Low quality duplicate

Posts: 7 · Views: 116
  • 35471

    Actually, this is an important topic. For some well-known places or persons (and sometimes for less well-known ones as well) there can be even more than 2 duplicate wallpapers (6, 7, 8, ...). Take for example these 4 "different" Grand Canyons

    loading
    3200 x 200044
    loading
    2457 x 153618
    loading
    1920 x 120018
    loading
    1920 x 108019
    or this Kyoto low light search with 6 duplicate temples, or this Slovakia railway.

    These are much harder to organize and browse. They all need to be tagged independently, and the one with the best resolution needs to be picked throughout every search. You don't know if you have something in your local collection — you could have previously downloaded a version with another name while browsing the "random" catalog. Not to mention they all take up server space.

    Maybe long time ago versions with different resolutions were a thing, but nowadays there is a "Crop & Scale Download" button for every image, so there's no need to keep tons of low resolution shit. Everyone can produce as many low resolution versions of everything as they want.

    So, my suggestion is we keep only the best available quality version and get rid of low-res duplicates.

    By the way, I keep a collection of such duplicates with 2700+ items already, and that is really far from being comprehensive...

  • 35476

    qqqqqqck we don't need images with higher resolution, we need images with original resolution, and with original source (preferably). It's easy to determine original resolution of images with deviantart source link (for example), but these images are in minority in my opinion. Most old images have no source, and there are a lot of upscaled, or downscaled images. These images are difficult to identify. For example, I saw 2000 pages of General SFW images, and I found really a lot of duplicates, despite I checked only images which I like (and images from similar section)

    Added 7 minutes after

    By the way, your collection is private, or it's private

    Last updated
  • 35478

    BloodStain I agree with your wording. Upscales are bad.

    By the way, your collection is private, or it's private

    Hmmm, the button on this collection's page says "Public" to me. There's even somebody subscribed.

    Last updated
  • 35488

    qqqqqqck Maybe wrong link?

    Added 13 minutes after

    qqqqqqck forgot to mention another annoying type of duplicates: stretched images. Stretched images, like space arts, are very easy to identify (because, there're no oval stars or planets :) ). But, with other images it's a little bit difficult to detect the original one

    Last updated
  • 35489

    BloodStain

    The link opens fine for me. Probably some engine bug.

    forgot to mention another annoying type of duplicates: stretched images

    Actually, that's much less widespread, although I've seen such images too. I report these per Rules - Uploading - #3 as a low quality edit.

    Anyways, we've got to start with something, and the moderation here seems too busy to handle all the issues. I've been waiting for several years now to see if we can make Wallhaven great again. =)

  • 35492

    qqqqqqck I think, wallhaven is great currently (I understand that reference), and we need to make it better, or at least, don't make it worse, or like wallpaperswide (I hate this website). But I think, wallhaven will never be like wallpaperswide

Message