artist_revision

Looks like this thing starts getting out of hand that I personally received concerns from users about it (main problem being older versions of the same image not flagged for deletion by uploaders of the revised versions).

If there isn't any automatic mechanisms to be deployed to deal with the mess it's created, then please discuss if this needs to stop or not.

I add to this if is possible to put a limit on the amount of pixiv post because it already seems to become a daily spam.. example, see the hold images, sometimes it seems that they even surpass a pool of scans

IMO it should only be used when both versions are kept, and we should only keep both versions if the change is substantial (and when it is not obvious that one is *not finished*).

fireattack said:
IMO it should only be used when both versions are kept, and we should only keep both versions if the change is substantial (and when it is not obvious that one is *not finished*).

So if the change is very difficult to see one of the images must be deleted? for example post #558375 if I didn't read the comments I didn't notice it, keeping both of them for such a small change seems ridiculous to me, I even tagged that as duplicate because I didn't see the difference the first time

Nepcoheart said:
So if the change is very difficult to see one of the images must be deleted? for example post #558375 if I didn't read the comments I didn't notice it, keeping both of them for such a small change seems ridiculous to me, I even tagged that as duplicate because I didn't see the difference the first time

Yes, that is a good example of where post #558374 should be deleted, since it contains a minor error which the artist fixed in post #558375.

I wouldn't say obviousness is the deciding factor, but rather is the new revision is fixing an error, is the fix objectively an improvement, and is there merit to keeping the original for artistic reasons.

These aren't the type of things which would be double-deleted anyway, so it's not like they'd disappear forever even if not visible on the index or default searches.

Nepcoheart said:
I add to this if is possible to put a limit on the amount of pixiv post because it already seems to become a daily spam.. example, see the hold images, sometimes it seems that they even surpass a pool of scans

First off is this referring to pivix post made via artist revision or just in general? If it's the latter you would have to put a limit onto the uploaders for that to work.

Cyberbeing said:
I wouldn't say obviousness is the deciding factor, but rather is the new revision is fixing an error, is the fix objectively an improvement, and is there merit to keeping the original for artistic reasons.

Can you expand on that? What do you mean by objectively improvement?

fireattack said:
IMO it should only be used when both versions are kept, and we should only keep both versions if the change is substantial (and when it is not obvious that one is *not finished*).

AKA if I'm required to use Photoshop/GIMP just to find the difference between them since just eyeballing them isn't enough, then different between them is not enough to just delete the original or in some case even upload to begin with.

To me, the general idea is that keeping old version should only be the exception the not the norm.

If there is no strong reason, old revision should just be replaced by default.

(Of course, talking only about digital released images.)

Mr_GT said:
Can you expand on that? What do you mean by objectively an improvement?

Only that the revised image didn't create any new problems compared to the original, and the image quality remains similar or better (resolution, file size, etc).

In cases where nothing was wrong with the original image, yet it was revised with new elements added, recoloring, and/or significant redrawing, those could fall under subjective changes where there may be artistic merit to keep both original and revised.

If the original and revised appear identical at quick glance, may as well keep only the new version unless someone identifies an actual reason why the original was superior. For the purpose of moderation in this case, I'd see no harm with a remove first, check later policy.