[X] My Assistant

Question:
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1710057/680731e069/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1710395/5a27b694d5/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1710812/f3097a3bda/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1710844/103b8f82b8/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1710976/c722f12282/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1711111/ea639ae12c/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1711112/974763b338/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1733474/57ae3ee12a/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1748080/aa0c278ed2/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1770092/618610ba5f/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1790898/f107d4b17a/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1709463/888fe09c8f/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1709905/3ba728e960/

All these got expunged for the non-thematic reason etc. Yet nobody bothered to combine them. Not the uploader, not the expungers. Are these actually valid expunges, since shouldn't an artist's monthly uncensored patreon content be considered a theme? Is it now a free-for-all to combine them and upload it all, or is there some kind of time limit? Because right now it seems like a colossal waste.

This post has been edited by chaos-x: Jun 21 2021, 23:34

Are these actually valid expunges, since shouldn't an artist's monthly uncensored patreon content be considered a theme? Is it now a free-for-all to combine them and upload it all, or is there some kind of time limit? Because right now it seems like a colossal waste.

We are currently discussing whether we should be revising the way we are enforcing the ruling atm, but yeah, anyone is free to download and combine them themselves.

In fact, I would strongly recommend the expunge community doing so before submitting the petitions.

We are currently discussing whether we should be revising the way we are enforcing the ruling atm, but yeah, anyone is free to download and combine them themselves.

In fact, I would strongly recommend the expunge community doing so before submitting the petitions.

Another one: http://ehentaihip.com/g/1931442/257aec6c4f/

I'd say applying this ruling to all the galleries I've listed is just outright overkill. At the very least there should be a combined replacement gallery available to justify the expunges, because the way this is being handled right now is just preposterously stupid. Uncensored high-quality galleries are basically "gone" due to an arbitrary rule, instead all we're left with is censored crap, great job, totally worth it guys, 10/10!

If nobody else wants to bother combining them, I guess I could when I have the time. But this rule really needs thinking over.

If nobody else wants to bother combining them

That is the core of the issue. It is cheaper effort-wise to just dump 137 imagesets of random crap and then hope that half of them survive rather than cleaning up someone's else mess.

We do not want to end in the opposite situation where one can say that every daily release by an artist is a valid gallery. I'm leaning toward allowing the galleries such as you link into the Artist CG category and then make a technical tag to separate them from stuff such as DLsite CGs.

Are these actually valid expunges, since shouldn't an artist's monthly uncensored patreon content be considered a theme?

Nah, we don't consider release dates as a theme currently.
That's very arbitrary and much more difficult to check.

Is it now a free-for-all to combine them and upload it all, or is there some kind of time limit?

Anyone can feel free to combine and upload them.
Imagesets don't have superior versions in the first place.

All these got expunged for the non-thematic reason etc. Yet nobody bothered to combine them. Not the uploader, not the expungers.

Because right now it seems like a colossal waste.

IMO, some of the actions and intentions involved veer dangerously close to point farming at this point.
Of the expungers involved, some of them would never fully combine those galleries themselves because of their content.

That is the core of the issue. It is cheaper effort-wise to just dump 137 imagesets of random crap and then hope that half of them survive rather than cleaning up someone's else mess.

We do not want to end in the opposite situation where one can say that every daily release by an artist is a valid gallery. I'm leaning toward allowing the galleries such as you link into the Artist CG category and then make a technical tag to separate them from stuff such as DLsite CGs.

I offered a similar solution a long time ago.

A compromise can be made where separate imagesets can be uploaded (as Imageset, not ArtistCG) as long as they have an image or information in the description or even comments that can prove it was actually sold as a whole.

This both improves searchability and lessens the burden on an uploader to upload these very desired content in one large collection, which often comes to multiple gigabytes and hundreds of images due to the current trends which, frankly, do not seem to be stopping.

To me, the content is more in line with imagesets than artist CGs, so it should be categorized as such, but exempted from combinations.

This post has been edited by pork:zero: Jun 22 2021, 08:27

This discussion probably will take a while to sort with, so topic split.

Tbh, I never liked how we are enforcing the non-thematically split imageset expunges in the first place.

I get the idea of trying to control the GP farming apocalypse (that was pretty much initiated and escalated by someone trying to "prove a point™" mind you), but I genuinely believe that a valid combined gallery should exist first before any of such expunges can happen in the first place. Otherwise, we risk losing access to the content whenever the uploader decided to just "ok, fuck you all, I'll just delete this thing". The way that the ruling is enforced right now is kinda like nuking an entire city just because it hosts a few psychotic murderers.

This also extends to compilations as well. Hell, a while ago 10b even said that we should be splitting them first before firing any expunge petition:

If the parts aren't separately available they should probably be added before the compilation is expunged..

That's not how it was handled for the past decade
https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Expunging#Already_Uploaded

It's never too late to correct a bad habit?

I offered a similar solution a long time ago.

A compromise can be made where separate imagesets can be uploaded (as Imageset, not ArtistCG) as long as they have an image or information in the description or even comments that can prove it was actually sold as a whole.

This both improves searchability and lessens the burden on an uploader to upload these very desired content in one large collection, which often comes to multiple gigabytes and hundreds of images due to the current trends which, frankly, do not seem to be stopping.

To me, the content is more in line with imagesets than artist CGs, so it should be categorized as such, but exempted from combinations.

Issue being is that it is sometimes extremely difficult to check whether a set of content was actually sold in a store (or how it was sold). Whenever the artist decided to take down the purchase link entirely, it's pretty much impossible to confirm that it was distributed as a complete set.

I did sleep over it and I am still believe we can use Artist CG. We'd change the Artist CG def and western cg def from

CODE

Must depict a sequence of events or be sold / distributed as a whole

to

CODE

Must depict one or more sequence(s) of events (e.g. a [variant set] or several sets) and be sold or distributed as a whole.

NOTE: An omake or a single extraneous image does not disqualify the gallery.
NOTE: Remember that several sets in a single gallery do not qualify for misc:variant set.
NOTE: The ruling is *not* retroactive as of "year"

(the notes are for the discussion page)

The tricky change is the fact that something does not need to be from an official store anymore and we focus more on the content rather than provenance. On the other hand we will disqualify some old artist cgs, hence such a change will not be retroactive. And we need to figure how old the ruling can be, I'd say anything older than 2015 should not be reclassified.

https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Expunging#Already_Uploaded

Compilaiton: At least 1 source must be provided if the source has already been posted. Alternatively, at least 1 portion of the gallery that requires separation must be specified.

That part was added for a reason. There is no easy way to just combine the galleries, you have to download and reupload, especially with western patreon dumps, that stuff easily hits multiple gigabytes (I myself sit on 10mbit/s upload, do the math). That's quite the time investment, especially since imagesets hold very little value to many people.

I'm leaning toward allowing the galleries such as you link into the Artist CG category and then make a technical tag to separate them from stuff such as DLsite CGs.

ArtistCG is polluted enough already and those are basically just monthy dumps from their subscription sites.

Only skimmed, but:

Im not keen on changing any imageset content to artist cg, it's more about the categorisation than for the sake of using the other categories rules to enforce something (and those rules won't work so simply)

A collection of loose images is just that. Even if we make them cg, they would still be expungeable, we don't allow compiling separate works like that in general.

I don't really understand the difference between a dlsite collection of loose images over something like a patreon one, its based on the content and how it was distributed, a dlsite work that is a collection of loose images is still just that.

As for replacing them, while they are considered an imageset like gallery (note: this is not limited to being in the imageset category), this cannot be done by anyone but the uploader. Imagesets may never be sniped by another user, so a replacement except by the current uploader can't happen within the current imageset rules. To do so we'd need to discuss changing that rule adding an exception, but the end result will just likely be uploaders with free reign because there's far more of those than there are people with the time and willingness to sift through and combine them, leaving many galleries unexpungeable. It has some issues with other rules, such as an uploader who has his galleries replaced by a combined one may not actually combine his until the artist (should he do so) create more work, since combining them exactly 1:1 with another gallery is expungeable as already uploaded (and by the rules, he must combine everything if he does)

If we did go with the artist cg route, I'd really want to see what rulings to prevent expunge wars there'd be, because I can already see pork:zero when he's back uploading and pokom replacing the same 2 galleries a dozen times for every single image added, and doing the same across hundreds of artist galleries, this is preventable somewhat while they are considered imagesets and not cg.

There would also be constant reclassing, assuming we allowed the variant compilations (I don't support this), a single image reclasses it back to imageset, until enough variants of it are added to put it back to cg....until an image puts it back into imageset.... (and one loose image done by the artist if added is enough to force it to stay into imageset, since we don't allow removing of valid content, esp. for the sake of reclassing it)

Bearing in mind outside of covers/omakes etc 1 image is enough to disqualify a variant.

The artist cg rules aren't really designed to handle this, allowing normal variant sets is painful enough and headache causing already, so I'm personally not that keen on the idea. That said, I have only skimmed and I could be missing the point, sorry if thats the case

edit: bit stressed and used harsher language than I actually mean, tried toning it back a bit

This post has been edited by Shank: Jun 22 2021, 21:45

Alternatively, I guess we can remove the ability for the uploaders to completely delete an upload. That way the content will be preserved no matter what.

(I was suggested to take this to here)

It appears that the user Pokom is abusing this expunge ruling to keep imagesets of at least one artist hidden from the site, in favor of keeping up actively inferior pixiv sets which they uploaded earlier.

Example ImageSet: (removed because grouped as a monthly gumroad sale which is not a valid combination)
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1911060/987260c80d/

Pokoms split (inferior) sets of the example set thrown in ArtistCG:
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1889110/c00722c29d/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1892620/98f92e8756/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1896711/3cf06e70c4/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1898709/435381eed6/

I can trace this behavior back further if desired (it happened with another one the previous month).

All but two of the sets in the example sets have currently visible inferior versions while the full version is removed (the other two are basically completely expunged from the site). The uploader of the example set does meanwhile not appear to be aware of this rule and Pokoms expunges are counterproductive to keeping the full sets available as they do not appear to be interested in uploading the full sets.

Something probably ought to be done about this.

This post has been edited by mistakenPseudonym: Jun 23 2021, 03:21

I did sleep over it and I am still believe we can use Artist CG. We'd change the Artist CG def and western cg def from

CODE

Must depict a sequence of events or be sold / distributed as a whole

to

CODE

Must depict one or more sequence(s) of events (e.g. a [variant set] or several sets) and be sold or distributed as a whole.

NOTE: An omake or a single extraneous image does not disqualify the gallery.
NOTE: Remember that several sets in a single gallery do not qualify for misc:variant set.
NOTE: The ruling is *not* retroactive as of "year"

(the notes are for the discussion page)

The tricky change is the fact that something does not need to be from an official store anymore and we focus more on the content rather than provenance. On the other hand we will disqualify some old artist cgs, hence such a change will not be retroactive. And we need to figure how old the ruling can be, I'd say anything older than 2015 should not be reclassified.

To be honest I like this idea. In the beggining i kinda tought this was how it was, "a combination of many (disconected) variant sets was itself a variant set, so the artist cg/western cg was the correct tagging/categorization". Conversing with Shank one day he explained me that it should be a image set, and that's how I tag it now, but it always bothers me ever so slightly.
I really don't know it it would change things for better of for worse by implementing it.
I just feel that the sentence 'if its possible to split a gallery's content into smaller galleries and all of them are variant sets, the whole should also be' sounds natural and logical to me.

It appears that the user Pokom is abusing this expunge ruling to keep imagesets of at least one artist hidden from the site, in favor of keeping up actively inferior pixiv sets which they uploaded earlier.

The problem discussed is the opposite. Pokom adds the images to his imagesets and then expunges. As much as that can be dubious behaviour, if every expunger did that I'd be reasonably happy with the results. The last thing we want are expunge and GP wars, no one will police those.

The issue is that content can be expunged and later deleted/lost when someone uploads and does not combine the galleries at all.

And finally the counter issue is that if we just allow these "parteon from last saturday" galleries to exist on their own we will have hundreds of them a day in no time. We are after a solution for both problems, and a solution that does not require people policing galleries.

The problem discussed is the opposite. Pokom adds the images to his imagesets and then expunges. As much as that can be dubious behaviour, if every expunger did that I'd be reasonably happy with the results. The last thing we want are expunge and GP wars, no one will police those.

The issue is that content can be expunged and later deleted/lost when someone uploads and does not combine the galleries at all.

And finally the counter issue is that if we just allow these "parteon from last saturday" galleries to exist on their own we will have hundreds of them a day in no time. We are after a solution for both problems, and a solution that does not require people policing galleries.

Except he quite literally (as I demonstrated with the gallery links, which are/were the active versions at the time of writing) doesn't. He expunges them but keeps the low quality images he uploaded himself up.

Those sets were the "preview" posts the artist put out on pixiv. He re-uploaded them when they were posted on pixiv. It's why his sets are ~4-6 images (in and of itself only skimping by because they're samples) and the actual complete sets are upwards of 40 images (more in most cases).

He doesn't combine galleries at all here, he's just nuking them. As for motivations, at a glance, it appears that Pokom has been caught in the past doing skeezy stuff to get ahead on the toplists ( /index.php?showtopic=240024 ). Merely spamming imagesets is one thing, but he's actually removing content here, probably to get more ArtistCG visits.

I'm not particularly advocating for keeping monthly packs (in this case, it's actual gumroad packs that I would say are comparable-ish to some dlsite packs I've seen that go in artist cg, they just happen to be named by month since they're artist combinations of the packs), but Pokom is straight up abusing the ruling to manipulate GP/toplists. (Originally I was assuming good faith but earlier attempts to manipulate points give me less benefit of the doubt here.)

This post has been edited by mistakenPseudonym: Jun 23 2021, 04:37

This thread's title is not "complaining about Pokom". Hence, if you are not offering a solution to the discussed problem you may do better to keep that to yourself.

You're free to make a thread "complaining about Pokom" but it is not this thread.

Except he quite literally (as I demonstrated with the gallery links, which are/were the active versions at the time of writing) doesn't. He expunges them but keeps the low quality images he uploaded himself up.

Holy shit, this guy has more than 10.000 galleries posted!
Anyway, If the galleries he posts have images with lower quality than the ones he is petiting to expunge, doesn't that mean that the ones getting expunged shouldn't be expunged to begin with?
I mean, even with the no splitting rule, the ones with higher quality should still have a good reason to not be expunged, right?

Even if we somehow banned the user from the site, these galleries are still expungable based on the current ruling. Hence the "how others treat or exploit the gallery system has nothing to do with the petitions" part.

Anyway, If the galleries he posts have images with lower quality than the ones he is petiting to expunge, doesn't that mean that the ones getting expunged shouldn't be expunged to begin with?
I mean, even with the no splitting rule, the ones with higher quality should still have a good reason to not be expunged, right?

There is no "higher quality" imageset. Please read the guidelines carefully: https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Expunging#Different_Versions

Even if we care about "quality"/"completeness" for imagesets, the expunges had nothing to do with it. They were expunged solely because we currently don't allow monthly split imagesets.

Even if we somehow banned the user from the site, these galleries are still expungable based on the current ruling. Hence the "how others treat or exploit the gallery system has nothing to do with the petitions" part.

Even if we care about "quality"/"completeness" for imagesets, the expunges had nothing to do with it. They were expunged solely because we currently don't allow monthly split imagesets.

I know that, but i still think that if a splitted gallery has 'higher quality images', it would be a acceptable excuse not to expunge it 'yet', and wait for those images to get added to a not splitted gallery before expunging it.

Unless the reason for it being how it is is to prevent GP gridding.

This post has been edited by romanicyte: Jun 23 2021, 05:14

The problem discussed is the opposite. Pokom adds the images to his imagesets and then expunges.

Not all of them, that is for certain. That's more of a pain in the butt than fully including or excluding them.

I mean, even with the no splitting rule, the ones with higher quality should still have a good reason to not be expunged, right?

In many cases, no. It's complex.

Alternatively, I guess we can remove the ability for the uploaders to completely delete an upload. That way the content will be preserved no matter what.

That would probably be very inconvenient for uploaders that frequently upload non-imageset content.
A mechanic could be added to restrict deletion based on conditions, but that would be putting more strain on dev time.

----------------

As for any changes to rules to deal with this, I would recommend a few things:

1. Keep such galleries as imagesets

It's not worth the headache to reclass them.
There will be a lot of wasted time dealing with expunges and quality comparisons.
Patreon/Gumroad/whatever packs are not transparent most of the time, so there is plenty of difficulty up front.
The exceptions imagesets have is to avoid such headaches.

The last thing we want are expunge and GP wars, no one will police those.

Moving such galleries out of imagesets would invite point wars, because imagesets are exempt from "superior" replacements.

2. Considering whether it should be retroactive, and if so, how far back.

There are a huge amount of galleries that have been expunged as part of this ruling.
Some galleries have also been combined, and some have not. We have to consider those as well.
Either we have to go back, hope the galleries aren't deleted, and appeal them, or we have to just move forward.

We do not want to end in the opposite situation where one can say that every daily release by an artist is a valid gallery.

And finally the counter issue is that if we just allow these "parteon from last saturday" galleries to exist on their own we will have hundreds of them a day in no time.

This situation already exists with Pixiv samples. Are those fine? Should they be fine?
When the former (rightfully) should not be allowed, but the latter is, this seems an awful lot like a system characterized by its abuse by people who only want to see their numbers get bigger.

I have my own grievance with the existing rules because uploading a dozen "samples" of work that effectively won't ever have full versions (because they are released as image sets and image sets can't replace bogus artist CGs) is actively detrimental to everyone but the point farmer.


Maybe things fulltagged sample should give no toplist gains. I'm sure that will solve things.