Flagging Images

Posted in

#351 by fllthdcrb
2021-01-30 at 12:59
< report >Could it be you're blocking JavaScript? That's required to even load any of the images there. Then again, you have flagged a lot already, so I'm not sure why it would only start now. But you might check the console, at least, to see if there are any errors. I, too, am having no problem.Last modified on 2021-01-30 at 13:05
#352 by Ileca
2021-01-30 at 13:27
< report >Probably not that because blocking JS doesn't allow the whole Image flagging box to show. It's specifically the picture that is not loading, making the box only black, like he said.
#353 by fllthdcrb
2021-01-31 at 08:53
< report >True. Well, watsonw, what happens if you click on the box where the image should be? The box is coded to link to the image, so you should see it as its own page. Do you see the image, or does it show an error? Or does nothing happen?
#354 by Yorhel
2021-01-31 at 09:14
< report >You guys are skipping the most important questions: What browser are you using? Which browser extensions do you have installed? Does it work if you disable them? Do images load at all on the website, or is it just the image flagging that doesn't work?
#355 by fllthdcrb
2021-01-31 at 11:39
< report >
Do images load at all on the website, or is it just the image flagging that doesn't work?
I didn't think that last one would be necessary, as he surely would have complained about them not loading generally, instead of focusing on flagging. But sure, those are worth investigating.
#356 by watsonw
2021-01-31 at 14:39
< report >@354 I tried disabling some extensions when I first had the problem, but nothing changed. I skipped some extensions which weren't on including a Dark Mode extension. This time I disabled all extensions and noticed the problem was fixed. Extrapolating made me find out that the Dark Mode extension was indeed the problem, even though I didn't even have it on. Thanks for the suggestion to check the extensions again.
#357 by fllthdcrb
2021-01-31 at 15:02
< report >
the Dark Mode extension was indeed the problem, even though I didn't even have it on.
Wait, how does that even work? Having one disabled should have the same effect as it being completely absent, aside from being listed by the browser. If it has an effect anyway, then that seems like a bug in the browser. If you're still around, do you mind sharing which browser and exactly which extension it is?
#358 by watsonw
2021-01-31 at 17:28
< report >By disabled I mean that I turned the dark mode off, not disable the whole extension. I had the extension enabled, but I didn't actually have the dark mode turned on. I use Firefox and the extension was (I think): linkLast modified on 2021-01-31 at 17:29
#359 by fllthdcrb
2021-01-31 at 20:34
< report >Oh, okay. That makes more sense.
#360 by fllthdcrb
2021-01-31 at 20:46
< report >Weird. The image URLs on the flagging page are normally of the form https://s2.vndb.org/sf/..., but that extension ends up stripping off the scheme and host parts, so it ends up as /sf/..., referencing the wrong domain.Last modified on 2021-01-31 at 20:48
#361 by Mutsuki
2021-02-05 at 03:38
< report >link probably should be marked as explicit because you can see the nipples through the transparency of the underwear
#362 by 707
2021-03-10 at 04:35
< report >Is there any way to flag an image we didn't upload directly? (not through link)

Someone uploaded a new cover for Petrichor but tagged it as explicit/tame, whereas it should be suggestive/tame (or safe/tame idk but definitely not explicit/tame)Last modified on 2021-03-10 at 04:35
#363 by Ileca
2021-03-10 at 05:43
< report >This would defeat the system's purpose. You are basically asking for a loophole. The cover only got one vote. Give it time for others to vote and the bad vote will get balanced.
#364 by irx
2021-03-18 at 07:05
< report >link why is this one rated suggested, I don't get it?
#365 by beliar
2021-03-18 at 08:11
< report >Because pantsu ;-)
#366 by kirino11
2021-03-22 at 09:18
< report >Sorry if that is not the right thread to ask for that, but where does one go for obviously trolling in image flagging? The user livesmatter voted on images rating almost everything as Explicit/Brutal, which is nonsense regarding the pictures they chose.Last modified on 2021-03-22 at 09:19
#367 by gvbn
2021-04-11 at 21:05
< report >Does link really count as tame? It's a dead body with visible strangulation marks. The dialogue says that she was strangled with hands since finger marks can be seen clearly.
#368 by beliar
2021-04-11 at 21:22
< report >Well, the text doesn't really matter in determining the rating, and without a text it's just a woman that looks like she might be sleeping on a sofa. The image is so small that details cannot be seen - for example the strangulation marks look like the necklace she is wearing.

You should be able to tell if a picture is violent or not without context, and this one doesn't really look violent, unless you are privy to the circumstances.
#369 by Mrkew
2021-04-19 at 10:52
< report >link semen flowing out of exposed genitals
link dog dick
link statue nips
link panchira
link H posters in the background
link visible vibe in her
link HCG in the background
link HCG in the background
link statue nips
link nipples very much visible through the clothing
link I believe the quote was "as long as it needs mosaics, it's explicit". There certainly are mosaics in this one.
#370 by jamps
2021-04-21 at 22:17
< report >glad i wasn't the only one having this issue were only the images for flagging wouldn't show. i use a chromium based browser. disabling the dark mode extension fixed the issue. it's the extensions. before figuring out the problem i was able to flag while testing with other browsers
#371 by Mutsuki
2021-04-24 at 22:54
< report >nvmLast modified on 2021-04-24 at 23:22
#372 by styjoy
2021-05-07 at 08:47
< report >link boot stepping on the head should be considered violent
#373 by NaioHoras
2021-05-08 at 09:47
< report >link should be explicit with various naked girls and sexual acts in the bg
#374 by oblivion
2021-06-14 at 16:05
< report >Explicit:
link Fellatio bg
link Fellatio bg
link Visible nipples
link Mosaic censorship
link Visible nipple
link Sexual fluids
link Sexual fluids
link Sexual activity
link Full nudity
link Censorship
link Sexual fluids
Suggestive:
link Bulge
link Bulge
link Sex toy and condoms
link Tight outfit
link Underwear
link Suggestive pose bg
link Nipple stretching the clothes
link Skimpy clothing/transparency
Violent:
link
link Stepping on the head
link Stepping on the head
link
Brutal:
link

I think that seeing the nipples because of high transparency should be explicit.
Examples: link link link
If so, then all of these should be explicit.
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link

A few that I'm not sure:
link Explicit - Visible nipples
link Suggestive - Nipples stretching clothes
link Suggestive - Nipples stretching clothes
link Suggestive - Transparency and visible underwear
link Suggestive/Explicit - Boobs logo and transparency
link Suggestive - Skimpy clothing
link Explicit - Sexual activity
link Suggestive - Skimpy clothing
link Suggestive - Background poster
link Explicit - Visible nipple
link Explicit - Sexual activity
#375 by beliar
2021-06-14 at 17:55
< report >Either you have a 200/20 eyesight or you scrutinize every picture a lot, Oblivion... :-P

I'd say that when you require a microscope to correctly judge the image, the actual rating becomes less important.
I don't know how long I had to look at link in order to see that BJ on the right.
link - frankly, I don't rate images as violent if the weapon is not being actively used. Here a guy is just being threatened with a knife. It's no different than readying the knife for combat, but not using it yet.
link - while we can see some mild whipping marks on her body, she is not being hurt in the image in question. I wouldn't say it's violent.
link - I cannot even see what's in the picture...

In case of visible nipples through the transparent clothing, I would vote both ways. When the transparency is high (link) I would vote 'explicit', but I think 'suggestive' is better where you only see a hint of the flesh through the fabric (link).

link - in this case I only see a visible areola, not a nipple. So, in my opinion it's suggestive.

I don't think many fringe cases sitting on the suggestive edge need to be strictly moderated. So I voted on those pictures, but didn't overrule them. I only moderated the explicit ones at the beginning of your post.