Low quality appeal

Posts: 54 · Views: 823
  • 20059

    404011xz said:

    RightHandZero said:

    Looks like film grain. Literally tons of high quality pre-digital photos have it, just look at a National Geographic from the 70's or 80's. I say restore.

    Film grains were fine in the 70's and 80's when cameras were of a lower quality, but this is 2019 so a certain level of quality should be taken into account.

    So according to you this tag https://wallhaven.cc/tag/41309 Needs to be purged from the site, got it

  • 20062

    @RazorBlack said:

    404011xz said:

    RightHandZero said:

    Looks like film grain. Literally tons of high quality pre-digital photos have it, just look at a National Geographic from the 70's or 80's. I say restore.

    Film grains were fine in the 70's and 80's when cameras were of a lower quality, but this is 2019 so a certain level of quality should be taken into account.

    So according to you this tag https://wallhaven.cc/tag/41309 Needs to be purged from the site, got it

    I guess that would include all the historic photos like these too. https://wallhaven.cc/w/vgmjgm https://wallhaven.cc/w/gjvp3q https://wallhaven.cc/w/3k7676

  • 20063

    kejsirajbek said:

    @vjeko: I restored your one and only deleted wallpaper just to let other users to see it and judge it (I will remove it again tomorrow).

    [6kwz67]

    Thank you. I didn't ask you to restore it. I just wanted to know that there weren't some newbies causing havoc. Either way thank you for identifying yourself, that is all I wanted to know. Have a great weekend.

    Added 2 hours after

    I want to encourage other people to report low quality pictures, especially artistic nsfw woman pictures like mine was. Let's get wallhaven clean and a better place. [https://wallhaven.cc/w/od8qd9] [https://wallhaven.cc/w/lqx1v2]

    P.S. going on a holiday, see you all in 2 weeks :)

    Last updated
  • 20076

    kejsirajbek Judging from some of your favorites, and some of the images you featured, I don't think you understand the rules, or what artifact is

    loading
    1920 x 1200153
    has so much artifact that you would have to be blind or on and extremely bad monitor to not see
    loading
    1200 x 150028
    has just as much film grain as [6kwz67]
    loading
    1214 x 143918
    has 10x the amount of film grain than [6kwz67] And that's just on the first few pages, not including all the genital close ups, maybe you should review the rules before you enforce them all willy nilly

  • 20080

    Just from the toplist...

    loading
    2560 x 1440364
    loading
    1498 x 1000122

    Blatant JPEG compression on both that's hard not to see. Both have been featured.

    I don't think much comment is needed.

  • 20082

    The comment you'll get, VincentTL, is that in both of these examples the artefacts are minimal and very hard to see unless you're actually searching for them.

    There is always some amount of compression visible with JPEG, that's in the nature of the format. We have to decide when it's too much. Sometimes people disagree with a particular decision on borderline cases. There is no way to solve this to everybody's satisfaction, so we just do our best. If you don't like a specific decision you can appeal it here, otherwise you may just have to learn to live with it.

  • 20085

    Gandalf said:

    The comment you'll get, VincentTL, is that in both of these examples the artefacts are minimal and very hard to see unless you're actually searching for them.

    Good job. You just precisely agreed with my point (and contradicted yourself from one page back). Except in these cases I could tell the artefacts immediately on the cheap 1366 x 768 laptop I'm on right now.

    These are not borderline cases. You are enforcing a "rule" that has zero consistency or logic with almost a dozen posts above to prove it, and you all pulled out of this thread as soon as you've been blatantly proven wrong. The mod that has been primarily going on a fanatical crusade against tiny artefacts on small strips of dark background has been uploading and featuring stuff with visible JPG compression.

    This is my last post in this thread, do with it what you will. I just got almost 20 wallpapers removed for "overly sexual" and I haven't got the slightest issue with it because the reasoning for that one had been explained clearly and I even supported it. But if I see more good wallpapers removed because a mod bumped his head on a cupboard that day and tiny JPG artefacts microwaved his hamster as a kid, I'll stop giving a fuck about the website. I have more important things in life than arguing with another case of a juvenile "we are exclusive admin club" mod mentality (complete with ignoring posts altogether and a line about "appealing decisions").

  • 20097

    VincentTL

    https://wallhaven.cc/rules : No personal attacks on other users—contact a staff member directly to resolve issues.

    This thread was kept open to have a healthy discussion about LQ deletion policies. No matter how you disagree with a mod's actions please refrain from launching personal attacks because that is quite clearly against the rules. Being passionate during a debate/argument is fine, but you should not let it devolve into a poop flinging contest.

  • 20100

    "Deleted for low quality background" [dgw72j]

    Someone can explain for me why?

    From what I evaluate in the image, there is nothing wrong as it is just depth of field generated by the camera or increased by software.

  • 20103

    404011xz said:

    VincentTL

    https://wallhaven.cc/rules : No personal attacks on other users—contact a staff member directly to resolve issues.

    This thread was kept open to have a healthy discussion about LQ deletion policies. No matter how you disagree with a mod's actions please refrain from launching personal attacks because that is quite clearly against the rules. Being passionate during a debate/argument is fine, but you should not let it devolve into a poop flinging contest.

    1) STOP deleting posts 2) If you continue to delete posts, people will really think that we were launching personal attacks against other users (maybe that is your goal) 3) Deleting posts with proof, arguments, comparisons, opinions given by photographers/redditers, guess what, also doesn't help 4) There is no list of officials to contact, nowhere does it say who took down your picture or whom you can contact to resolve the matter privately

    Please be kind enough to explain my latest takedown [83ryrk] https://i.imgur.com/6X0p3Nx.png

    Listing other #SpiritedAway wallpapers that need to be deleted (since all my reports are being cleared): https://wallhaven.cc/w/0jdzw0 https://wallhaven.cc/w/0q6kxq https://wallhaven.cc/w/0q6y3d https://wallhaven.cc/w/3k2wey https://wallhaven.cc/w/4ld36q https://wallhaven.cc/w/4vg6o5 https://wallhaven.cc/w/4vgw88 https://wallhaven.cc/w/4xlm7v https://wallhaven.cc/w/4xlor3 https://wallhaven.cc/w/5d3588 https://wallhaven.cc/w/42ep8g https://wallhaven.cc/w/42er7m https://wallhaven.cc/w/76rm8y https://wallhaven.cc/w/kw73yd https://wallhaven.cc/w/n6py8x https://wallhaven.cc/w/neyg5r https://wallhaven.cc/w/nzd99w https://wallhaven.cc/w/p2997p https://wallhaven.cc/w/qdjjvd https://wallhaven.cc/w/vmyor5 https://wallhaven.cc/w/w86p16 https://wallhaven.cc/w/yjxx2g https://wallhaven.cc/w/zxyydw

  • 20105

    @vjeko I am not sure what you mean by deleting posts. To my knowledge there are none here and I have not done so in my one day of being a mod. For me I simply put backgrounds in the right category and help with the backlog of dupes.

    The other officials you may complain to are other devs/admin. Going to the forum and insulting somebody accomplishes nothing but diminishes the OP in question's point.

  • 20106

    @vjeko So far no posts in this thread have been deleted. I'm really not sure what your 1) 2) 3) are about. As for 4), you always have the option to appeal a decision by contacting any staff member or here on the forums. Staff decisions aren't personal so there is no reason for you to "resolve the matter privately".

    Please be kind enough to explain my latest takedown [83ryrk] https://i.imgur.com/6X0p3Nx.png

    Your upload had significant compression artefacts, specifically the blocky kind that happens with lossy video compression (you can see it most clearly in the top left). Meanwhile the image you're showing as comparison shows the paper's texture. Watercolor paintings usually use rough paper which adds a natural grain to the image.

    If you think that any other wallpapers should be deleted feel free to report them. So far you've only ever reported three wallpapers, all of which were correctly cleared. Film grain is a stylistic device intentionally added by some artists (watch Saving Private Ryan if you don't believe it). Whether or not you like that style is a matter of personal preference but it is quite different from digital noise or compression artefacts and does not constitute low quality by itself.

    I went through your list and got rid of a few duplicates, but mostly these are fine. One or two are a bit borderline on compression but in most cases what you're probably seeing is paper texture or intentional grain.

  • 20107

    Gandalf said:

    Your upload had significant compression artefacts, specifically the blocky kind that happens with lossy video compression (you can see it most clearly in the top left). Meanwhile the image you're showing as comparison shows the paper's texture. Watercolor paintings usually use rough paper which adds a natural grain to the image.

    First thank you for at least deleting something (that wasn't uploaded by me). From what I've understood the "low quality" is concisely defined and extremely obvious. Either way, I am suggesting that you automate a "low quality" check when uploading, like you already have duplicate checking.

    Off course, it won't catch 100% of the low quality uploads, but it will prevent blind people (like myself) from uploading completely.

    Or if you can't do it, make a new forum thread, or web-page, post rules, post examples, side-by-side comparisons, or simply put a more transparent wallhaven. If we catch an official in a sin, we want his uploads taken down. Thanks

  • 20113

    If we catch an official in a sin, we want his uploads taken down.

    You seem hell bent on turning this into some kind of personal vendetta. I'm really not sure why its such an emotional burden for you to have an upload deleted. Staff members aren't beyond reproach, we're just people doing this for a hobby. I've had some of my own wallpapers deleted and for good reasons. No harm done.

    I agree that some of our rules are a bit vague. We've tried clarifying things on the forums as well (https://wallhaven.cc/forums/thread/525). One day we will redo the rules page (again), probably add examples like you're asking. But that shit takes time.

    Meanwhile I wish quality detection could be automated but alas… https://xkcd.com/1425

  • 20114

    Gandalf said:

    Meanwhile I wish quality detection could be automated but alas… https://xkcd.com/1425

    I may suggest the use of convolutional neural networks. You would need a ton of images to train the model (thousands of good ones, and thousands of bad ones) and you would have to define why are bad images low-quality (since every mod has it's own interpretation of what a low quality wallpaper is).

    Edit: Less vendettaish style.

    Last updated
  • 20128

    I actually really want to know how many reports actually warrant a deletion. I mean some pictures look grainy or out of focus because of how the picture was taken. Which means it was intentional.

    Are artifacts in this picture? If not update the rules stating that out of focus and grainy is against the rules. https://wallhaven.cc/w/96rj28

    What do you want here, only unreal glossy smooth photoshop crap or real pictures with some sense or art behind them.

    What exactly constitutes as high quality screen caps? I hope it does not mean just making a screenshot of a 1080p movie scene.

  • 20129

    404011xz said:

    VincentTL

    https://wallhaven.cc/rules : No personal attacks on other users—contact a staff member directly to resolve issues.

    This thread was kept open to have a healthy discussion about LQ deletion policies. No matter how you disagree with a mod's actions please refrain from launching personal attacks because that is quite clearly against the rules. Being passionate during a debate/argument is fine, but you should not let it devolve into a poop flinging contest.

    Ignoring replies you do not like (primarily those with many examples) is not a healthy discussion. Neither is refusing to address blatant contradictions in your statements. Toxic behaviour with pretty words is still toxic behaviour, much more so than calling someone out (with solid argumentation) without a sugarcoat.

    As you might have noticed in my pretty long stay here, I've not exactly been willing to fight scorched earth wars over wallpapers. But trying to gaslight people even over something as petty just to refuse admitting you've been proven wrong is a very effective way to make things go off the rails, as you can well see.

  • 20130

    VincentTL

    I did not reply because afterwards I went and talked to admins about their policies and what they considered LQ and not. Do not quote me on this as being the official policy, but basically, as has been mentioned before, LQ can be a bit subjective, and there are varying degrees of what is acceptable noise, jpeg compression, and film grain.

    If anything I've said in this thread has felt like an attack I am sorry you feel that way. Regardless of this, the rule against personal attacks still stands and I hope you abide by it in the future.

  • 20131

    404011xz said:

    I did not reply because afterwards I went and talked to admins about their policies and what they considered LQ and not. Do not quote me on this as being the official policy, but basically, as has been mentioned before, LQ can be a bit subjective, and there are varying degrees of what is acceptable noise, jpeg compression, and film grain.

    Thank you for being honest. If the mods are confused, understand that users are too. Please understand that it can be frustrating to see your uploads get deleted by a confused mod.

    And it can be even more frustrating seeing mods uploading and promoting low quality wallpapers. If users are critic of vaguely defined rules and openly criticize the mods for their decisions and demand some arguments or explanation, it's not a personal attack (I don't think I've seen one in like 5 years I'm here).

  • 20132

    @vjeko

    Just so you're aware, only admin are capable of deleting wallpapers. Regular mods are not able to. On that note, those who delete wallpapers are not confused.

  • 20137

    Maybe low quality reports should be changed to an up vote, down vote system. After a wallpaper gets 5 down votes that's when an admin takes a look and decides whether or not it should be deleted.

    Just an idea. I'm not sure how much of a pain it would be to implement.

  • 20138

    RightHandZero

    I second this suggestion. I've seen wallpapers deleted for "low quality" that had dozens of stars, so clearly many people liked them and didn't consider them low quality.

  • 20139

    If we had an up/down voting system people would not use it to judge quality but to convey whether or not they like a wallpaper. Taste depends mostly on what the wallpaper shows and not on it's quality. We could use that to create a reddit style toplist but certainly not to judge conformance with rules.

Message