I know it's frustrating when images get removed for anatomical issues, but honestly it's the only thing that makes this site browsable. Up/downvotes alone aren't a good substitute for the quality guidelines because they often reflect the popularity of certain kinks and styles.

If you're frustrated with the quality control, you should learn to inpaint your pics to fix issues. It's really not that difficult if you're set up with SD locally. If you can't put the small amount of effort in to create a quality post, then why would I want to see your pics in my search results?

The only middle ground I can think of is potentially tagging low-quality pictures with some sort of tag that's auto-blacklisted. That might decrease the complaints somewhat.

xerox3 said:
The only middle ground I can think of is potentially tagging low-quality pictures with some sort of tag that's auto-blacklisted. That might decrease the complaints somewhat.

Not really viable because everyone uploads huge PNGs.

ayokeito said:
Not really viable because everyone uploads huge PNGs.

Actually it’s pretty simple to implement.

crashbandit said:
Actually it’s pretty simple to implement.

Compressing everything? Yes. But for me e6ai is mostly useful because it's not compressing anything.

ayokeito said:
Compressing everything? Yes. But for me e6ai is mostly useful because it's not compressing anything.

Ah, you’re talking about how much storage the site is using? I’m not sure what infrastructure the site uses but it might not be that bad, yet. I’m going to guess somewhere around the 250 - 300GB ballpark right now based on a comparable solution. The site isn’t big enough or growing fast enough to worry just yet I would think, and there are strategies to keep the cost under control as it does get that way.

An approach of 100% approvals wouldn’t be possible because of content restrictions. The gist though would be a more balanced, consistent, and less biased application of the standards and instead of deleting all images. Most would be tagged for the quality issues instead. A general tag like quality_issues could be used that people can blackflag on. I think a default blackflag can be set for the site as well.

crashbandit said:
Ah, you’re talking about how much storage the site is using? I’m not sure what infrastructure the site uses but it might not be that bad, yet. I’m going to guess somewhere around the 250 - 300GB ballpark right now based on a comparable solution. The site isn’t big enough or growing fast enough to worry just yet I would think, and there are strategies to keep the cost under control as it does get that way.

An approach of 100% approvals wouldn’t be possible because of content restrictions. The gist though would be a more balanced, consistent, and less biased application of the standards and instead of deleting all images. Most would be tagged for the quality issues instead. A general tag like quality_issues could be used that people can blackflag on. I think a default blackflag can be set for the site as well.

Hello friend!

No need to guess, you can find site stats here

jelloponies said:
Hello friend!

No need to guess, you can find site stats here

Oh that’s awesome. Didn’t know about that function. Thanks!

jelloponies said:
Hello friend!

No need to guess, you can find site stats here

speaking of the stats of the site
it's missing the franchise tag count

flowersylveon said:
speaking of the stats of the site
it's missing the franchise tag count

I'll bring it up with the dev