...How is there a double standard? I was specifically told not to worry about the really old posts on this site, and that there was no need to go back and delete things. I don't like some of the old stuff at all. There are lots of terrible quality images and poorly drawn images from back in the day. I know it doesn't align with our current levels of quality, but most people don't even look at those images anymore.

And I have no attachment to...however this place used to be. That was before I was even a member here or even knew about this place. So I have no opinion on the posts of past member's OCs.

As for the mascot, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at. All four images featuring Shirakawa Kona are of good quality (and in PNG format which is even better). Two of them were uploaded by people who get automatic approval (an Admin and another Mod). The other two were edits user Dummy made specifically for this site.
Ok, here we go...

Septentrion_P said:
I hope you all enjoy your post anime Konachan. Just look at the year post popular images. Safe rated pictures were purge long ago, but now even the questionable ones have been shoved out of that page.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The ratio of Safe to Explicit posts on this site is opposite of what the "popular" page might suggest. 72% of our posts are Safe and less than 9% are Explicit.

So are you saying we should dump all the safe and questionable images because they aren't popular? You want this to be a wallpaper site that only has explict images?

Or we're you just complaining to us about what the public searches for the most? It sounds like you're just looking for something/anything to complain about, even if it's just public preference.

It's not unusual for explicit content to be the most popular on any site that hosts a mixture of safe and explicit content. But not every site has to prioritize explicit content.

Septentrion_P said:
And of course, people being up this stagnant community. Such culture: we keep crappy images from the dark anime age. Such historical value to about 12 people. The users don't even need to be considered with historical inconsistency.
-----
and the mods like the historical pictures.
No, the mods dislike much of the old images. Tell me, do you see a point in having mods spend a month deleting a mere 1% or less of the images that no longer meet our standards, most of which most users would never find anyway? Our standards improve over time and it's ridiculous to try to manage the old posts. There's no good reason to either.

Do you really see them that often if you don't go looking for them? Most are so poorly tagged that you would rarely see them in searches.

Septentrion_P said:
Like, the Jpeg CG shouldn't linger.
Do you see artifacts in that? I do, but they are really hard to see. We are stricter about artifacts in game CGs, but that doesn't mean we'll absolutely never approve them. The amount of artifacts and the quality of the work are both considered. In those two cases, I felt the artifacts were light enough that I could leave them for approval.

One of them I saw as a typical game CG (nothing special). I personally wouldn't approve it unless it were PNG. The other I saw as an above average CG which reminded me of some of Smile's better works. I was tempted to approve that one and probably would have if the artifacts were a bit lighter.

Of course, even if one of those were approved, we would still want someone to replace it with the original if at all possible.

Septentrion_P said:
I can't help but think the deletion rate may be counterproductive. What does the user need in wallpaper. Honestly, if you can't find a jpeg artifact after scanning, it won't bother the typical user while all his/her icons cover the wallpaper. I know score won't save an image. User level quality is what matters to me. Exclusive club level quality is just a source of self-congratulation.
Did you know you can hide icons on the Windows desktop? (Right click > View > Show desktop icons)
You can also disable auto-arrange to place your icons in an appropriate area.

Not everyone is going to care as little about their wallpaper as you do. But yes, most people don't care and most wouldn't notice artifacts.

Do you think this is the only place to get anime wallpapers? Have you tried typing "anime wallpapers" into any search engine? There are tons of places to get them that care less about quality. There may be some that even you would acknowledge as poor quality, but you should be able to find one that's just right for you.

Not every site has to be the same or cater to the same kinds of people. We're a high quality site and a lot of our users are very thankful for that.
Why was post #263745 deleted?
It says under 1,25 ratio but thats not a reason. I uploaded ratio 1,8 here and then and it was approved.

And whats with the image post #254367 also?
It's from 5 months ago and now it's got deleted?
I don't know about the second, but I undeleted the first. It's borderline unacceptable, but we do allow images that are within that range (such as post #196151).
I know right?
It's in the ar guidelines so I wondered.
Thank you, Emmy.
RyuZU said:
post #263810???
Undeleted. We usually only delete that resolution if the overall image quality suffers from being so small, or if it has too much aliasing. Our base minimum is 1000x700, and we do have eight pages of images that are 1000x707.
I personally don't see a problem with post #254367 the general level of aliasing appears minor to me, although I did not inspect every pixel, Zolxys should look at it.
Kiho said:
I personally don't see a problem with post #254367 the general level of aliasing appears minor to me, although I did not inspect every pixel, Zolxys should look at it.
Thank you, Kiho.
Okay let's see what he says about it.
It has a number of minor flaws:
  • Quite a few fill errors in the hair on the left (bits of white just inside the black outlines).
  • A fair amount of aliasing in some places (most noticeable in the hair on the right, the eyebrows, and parts of the eyes).
  • A length of the outline for her left thigh does not quite line up with the edge of the thigh.
There's nothing so bad that I would have deleted it on sight. But overall, it looks like a slightly rushed work without much attention to detail.
Good evening,

just wanted to know why are images from 2 months ago getting deleted yet?
And not in the time I uploaded them before.

For example: post #253507 post #261215
Apparently they're upscaled. Even if they were uncensored, the upscaling still wouldn't be acceptable.

I'm not sure why people who decensor game CGs also upscale them. That seems to be a "thing".

RyuZu can actually see and tell if something's been upscaled. Since I have a hard time telling with CGs, he actually has to point it out at times.
BattlequeenYume said:
Why was post #263745 deleted?
It says under 1,25 ratio but thats not a reason. I uploaded ratio 1,8 here and then and it was approved.
An AR of 1.8 is above, not below 1.25.

And whats with the image post #254367 also?
It's from 5 months ago and now it's got deleted?
Did you read the reason why it got deleted? Non uniform aliasing. There are soft lines in that image (anti-aliased) but also sharp ones (aliased). Though, I'd have a chat with other mods about that certain one.

Edit: actually scratch that, Kiho and Zolxys already gave their opinion about that second post.
otaku_emmy said:
Apparently they're upscaled. Even if they were uncensored, the upscaling still wouldn't be acceptable.

I'm not sure why people who decensor game CGs also upscale them. That seems to be a "thing".

RyuZu can actually see and tell if something's been upscaled. Since I have a hard time telling with CGs, he actually has to point it out at times.
Okay, I understand :<
It's a post from 5 years, but if any moderator agrees undelete the post #143953 since it is the original version and transfer the votes from post #144016, I suppose it was deleted by the user himself and then for some reason he uploaded an upscaled/skewed ar... version.
Wanted to know what the problem was with post #265053 and post #265039.
My reasons for not approving these two posts (other mods may have different reasons):
  • post #265039 - the line work is really bad.
  • post #265053 - I don't see anything glaring with the quality, but the crop is awkward with the left knee being cut partly off.
1. Illustrious' arm is waaaaaay too long.
2. The line work.
Okay thank you.
So sad they are overall so beautiful.
some mod can undelete the post #265295? I was precipitate.
Post #265380
Is the one boy really this close to the girls crotch that this
makes it explicit?
He is close, yes, but I don't think it makes it to explicit rating.
What do the other mods thinking?

Edit:
Must say I didn't noticed him before.
His nose/mouth is right against her private parts. The whole image is rather.....off putting, but to me that pushed it over the edge.

It's a very sexual position for children to be in.
BattlequeenYume said:
Post #265380
Is the one boy really this close to the girls crotch that this
makes it explicit?
He is close, yes, but I don't think it makes it to explicit rating.
What do the other mods thinking?

Edit:
Must say I didn't noticed him before.
The one in the middle has a transparent panty too, and I don't think my eye is deceiving me.
Shizko said:
The one in the middle has a transparent panty too, and I don't think my eye is deceiving me.
It is a bit. You can just make out the....line of it, and it doesn't look like normal camel toe.
I'm slowly losing the motivation to upload pictures here.

Is this after nine years membership only my feeling, or have the people here become a little too accurate?
For example: I upload one in my opinion good a good pictures here. And someone with a magnifying glass yells "jpeg artifacts !".
A short time later, the picture is deleted. That's something irritating.
I'm sorry, didn't want to upset you.
(You uploaded again an image that I wanted to upload before. It's not that I going to all your uploads and searching for them)

For me I am looking so much for jpeg artifact now, bc at the beginning, so much of my Images got deleted bc of them.
And I never said that the artifacts where too much, just a mod decided to deleted it..
Imo it would be really unfair too, if your images would stay with to much jpeg artifacts (just an example) and mine or images from other users got deleted.

(Not really a good english speaker here but I hope you could understand what am I trying to say.)
BattlequeenYume said:
I'm sorry, didn't want to upset you...
You were not meant to be directly involved with that. It is only a personal feeling, as it has developed here in the years.

And i´m using a Translator for most of the text too (-;
It seems perfecly meant for me bc many of the things you said matches with things I've done. But I'm really happy that i wasn't especially the "problem" here. :3

But, for the future:
If anything I've done or said upsed you, please inform me.
People can't upload things with too many jpeg artifacts. It's okay if an image has them and they're not very noticeable, but sometimes you upload images with really bad artifacting. As in they're clearly present and easy to see at a quick glance. There's no "magnification" or anything needed because they stick out so much.

I've had things deleted for the same reason. It's nothing personal. We can't let other people upload things with excessive artifacts, and just because you get automatic approval doesn't mean you should try to either. It wouldn't be fair to give people special treatment in regards to what they upload.

I suggest that if you find an image in the future with obvious and heavy artifacting, try cleaning it up a little with waifu (while not upscaling it, of course).