Details
Posted Date: 07/08/2013
Approved Date: 07/08/2013
Approved By: MarkM
Posted By: Envi
Artist: N/A
Image Details


1351398713095.jpg

docwholigan 7/9/2013 6:02:49 AM Rating: 0

I have my low quality filter set off. This shows up. Not a slight on the artist, but a comment on how arbitrary the quality filter is. No two users seem to agree on any one picture. Furry and male is nice and clear cut; quality is no particular objective standard.
Envi 7/9/2013 1:27:10 PM Rating: 0

i was wondering myself since i seen some i felt were more HQ an were on the medium setting. i guess the setting thing needs to be refined a bit xD guess in time

maybe we could have a system to let the uses vote on it an the mods can make the change to it or something. but i feel that could be unfair then too.
docwholigan 7/9/2013 1:55:20 PM Rating: 0

It's not that I even think the filters are necessarily a bad idea, so I apologise if the criticism came off as harsh. With the tags for furry and male content, they're concrete and absolute - there's a dick in the picture one way or another.

With quality, it's entirely subjective. I've seen works praised I thought weren't particularly good, and likewise seen intense debate about 'how good' something was when contributed by the community's greats. If anything, I think this highlights when there's too many buttons. I know 2.0 is coming, and personally would suggest a user-defined blacklist rather than this row of yes/no entries down the sidebar.

Really just my two cents (though nobody asked ssssshhh).
Envi 7/9/2013 4:29:27 PM Rating: 0

i understand that MarkM, just need the how to book to come in for it i can see how you are winging on some and i can fully agree with Doc, on how we all have are own thoughts on how an image looks to us. im sure there will be some set way of saying HQ MQ LQ