Topic: Feature request: “Needs minor fixes” hold + message before deletion (non-urgent cases)

Posted under Site Bug Reports & Feature Requests

kneiff

Member

I’m posting this because I keep running into the same problem, and it’s starting to discourage me from uploading here.

When a piece clearly represents a lot of work, but gets deleted immediately over a small, quickly fixable issue, the end result feels brutal. Not because I can’t handle quality standards. I’m here because I like high standards. The problem is the workflow: high-effort uploads ends up getting the same outcome as low-effort spam, even when the issue could be fixed in minutes.

I know the janitor team is dealing with a huge volume of junk, and I’m not trying to single out individuals. Mistakes happen. What I’m asking for is a process that better matches the reality that some failures are minor and fixable. (And importantly: I’m talking about non-urgent issues.)

Suggestion ("Needs minor fixes" flow):

1. If an upload shows clear effort and the issue is minor, don’t delete it immediately.
2. Put it in a temporary “Needs minor fixes” state (hidden from public view is fine).
3. Send a short direct message telling the artist what to fix.
4. Give a small window (e.g., 24–48 hours) to re-upload or edit.
6. If it’s not fixed in time, then delete it as normal.

This is good for both sides:
- It keeps standards high while reducing unnecessary removals of good work.
- It saves time (including janitors') compared to repeated re-uploads and back-and-forth.
- It makes the process feel less punishing for serious contributors, without giving AI-slop extra slack.

Why I’m frustrated:
Seeing "deleted for quality" on something I poured serious free time into is stressful, and it’s making me hold back uploads I’d otherwise share here. I want to keep contributing, but I need the system to distinguish between "low quality" and "minor fix needed".

Example:
I spent ~90 hours generating and sorting ~450 video snippets, then manually cut the best ones into a 9-minute animation. It got deleted because my signature was mistaken for an artifact. I reached out, and it turned out to be a misunderstanding. No fix needed, janitor's mistake (no hard feelings). But the deletion itself was still a massive gut punch.

This has happened multiple times now. In my experience it’s usually either (a) a minor issue I can fix quickly, or (b) a borderline call that could be resolved by a short message before deletion.

If others have had the same experience, feel free to share what happened and what helped.

kalethOrebiter

Privileged

kneiff said:

100% agree, those features have been proposed a lot and all the staff agrees it would be nice.

The problem is having the manpower to implement it. The very small amount of staff working on the code is shared between e621 and e6ai, and most of the time e6ai gets port of features/fixes from e621 — and e621 really don't have artistic-context, nor a rejection rate that would justify that feature. Keep in mind that every single member of the staff (including the "lead programmer" and the lead admin) are unpaid volunteers; it's very hard to get new complex features.

The staff is well aware of the frustration generated by the state of the site. They do try to be lenient. They even spend extra time on the e6ai's discord to review all arts before they are submitted to point at the defects and help reduce the risk of deletion. Also, they can reset your upload limit if you fall to 0 upload/day.

TLDR: Staff are doing the best with the tools they have, and are willing to help. If you want to help as a developper (or if you know someone who is), you can also check the recruitment post.

kneiff

Member

kalethorebiter said: it's very hard to get new complex features.

At this point, I do see a temporary solution without implementing new features:

Maybe make an exception for videos / animations?
- This minimizes extra janitor workload: There are very few video uploads per day on e6ai.
- Animations are inherently 'hard-effort' already: General hardware bottleneck, long play-time, codecs and upload sizes, etc.
- Animations are very popular.

This might justify the "special treatment" that an animation director would receive.

Suggestion:
1. If a high-effort animation has a small issue, don't delete immediately.
2. The janitor should DM the director first and explain the issue.
3. If the director does not address or fix the issue in the DM, delete his post.

"Special treatment" for animations is actually necessary:
One can always upload images on discord and ask for feedback before uploading. But videos are too large for discord, so there's no way to check for potential issues before uploading animations.

kalethorebiter said: If you want to help as a developper

Oh I am sooo close to writing an application..!!! I'd love to get involved with you guys, really! However, I am a full-time developer already. Also I am currently unfamiliar with your tech-stack (that will change soon-ish, web-development will be a part of my current project).

Aacafah

Member

Hi, e621/e6ai dev here.

I'll add that I don't really see the point when, functionally, there's really not much of a difference between what you've proposed & what currently happens. You're suggesting posts that are borderline but failing are:

  • Hidden from users
  • Are able to be replaced by the user

That's exactly the same as normal deletions that can be replaced by the director later, but with a different name & a time limit; aside from proactively contacting the user about it (which would take more time from janitors, not less, unless the message is as short as the deletion notes they already leave, in which case it's even less distinct), there's basically zero difference.

This is more a matter of presentation/perspective than functionality, & while I do see the value in putting effort into presenting rejections in a more friendly way, I can't put this high enough on the list of priorities to dedicate time to it when the only thing changing is the presentation, with zero change in functionality.

kneiff said:
Oh I am sooo close to writing an application..!!! I'd love to get involved with you guys, really! However, I am a full-time developer already. Also I am currently unfamiliar with your tech-stack (that will change soon-ish, web-development will be a part of my current project).

You don't have to fill out a fancy application or join staff if you don't want to; site's open source & hosted on GitHub, you can click that link or the version number at the bottom of every page. When I added groups to post searches, I wasn't staff, or really known to the community at all. It might take some time (I have a full-time job at a group home & our lead dev Cinder is also swamped with professional & e6-related work), but we'll get to reviewing it. Same's true of stuff like re6ai/re621, if you're more comfortable with JavaScript/TypeScript than Ruby on Rails.

kneiff

Member

j_mor said:
I can't put this high enough on the list of priorities to dedicate time to it when the only thing changing is the presentation, with zero change in functionality.

As I said previously, there's no need to implement anything. Just tell you janitors to DM before deleting, at least for special cases (e.g. high effort videos). Without janitor experience, I can't judge how fast anything goes, really. In terms of DM size, just use the deletion notes and copy paste a standard message. In my head, this could save the janitor time, because a "single DM" takes less time if the janitor did a mistake (I experienced that multiple times), because undoing that mistake would take "Delete + Read the director's complaint + undelete".

Overall, if you apply this procedure on animations only, this policy will barely increase the janitors workload, because fewer animations get uploaded.

j_mor said:
This is more a matter of presentation/perspective than functionality

Sure, priorities and real bugs take priority. Just remember that user-experience still matters. In this case, it matters a lot. Your current practice might scare away those who put in actual effort. And to me, it seems like other users are frustrated as well.

j_mor said:
if you're more comfortable with JavaScript/TypeScript than Ruby on Rails.

As previously said, I am unfamiliar with your tech-stack, so I neither do ruby, nor javascript (yet)

Delken

Member

kneiff said:
Your current practice might scare away those who put in actual effort

This seems counterintuitive, if someone puts high effort on a post, why would it get deleted? Most stuff that gets booted is the low effort perchance based posts. And if it does get deleted for a "minuscule mistake", then the fix would also be a minuscule effort one. The reposting of said post would be way easier than having someone DMing the creator about it, keeping a tally, waiting for a reply, etc etc. I have clients I deal with and if I stopped to "DM" them about every minuscule thing, I wouldn't get any work done (slight hyperbole)

kneiff said:
And to me, it seems like other users are frustrated as well.

Most people complaining about "why wuz muh post deleted???" on the forums don't really count lmao, they want to be right no matter what

kalethOrebiter

Privileged

delken said:

/snip

I would not say those people don't count, we can't just dismiss people we disagree with.

Kneiff is right in the sense that some other users feel frustration, that user experience matters, but that's not what the staff is prioritizing.

Delken is right for the overhead, having to wait for DM answers will slow the process. Plus, you'll have users mistaking the period of grace as a bargaining window.

kneiff

Member

delken said:
This seems counterintuitive, if someone puts high effort on a post, why would it get deleted?

I know. It happens though, especially with beginners that are still learning and don't grow a habit of zooming 200x into eyes/teeth/claws/etc. because un-zoomed looks good.
And don't forget janitors make mistakes, too.

delken said:
if I stopped to "DM" them about every minuscule thing, I wouldn't get any work done (slight hyperbole)

Overhead = bad. Duh.
What would your clients say if you deleted their requests for "Quality issues" along with a cryptic one-liner? You wouldn't have many clients then, right?

kalethorebiter said:
having to wait for DM answers will slow the process.

Come on guys. There must be some way..!

1. Janitors: Tag bad animations/images with "quality_issues" (or don't tag, e621 has a "flag for deletion" ..? Why not use that..?)
(2. Janitors: DM the guy to tell him what to fix. Or add a comment below the image. Or just don't, and let the director figure it out himself)
(3. Janitors: Don't "wait", just continue your work.)
4. Janitors: Search and delete all images with the tag "quality_issues" that are >3 days old 

quality_issues date:2026-01-13..

(I forgot the correct date syntax)

Is that still too much overhead..? I am genuinely asking..! I am not familiar with your process...

kalethOrebiter

Privileged

kneiff said:

I know. It happens though, especially with beginners that are still learning and don't grow a habit of zooming 200x into eyes/teeth/claws/etc. because un-zoomed looks good.
And don't forget janitors make mistakes, too.

That is not really accurate: yes, Janitors gets an eye to spot artefacts, but they have the instruction to look at a post at original resolution. It is one of the reason why they sometime advice to not post extreme resolution images: it only magnify the errors without bringing much to the artwork.

kneiff said:

Overhead = bad. Duh.
What would your clients say if you deleted their requests for "Quality issues" along with a cryptic one-liner? You wouldn't have many clients then, right?

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here. That said, e6ai is not a social media platform for ai artists to have their gallery online: that's not the vocation of the website. This is more like an curated archive. In that sense, members are not clients; they are volunteering archivists contributing to the website.

kneiff said:

1. Janitors: Tag bad animations/images with "quality_issues" (or don't tag, e621 has a "flag for deletion" ..? Why not use that..?)
(2. Janitors: DM the guy to tell him what to fix. Or add a comment below the image. Or just don't, and let the director figure it out himself)
(3. Janitors: Don't "wait", just continue your work.)
4. Janitors: Search and delete all images with the tag "quality_issues" that are >3 days old 

quality_issues date:2026-01-13..

(I forgot the correct date syntax)

Is that still too much overhead..? I am genuinely asking..! I am not familiar with your process...

One of the concern is there's a large number of members that don't realize there's direct mail. So the flow will most likely flag, wait 3 days, revisit the post to delete.

On a personal level, I fear that opening that box will add more grief from members that won't know or understand why X post has a different treatment from Y post.

Worse you're asking for janitors to make a subjective call upon if the post is almost good and merits that special treatment, or if it's too bad an get to be deleted immediately. That will without a doubt create more grief.

[edit]

Now that I've had time to think on it, using the flag system that would be very impractical: Janitors will have to sort and check every flag for if it is a regular flag or a quality issue flag. The flag system is just not meant to be use that way.

[/edit]

Updated

mlem

Admin

Folks have already made good points as to why many of your suggestions wouldn't be feasible. A lot of them essentially would function the same, but at least double the workload of janitors and require them to keep track of a large number of flagged posts that are 'pending fixes'.

We have a relatively small number of folks who reach out regarding their deletions, so I don't think it's as big of an issue as you might think. Most people who do reach out are also very understanding and simply want to correct the issue so they can get their post back up.

A few folks, however, see their deletions as an attack on their work, which is not what we're out here to do. A high-effort and otherwise high-quality post is not going to be seen as 'low quality' just because an AI error snuck in - it just means it needs to be fixed before it can go up on the site. It's also important to underline that staff members are all human; we are going to make mistakes, which is unfortunately what happened when we mistook your signature in a video for an attempted signature.

I can appreciate that the process of contesting a deletion can be a bit bothersome, but that's why we strive to be available both on-site via DMails, but also on Discord servers like Furry Diffusion and our own server to make it convenient to get in touch with us.

Updated

dfY6C

Privileged

I don't really have too much to add that hasn't been said, but I believe there is just one possible compromise among everything you've said, but not exactly in the way you intended.

kneiff said:
2. Janitors: DM the guy to tell him what to fix.

I definitely don't think this should be done manually or as a temporary move before deleting a post, but I do think there is a reasonable path to at least have automated DMails for deletions. If a janitor deletes a post, maybe the auto moderator could send an automated DMail to the user who uploaded it to notify them of the removal and just have a copy of the reason in that message. I've seen similar-ish examples which I think are automated on this site like:

- When an Admin approves or rejects tagwork requests, the auto moderator automatically responds in the thread of the request with a message of the approval or rejection.
- When a Mod/Admin gives you a positive/warning/negative record on your profile, the auto moderator automatically DMails you with a notification of this record.

This may not benefit everyone, as it's not too hard to literally just go on your profile and press the deletions category to see what's up. I can't speak for everyone but when I was really new and had my first deleted post, I was really confused as to where it was or what happened with it and didn't know what I was doing trying to find it until eventually I saw that deletion number on my profile but it took me a little bit to realize where I should even look for that because I just simply wasn't notified of anything. In that context and for anyone that would just want to have that for convenience, maybe this could be done but only in the automated way. Manually DMailing everyone is simply too much.

Updated

kneiff

Member

kalethorebiter said:
On a personal level, I fear that opening that box will add more grief from members that won't know or understand why X post has a different treatment from Y post.

In the long term, everyone should get the same chance to correct their mistakes before their work gets deleted.

kalethorebiter said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here. That said, e6ai is not a social media platform for ai artists to have their gallery online: that's not the vocation of the website. This is more like an curated archive. In that sense, members are not clients; they are volunteering archivists contributing to the website.

I was illustrating my initial point: The current practice is discouraging. That point stands independently for anyone, including clients, contributors, archivists, etc.

mlem said:
require them to keep track of a large number of flagged posts that are 'pending fixes'.

I might be completely misunderstanding the process. Can you please explain how one daily batch-delete of tagged/flagged/whatever images older than 3 days require anyone to keep track of anything or double any workload..? No DMs necessary.

mlem said:
A few folks, however, see their deletions as an attack on their work, which is not what we're out here to do.

Deleting = Trash bin. Please treat voluntary work with more respect. That's the whole point.

mlem said:
We have a relatively small number of folks who reach out regarding their deletions, so I don't think it's as big of an issue as you might think.

It's because contesting a deletion is very bothersome (not just a bit). That's why folks don't reach out.

mlem said:
Most people who do reach out are also very understanding

Don't assume that these people are not frustrated. Of course they seem understanding, because they want something from a janitor/admin they don't know. You guys seem alright, but reaching out to admins will never feel not like a taking risk.

dfy6c said:
If a janitor deletes a post, maybe the auto moderator could send an automated DMail to the user who uploaded it to notify them of the removal and just have a copy of the reason in that message.

That seems like progress.

mlem

Admin

I mean you seemed to be able to reach out to the staff member in question just fine. Do you have any testimonials from other users or are you assuming it's a big issue? I'm not trying to brush off your complaint like it doesn't matter, I'm genuinely curious if this is how a lot of people feel.

The nature of the site means that either a post gets approved or it doesn't (as in it gets deleted). Flagging posts internally and then reaching out to said user with instructions on how to fix the image, then doing daily follow-ups to check if the image was indeed fixed is a long process that's just not feasible.

I'm not going to pretend that even a single user loves the idea of reaching out to staff members due to their post getting deleted, but we do our absolute best to be approachable and helpful so it's at least hopefully as painless as it can be.

For the record we've talked about how lovely an addition dfY6C's suggestion would be, but something like that is very much an e6ai thing, not something that seems very relevant to how they operate on e621, so their devs (as lovely as they are) are not going to prioritize something like this. We don't have dedicated e6ai-devs (we'd love to though!) so all we can really do is work with the tools we have at our disposal.

Updated

kalethOrebiter

Privileged

kneiff said:

I might be completely misunderstanding the process. Can you please explain how one daily batch-delete of tagged/flagged/whatever images older than 3 days require anyone to keep track of anything or double any workload..? No DMs necessary.

Because there is no system in place to do what you suggest. Here's some problems I can quickly think of:
1. Post can stay unapproved for 30 days:

  • What happen to a post that has been approved after 2 days and a half?
    • Do they get only half a day to fix it?
    • Do the janitors needs to monitors for how long the flag has been there?

2. How do you differentiate post flagged for any reason from the one that have quality_issues?

  • Tagging?
    • How do you deal with members removing the tags between those 3 days?
  • Locking tags?
    • Block tag editing for all unapproved post?
    • Adding to the approval process editing tags and locking tag manually?

3. There can be only 1 flag per post:

  • What happens to a post that has been flagged by a member prior to a janitor looking at said post?
  • What happens if a member want to flag a post for any other reason while there's a flag for quality_issues?

kneiff

Member

mlem said:
Do you have any testimonials from other users

I just talk to people about my experiences, they approve (of course biased by my side of the story). I look through forums. I got no analysis, just experience.

Just remember that generating images requires expensive Hardware, a buggy software stack and multiple rounds of trial and error. That‘s effort. People upload to seek approval. If they get deleted for small things, that‘s a universal ouchie. At least that‘s my reasoning.

EDIT:

I‘ve asked around on discord servers, People ARE frustrated.

mlem said:
then doing daily follow-ups to check if the image was indeed fixed is a long process that's just not feasible.

I repeat: Don‘t do per image follow-ups, don‘t do DMs. We can find another way. My ideas are of course stupid cuz I’ve never been a janitor. But we can brainstorm something that maybe makes a little more sense :3

kalethorebiter said:

  • What happen to a post that has been approved after 2 days and a half?
    • Do they get only half a day to fix it?
    • Do the janitors needs to monitors for how long the flag has been there?

I see, one needs to save the timepoint of „marked for deletion“.

And I didn‘t know there is only 1 flag per image. And locked tags seems like it‘s not implemented yet.

How about this (yes, another stupid idea incoming, try and stop me :P)
- Don‘t approve until fixed.
- The janitor comments below the image the issue
- if it ain‘t fixed, image gets auto deleted after 30 days.
- User DMs the janitor to fix/discuss
- this is good: No need to track images, they get auto deleted. Janitors also don‘t re-review the same image twice, cuz they see it in the comments.
- Also, other users can propose technical help to fix/explain an issue right below.
- since few users actually reach out to janitors, this will add minimum extra workload. The rest will simply be auto-deleted.
- the semantics are nice: „only good images get approved“. No need to re-train users, everyone knows how to use the comment section.
- Drawback: the janitor critique is public. That can lead to drama.
- (you should still instant delete clear TOS violations like cub stuff)

Updated

mlem

Admin

kneiff said:
If they get deleted for small things

That's the thing though. Things don't get deleted for small reasons. If you go to any random approved image, you'll probably be able to point out at least a few errors. We're not looking for perfection. We're looking for the bare minimum when it comes to following our upload guidelines, and we'll often look past minor AI errors if the majority of the image is alright.

Our main goal isn't to delete images, it's to approve as many as we can that meet the minimum quality requirements, so people get the opportunity to share their wonderful AI creations with the rest of the userbase. At the same time, we are a curated imageboard, which means posts that don't meet those standards can't stay up.

We don't do this to be mean, we also don't do this to make anyone feel bad. That's also why we try our best to explain what needs to be fixed when something is removed. Sometimes that's not enough, but more often than not we're met with understanding, and sometimes even gratitude, for pointing out issues the uploader might have missed. We've seen plenty of users improve their workflow and skills over time, go on to make much better gens, and genuinely thank us for helping them get there.

kneiff

Member

mlem said:
we'll often look past minor AI errors if the majority of the image is alright.

Have the policies changed over the last months..? Because that statement does not align with my personal experience… But I see your point. Sadly, it‘s subjective what counts as „not looking for perfection“.

Just let me be clear: your vision of a curated AI image archive is absolutely awesome and I am proud of having a well tagged collection here. Your critique has pushed me as well to improve things that I would have overlooked otherwise. Please do not lower your standards for me.

But that does not change the fact that you can address issues in a way that‘s more friendly. You guys are all super friendly, but your curation process is not, it feels like a sledgehammer, although it does not have to be. You can be nicer while maintaining the same high standard.

I love your idea of collaboration.
Why not make the curation process collaborative? Don‘t delete, you have to write a delete message anyway, so why not just write that as a comment below the image sth like „won‘t get approval because X (feel free to send me a fix so I can replace)“, then let it auto-delete if not fixed, cuz lack of approval. The comment marks the image as „reviewed“ for other janitors. Allow other users to comment and help. Just think about it: This auto-educates other users as they browse new posts, seeing why certain things don‘t meet standards. Having a rolling set of negative examples is very useful for beginners, since the guidelines don‘t cover edge cases. Currently, one learns the hard way by trial and error. This would also fix janitors making mistakes (which happens too often, honestly. Sad but true.), since other users might expose that as well.

That way, the comment section actually gains purpose, and isn‘t just a place for cringe comments (of which I am guilty as well~)

Updated

kalethOrebiter

Privileged

kneiff said:
he comment marks the image as „reviewed“ for other janitors.

Many problems with that:

1. You're proposing to use 2 separate system unoptimally (the comment section and the acceptation pipeline). Using the acceptation system only as a simple garbage collector, and replace it with the comment section.
Which means

  • Janitors will lose the ability to leave janitor-only-notes for other janitors when they feel on the fence about approval/unapproval.
  • Anyone can comment on a post first and you can not filter posts on who commented. Which means:
    • Janitors will have to open all posts and read all comments just to know if a janitor reviewed a post.
  • There's over 4k posts monthly, so that means janitors will have to keep tab of "waiting for fix" posts among a ton of other yet-unreviewed making it extremely likely that some posts will just fall through.

kneiff said:

Allow other users to comment and help. Just think about it: This auto-educates other users as they browse new posts, seeing why certain things don‘t meet standards. Having a rolling set of negative examples is very useful for beginners, since the guidelines don‘t cover edge cases. Currently, one learns the hard way by trial and error. This would also fix janitors making mistakes (which happens too often, honestly. Sad but true.), since other users might expose that as well.

That way, the comment section actually gains purpose, and isn‘t just a place for cringe comments (of which I am guilty as well~)

That's well and good if all member stayed level headed all the time, but it's not the case. So now you open the janitor review pipeline to stuff going from group push back to public lynching.

kneiff

Member

kalethorebiter said:
Many problems with that:

Ok, no comment section then.

You convinced me that this ain‘t fixable without some degree of dev work.

Let‘s assume I learn ruby and would implement shit by pull request:

What would be a workflow that would satisfy both my needs and those of the janitors that requires minimal changes to your habits or code?
It basically boils down to implementing a stage or marker between uploading and instant delete.
Would that stage be a flag? A locked tag? Would the image remain publicly viewable (would be helpful so the user can ask for help in the comments)?

Just for clarity:
I don‘t understand why janitors would need to keep tab on „waiting for fix“. They would not wait for anything. They react to those users that DM them (which are not a lot). The rest would get auto deleted.

kalethOrebiter

Privileged

kneiff said:
Just for clarity:
I don‘t understand why janitors would need to keep tab on „waiting for fix“. They would not wait for anything. They react to those users that DM them (which are not a lot). The rest would get auto deleted.

To not revisit the same post again and again; You have to remember which post you unapproved. Then you also need to communicate that to every other staff members so they know that a post as been reviewed (Or not do it and let each janitor discover the post has been reviewed by reading the comment section).

tyto4tme4l

Member

If you want to keep your "curated gallery" approach, then I've seen a solution that I feel is a good compromise. On aibooru.online, posts that are not approved, get a "deleted" status, but stay on the site. By default, they are not visible, but users can opt in to see them. This way, you keep your "curated gallery" look, and people who don't mind the small mistakes can see these unapproved posts.

kneiff

Member

kalethorebiter said:
To not revisit the same post again and again; You have to remember which post you unapproved.

Ah I see, yeah that's the flaw of using the comment section to mark for the "under_review" stage. There is a command to sort for comment count, but strangely, they exclude unapproved images, to that won't work (that might be an easy code-fix though).

Soooo what would you recommend as an "intermediate stage" between upload and instant deletion?
- "under_review", "needs_fix", "waiting_for_fix", "fix_requested", "unfinished", "not_good_enough", lol
- We need some easy way for janitors to filter those out.
- Locked tag? Flag?
- A button to enable the user to exchange the image, once under that stage?

Should I make a new thread for this type of brainstorm?

tyto4tme4l said:
that are not approved, get a "deleted" status, but stay on the site.

Finally, someone with ideas! One issue I see is that it might be too easy to get overwhelmed with garbage in a few years, once the available AI-tools get more accessible. Also, the idea was more to encourage people to fix their mistakes and give them the tools to do so, since currently "instant_deletion" feels like a permanent rejection (which is clearly a miscommunication).

Aacafah

Member

Alright, I don't think there's much more I can add, but I'll draw attention to one thing.

kneiff said:
As I said previously, there's no need to implement anything. Just tell you janitors to DM before deleting, at least for special cases (e.g. high effort videos).

As you might have noticed, while I do work alongside them, I'm not e6ai staff, and I don't tell them what to do. If implemented, this would require janitors to change how they handle their approval process. They seem to have indicated that they don't see much point in doing so (though I don't speak for them), and since this could be achieved solely by them changing their policy, I really think their desire to engage is your greatest barrier, not the implementation (although your implementation could well influence their willingness to engage, of course).

kneiff said:

As previously said, I am unfamiliar with your tech-stack, so I neither do ruby, nor javascript (yet)

It was ambiguous whether you were unfamiliar with part of our tech stack or the whole thing; given that, it's reasonable to clarify, just in case an individual unfamiliar with a relatively niche language like Ruby might be more comfortable with a more widely-known programming language like JavaScript.

Edit:
Oh, almost forgot; I do intend (when I find the time) to have users automatically receive a DMail when their uploads are rejected. If I allowed the message to be configured to clarify that it's not an out & out rejection, & that they can replace it, etc. would you consider that sufficient?

Updated

kneiff

Member

j_mor said:
I really think their desire to engage is your greatest barrier, not the implementation.

Yeah, I can see why it's a bad idea having Janitors DM users. Currently, the brainstorm is more about properly communicating and offering options to replace the "deleted"/"rejected" image with a fixed one.

j_mor said:
it's reasonable to clarify, just in case an individual unfamiliar with a relatively niche language like Ruby might be more comfortable with a more widely-known programming language like JavaScript.

Ah I see. I'm a full-time software dev, just not for ruby or javascript. But learning either should go fast in my case.

j_mor said:
users automatically receive a DMail when their uploads are rejected. If I allowed the message to be configured to clarify that it's not an out & out rejection, & that they can replace it, etc. would you consider that sufficient?

This is big progress:
- Deleting someone's work without notifying them is very unpolite and definitely needs to be fixed (that includes every post, even those that break TOS).
- Properly communicating what a deletion actually means is important. For a deleted post that's easily fixed by current tools, the message should make clear that a deletion is not a permanent "throw in the garbage bin", but should motivate the user to fix a minor mistake. The message should mention that the image is still in the database along with favs and upvotes (sadly, those stupid numbers do matter), and that it can be replaced and re-published. The message should also explain next-steps, what technologies would fix the issue (inpainting, proper upscaling, etc.), what resources there are to seek technical help (discord servers/channels), how to DM the respective janitor.
- This could alleviate the pain of being thrown into the same bucket of "does not meet quality standards" as other low-effort posts.

Is it sufficient?
- Yes, proper communication could alleviate my issue with "deletion feels very harsh".
- However, janitors might face more replacement requests, adding workload. So on the long term, one might need to implement that "needs_fix" status that gives users access to the "replace image"-button which would also reset the status to "pending" upon replacement. That way, janitors don't have to replace images for the users.