Just curiously checking the flagged posts page, and I found some of the flag reason with "Anatomy check". Is this allowed? Because IIRC the legit flagging reason that is related about anatomy is only for bad proportions/anatomy. "Anatomy check" maybe too weak to be a reason? It's just like another form to say "Gee this post sucks, might as well flag it with anything sounds legit enough and make it get deleted".

Isn't "anatomy check" just "bad anatomy" with less confidence?

"Quality check" flags and the like aren't really a way of saying you think a post should be deleted, but that it's borderline content and the mods should give it a second look. It's about as neutral as a flag gets.

fossilnix said:

Isn't "anatomy check" just "bad anatomy" with less confidence?

The problem is that this reason is too much used on relatively "logical" pic. For example, a pic with hanging large/huge breasts. For some people, this kind of pic seems too awkward because, well, they perceived that pic isn't proportionate enough for human body. Hence the reason is used.

feline_lump said:

"Quality check" flags and the like aren't really a way of saying you think a post should be deleted, but that it's borderline content and the mods should give it a second look. It's about as neutral as a flag gets.

That is true for quality check, but for anatomy check it's ambiguous at best, for bad perspective can be easily mistaken as bad anatomy.

"Anatomy check" should not be used without description of what anatomy is out of place just like any flag should have some kind of detailing in terms of what it's pointing out. Otherwise I don't see why they'd be frowned upon.

People in general ought to stop thinking of flags as horribly bad things. They are not an insult to the uploader, they aren't some kind of antagonistic attempt to ruin the site or murder all the good art, they're just a request for a first or second approver opinion on the image. If you don't want to use a moderated art gallery, Gelbooru's still around.

OOZ662 said:

"Anatomy check" should not be used without description of what anatomy is out of place just like any flag should have some kind of detailing in terms of what it's pointing out. Otherwise I don't see why they'd be frowned upon.

This is the kind of "anatomy check" that I mean. Thankfully several of those flags already got resolved.

OOZ662 said:
People in general ought to stop thinking of flags as horribly bad things. They are not an insult to the uploader, they aren't some kind of antagonistic attempt to ruin the site or murder all the good art, they're just a request for a first or second approver opinion on the image. If you don't want to use a moderated art gallery, Gelbooru's still around.

I do not think the flagging is the bad thing. I can counter that with more good posts. What I don't like is the flag reason "anatomy check" and just that. Your first comment is perfectly sum my thoughts.

I would like to mention I wasn't aiming that at you specifically, more at the general knee-jerk that's been happening over the whole site in response to the increase in flags the last few days. I tried to form my post that way but I was distracted by a rack of ribs in the kitchen crying out because they weren't on my BBQ...

I've to agree with feline lump and OOZ662.
I'll use a little description when I use this flag reason then.

Flags are also no tools to say that this post should get deleted. But that they should get a second check if someone is thinking they don't belong here.

Can we turn this topic maybe into a general topic about the usage of flag reasons.
Like one admin gives a quick list what should be used as a flag reason and what is not valid since we don't have a wiki page about howto:flag and the box that appears when flagging only mentions "common" flag reasons.

"Porn" and "loli" are invalid reasons I see often in flagged posts.

Well, I think that this is clear. "Too sexual" is also something I came across with.

I'm more talking about flags on post #2472946 since @Sacriven mentions it.
That means we have multiple tags to describe those things:
bad_anotomy, bad_perspective, error, bad_proportions, bad_feet
Question is: We have those tags. But when is a flag appropriate for this things? Shouldn't all bad anatomies go through the queue and see what will stand at the end or should the image be instantly flagged when such a tag is used (<- horribly idea).
I think that every post should be treated as an individual case here.

Provence said:

Well, I think that this is clear. "Too sexual" is also something I came across with.

I'm more talking about flags on post #2472946 since @Sacriven mentions it.
That means we have multiple tags to describe those things:
bad_anotomy, bad_perspective, error, bad_proportions, bad_feet
Question is: We have those tags. But when is a flag appropriate for this things? Shouldn't all bad anatomies go through the queue and see what will stand at the end or should the image be instantly flagged when such a tag is used (<- horribly idea).
I think that every post should be treated as an individual case here.

I think if the bad anatomy/perspective/proportions/feet/etc. is minuscule and don't affect image's overall value and quality, then it shouldn't be flagged.

We should flag only to those which explicitly shows the "bad" part. Something that makes you not feeling right when seeing those pics.

Provence said:

Well, I think that this is clear. "Too sexual" is also something I came across with.

I'm more talking about flags on post #2472946 since @Sacriven mentions it.
That means we have multiple tags to describe those things:
bad_anotomy, bad_perspective, error, bad_proportions, bad_feet
Question is: We have those tags. But when is a flag appropriate for this things? Shouldn't all bad anatomies go through the queue and see what will stand at the end or should the image be instantly flagged when such a tag is used (<- horribly idea).
I think that every post should be treated as an individual case here.

About to sleep, but I'd say I'd flag them if the 'bad'ness is egregious. Like say, legs are far too short, or something along those lines, or a neck/head is in a completely nonsensical spot like in post #2453615.

Something like post #2469692 would be acceptable to just tag because it's not particularly the main focus of the image (Though it was bad enough to me that I chose not to upload it.)

CodeKyuubi said:

About to sleep, but I'd say I'd flag them if the 'bad'ness is egregious. Like say, legs are far too short, or something along those lines, or a neck/head is in a completely nonsensical spot like in post #2453615.

Something like post #2469692 would be acceptable to just tag because it's not particularly the main focus of the image (Though it was bad enough to me that I chose not to upload it.)

Yes, just like this.

P.S. Dat pic is horrible though. Her head and neck is completely fused.

CodeKyuubi said:

About to sleep, but I'd say I'd flag them if the 'bad'ness is egregious. Like say, legs are far too short, or something along those lines, or a neck/head is in a completely nonsensical spot like in post #2453615.

Something like post #2469692 would be acceptable to just tag because it's not particularly the main focus of the image (Though it was bad enough to me that I chose not to upload it.)

Yes. I'd totally agree with that. And that for every tag that describes bad anatomy etc.

/post_flags

It seems I'm not the only one who got "bad perspective" and "bad foreshortening". We need to keep this checked up.

The vast majority of them are pointing to the body part that they believe to be problematic, so I don't see an issue?

kuuderes_shadow said:

The vast majority of them are pointing to the body part that they believe to be problematic, so I don't see an issue?

Some of their "bad"ness isn't on the level of abomination. Those should be given respective tags instead of flags.

Posted a statement here.