuse of "it's not good enough when some of these same approvers approve of other images with more "issues" or "less" quality either due to it being their favorite artist or character or art style.
Not correct, all of that artist's active artworks were uploaded by a contributor, so they never had to be approved. Most of the active ones look pretty bad too, so you bringing attention to them makes it more likely they'll be flagged and deleted.
the first two were returned to the moderation queue with only 13 out of the purported 80 approvers even looked at it and apparently none at all for the second one.
13 is pretty typical, most approvers don't look at every image or click disapprove on everything they do look at. The second one having zero is because disapprovals are pruned after a month, so anything older than a month won't show anyone having reviewed it.
Any ideas why these are not approved? Would the Approver give me some feedbacks on this? Me personally thought these art is good though reading some of this thread comments personal opinion doesn't matter here. Response would be nice. Thanks in advance.
Not correct, all of that artist's active artworks were uploaded by a contributor, so they never had to be approved. Most of the active ones look pretty bad too, so you bringing attention to them makes it more likely they'll be flagged and deleted.
13 is pretty typical, most approvers don't look at every image or click disapprove on everything they do look at. The second one having zero is because disapprovals are pruned after a month, so anything older than a month won't show anyone having reviewed it.
I will concede to those being uploaded by contributors, but "looks pretty bad" is a highly loaded statement with nothing else to back it up without even stating which ones actually look "good" and why the other ones are "bad", and the idea that all approvers would feel the same way is questionable at best.
Can someone explain to me the rules regarding uploading duplicates? I thought it was ok to do so if the new image was a higher quality version of an already existing post, so I uploaded post #11434675 which has a higher resolution than post #7169965 but it still ended up getting deleted. The version I uploaded also corrected the hair color just above her left ear. I see others post duplicates, which sometimes seem to be completely identical except for the sources. What am I missing here?
Can someone explain to me the rules regarding uploading duplicates? I thought it was ok to do so if the new image was a higher quality version of an already existing post, so I uploaded post #11434675 which has a higher resolution than post #7169965 but it still ended up getting deleted. The version I uploaded also corrected the hair color just above her left ear.
Your understanding of duplicates is correct. However, the active post was uploaded by a Contributor and skipped the modqueue, so it was never actually approved. It's possible the active post wouldn't have made it through if the Approvers looked at it.
I see others post duplicates, which sometimes seem to be completely identical except for the sources. What am I missing here?
Some differences are more subtle. For example, assuming these aren't pixel-perfect duplicates, have you tried zooming in on the images and comparing the image artifacts? When the resolutions of both are the same or very close, lossless formats like PNG will usually be superior to lossy/compressed formats like JPG.
You can read more about how to determine which image is superior at help:post_relationships.
I couldn't tell you, but one reason might be because your post isn't properly sourced. Approvers may skip over posts without a source even if the image itself is good. Read help:image_source for more information.
Also, make sure to add the pound sign before the post ID number so it links to the post, like this: post #11484121.
Any particular reason this wasn’t approved seems fine to me. post #11482548
And for this one I know a higher quality version was posted hours after but still doesn’t feel right it wasn’t approved it even though it was posted first and did all right. post #11458735
Didn’t get a original response to the my post so I’d like to ask again any actual reason for these not being approved?
Can you at least provide a concrete and definitive answer to why all of those images by DEADMANNARTS "looks pretty bad" and what actually counts as "acceptable" as a whole so I can get a better understanding of what framework, criteria, so on you approvers use to approve images on this site? I hope that even asking such a thing is not too much for you as the understanding of what goes and what doesn't besides things that are off-topic are vaguely defined and nebulous at best to us users, and the lack of this information makes it discouraging for users to upload to this site and become platinum rank members, contributors, or builders and to just wait for the occasional raffle to come along, unless all of this is the point in actuality.
You told me as much earlier that these would be flagged for deletion (by you, perhaps, as you are the only one whose attention I brought this to) for looking "pretty bad" and to understand why every other image uploaded by this artist does not seem to pass, and I would like something in-depth and concrete consistent with the actual approval process of this site for why that is the case for starters if you can manage that.
You told me as much earlier that these would be flagged for deletion (by you, perhaps, as you are the only one whose attention I brought this to) for looking "pretty bad" and to understand why every other image uploaded by this artist does not seem to pass, and I would like something in-depth and concrete consistent with the actual approval process of this site for why that is the case for starters if you can manage that.
The whole process is approvers approving posts they like, that's it. These posts range from very average to pretty shit looking.
The whole process is approvers approving posts they like, that's it. These posts range from very average to pretty shit looking.
Can you actually explain why they look "shit" besides "the approvers pick what they pick" beyond it being a random whim, or is that literally it and all you care to explain?
