Hello everyone,

After a recent conversation with staff, I was encouraged to open a public thread where users can respectfully share their experiences and opinions about moderation on the site.

The goal here isn’t to call out individual moderators or start arguments. It’s simply to give the community a place to discuss how moderation policies and decisions are experienced from the user side.

Staff have confirmed that respectful feedback is welcome, provided discussion remains civil and follows the site rules.

If you’re comfortable sharing, I’d be interested to hear about your experience with moderation on this site, particularly whether mod decisions/takedowns feel clear and consistent.

Please keep the discussion constructive and respectful.

Thanks to anyone willing to share their perspective.

I'll throw my two cents in, as someone who's no longer going to post art here. Tl;dr on this wall of text: man complains about rejection.

Moderation decisions don't feel consistent to me, and it also feels like the moderation approach is to look for reasons to disapprove submissions. I understand that the goal is to keep a high quality of posts, but the current approach feels like letting perfect be the enemy of good. Rejections for things like major anatomical errors are fine to me, it says I missed a major detail that would detract from the work, and I should either attempt to fix it, or switch to a different base image if the problem is fundamental enough.

However, I've also had posts rejected for things I see as trivial errors that the vast majority of users of this site wouldn't actually care about. As an example, I've had a few recent submissions denied for errors such as the nostrils of a black canine nose, in shadow and tilted down, being not up to the standards of the staff. The problem is, I've already inpainted that nose in an attempt to head off the problem (having been rejected for it before) and have gone through hundreds of inpaint runs (240 total images according to my A1111 log) trying to get something that looks decent (non-human noses in particular appear to be something my models all struggle hugely with), going so far as to manually make some adjustments in GIMP to try and improve the best image I got. After putting forth that effort and still getting rejected for it, my conclusion is this is something I cannot make to the standards of staff and therefore the entire image cannot be submitted here. Another rejection reason cited was one fingernail having an artifact on me. This is absolutely on me, I missed that defect, but is that actually something most people looking at the image will notice? To me, posts being rejected for this is the equivalent of a professor taking your essay, seeing a couple typos as he reads through it, ignoring everything else about the essay, and giving you a zero for the assignment. Meanwhile, a casual reader will either not notice the typos, will choose to just ignore them, or will comment pointing them out if it's something they just can't ignore.

I'm certain my earlier submissions here have had similar errors to these, but they weren't rejected, hence the feeling of decisions being inconsistent. My work is certainly not perfect and never has been, and AI generation is inherently imperfect. If we were to compare the majority of submissions from a year or more ago, would they be approved under these standards? The excuse always trotted out is that this site is "curated", which is fine, that's your prerogative. I'm just going to continue inpainting things as best I can, post them elsewhere, and not deal with having to worry about my work being accepted or rejected. People's up or down votes and general engagement will tell me whether a work is liked or disliked. If there's a problem, someone will comment (as has happened on a few of my posts here), and I can fix it and replace the image.

I make my images in a realistic style, because I feel this is one area that AI is good at and isn't usually done by human artists. Does this style introduce more details that can go wrong? Almost certainly. Does the human eye naturally detect things that are wrong in such images, and have an easier time doing so compared to less realistic-looking images? Maybe. If I generate an image that contains a human face, I then need to put forward extra effort to censor it to comply with the rule about having featured obscured. I understand the reason for the rule and do think it's prudent for a site such as this with a company backing it to have such a rule, but I still dislike censoring my work (plus inpainting those features introduces more possibilities for errors).

The majority of the content I make is for myself, I share it because I think others may get some enjoyment out of it. If others won't see it here because it'll get deleted, I'm just not going to bother, there's no point to posting it. This is one area where I think a feature suggested in another thread would help: submissions could be put into a state where they're not visible by default, but a toggle in user settings would make them visible. Submissions that truly have major issues or contain material that isn't allowed would still be deleted. This would greatly help in my opinion, since I could still get feedback on my work, possibly submit a replacement image to improve it, and in the meantime it's still visible to people who have opted in to seeing submissions that have minor issues.

If you want a method for implementing this that shouldn't involve much developer time, create a tag for it (quality_issues?) that can only be applied by staff, blacklist the tag by default, and add a toggle to a user profile that just adds or removes the tag from the user's effective blacklist. While this isn't the best solution, it's one that I think could be applied while a more robust solution is implemented.

The upload limit is also a (more minor) concern of mine. Can it hit zero? What would happen if it did? Would I have to place a support ticket asking for it to be changed back to 1? I've never posted more than a couple images at a time, but the number going down does still feel like a punishment. Specifically, it feels like a countdown to a point where you're not allowed to post anything anymore. There's no indication that I've found as to what the lower limit is, if there is one, and it may be helpful to indicate to people that even if they submit many things that get rejected, that number won't hit 0 (if that is actually the case).

Thank you for reading my stream-of-consciousness blogpost.

bagelmonster said:
[...]

The upload limit is also a (more minor) concern of mine. Can it hit zero? What would happen if it did? Would I have to place a support ticket asking for it to be changed back to 1? I've never posted more than a couple images at a time, but the number going down does still feel like a punishment. Specifically, it feels like a countdown to a point where you're not allowed to post anything anymore. There's no indication that I've found as to what the lower limit is, if there is one, and it may be helpful to indicate to people that even if they submit many things that get rejected, that number won't hit 0 (if that is actually the case).

To address your concerns about the upload limit: if it reaches zero, ask an admin to raise it. We know that deletion ratios are high on this site (the numbers were picked for e621, which operates quite differently), so limit raises have been given in past to accommodate this.

drla said:
To address your concerns about the upload limit: if it reaches zero, ask an admin to raise it. We know that deletion ratios are high on this site (the numbers were picked for e621, which operates quite differently), so limit raises have been given in past to accommodate this.

Good to know, thanks. Would staff be willing to consider limiting the minimum to 1 for this site? It would still accomplish its main task (at least from my understanding) of preventing people from spamming submissions, without people feeling like they're going to get into a place where they can't post anymore.

I'm not a Ruby dev and not familiar enough with the site's codebase to know if this would cause significant knock-on effects (or if this would even work in the interpreter), but I propose a one line insertion in app/models/user.rb!upload_limit before the current return:

return 1 if (pieces[:pending] == 0)

If you've dug a deep hole with deletions, you'll still require the same amount of approved posts to get back to being able to submit multiples at a time.

Edit: Of course immediately after hitting submit I realize this would probably mess up the user display of their upload limit on their profile.

bagelmonster said:
Good to know, thanks. Would staff be willing to consider limiting the minimum to 1 for this site? It would still accomplish its main task (at least from my understanding) of preventing people from spamming submissions, without people feeling like they're going to get into a place where they can't post anymore.

I'm not a Ruby dev and not familiar enough with the site's codebase to know if this would cause significant knock-on effects (or if this would even work in the interpreter), but I propose a one line insertion in app/models/user.rb!upload_limit before the current return:

return 1 if (pieces[:pending] == 0)

If you've dug a deep hole with deletions, you'll still require the same amount of approved posts to get back to being able to submit multiples at a time.

Edit: Of course immediately after hitting submit I realize this would probably mess up the user display of their upload limit on their profile.

Thanks for the suggestion! I appreciate you even taking the effort to look at the site's code.

While this is an interesting idea, we currently have the same developers working on e6ai as we have on e621, so deviations like this most likely make merging updates more of an issue than it's worth.

Luckily, it hasn't really been much of an issue with users reaching an upload limit of 0. In the times it has happened, we have helped them remedy it by having a talk and then raising it again.

It is worth noting that to reach an upload limit of 0, there has to be some underlying issue with the user's uploads that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, the upload limit would just keep shrinking again because of deleted posts. So, rather than seeing it as a punishment, view it as a gauge for whether the user understands the site's specific quality standards.

I think experiences with any admins/mods on any site can never be consistent since theyre all individual people like us. This sounds really "well, duh", but it can be hard to remember that in some one-sided interactions like removals.

On one hand i had a great experience with a mod, deleting many of my old and bad images in one go like i wanted to. With that we get to the other hand, which is the quality standarts.

I know they have been raised massively with all the stuff we can do today compared to 2 years ago. The problem is just, not everyone has the patience or resources to actually do all those things, and you can still make "bad" images just as back then. But back then, they would often be approved much more easily. Every one of my old images i mentioned were so bad, that i didnt wanna have them on the site anymore. They were terrible, had artifacts etc. And none of them were deleted, only 1-2 images were ever rejected and both for having a different number of toes on each foot. Which is completely understandable. But by todays standarts, none of those images would likely have been approved now.

I started uploading again recently, and one of my imo pretty high quality images got rejected for something along the lines of "has different number of digits on each hand, even if hidden". The hand was partly behind another body part, and there was no way to tell how many digits that hand actually had. And likely noone would have ever cared. Those are the moments i sometimes feel like its just luck who you get to approve your posts, because im 95% sure most other mods would have just approved that image. I wont try to upload it again ofc, even if someone else might approve it. But i dont wanna risk turning the wrath of one mod on me if they see that image again that they rejected.

So far my experience has been mostly positive, but i can only hope rejections like that one dont happen more often in the future, because that can feel very arbitrary and bad. If a finger is straight up missing, no problem, but if its just hidden, noone can know if its actually there or not.

Edit: Actually i can provide the exact reason given for the one deletion:
"Does not meet minimum quality standards (Anatomical anomalies)-finger count mismatch (including obscured thumb)"
Imo, if something is obscured, it really shouldnt count as a mismatch...

bigboyblaziken said:
I think experiences with any admins/mods on any site can never be consistent since theyre all individual people like us. This sounds really "well, duh", but it can be hard to remember that in some one-sided interactions like removals.

On one hand i had a great experience with a mod, deleting many of my old and bad images in one go like i wanted to. With that we get to the other hand, which is the quality standarts.

I know they have been raised massively with all the stuff we can do today compared to 2 years ago. The problem is just, not everyone has the patience or resources to actually do all those things, and you can still make "bad" images just as back then. But back then, they would often be approved much more easily. Every one of my old images i mentioned were so bad, that i didnt wanna have them on the site anymore. They were terrible, had artifacts etc. And none of them were deleted, only 1-2 images were ever rejected and both for having a different number of toes on each foot. Which is completely understandable. But by todays standarts, none of those images would likely have been approved now.

I started uploading again recently, and one of my imo pretty high quality images got rejected for something along the lines of "has different number of digits on each hand, even if hidden". The hand was partly behind another body part, and there was no way to tell how many digits that hand actually had. And likely noone would have ever cared. Those are the moments i sometimes feel like its just luck who you get to approve your posts, because im 95% sure most other mods would have just approved that image. I wont try to upload it again ofc, even if someone else might approve it. But i dont wanna risk turning the wrath of one mod on me if they see that image again that they rejected.

So far my experience has been mostly positive, but i can only hope rejections like that one dont happen more often in the future, because that can feel very arbitrary and bad. If a finger is straight up missing, no problem, but if its just hidden, noone can know if its actually there or not.

Edit: Actually i can provide the exact reason given for the one deletion:
"Does not meet minimum quality standards (Anatomical anomalies)-finger count mismatch (including obscured thumb)"
Imo, if something is obscured, it really shouldnt count as a mismatch...

I assume you're talking about post 157175? The issue is that the left hand has 3 "main" fingers visible with additional visible thumb, whereas the right hand has 4 "main" fingers visible with a thumb that isn't visible (but has to exist obviously). Therefore it's a finger count mismatch between hands.
You could've just messaged me for the explanation y'know (as I was the remover)
And no, that fourth finger on right hand cannot be a thumb, because you can't physically bend a thumb at that angle, for it to face the same way the "main" fingers do when curled inwards

technical-grid said:
I assume you're talking about post 157175? The issue is that the left hand has 3 "main" fingers visible with additional visible thumb, whereas the right hand has 4 "main" fingers visible with a thumb that isn't visible (but has to exist obviously). Therefore it's a finger count mismatch between hands.
You could've just messaged me for the explanation y'know (as I was the remover)
And no, that fourth finger on right hand cannot be a thumb, because you can't physically bend a thumb at that angle, for it to face the same way the "main" fingers do when curled inwards

Im sorry, i feel pretty stupid now because i just realized that i could actually see the remover in that window too... i thought i couldnt find out who it was, i think i just never looked. I would have done that if i would have realized.
Also thanks for going more into it, i now see much better what you mean, for some reason i just didnt see it this way before. Yes i guess it does bend too "wrong" to be a thumb, i probably just kinda ignored that before, now it makes sense and ye that is indeed just a mismatch.

Well now that thats cleared, i can actually say that my user experience so far has been only positive now. And now that i know i can just see and message a remover directly, that changes things a lot as well for the future. Idk why i thought we couldnt see that, i might have mixed that up with another site.

I also find some photo deletion decisions illogical; photos with no flaws are deleted for no reason.

Some photos were deleted for the following reason: (Poor use of AI upscaling). I agree with some of them, but others aren't normal because I've already reworked them to avoid this kind of thing. :/

Sometimes, I don't understand their logic.

But as for the other reasons for deletions, I don't have much to say, but rather something positive because they help me see where the small problems are that I missed in the images. ^^

Just had my previous two images deleted. The first one was deleted because of finger count mismatch. I fixed it, then posted that one, just to also get deleted by a different janitor from the first one because of suggestive young content. The subject is meant to be an adult femboy with a slim body, but I guess people see it differently. But that would've been better if that was the reason for the initial image because my upload limit just got reduced because a total of four images were deleted.

I've been under a lot of stress lately trying to put content into both here and Civitai. I recently had to deal with the bullshit of parts of Civitai not working. Wanted to post an article there on the day of my one year anniversary at Civitai (June 2nd), but the scanners that do the rating were acting bitchy. I ended up waiting until after UTC time hit the new day when the scanners were partially working. Was anxious for most of the day, pissed off for the rest of it. With the reduction of my upload limit (even though I post one at a time), it just makes me feel like a lesser person. Am I trying too hard?

billythebob30466192 said:
Just had my previous two images deleted. The first one was deleted because of finger count mismatch. I fixed it, then posted that one, just to also get deleted by a different janitor from the first one because of suggestive young content. The subject is meant to be an adult femboy with a slim body, but I guess people see it differently. But that would've been better if that was the reason for the initial image because my upload limit just got reduced because a total of four images were deleted.

I've been under a lot of stress lately trying to put content into both here and Civitai. I recently had to deal with the bullshit of parts of Civitai not working. Wanted to post an article there on the day of my one year anniversary at Civitai (June 2nd), but the scanners that do the rating were acting bitchy. I ended up waiting until after UTC time hit the new day when the scanners were partially working. Was anxious for most of the day, pissed off for the rest of it. With the reduction of my upload limit (even though I post one at a time), it just makes me feel like a lesser person. Am I trying too hard?

For "suggestive young" deletions, it is usually judged by body proportions. Of course, if you do truly think it was a mistake, you are allowed to appeal the deletion in the same way as if it was deleted for any other reason.

Stressing about losing 1 off your upload limit is a little bit silly, especially when you have consistent enough approvals.
However, in the off chance that you - or any user - reaches zero on the upload limit, it simply takes a message to an admin to get that reset.

As for if you're you trying to hard, well that's not for me or probably anybody else to say, but the key is that you do it because you enjoy it, not for numbers or whatever else. If it's stressing you out, reflect on why it's stressing you out.

^ Everything else aside, it seems rather unfair to have your revised image be deleted for different reasons than the ones previously stated. You can't be expected to have fixed what you don't know is broken, right?
New versions should only be judged against the standards set by the first deletion, not be subject to arbitrary new gripes from another janitor.

At least if you've used the replacement bot (or include a link to the deleted post) so that anyone else on duty actually knows it's a fix, and what the perceived flaws were.

hammapajamma said:
^ Everything else aside, it seems rather unfair to have your revised image be deleted for different reasons than the ones previously stated. You can't be expected to have fixed what you don't know is broken, right?
New versions should only be judged against the standards set by the first deletion, not be subject to arbitrary new gripes from another janitor.

At least if you've used the replacement bot (or include a link to the deleted post) so that anyone else on duty actually knows it's a fix, and what the perceived flaws were.

Ideally the image would've been taken down for looking too young the first time around, rather than on the second pass. This is unfortunately the sort of thing that just happens sometimes (although rarely) when one staff member sees something the first person missed. We always aim to highlight the most egregious errors to avoid situations like these, but it's unfortunately not completely unavoidable.

The matter has already been discussed internally among staff, and the user in question was contacted.

e6ai definitely has conceptually the right idea by moderating submissions. This technology gives the ability to create art to more of humanity than ever before in human history, and to make more if it then ever before too. Consequently if you look at CivitAI or Rule 34 sites allowing AI gens you'll see a flood of low quality gens, including often many variations of the same seed. e6ai stands out for avoiding that problem.

But it does seem like the quality standards need to keep evolving as the technology and community does. That's already being done with various standards being updated from the SD1.5 days to SDXL. More importantly it includes setting other expectations too, like the change to how linking sites was handled. I saw comments from genners who had abandoned e6ai due to the linking policies which have since been changed, and judging from the comments it seems like the general consensus is that was a good change.

Similarly, when I see complaints about the moderation almost every time it's not just that a gen was taken down but that it was taken down for something relatively minor while other overall lower quality gens stay up. That does seem to be a challenge with the current system, although it is good at addressing straightforward factors like numbers of fingers.

A good single case example from a while ago is is https://e6ai.net/posts/148206 . Another version of that video was taken down because in one shot a character's hand looked off, but as you can see from the comments the other video was better overall it just had that one issue.

From a broader site perspective that same circumstance plays out with a lot of genuinely good gens being taken down for something that amounts to a minor part of the gen (one thing that comes to mind recently was nnam's funny googly eyes on a polar bear's butt comedy animation being taken down because it had motion lines? https://e6ai.net/posts/168406 ) , while allowing a lot of repetitious gens of overall lower quality to stay up.

I guess what I'm saying is it feels like things should move more in the direction of rules like "All submissions must demonstrate a strong grasp of artistic fundamentals" and "Prompt spam: Uploading multiple near-identical images or videos is not allowed" being more important, so the site isn't spammed by 5 minute NovelAI gens or the same two characters having sex in over 100 gens just in different poses, rather than surprise "gotcha" moments like 99% of a gen looks good but there's an artifact in one eye so the whole thing has to go.

"How bad is too bad" and "how much is too much" is much more subjective than something like a finger mismatch though, so it's reasonable why the focus currently is on more objectively observable specifics. But it does feel like a good direction for AI curation to go in is considering gens more holistically rather than specific details. As models continue to improve that might be the direction curation has to go in order to avoid the flooding problem.

Just some thoughts that came to mind recently, not criticizing the staff or anything but maybe something that could be kept in mind for the future.

Hi.

I think admins should have more discussions with users about policies related to quality-based post removals. I have read the other discussions about this topic and I understand the reasoning behind these rules. However, I think there needs to be a balance. Rules should improve the site for everyone, but sometimes overly strict policies can create more problems than they solve. They can target issues that most users would not consider problems while preventing people from seeing valuable content.

I want to give a few examples from my own experience. This is not an angry complaint; I think constructive discussion can only help. I can only speak about the issues I personally encountered.

1. 768 pixels width requirement.

I already think this requirement is too strict and should have some flexibility. For example, 768 pixels could be the general rule, but exceptions could be made when the overall quality or value of the upload justifies it.

My post was removed for another reason, but the 768-pixel rule was also mentioned. The image was 720p. Treating that as a quality issue feels unreasonable. We're in smarthpone era. 500 pixels in direction without bad compression should be fine but just a few pixels as an issue is ridiculous.
AI generation is becoming more expensive, and 720p is still a common output option. I also have not seen AI generators offering a 768p option.

Screenshots from generated videos can still be perfectly usable if compression has not damaged the quality.

2. Toe nail/toe/etc count mismatch.

This is the main reason I am writing this. I honestly did not see the issue. I looked at the image many times and still cannot clearly see the mismatch because it is in shadow and barely visible. My image is not a foot fetish one. There was no problem with it.

I understand removing images with obvious problems. A third leg, a very visible distortion, or something that immediately damages the image makes sense. But if a problem can only be found by carefully analyzing the image for several minutes, is it really a quality issue that should result in removal? Moderator's eyes are trained to spot those problems. I bet regular users don't go "oh no, these 10 pixels completely ruin it for me"

People come here to enjoy images and videos. Anything that makes valuable creators share less will reduce the amount of quality content on the site.

Maybe the community should be asked whether they prefer seeing a great image with a minor flaw that requires close inspection to notice, or not seeing it at all.

After a post is deleted, the discussion, reactions, and time invested into creating the post are also gone. Creating quality AI content takes time, money, and many attempts.

I do not have traditional drawing skills or the ability to fix by inpainting. I am not going to analyze every image pixel by pixel looking for tiny flaws hidden in shadows. If that becomes the expectation, I will simply not upload.

And I think other creators may make the same choice.

We are not uploading to an asset store. We are sharing creations for people to enjoy.

Many creators also have no realistic way to receive rewards for their work, which may cost lots of money and time. The recent change didn't solve anything: I will not create a social media account for anthro content due to the stigma around it, leaving me with no options. I am sharing my work for free, with the only reward being that others enjoy it, with the only expected reward being a "thanks, I like it" comments.

Because of this, I think the strict quality rules should be reconsidered, or at least applied mainly to monetized content/accounts. In the current form, they do not make much sense.
It also takes up a lot of moderators' time - time that could be better spent dealing with spammers and users who try to exploit the site purely for advertising.

There are better ways to combat the problems you're having.

Hello,

To me, a lot of what you are possibly requesting would just reduce the quality and just make it to be a little more spammy. An the guideline are not that strict for anyone that want to put some time and effort in fixing problems in their gen, but most people don't want to even put 10 minutes in doing so.
You seem to want to allow more people being able to post, which, is great, but I don't think lowering the current quality guidelines would be a good thing.

pat_furring said:
1. 768 pixels width requirement.

I already think this requirement is too strict and should have some flexibility. For example, 768 pixels could be the general rule, but exceptions could be made when the overall quality or value of the upload justifies it.

My post was removed for another reason, but the 768-pixel rule was also mentioned. The image was 720p. Treating that as a quality issue feels unreasonable. We're in smarthpone era. 500 pixels in direction without bad compression should be fine but just a few pixels as an issue is ridiculous.
AI generation is becoming more expensive, and 720p is still a common output option. I also have not seen AI generators offering a 768p option.

Screenshots from generated videos can still be perfectly usable if compression has not damaged the quality.

I feel like this rule is one of the easiest to follow.
Especialy from today standard on model generation when the default for a tons of model is 1024x1024 (or totalize that amount of pixels), which easily pass this resolution.
And, if you gen an image that is too small, you can always manualy scale it in any image editor program, it take less then a minute.

Could argue that 720p could be more fitting to make your scenario be able to post, but if it is the case, why not 480p then? or 360p?
A limit must be set somewhere, and it was chosen to be 768 pixel at the moment, since was (and still is) a size most model can gen at and still have a decent amount base quality (still often need to fix some stuff of course).

I am not sure about it getting more expensive, since a lot of model can run on lower specs compare to before.
So, could argue it is the reverse.
Well, except if you online gen, I think you could be right there that online gen might be more costly on some site?
But, even then, some website like NovelAI, can be $25 a month for unlimited gen, I would not consider that to be very costly, considering what is needed to do AI gen in the first place.

pat_furring said:
2. Toe nail/toe/etc count mismatch.

This is the main reason I am writing this. I honestly did not see the issue. I looked at the image many times and still cannot clearly see the mismatch because it is in shadow and barely visible. My image is not a foot fetish one. There was no problem with it.

I understand removing images with obvious problems. A third leg, a very visible distortion, or something that immediately damages the image makes sense. But if a problem can only be found by carefully analyzing the image for several minutes, is it really a quality issue that should result in removal? Moderator's eyes are trained to spot those problems. I bet regular users don't go "oh no, these 10 pixels completely ruin it for me"

It is not always obvious when a finger/toe is missing or is extra, and you are right that some people (even maybe most people) might not even notice it in an image.
It does not mean that the problem isn't there and should be allowed.
Because, the problem with that is, if allow "X" to be allowed to have finger/toe missmatch, then all post should be allowed to have missmatch, which will decrese post quality.
If staff give a free pass to an image, then other will complain why that image got a free pass, but not their images.
The more you gen and pay attention to your images, the more you will get used and spot the errors.
And the less often your images will be deleted for it.

pat_furring said:
People come here to enjoy images and videos. Anything that makes valuable creators share less will reduce the amount of quality content on the site.

So I am genuinely asking: if most users would enjoy an image despite a small hidden flaw, why are the rules so strict?

Maybe the community should be asked whether they prefer seeing a great image with a minor flaw that requires close inspection to notice, or not seeing it at all.

After a post is deleted, the discussion, reactions, and time invested into creating the post are also gone. Creating quality AI content takes time, money, and many attempts. I am not asking for standards to disappear, but I think the current balance deserves discussion and changes.

I do not have traditional drawing skills or the ability to fix by inpainting. I am not going to analyze every image pixel by pixel looking for tiny flaws hidden in shadows. If that becomes the expectation, I will simply not upload.

And I think other creators may make the same choice.

We are not uploading to an asset store. We are sharing creations for people to enjoy.

There are plenty of images on the website with small flaws, not everything must be perfect.
The website is not only a furry image/video sharing website, it is a curated furry image/video website.

Yes, it is true that image even with obvious mistake may get more upvote and appreciation then image without any error, but it is not the point.
If more and more error are allowed, might as well just be like CivitAI, a total mess of jankyness.
And I am sure a lot of people don't want that.

As for deleted post, it is not gone, if the uploader/creator want to adjust what make the post deleted, they can request to replace it.
As for AI content taking time, yes and no, those guideline are also there to prevent spam since it is really not hard to gen something.

There are some people that already decided to not want to post because would be too much effort for them to follow the guidelines, and, it is ok.
There are other place you can post your images if you find the quality guideline to be too high here.

There isn't a lot of raw gen (without editing) that will pass the guidelines, and even needing to pass a possible 10 minutes in fixing stuff is too much time for a lot of people.
I know not all image only need max 10 minutes to fix, some take multiple hours, but it is your choice in the end if you want to put the effort in or not.

pat_furring said:
Many creators also have no realistic way to receive rewards for their work, which may cost lots of money and time. The recent change didn't solve anything: I will not create a social media account for anthro content due to the stigma around it, leaving me with no options. I am sharing my work for free, with the only reward being that others enjoy it, with the only expected reward being a "thanks, I like it" comments.

Because of this, I think the strict quality rules should be reconsidered, or at least applied mainly to monetized content/accounts. In the current form, they do not make much sense.
It also takes up a lot of moderators' time - time that could be better spent dealing with spammers and users who try to exploit the site purely for advertising.

There are better ways to combat the problems you're having.

The website is not there to simplify you a way to make money with what you gen.
It is there to share curated furry AI gen work, nothing much more.
So, the recent change in regard to that was more or less simply to be less restrictive for which link you can share, so people can find you if desired.
The website is not for monitering monetization stuff, it is not build for it since it is not the goal of it.

oarebt said:
Hello,

To me, a lot of what you are possibly requesting would just reduce the quality and just make it to be a little more spammy.

I strongly disagree. There are ways this could be handled without letting that happen. The current approach has consequences that are much worse than dealing with a bit of spam. I can already see I’m far from the only person who decided it’s simply not worth it anymore. And since none of you can know what would have been posted but wasn’t, you can’t really judge the downsides of the current approach properly. In fact, I’d argue that’s a pretty major blind spot.

oarebt said:

An the guideline are not that strict for anyone that want to put some time and effort in fixing problems in their gen, but most people don't want to even put 10 minutes in doing so.
You seem to want to allow more people being able to post, which, is great, but I don't think lowering the current quality guidelines would be a good thing.

I couldn't disagree more.

oarebt said:

I feel like this rule is one of the easiest to follow.
Especialy from today standard on model generation when the default for a tons of model is 1024x1024 (or totalize that amount of pixels), which easily pass this resolution.
And, if you gen an image that is too small, you can always manualy scale it in any image editor program, it take less then a minute.

Could argue that 720p could be more fitting to make your scenario be able to post, but if it is the case, why not 480p then? or 360p?
A limit must be set somewhere, and it was chosen to be 768 pixel at the moment, since was (and still is) a size most model can gen at and still have a decent amount base quality (still often need to fix some stuff of course).

No, I don’t think the “if we allow 720p, then why not 480p?” argument really holds up. 720p is already a pretty high resolution, and it’s also commonly used by creators who take individual frames from videos. You don’t really get videos in 768p, for example.

Honestly, I think having a hard resolution rule like this is a bad idea in general. It would make more sense to ask whether the image is actually enjoyable to look at, rather than whether it happens to meet an arbitrary resolution threshold. Something like: “Is this a decent image people can enjoy, or is it basically crap like a snapshot from a 240p YouTube video?” seems much more reasonable.

Saying "it takes less than a minute" about upscalling is not true.
That might be true for you, but I don’t think it applies to a large number of people. For example, I spent about 20+ minutes trying different upscalers and asking ChatGPT where I could even find tools for this. I only had one subscription for AI video generation, and it didn’t have any usable image features. In the end, I registered on three different websites and still wasn’t happy with the results or ToS saying that whatever I upload is now theirs not mine.

Sure, once you already know which tool to use and where to find it, it probably does take just a minute. But not everyone has that knowledge, or a PC powerful enough to run the better tools locally. And there are probably plenty of people who are just trying AI generation for the first time, get lucky and make something genuinely awesome. If their post gets removed, that hurts both the community and discourages the person who made it.

Anyway, I’ve probably digressed too far, especially since the actual reasons for the deletions were something else. The point about one direction only being 720p was just a note, and I’d hope I could appeal if that were the only “problem” with the image.

It’s important not to get too focused on image resolution here, because there are much more important issues worth discussing.

oarebt said:
I am not sure about it getting more expensive, since a lot of model can run on lower specs compare to before.
So, could argue it is the reverse.
Well, except if you online gen, I think you could be right there that online gen might be more costly on some site?
But, even then, some website like NovelAI, can be $25 a month for unlimited gen, I would not consider that to be very costly, considering what is needed to do AI gen in the first place.

A decent image model requires a PC that should be cheap and low-end by today’s standards, but prices have gone completely insane and even that now costs a lot. Many people simply can’t afford it. And video models require high-end, extremely expensive machines. RAM and GPU prices are leaving the Solar System, while SSDs are chasing after them. Mainboards and CPUs are rumored to start going up as well.

But I don’t even care about that. I care about creating awesome images and videos, and that’s where I value quality more than anything. Quality simply impossible to get on local AIs
Meanwhile, admins care about less important things like resolution or barely visible, insignificant flaws. I don't enjoy 80% of the uploads here because they’re generic and simple. You really need expensive online generators to get good fur styles outside the most popular ones, and for video, nothing will handle it as well as Sora 2, Grok, Seedance, or Kling for years.

But online generators are getting more expensive very quickly. Grok is now 3–10× more expensive than it was half a year ago, and 30–100× more expensive if you factor in generations rejected by their stupid censorship system, which Grok still charges you for.

There’s one site I won’t name here where, a year ago, they had promos for old models whenever new models were introduced. That’s gone. Often, a new model would make the old model cheaper or give you much more value for your money. That’s gone too.

Even three months ago, you could find a few sites that let you generate some videos for free. That’s gone now as well. The ones that still give free credits have downgraded them so much that, while you could previously get one usable video generation after something like two weeks of daily logins, now you’d need months - or even a year for full Seedance 2.5. If you want 16:9 aspect ratio, 480p 5s video generation is a waste of time on Seedance 2.0 fast.

Seedance in general seems to be getting more expensive rather than cheaper. If you don’t want to risk anyone knowing you’re an anthro content creator, you may be looking at as much as $4–8 for a single 10-second 720p video with the cheapest Seedance 2.0 Fast model. If you're OK with using your credit card, that’s “only” around $1.x on the cheapest platform I found.

Not everyone lives in rich countries. Please imagine that what’s $30 to you may mean something like $300 to someone else.

oarebt said:

It is not always obvious when a finger/toe is missing or is extra, and you are right that some people (even maybe most people) might not even notice it in an image.
It does not mean that the problem isn't there and should be allowed.

Oh, but it does mean that. People want to see and enjoy the upload, and punishing both them and the uploaders for what spammers did isn’t the solution.

I really think there should be a proper discussion between the admins and the users. And by users, I mean the ones who are still here, because obviously the people who didn’t like the current approach have already left and won’t get a chance to have their voices heard.

Ask yourself: why were the quality rules introduced in the first place? To make the site more enjoyable for users. To make it better. But what if the current approach isn’t actually achieving that? What if most people would rather see the things that are currently being deleted?

Why not introduce at least one of the many possible solutions that can be thought up in a few seconds? For example, have a separate page for “rejected” content, or let users choose whether they want to see it. The easiest, although probably inferior, solution would simply be to add a tag and enforce it, something like “subquality”. Then everyone could be happy.

Meanwhile, I keep seeing people on this forum saying they’ve given up uploading - I've read old forum threads and posts here. And probably like 1 per 100 even bothered to post on a forum.
And when I read what they were creating, it’s exactly the kind of content I struggle to find here. I even see posts on "new posts" page, which I like, but a day later I see the post got deleted. I wait for the re-upload, and guess what? Nothing. Days go by and it usually never happens.

Clearly the uploader just went “nah, I’m out” and decided to take their stuff somewhere else, after getting annoyed by the deletion.
As you can see, even I gave up after seeing your response and the lack of any other responses. You can probably tell how many days passed before I’m replying now. Honestly, I’m not very hopeful that our voices will actually be heard and am probably wasting my time writing this.

oarebt said:
Because, the problem with that is, if allow "X" to be allowed to have finger/toe missmatch, then all post should be allowed to have missmatch, which will decrese post quality.

Nobody is forcing us to use such a binary system. Why not have a system based on a more practical question instead: “Is this upload unique and objectively enjoyable despite the flaw?”
Be as strict as you want with generic crap which looks like 10000 other posts, but give some leeway to uploads that are rare and have that special “something” that you don’t come across very often.

oarebt said:

If staff give a free pass to an image, then other will complain why that image got a free pass, but not their images.

You could just ignore users’ complaints - just like you do with the complaints about the current approach. ;)

oarebt said:

The more you gen and pay attention to your images, the more you will get used and spot the errors.
And the less often your images will be deleted for it.

Let me counter that argument: the more your brain gets trained to spot these things, the more they’re going to bother you. I’m pretty sure 90% of users wouldn’t even notice or care about the flaws the janitors notice. And that doesn’t mean the janitors are better judges of AI art.

A friend of mine was making couches. He eventually closed his business, and guess what happened when he wanted to buy a couch? He spent two days unable to find a store selling one he liked because he kept noticing flaws in everything. His wife was going crazy, while he genuinely thought everyone must be bothered by those flaws as much as he was.

I think that’s exactly what happens to janitors/moderators in this case.

oarebt said:

There are plenty of images on the website with small flaws, not everything must be perfect.
The website is not only a furry image/video sharing website, it is a curated furry image/video website.

But it’s supposed to be curated for the users, whereas this current approach would only really make sense if the uploads were going into an asset store, or if the site were being run to sell the content for AI training or something similar. That’s clearly not the case, so why are the rules so insanely strict?

oarebt said:

Yes, it is true that image even with obvious mistake may get more upvote and appreciation then image without any error, but it is not the point.
If more and more error are allowed, might as well just be like CivitAI, a total mess of jankyness.
And I am sure a lot of people don't want that.

Sure? Did you ask the people? And you can’t even do that properly anymore, because most of the people who disliked the current approach have already left.
And again, you don’t have to look at it in such a binary way. There’s plenty of middle ground between CivitAI and this site.

oarebt said:
As for deleted post, it is not gone, if the uploader/creator want to adjust what make the post deleted, they can request to replace it.

I can’t replace the posts. I tried, and I ended up wasting over an hour going through different inpainting tools, but none of them worked. Even worse, I can’t edit the image with the AI I normally use because it now refuses to process it due to censorship.

And I have around 5 videos that turned out so well that I still regularly rewatch them because they make me smile and I genuinely enjoy them. But the number of fingers changes in some of them — something I only noticed after half a year, no joke.

I have no painting skills, no photoediting skills, so I can’t just paint over the problems myself. And honestly, an hour was more than enough for me to search for an AI that can edit anthro art as I want, without changing the whole image, and without giving me “content blocked! Your anthro character has something which looks like a sphere, and that’s too close to a tit!"

oarebt said:

As for AI content taking time, yes and no, those guideline are also there to prevent spam since it is really not hard to gen something.

It's very, very, very hard to generate something genuinely good and unique.

oarebt said:
There are some people that already decided to not want to post because would be too much effort for them to follow the guidelines, and, it is ok.
There are other place you can post your images if you find the quality guideline to be too high here.

That sounds a bit like “We don’t care about your opinions. Don’t like it? Go away.” That’s not really the kind of discussion between users and admins I am asking for.

What if the current user base is actually smaller than the number of people who have been driven away by this approach? There’s no way to know how many people were discouraged from uploading here and simply decided to leave.

oarebt said:

There isn't a lot of raw gen (without editing) that will pass the guidelines, and even needing to pass a possible 10 minutes in fixing stuff is too much time for a lot of people.
I know not all image only need max 10 minutes to fix, some take multiple hours, but it is your choice in the end if you want to put the effort in or not.

I want to put my effort into creating content that people actually enjoy, but as I said, fixing videos often simply isn’t possible. For example, many of my Grok videos could probably never be recreated today because of the stricter moderation.

And with images, I think 90% of the people who would enjoy the image with the flaw fixed would also enjoy it without the flaw being fixed. I don’t want to spend more time fixing things that I don’t even see as a problem than I spend creating new content.

And that brings us back to the same result: less content that people actually enjoy. That’s bad for everyone.

oarebt said:

The website is not there to simplify you a way to make money with what you gen.
It is there to share curated furry AI gen work, nothing much more.
So, the recent change in regard to that was more or less simply to be less restrictive for which link you can share, so people can find you if desired.
The website is not for monitering monetization stuff, it is not build for it since it is not the goal of it.

I understand that, but as things stand, you’re simply asking too much from uploaders. Sometimes getting good results in AI generation takes a huge amount of time, frustrating work, and money. You can’t really expect us to meet quality standards as if we’re being paid for what we create, while at the same time forbidding any way for us to receive support. You can’t have it both ways.
The recent change allowing social media links won’t really help people like me, because I simply wouldn’t ever agree to link any social media account to my anthro content.

I can’t even afford to make 50% of the generations I’d like to make. If I’m uploading here for free, I expect at least fair treatment in return and sadly, I can’t say that’s how the current quality approach feels. It’s disrespectful and very discouraging.

If uploaders can’t recoup at least some of the cost of AI generation, they’ll simply create less, or stop creating/uploading altogether. I’ve read all your arguments about spammers carefully, and I can obviously understand the reasoning behind them and why it was such a big problem. But in my humble opinion, the solution you chose is simply the wrong one.

I really wish the admins would allow people to enjoy the art they actually want to see, while recognizing that there’s a difference between exploiting the site for free advertising and allowing creators to support their creative work. Someone enjoys the art or video → they donate → the creator can afford to spend more on AI → more content gets created for everyone to enjoy. Seems like a win for everyone.

PS. Please, don’t force people to use Discord for help or advice. I wish I could get advice on how to fix some of my generations so they comply with the strict rules here, but there’s no force in this world that would make me join Discord.
It's a cancer anyway.

There's loads of free services that let you generate AI content. Saying "you can't expect everyone to simply just have this knowledge" is a weird excuse to make. If you want to be able to do something, you're expected to do some sort of research. You can find articles and guides all over YouTube and Civit AI for example, and if you're not up for that, there's plenty of help to get on platforms like Discord where users are more than willing to help you get started. I'm sure there's loads of other platforms you can use too. Point is, hobbies require time, and that includes learning how to generate images/videos with AI. Put some effort into it.

There's no minimum resolution requirements for videos, only for images, so let's not get it twisted. Every service on the planet can generate 768px images, so I'm not buying that excuse for a second. Can't afford a beefy PC? Use online services like Civit or NovelAI. Can't afford said services? Then maybe genning isn't for you (yet), while hardware prices are this ludicrous. If you want people to tip you so you can keep genning, then you're absolutely welcome to setup a tip jar and link to it. Since the changes to the rules for advertisements were made you can even go beyond that, so I'm not sure what's stopping you.

The uploading guidelines have bare minimum requirements that the vast majority of users have no issues meeting. They learn to double-check the typical problem areas; eyes, teeth, feet and hands. We try to offer everyone guidance on how to correct these issues if they're willing to learn. Some peace out and leave after their first deletion, and that's completely fair. Maybe e6ai wasn't for them. But the community of users who ask for help and get it grows larger every single day, and it's incredible to see their work get better for every post they upload on the site. Not everyone's willing to learn unfortunately, but there's not much we can do about that.

mlem said:
There's loads of free services that let you generate AI content. Saying "you can't expect everyone to simply just have this knowledge" is a weird excuse to make.

I'd rather see things made by people who just started and made somethng nice. I don't care if they're lazy.

If you want to be able to do something, you're expected to do some sort of research. You can find articles and guides all over YouTube and Civit AI for example, and if you're not up for that, there's plenty of help to get on platforms like Discord where users are more than willing to help you get started. I'm sure there's loads of other platforms you can use too. Point is, hobbies require time, and that includes learning how to generate images/videos with AI. Put some effort into it.

This isn’t about making excuses or not being willing to put in the effort - I already explained my position above.

I’m more than willing to put a lot of effort into creating things that both people and I can enjoy. But when that effort is wasted because of rules that don’t seem to benefit anyone, when I’m expected to put in even more work simply to satisfy a rule I don’t think makes sense, on top of everything I’m already doing for free, that’s where I, and many others - see a problem.

It’s especially frustrating when even fair, reasonable information is prohibited. I’m not talking about blatant, exploit-level advertising. I mean simply being able to say, “And here’s how you can support me.”
I think the rules should either recognize and respect the people who are sharing their work with others for free, or, if you’re going to treat them as though they’re working for the platform, then they should at least be allowed to receive support. You can’t have it both ways. It has to be one or the other.
As it stands, these quality rules feel more like a boss-employee relationship, and I don’t think that’s the right approach.

You also overlooked the part where I said I’m not going to join any Discord servers. Could we instead create an advice-sharing thread here?

Discord is only going to get worse over time, and it’s already in a terrible.

There's no minimum resolution requirements for videos, only for images, so let's not get it twisted.

Agreed.

Every service on the planet can generate 768px images, so I'm not buying that excuse for a second. Can't afford a beefy PC? Use online services like Civit or NovelAI. Can't afford said services? Then maybe genning isn't for you (yet), while hardware prices are this ludicrous. If you want people to tip you so you can keep genning, then you're absolutely welcome to setup a tip jar and link to it. Since the changes to the rules for advertisements were made you can even go beyond that, so I'm not sure what's stopping you.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood something, but based on what I’ve read about the changes, my impression is that you’re still not allowed to:
- Include your artistic name or signature in the corner.
- Share links to your store or any other place you can get financial reward for your work.
- Show links to anything other than your social media. If you don’t have social media, apparently you’re just out of luck and can’t do anything.

"Patreon can be used only as a tip jar and must not contain pay-walled content"

I may be missing something, and I apologize if that’s the case. If I’ve misunderstood anything, please feel free to clarify.

The uploading guidelines have bare minimum requirements that the vast majority of users have no issues meeting.

They learn to double-check the typical problem areas; eyes, teeth, feet and hands. We try to offer everyone guidance on how to correct these issues if they're willing to learn. Some peace out and leave after their first deletion, and that's completely fair. Maybe e6ai wasn't for them. But the community of users who ask for help and get it grows larger every single day, and it's incredible to see their work get better for every post they upload on the site. Not everyone's willing to learn unfortunately, but there's not much we can do about that.

I already explained the problem with this position in my previous post:

- You have no way of knowing how many people have left or bounced off because of these rules.
- You refuse to put the issue to a vote.
- You’ve never actually asked the broader user base. If you only ask the people who stayed and are already comfortable with the rules, you’re inevitably going to get a skewed picture of what users really think, so the voting isn't a correct approach either, but there can be other ideas.

I’ll give you an example. I’ve tried to find a quick and reliable way to fix some of these issues, but I have no drawing or Photoshop skills. I spent a significant amount of time trying, and it’s not as simple as “just find a guide.” After three guides failed to work for my case, I got frustrated and gave up.

The problem is that what you see as an obvious issue isn’t necessarily something I or most viewers of my upload would consider a problem. I’m willing to put in extra work for free, but I’d rather not spend hours fixing something that I believe 90% of the people (the upload is meant for) wouldn’t even notice or care about. My image has a nice looking anthro woman. It's for people who'd like to see a nice looking anthro woman. A small glitch in paw nail will only bother moderators with natural "allergy" towards AI glitches and fans of paw fetish, which is not who I made the upload for.

In another deleted upload, the issue was so barely visible that I could hardly see it myself. How am I supposed to fix something like that? I don't know how it should look like. I don’t have the kind of visual memory that real artists develop. I simply don’t know how to do it, and “just learn how to draw” isn’t a realistic solution for me.

I tried one AI tool, then another, then a third. I’m already spending more than I can afford on AI, so I tried image AIs included in subscriptions I already have, then free websites when those failed. There’s always a problem:
- either uploading for editing means giving away rights to your work, the tool changes the style, or
- it changes the whole image despite researching tools that supposedly avoid that.
- Grok Imagine was actually pretty good at edits, but now it won’t let me edit even images that would be fine for daytime TV. Its moderation is just broken.

And images are the smaller issue for me. I care much more about videos, where fixing problems is much harder and AI tools are very expensive.

I have videos where I’m sure 90% of viewers wouldn’t care if a character’s hand briefly goes from four fingers to five. Those are videos I would happily watch if I weren’t the author, and I didn’t mind the issue when I generated them. The Grok Imagine model I used is gone now, along with the prompt, so I can’t simply “regenerate it.”

I also have a nice dancing video where a third leg briefly appears. Does that make it unsuitable for commercial use? Surely. Should such videos be allowed here? Probably not unless there's a solution helping people who don't want to see such glitched ones. But there's one last important question: Does it make it unenjoyable to watch? Absolutely not.

It’s similar to the dragon vore video someone posted recently that got deleted because it featured a realistic looking person. I honestly wouldn’t know how to properly cover a moving part like that. A black square would ruin the video and would probably have to be moved manually frame by frame. Pixellation - on some of my own videos, it would actually make them look even more like “real” footage, which is also prohibited. Then there's the problem of re-encoding ruining the video quality, especially on 480p generated videos with low bitrate to begin with.

I do wish this rule could be loosened, especially since the “person” in my video was generated from a prompt and isn’t a real person. That said, I can understand why this particular rule has to exist. If it’s required by regulations rather than being staff's choice, I’m fine with it.
I just wish the guy who uploaded that awesome dragon video hadn’t given up after it was deleted. It was a really good SFW dragon video, and now several days have passed without him trying to upload anything else. :(

Lastly
If someone can’t figure out how to fix a problem, maybe that makes them “stupid”, Fine. That still doesn’t mean their work has no value. People don’t need to be technically skilled to come up with a great idea, and with AI, even someone who has no idea what they’re doing can sometimes stumble into an absolutely incredible result.

I really wish you guys would start looking at problems from this perspective. It’s easy to convince yourself that “I know better,” and I understand why that can be tempting. But not every piece of negative feedback comes from a “whining, lazy person.”
May I suggest being aware of things like dismissive labeling, confirmation bias issues and locking yourself in echo chambers.
constructive criticism is valuable but things like these tend to block most of it.

pat_furring said:
<snip>

I've read all your replies so far, and your arguments really boil down to: I don't know how to do this, I don't want to learn how to do it, so I shouldn't have to do it. And the answer to this is simply: this is a curated booru, we expect posts from people who figured out how to do all those things. If that doesn't work for you, then this isn't the place for you.

And yes that's brutal for beginners. If prompting rawgens is the height of your artistic knowledge, then you still have a lot to learn. We put in a lot of effort to help those who want to do so. We use Discord because this site isn't made for chat and Discord is what everyone uses, like it or not.

pat_furring said:
As it stands, these quality rules feel more like a boss-employee relationship, and I don’t think that’s the right approach.

That really isn't the dynamic here at all. An employer-employee relationship implies obligations, compensation, and a mutual contract. e6ai.net is a free service that we provide so people have a place to share their AI-generated art.

Running and maintaining servers costs real money, and as a private platform that provides and pays for the infrastructure, we set the standards and rules to keep the platform sustainable and focused on the community experience we want to build.

No one is obligated to post here, and you are entirely free to share your work elsewhere if the rules don't align with what you're looking for.

jelloponies said:
That really isn't the dynamic here at all. An employer-employee relationship implies obligations, compensation, and a mutual contract. e6ai.net is a free service that we provide so people have a place to share their AI-generated art.

Running and maintaining servers costs real money, and as a private platform that provides and pays for the infrastructure, we set the standards and rules to keep the platform sustainable and focused on the community experience we want to build.

No one is obligated to post here, and you are entirely free to share your work elsewhere if the rules don't align with what you're looking for.

I think I understand what you're saying. Those are all valid points... which have nothing to do with the topic of our discussion.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is any real interest in having a discussion here. I'm not really sure what the purpose of this thread was in the first place. It feels like the position is simply, "You're the admins, you know best," and that's the end of it, regardless of what anyone else says.

And when someone disagrees, their words just get interpreted in a way that makes them fit the admins' existing point of view.

like here:

drla said:
I've read all your replies so far, and your arguments really boil down to: I don't know how to do this, I don't want to learn how to do it, so I shouldn't have to do it.

Sigh...

Like talking to a brick wall.

OK, I gave it a shot. I already knew it was probably going to be a waste of time before I even started, but I did it anyway. I guess that’s just how lazy I am.

Discord is what everyone uses, like it or not.

Not everyone. A lot of people, myself included, will never use it. Over time, fewer and fewer people will use it because of the recent changes (changes made by Discord), but that's only one of the many reasons not to use it.

Forums were created around the idea of people helping each other. How much would it actually cost to have a text-only thread here for people to share advices? Or even a basic guide on site.

Same old, same old:
Every time the issue is raised, the conversation gets turned around until the person reporting the problem becomes the problem.

and then just

jelloponies said:
No one is obligated to post here, and you are entirely free to share your work elsewhere if the rules don't align with what you're looking for.

throw out the tired "if you don't like it here, just leave" line and call it a day.

You won.
I give up.

What if I want to know for sure that the upload won't be deleted?

My main concern today is about this

The video series i made is about the character: what she looks like, how she moves, what she says and her pose. It's presented as a video of an imagined game menu. The game menu itself is only there to establish the overall visual appearance, similar to a character-selection menu. The text on the various UI elements isn't important at all. Nobody cares about it, and nobody is going to want to read it.

Unfortunately, AI still can't reliably generate text without glitches, so there's quite a bit of gibberish where text is supposed to be.

So what is the approach here?

I tried asking about it via DM, but was told they can't help and that I should just upload it and see whether it gets deleted or not.
Wonderful idea.
Because obviously that wouldn't mean wasting time, annoying both me and the viewers, or potentially affecting the account status - especially with the new Karma system, which might become important at some point.

pat_furring said:
What if I want to know for sure that the upload won't be deleted?

You can't know for sure. You cannot be 100% sure that your submission won't be deleted for one reason or another. What you can do is look at the guidelines and at what's already on the site to see what is accepted and what has been accepted; with the caveat that old submissions, as in two years old or more, were submitted under different guidelines and are grandfathered in. (A mod can correct me if I'm wrong on the date.)

pat_furring said:
The text on the various UI elements isn't important at all. Nobody cares about it, and nobody is going to want to read it.

You are wrong on that. I know people, myself included, who will read the text on the UI elements because it helps make it even more believable and adds to the WOW factor if even these details are legible. I know it's not a real game menu, but that kind of attention to details make the whole video submission even better in my eyes.

pat_furring said:
I tried asking about it via DM, but was told they can't help and that I should just upload it and see whether it gets deleted or not.

The mods have said, time and again, that the real review happens on the site, once a gen is on the review queue. While they've often been very helpful on discord in pointing out the glaring flaws in whatever was submitted in the appropriate channel, they didn't do an in-depth analysis of the gen, and always warned that the true review happens once a gen is submitted on the site.

pat_furring said:
potentially affecting the account status - especially with the new Karma system, which might become important at some point.

As was said numerous times, including to you if I'm not mistaken, if an account ever finds itself unable to post, i.e. the upload limit reaches 0, you can always message a mod to have it raised again. And it takes quite a lot of deletion to reach that limit anyway : a brand new account has a limit of 10 uploads, you lose one every time 4 of your gens are deleted, which means you'd need to have 40 gens deleted and none accepted to reach 0. If that happen, you need to reevaluate how you gen stuff and whether this site is really for you.

As for Karma, it comes for our parent site e621, to help them deal with the insane review queue they have to deal with. As was said in another thread in this forum (https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/1120), it will only be a cosmetic feature for the foreseeable future.

tamara said:
You can't know for sure. You cannot be 100% sure that your submission won't be deleted for one reason or another. What you can do is look at the guidelines and at what's already on the site to see what is accepted and what has been accepted; with the caveat that old submissions, as in two years old or more, were submitted under different guidelines and are grandfathered in. (A mod can correct me if I'm wrong on the date.)

This is honestly pretty bad. In my opinion, there should be some way for uploaders to know for certain where they stand. That seems like a very basic form of respect that anyone uploading content should be able to expect. Why can't there be a system that makes this clear to uploaders? I appreciate the advices, but it doesn't help. I'm making videos nobody else has made, so I have nothing to compare them to.

You are wrong on that. I know people, myself included, who will read the text on the UI elements because it helps make it even more believable and adds to the WOW factor if even these details are legible. I know it's not a real game menu, but that kind of attention to details make the whole video submission even better in my eyes.

If the text appearing in my video is something that would bother you, then this video simply isn't intended for you and I think less than 0,1% of viewers would be bothered with it.

I know this may make me sound arrogant, but I'll say it anyway: I genuinely think what I created is great, and I believe a lot of people would enjoy seeing it. The problem is that I'm not willing to post it while there's a possibility that the upload could be deleted over something like this - when it's an issue that someone who actually enjoys the video would probably not mind.

As I pointed out before: If this were an actual game demo, fine. If I were uploading something commercially, fine. If this were an asset store, also fine. But this isn't any of those things. In this specific situation, deleting the video serves no logical purpose. It doesn't benefit the site or the users who would enjoy the content. Keeping it, on the other hand, does have a benefit: people can actually watch something that I genuinely believe is unusual, fun, and different from the typical content being uploaded here. A real "high quality" where it matters.

So what exactly am I supposed to do? Throw away one of my best ideas - something that I think turned out extremely well - because some text that I personally don't care about happens to be glitched?
As I said, no AI can generate my idea with the correct text, wording, or context.

there is literally no way for me to fix it
Even if there were some theoretical way around it, there's a problem of re-encoding for 480p videos.
I don't have unlimited money to spend on generating content. I can only create what I can afford. Since this site effectively shut down my plans to become a creator supported by fans, I don't have the financial means to suddenly start producing everything at a higher quality. Even 480p is already, in my opinion, right on the edge of what remains enjoyable to watch.

If the solution is supposed to be blurring everything so that nobody can determine whether the text is correct, that would require re-encoding the video, which would reduce its quality. And frankly, no. Just no. I'm not going to spend hours editing and reworking videos to "fix" issues that aren't actually meaningful problems in the first place.

Not when these are videos I'm already extremely proud of. Not when I genuinely think they're good as they are.

Meanwhile, this website continues to receive enormous amounts of completely generic content. If the admins genuinely care about quality content, then why is it acceptable to have 150th upload that is practically identical to 149 others, except for some color changes or minor alterations produced by an AI generator with "regenerate this image" prompt?

Am I really the only person who sees the contradiction here?

I'm not making this argument because I want to flood the site with low-quality uploads. I'm not making it because I'm too lazy to put in effort. And no amount of moderators projecting those assumptions onto me will change the actual facts of the situation.

There is a problem here. And, importantly, it's a problem that could be solved fairly easily.

So could we please focus on actually solving it?

As was said numerous times, including to you if I'm not mistaken, if an account ever finds itself unable to post, i.e. the upload limit reaches 0, you can always message a mod to have it raised again. And it takes quite a lot of deletion to reach that limit anyway : a brand new account has a limit of 10 uploads, you lose one every time 4 of your gens are deleted, which means you'd need to have 40 gens deleted and none accepted to reach 0.

Thanks for this info. I wasn't aware of it before, so at least now I know the account status won't be an issue for me.

As for Karma, it comes for our parent site e621, to help them deal with the insane review queue they have to deal with. As was said in another thread in this forum (https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/1120), it will only be a cosmetic feature for the foreseeable future.

I was already aware of this one, but thanks. My concern remains about what happens long-term. Unless foreseeable future means 2035 ;))

pat_furring said:
This is honestly pretty bad. In my opinion, there should be some way for uploaders to know for certain where they stand. That seems like a very basic form of respect that anyone uploading content should be able to expect. Why can't there be a system that makes this clear to uploaders? I appreciate the advices, but it doesn't help. I'm making videos nobody else has made, so I have nothing to compare them to.

No set of rules anywhere can deal with every possible situation, thus why there's no 100% guarantee that an upload will not be deleted.

However, the Uploading Guidelines contains instructions and examples that are quite clear IMO and apply to anything and everything created. Even if your video is something that nobody else has made, you can still apply what's in the guidelines to it, and thus be able to reasonably determine whether it has a good chance of being accepted or not.

pat_furring said:
If the text appearing in my video is something that would bother you, then this video simply isn't intended for you and I think less than 0,1% of viewers would be bothered with it.

That is your opinion and your evaluation, and I will disagree with you. I think there's a much higher percentage of viewers who would enjoy your video even more if it had clear and legible text in it. But, since none of us can show any kind of numbers about that, it's best to let this particular issue go.

pat_furring said:
So what exactly am I supposed to do?

Go post elsewhere ? Civitai and DeviantArt come to mind, for example. They don't have the rules you can see here because they absolutely don't curate anything beyond making sure nothing unlawful is posted.

pat_furring said:
I don't have unlimited money to spend on generating content. I can only create what I can afford. Since this site effectively shut down my plans to become a creator supported by fans, I don't have the financial means to suddenly start producing everything at a higher quality. Even 480p is already, in my opinion, right on the edge of what remains enjoyable to watch.

I'll be a bit blunt and unkind, but, honestly, that's a you problem. E6ai is in no way, shape or form required to bend over and change it's rules to help you become a creator supported by fans.

If you want to do that, you can open a patreon and post your creations there. Set up a tipjar and put the link in your bio and in the description of your works that got accepted, since that's allowed by the rules, and ask people who enjoyed your art if they'd be so kind to send you a tip in thanks. Or get yourself your own website and host it somewhere, you can get hosting for like 10€ a month where I live, not sure about the prices where you live though. There are many solutions to your problem, but you seem oddly fixated on changing e6ai to suit your needs, which, let's be honest, isn't gonna happen since the rest of the community is very happy with the current state of things.

pat_furring said:
I was already aware of this one, but thanks. My concern remains about what happens long-term. Unless foreseeable future means 2035 ;))

Foreseeable future probably means 2050... E621 has an average of 2000 picture in the review queue, the moderation team simply cannot keep up, and throwing more bodies at the problem, i.e. recruiting more moderators, doesn't really help anyway, because the rate of posts will continue to increase, and also the mod team becomes too big to manage. Thus the karma system to give the people who consistently do quality posts a way to bypass the review queue and lighten the load on the mod team. At least, that's how I understood it when it was explained in the discord.

E6ai, as far as I can tell, rarely sees the queue stretch beyond the first page, i.e. stays well below 75 posts in the queue. I believe even 50 posts awaiting review is quite rare. The current team is easily able to manage that, could manage way more, and the rate of new regular posters makes it highly unlikely to see this change before quite a long time, barring unexpected and dramatic improvement in the way the models and AI we use to generate our artwork work.

tamara said:
Go post elsewhere ? Civitai and DeviantArt come to mind, for example. They don't have the rules you can see here because they absolutely don't curate anything beyond making sure nothing unlawful is posted.

As far as I know, there is currently no good alternative to e6ai. It's almost impossible to browse CivitAI or DeviantArt efficiently, since they don't have a useful tagging system. DA also doesn't really allow NSFW content besides simple nudity. Tantabus.ai only accepts MLP content. Rule34.xxx only accepts NSFW pictures and has a horrible tagging system. AIBooru is not furry-centric.

tamara said:
There are many solutions to your problem, but you seem oddly fixated on changing e6ai to suit your needs, which, let's be honest, isn't gonna happen since the rest of the community is very happy with the current state of things.

Are you sure about that? It seems like there are still some people left that have issues with the current policy, unless by "the community" you mean the mod team. I agree with Pat Furring and wish the mod team wouldn't be so dismissive of valid concerns from the users.

tyto4tme4l said:
As far as I know, there is currently no good alternative to e6ai. It's almost impossible to browse CivitAI or DeviantArt efficiently, since they don't have a useful tagging system. DA also doesn't really allow NSFW content besides simple nudity. Tantabus.ai only accepts MLP content. Rule34.xxx only accepts NSFW pictures and has a horrible tagging system. AIBooru is not furry-centric.

I've also mentioned Patreon later in my answer, which a lot of furry artists use, even for porn. Also, many artists have accounts on several places to reach a wider audience, and to go around the limitations of each places.
No place is perfect, but you have to make do with what you have.

tyto4tme4l said:
Are you sure about that? It seems like there are still some people left that have issues with the current policy, unless by "the community" you mean the mod team. I agree with Pat Furring and wish the mod team wouldn't be so dismissive of valid concerns from the users.

Then the concerned users should propose new rules, and see how the people active on the discord server, which is where the community is, react to that. Posting here on the forum doesn't reach the majority of other users as far as I can tell. And by 'propose a rule', I don't mean just saying 'you should relax this rule', I mean doing a work similar to what's in the guidelines.

Because 'you should relax this rule' means very little in practice. Relax it to what point ? How relaxed seems good ? Or do you mean eliminate it entirely ? There's so many shades of 'relax the rule' that the sentence is, in effect, useless. Like, for text : do we want to keep it legible but accept that the letters are a little mangled ? Do we allow mangled letters that are unreadable ? Do we allow things that look more like a scribble of a two years old ? Do we just allow everything ? Do we get rid of text entirely ?

Come up with a real actionable proposal, with screenshots to use as example as to what level of change you think would be acceptable, then create the thread in the server and see what the people who are active and who read the posted stuff say and how they react.

The mod team doesn't strike me as dictatorial people, so if there's suddenly an massive number of people, including regular posters to the site, going 'yeah, that change is good, you should do that !', I believe that they would act on it. Though there are also always other concerns than just 'change the rule', thus you might not get exactly what you want, but something close. I do not know the internal workings of the site.

I've been admin and mod of too many places to list them, still am mod of a few places, though they're quieter than e6ai these days, so I do have experience. I've been in the furry AI community for a bit less than a year now. First on the FD discord server, then I joined the e6ai server about 6 months ago.

All I've seen so far were people bitching and moaning, complaining that the admins are bad people, that they suck at their job, they're meanies for having deleted their gen because it had 6 fingers, or colors where smudged or whatever; but no one came up with something useful that could be acted upon, nor did anyone tried to see if the people active in the server, who are also often the regular poster who feed the site, would also like to see whatever rule changed.

I probably missed things, I don't read everything everywhere, nobody got time for that. But, let's be honest, as an admin and mod myself of online places, I do also dismiss the bitching and moaning of people who complain about the rule but have nothing useful to offer besides 'cancel that rule so I can do what I want !'

Which is exactly what Pat Furring did in all of his previous messages. As Drla said in an answer to one of Pat's previous messages, his arguments boil down to 'I don't know how to do this, I don't want to learn how to do it, so I shouldn't have to do it.' So, of course he's going to get dismissed, because this is not a valid concern. And, frankly, speaking in my name only, I'm way less susceptible to listen to someone who isn't ready to do even a modicum of effort.

And I also understand the reluctance of the mod team to relax the rules. This is a curated place, meaning we get gens that are leagues above the raw gens posted on Civitai, DA and other places. Since I learned inpainting back when I joined, I cannot enjoy the rawgens that so many people post, the flaws just fly into my face.

If they begin to relax one rule, to accept some flaws on the text or even text that is illegible for example, then that might be the beginning of the end. Because why accept flaws for this and not for that, that would seem unfair ! And then we'd have people complaining that the eyes should also be allowed to be flawed, then the hands, then the hair, etc, and then, in the end, e6ai loses what makes it unique and becomes just another online gallery full of mangled characters and mass produced rawgens.

tyto4tme4l said:
Are you sure about that? It seems like there are still some people left that have issues with the current policy, unless by "the community" you mean the mod team. I agree with Pat Furring and wish the mod team wouldn't be so dismissive of valid concerns from the users.

Thanks for chiming in.

Let's just ignore all the users who criticized this on this forum before, along with the majority who apparently didn't even think it was worth leaving feedback and simply left.

Looking at the responses here, I honestly don't see much point in continuing the discussion. Arguments get reframed into something that can be easily dismissed and sound dumb.
Let's project your own assumptions onto what was said, let's ignore actual valid arguments, and respond in a way that don't really address the points being made. Eventually it comes down to "that's the user's problem" or "then go somewhere else." Some of the proposed "solutions" are also completely detached from reality - basically the equivalent of telling someone, "Can't afford rent? Just build your own house."

The issue of getting rewarded, or more accurately, compensated, for creating is actually the less important one. But why not make that the main focus and frame it as, “This guy just wants money and is upset because he can't get it here”.

I explained why I don't agree with being portrayed as a user who expects the site to be changed to suit my personal preferences. I'm not trying to discuss a matter which is only about me. It's about the site and many users.

And I've already searched extensively for alternatives; there simply isn't anything suitable for me. DA bans people uploading dragon vore, which is half of what I create.

That's why it's particularly frustrating that e6ai is so close to being a good fit - would only need a few small changes to how the "quality" rules are handled. And those changes wouldn't even be difficult: users could simply choose whether they want to see content with barely noticeable glitches, or there could be a tag such as "not_perfectAI.". Just put this on everyone's blacklist by default. Problem solved.And those are just solutions I came up with after a couple of seconds of thinking. There are certainly people smarter than me who could come up with better ones. Nobody is suggesting that this means abandoning quality standards altogether and opening the floodgates to uploads full of artifacts that would bother almost everyone.

Apparently not uploading my work somehow means more people will see it, even though there is simply no viable way to fix the glitched text produced by Seedance or Grok, Not to mention that I'd rather not spend five times more time than it took me to create a good video, to fix something that bothers the moderators and probably like two other people on Earth.


So instead of acknowledging that there is a problem that needs solving, the user gets called lazy or entitled, while the fact that the current approach negatively affects the site and its users in meaningful ways is simply ignored.

It's easier to stay on your high horse, dismiss the feedback, and tell people to go elsewhere.
Apparently.

tamara said:
Then the concerned users should propose new rules, and see how the people active on the discord server, which is where the community is, react to that. Posting here on the forum doesn't reach the majority of other users as far as I can tell. And by 'propose a rule', I don't mean just saying 'you should relax this rule', I mean doing a work similar to what's in the guidelines.

I think a website's forum is a better place for these things than a Discord server. Not everybody uses Discord and it's much easier to find something in the forum. Discord is a fine place for casual chatting, but in-depth discussions are problematic.

tamara said:
I probably missed things, I don't read everything everywhere, nobody got time for that. But, let's be honest, as an admin and mod myself of online places, I do also dismiss the bitching and moaning of people who complain about the rule but have nothing useful to offer besides 'cancel that rule so I can do what I want !'

I've talked to some users in the past and they were quite frustrated with the policy. This is a recurring issue, you can check the topics below.

https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/386
https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/467
https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/231
https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/316

I've already proposed adopting the way it's handled on AIBooru ("deleted" posts remain on the site and are visible to the users that opt in) or Tantabus (images with issues get tagged with special tags that can be easily filtered out). I've also proposed implementing a stricter upload limit for new users and reporting images with major issues to be reviewed instead of doing it for almost every single upload. These propositions got largely ignored by the mod team.

tyto4tme4l said:
I think a website's forum is a better place for these things than a Discord server. Not everybody uses Discord and it's much easier to find something in the forum. Discord is a fine place for casual chatting, but in-depth discussions are problematic.

I fully agree with you that a forum is better place for in-depth discussions. But I also recognise that very few users seem to actually use the forums, and that most users are active on discord. I didn't even use the forums or even read them until I had a proposal for a change to some tags. Got to work with the hand we're dealt.

tyto4tme4l said:
I've talked to some users in the past and they were quite frustrated with the policy. This is a recurring issue, you can check the topics below.

https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/386
https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/467
https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/231
https://e6ai.net/forum_topics/316

I skimmed those, because it would take time to read it given the long convos. I would point out that the very first post on the first link you gave as a TL;DR that basically agrees with the current state of things and the current rules... It seems to that some answers and explanations have been given in those threads. They did not satisfy everyone, because you can never satisfy everyone, but they have been given.

tyto4tme4l said:
I've already proposed adopting the way it's handled on AIBooru ("deleted" posts remain on the site and are visible to the users that opt in) or Tantabus (images with issues get tagged with special tags that can be easily filtered out). I've also proposed implementing a stricter upload limit for new users and reporting images with major issues to be reviewed instead of doing it for almost every single upload. These propositions got largely ignored by the mod team.

That first proposal makes absolutely no sense to me :
"Our website is a curated gallery of high quality AI generations, but we still keep the generations who do not meet our standards and simply slap a *HAS PROBLEMS* sticker on them." Wut ?

Then what's the point of this site being a curated gallery if it ends up not being curated at all ? Because that's basically what you are proposing.

As for your second proposal : 10 uploads is both a lot and not that much, and I don't really see what changing that limit would achieve. And you'd need to define what exactly is a major and minor issue, plus relying on reports from users instead of doing the work beforehand never works in my experience, because relying on the general population to do the reporting is a dodgy proposal at best.

pat_furring said:
Let's just ignore all the users who criticized this on this forum before, along with the majority who apparently didn't even think it was worth leaving feedback and simply left.

'Criticism is easy, art is difficult' - Destouches, French playwright.

Not many of the critics proposed any sort of actionable solutions to the perceived problems, as far as I can tell. Again, as I said above, I haven't been here for long, so I probably missed a lot of things. As for your proposal for a 'not_perfectAI', as I said a few paragraphs above, it makes zero sense to have that on a curated gallery, since it would defeat the very concept of curated.

pat_furring said:
The issue of getting rewarded, or more accurately, compensated, for creating is actually the less important one. But why not make that the main focus and frame it as, “This guy just wants money and is upset because he can't get it here”.

Is it really the less important one ? Because you talked about it several times and you did wrote this :

pat_furring said:
Since this site effectively shut down my plans to become a creator supported by fans,

Which makes me feel like that issue is quite important for you.

pat_furring said:
Some of the proposed "solutions" are also completely detached from reality - basically the equivalent of telling someone, "Can't afford rent? Just build your own house."

No. What's being told to you is "Can't afford rent here ? Look for a cheaper place."

pat_furring said:
to fix something that bothers the moderators and probably like two other people on Earth.

Again, that is your opinion. I personally think it would bother way more people than that.

pat_furring said:
while the fact that the current approach negatively affects the site and its users in meaningful ways is simply ignored.

Does it ? The discord is fairly active, we get new people coming in regularly, posting their first gens, getting advice on how to improve them, and so on. The site hit 180.000 posts 20 days ago, and, as of this writing, is up to post 183334. So, 3334 posts in 20 days, is about 167 posts per day, which is quite a good number I would say.

Do we have people who come and then leave because they find the rules too stringent ? Yes, we do. But, at the same time, the rules are there, written in plain English, so you know beforehand what you're going into. And the rules are clear and apply to everything one could create.

tamara said:
I skimmed those, because it would take time to read it given the long convos. I would point out that the very first post on the first link you gave as a TL;DR that basically agrees with the current state of things and the current rules... It seems to that some answers and explanations have been given in those threads. They did not satisfy everyone, because you can never satisfy everyone, but they have been given.

Sure, let's pick one post from one topic and ignore everything else, including pages with posts arguing with this view. Also "you can never satisfy everyone" is a very weak excuse in this case.

tamara said:
That first proposal makes absolutely no sense to me :
"Our website is a curated gallery of high quality AI generations, but we still keep the generations who do not meet our standards and simply slap a *HAS PROBLEMS* sticker on them." Wut ?

Then what's the point of this site being a curated gallery if it ends up not being curated at all ? Because that's basically what you are proposing.

It's more like "Our website is a curated gallery of high quality AI generations, but we still keep the generations that do not meet our standards. They are not visible by default, but if you want to see them, just tick this box in the settings."

Or maybe it doesn't have to be a "curated gallery"? How about "a website with tagged furry/scalie pictures and videos created using AI"? By utilizing tags, filters and search queries, you can get your own "curated gallery" experience instead of being dependent on someone else's nitpicks and preferences.

tamara said:
As for your second proposal : 10 uploads is both a lot and not that much, and I don't really see what changing that limit would achieve. And you'd need to define what exactly is a major and minor issue, plus relying on reports from users instead of doing the work beforehand never works in my experience, because relying on the general population to do the reporting is a dodgy proposal at best.

Making the limit smaller would prevent waves of low-quality/repetitive pictures being uploaded and would encourage users to be more critical and pick their best work. Defining issues shouldn't be a problem, there are already in the Uploading Guidelines - https://e6ai.net/help/uploading_guidelines. Tantabus also did it here:
https://tantabus.ai/pages/aicompquality
https://tantabus.ai/pages/aibasequality

Why would user reporting be an issue? If you think an image is too low quality, you report it. If no one reports an image, then it's probably good enough. Are you that scared of accidentally seeing some flawed pictures?

tyto4tme4l said:
Or maybe it doesn't have to be a "curated gallery"?

That's the whole point of the site, and that's not going to change. There's plenty of other alternatives out there that have zero curation.

tyto4tme4l said:
Sure, let's pick one post from one topic and ignore everything else, including pages with posts arguing with this view. Also "you can never satisfy everyone" is a very weak excuse in this case.

Seems like to me it explain why something is a specific way and people just respond in not being happy with the response because it is not the response they like. Almost nothing more.

And, so, what about people who DO appreciates the rules as they are?
They don't count for you?
It is well known that the loudest people are those who complain, and not those who are fine with the current state of things.
Happened multiple time that people in the Discord said they were happy about the site having those guidelines, some even wanted them to be even more strict.
But, those people don't count it seems to you and Pat Furring.
Only those who complain are correct and valid, and therefore, the rules should change.

It's more like "Our website is a curated gallery of high quality AI generations, but we still keep the generations that do not meet our standards. They are not visible by default, but if you want to see them, just tick this box in the settings."

It will only bring people to spam and not care about what they post.
Scrolling new post would be the same as on CivitAI, with most of the post having a tons of problems.
This isn't a curated website any more if it is the case.

Or maybe it doesn't have to be a "curated gallery"? How about "a website with tagged furry/scalie pictures and videos created using AI"? By utilizing tags, filters and search queries, you can get your own "curated gallery" experience instead of being dependent on someone else's nitpicks and preferences.

You are asking a website that is a curated website for AI furry images/videos to stop being one.
It is as if you would ask a website that publish curated songs that they should accept everything instead because you want to post to the site too.
It is nonsense, they wouldn't let you, same sort of logic here.
How hard it is to understand that it is a curated website, if you are not able to meet the guidelines, work on your gens more or don't post, it is not rocket science.

And about "dependent on someone else's nitpicks and preferences", if it was the case, a lot more post would get deleted. Only the guidelines is used as a reference for a post to be deleted or not. And if you think it was wrong to delete, you can appeal so more people of the staff check to see if it might be fine. Since, it is impossible to have all people exactly on the same page for all species, styles and compositions when reviewing stuff.

Making the limit smaller would prevent waves of low-quality/repetitive pictures being uploaded and would encourage users to be more critical and pick their best work. Defining issues shouldn't be a problem, there are already in the Uploading Guidelines - https://e6ai.net/help/uploading_guidelines. Tantabus also did it here:
https://tantabus.ai/pages/aicompquality
https://tantabus.ai/pages/aibasequality

I actually would be in favor of this, to have less upload by default, like 3 maybe.
But, at the same time, if a user really spam, they often get a message or something to tell them about it.
If they continue, they get a warning or something.
So, it is not a problem as of now.

Why would user reporting be an issue? If you think an image is too low quality, you report it. If no one reports an image, then it's probably good enough. Are you that scared of accidentally seeing some flawed pictures?

Relying on user reporting is always a terrible way to do things.
Since people are lazy, and even if they would see a problem, often people will just not care, too much effort.
It should always be an option (which is the care for flagging stuff here) and not a mandatory way to handle things.