I'm not sure what we should do with poor fixes like these (this is from moeren). It's not just that it's made from our low-quality version instead of from the PNG (which is somewhat recoverable), but the fix itself is very rough.

My worry is that allowing poor fixes like these will discourage people from ever actually fixing the image properly. This half-fix itself isn't very useful for that, as it creates as many problems as it fixes...

That's the purpose of nice_try and jpeg_fix, both considerable reason for deletion.

Maybe keep them tagged with nice_try and jpeg_fix, but take them out of the index? α~ (ー.ー") ンーー

"nice_try" is not a real tag, and JPEG isn't the issue.

petopeto said:
"nice_try" is not a real tag, and JPEG isn't the issue.

Maybe a new fault tag, something like poor_quality_fix? And I suggested taking them out of the index so they're not as easy to find (only via a child post link from the original image(s)) as that would hopefully help with encouraging a proper fix. ┐('〜`；)┌

I still think we really need "nice_try", of course we can change to a more appropriate name.

petopeto said:
"nice_try" is not a real tag, and JPEG isn't the issue.

nice_try was a joke tag and never should be used. Bad fixes, and fixes using lower quality originals, perhaps, should come under the one fault tag.

Any suggestions?

fix also the deficit on the right side of the image please.. (-ω-*)ゞ

Convert a lossless image into a lossy format, of course it is one of the issues. Anyway, poor fixes are usually deleted as now.
Moeren fixes have been always a problem, and no way to influence them.

You still need a collective tag for these faults, why it can't be the nice_try. It was a joke tag indeed, but described fairly the problem.

Radioactive said:
nice_try was a joke tag and never should be used. Bad fixes, and fixes using lower quality originals, perhaps, should come under the one fault tag.

Any suggestions?

incomplete_fix instead of nice_try, or umbrella tag low_quality_fix for jpeg_fix and not so great fix attempts.

Shanyy said:
You still need a collective tag for these faults, why it can't be the nice_try. It was a joke tag indeed, but described fairly the problem.

nice_try is a little mean-spirited. We don't want to discourage people from fixing images. Imagine for a moment you spent an hour or two trying to fix an image only to have it deleted with the reason "nice try". Your reaction probably wouldn't be pretty.

van said:
nice_try is a little mean-spirited. We don't want to discourage people from fixing images. Imagine for a moment you spent an hour or two trying to fix an image only to have it deleted with the reason "nice try". Your reaction probably wouldn't be pretty.

I was going to suggest horrible...

Radioactive said:
I was going to suggest horrible...

(;_;)

I'm fine with incomplete_fix or low_quality_fix. horrible be reserved for the likes of this (explicit). :|

Aurelia said:
I'm fine with incomplete_fix or low_quality_fix. horrible be reserved for the likes of this (explicit). :|

incomplete_fix should be better as the tone is relatively mild. People can be discouraged by low_quality_fix or horrible.

castle said:
incomplete_fix should be better as the tone is relatively mild. People can be discouraged by low_quality_fix or horrible.

Could cause some confusion though, at first read incomplete_fix sounds like the fixer missed a portion of the area being fixed. low_quality_fix while a bit discouraging is more accurate. (￣ω￣)

duplicate on downscaled (or simply just downscaled), spot_error on any scans with small deficits lesser than crease

also I'm thinking to divide scanning_dust into 2 categories: 1). just uncleaned scans having noises all over the image. 2). spot errors (glue, unaccurate crop, hair.. (＞△＜), and so on..) because those processes of fixing are completely different.

Please don't make too many fault tags as it'll be a nuisance to maintain.