Laevateinn said:
Wow, OP's still trying to blame E6 for an artist making a bad decision.

Dedicated to his craft, I guess.

And you're a moron. I'm simply refuting the moron claim that I was slandering the site. I'm not going to lie and say E6 had nothing to do with his departure, because that would be an outright lie. I'm not sure what I can do to verify the email he sent me but I'm not making this up. If you think I am, then fuck you and be wrong.

null0010 said:
You'll forgive us if we don't take your word for it, I hope.

No. I'll consider forgiving you if you take back the whole "slander" bullshit.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:

You're lying! I've personally asked my friend in FBI to retrieve those emails, and he said that the reason of deletion was you! You should be banned, you bastard!

And you're being sarcastic. Congratulations, I've seen through your ruse.

PheagleAdler said:
I'm not sure what I can do to verify the email he sent me but I'm not making this up. If you think I am, then fuck you and be wrong.

You do know that you can post a link to a screencap of the conversation, right?

Akkira said:
PheagleAdler, unrustle your panties...

Drawing all those happily smiling furries and then he says it's monotonous and he hates it and he will take them all with him into nothingness? Way to show what's behind the smiling facade.

Be sure that his abandoned creations are stored in a safe, dry place, waiting for when the rustling is over to reemerge on major furry image boards.

Of course, he's simply making a statement for the public. Yes, he would like to move on/expand and I'm sure that's what he's getting at, but that's only one reason for his departure. Another clear reason is people distributing his art on various image boards without his permission. (currently e6 is the only one I'm aware of. There may be others though)

As per the form he filed, everything of his on the site should probably be deleted, but I'm not sure how that works when the artist wipes all his galleries. Having the pics reemerge elsewhere I believe would only stir up more trouble with him.

Dogenzaka said:
You do know that you can post a link to a screencap of the conversation, right?

But that's woooooooooooork...

Dogenzaka said:
You do know that you can post a link to a screencap of the conversation, right?

Fine. Here.

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo315/hg3300/hahul_zps2a6039d3.png

Digital_Kindness said:
But that's woooooooooooork...

I'm sorry but how did you get the impression that I do that? I'm actually very tech savvy. It took me what, 2-3 minutes to cap the email and upload it to photobucket?

PheagleAdler said:
Fine. Here.

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo315/hg3300/hahul_zps2a6039d3.png

I would've blanked out my email address and stuff for security reasons, considering the type of people who frequent this site, but to each his own. Don't be surprised if someone starts sending you animal scat porn. It's probably not me.

Dogenzaka said:
I would've blanked out my email address and stuff for security reasons, considering the type of people who frequent this site, but to each his own. Don't be surprised if someone starts sending you animal scat porn. It's probably not me.

Although I'm sure Google would have sorted that for me, I have taken your advice. Here's the updated, censored pic.

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo315/hg3300/hahul_zpsddfe956f.png

PheagleAdler said:
Although I'm sure Google would have sorted that for me, I have taken your advice. Here's the updated, censored pic.

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo315/hg3300/hahul_zpsddfe956f.png

You should delete the uncensored one for the censoring to mean something.

If you look at the takedown list you'll see that the takedown requests filed by this artist haven't been processed yet, but others filed at a later date have. This means that e621 is waiting on input from the artist. I can't tell you what that means on the artist's end.

PheagleAdler said:
No. I'll consider forgiving you if you take back the whole "slander" bullshit.

I didn't say that.

null0010 said:
If you look at the takedown list you'll see that the takedown requests filed by this artist haven't been processed yet, but others filed at a later date have. This means that e621 is waiting on input from the artist. I can't tell you what that means on the artist's end.

I didn't say that.

So he tantrumed on the internet and the delay is his for the removal here? Humourous

Let's try to keep this discussument civil, hm?

He probably just got laughed at when he tried to get work for "legit" art, and he's regretting putting his name to porn.

CamKitty said:
So he tantrumed on the internet and the delay is his for the removal here? Humourous

see Jay Naylor

PheagleAdler said:
And you're a moron.

PheagleAdler said:
No. I'll consider forgiving you if you take back the whole "slander" bullshit.

PheagleAdler said:
And you're being sarcastic. Congratulations, I've seen through your ruse.

This isn't okay. You need to calm the hell down and stop lashing out at people if you're going to continue to post here.

We encourage our users to always ask permission first, but we don't enforce it because that is impossible, implausible, and no one on the staff has the time to devote to hounding users about whether or not they've been contacting artists prior to posting their work.

This kind of situation is inevitable; it has happened before and will happen again. It's just the way things work, the way image boards work. No amount of forum arguments will change that.

ippiki_ookami said:
This isn't okay. You need to calm the hell down and stop lashing out at people if you're going to continue to post here.

We encourage our users to always ask permission first, but we don't enforce it because that is impossible, implausible, and no one on the staff has the time to devote to hounding users about whether or not they've been contacting artists prior to posting their work.

This kind of situation is inevitable; it has happened before and will happen again. It's just the way things work, the way image boards work. No amount of forum arguments will change that.

Well, I don't appreciate being accused of libel and/or slander of the site. I'm not saying asking permission is enforceable, but people really need to be doing it more.

Foobaria said:
He probably just got laughed at when he tried to get work for "legit" art, and he's regretting putting his name to porn.

I think that's been an issue with several artist who demanded the removal of their work from here. They don't want their art next to porn ads and all that.

null0010 said:

I didn't say that.

I know you didn't. I was referring to someone else when I said that, I just happened to quote you.

Ya, you wouldn't want furry ads beside furry porn. that would be weird :o

CamKitty said:
Ya, you wouldn't want furry ads beside furry porn. that would be weird :o

I think you're missing the point. The fandom isn't all about porn.

KloH0und said:
It doesn't really take a whole lot to drive certain artists of the internet.

Okay, users not asking an artist for permission to post their work here isn't acceptable behavior. But I think if hahul took the minute to look on the site he'd figure out it's entirely with his ability to remove his artwork and prevent it from appearing on the site.

Resorting to the knee-jerk reaction of "people aren't obeying my requests so I'll just completely withdraw myself from any interaction at all" is rather childish.

Well you must think, most users who upload dont ask. I see art that appears on FA as brand new, within 2 mins its posted on e621 by someone else. Most people dont ask, most artists dont care, but the ones that do just do takedown requests....so I dont see the problem for the artist really.

However if anything posting art here helps the artists, I found a few good artists just from posts on e621, so it isnt a bad thing unless they dont like there work posted elsewhere giving them full credit and linking back to the profile thats theirs......I don't see why some hate it, but its understandable.

As for this topic, lets try to keep things civil :>

Conker said:
Well you must think, most users who upload dont ask. I see art that appears on FA as brand new, within 2 mins its posted on e621 by someone else. Most people dont ask, most artists dont care, but the ones that do just do takedown requests....so I dont see the problem for the artist really.

However if anything posting art here helps the artists, I found a few good artists just from posts on e621, so it isnt a bad thing unless they dont like there work posted elsewhere giving them full credit and linking back to the profile thats theirs......I don't see why some hate it, but its understandable.

As for this topic, lets try to keep things civil :>

I agree with Conker. Posts, WHEN PROPERLY SOURCED, are responsible for half my watches on FA.

So clearly e6 is the problem *rolls eyes*

CamKitty said:
PROPERLY SOURCED

My only pet peeve about this site.

Dogenzaka said:
My only pet peeve about this site.

The only thing I hate more than an empty source is a direct image link in the source field.

Because http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc1bqds54f8xrqfgnqo1_58860.jpg is super helpful.

KloH0und said:
The only thing I hate more than an empty source is a direct image link in the source field.

Because yiffyyiffymurrmurr.tumblr.com/image/3121234567624592462467 is super helpful.

At least with Tumblr, there's a link in the top left of the image page that lets you go back to the post page. Plus with Tumblr, you can replace "image" in the url with "post" and it gives you the post page.

But shit like this: http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/037/1/5/octavia_likes_you_v1_by_eichh_emmm-d5u0s5d.png

needs to stop.

Random question since the first issue has been deemed silly (although asking is still recommended), does the site prefer sourcing to like

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/9861964/

or just directly to the artist's main page?

I always liked using the pic as found on FA and sites like it, but see plenty of people just going to the main page

CamKitty said:
Random question since the first issue has been deemed silly (although asking is still recommended), does the site prefer sourcing to like

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/9861964/

or just directly to the artist's main page?

I always liked using the pic as found on FA and sites like it, but see plenty of people just going to the main page

I link to the image page. I don't see the point of linking to the artist's main page, since you can just click the "?" next to the artist's name and view their sites in the wiki entry.

CamKitty said:
Random question since the first issue has been deemed silly (although asking is still recommended), does the site prefer sourcing to like

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/9861964/

or just directly to the artist's main page?

Link to the view page.

If you're going into the source of an old image and it links to the artist's main page, it's a pain in the ass to dig through their entire gallery to find it.

CamKitty said:
or just directly to the artist's main page?

That is sometimes a strange thing programmed into the site.
I had it happen multiple times that the site changed the source from a direct link or empty field to the artist-profile of FA, this apparently needs a proper artist profile to work but I couldn't find anything useful concerning this feature.

KloH0und said:
Link to the view page.

If you're going into the source of an old image and it links to the artist's main page, it's a pain in the ass to dig through their entire gallery to find it.

I don't much understand the point of linking to the view page; if I'm going to the source, it's because I want to see more by that artist, not to see another (identical) copy of the image I just saw.

KloH0und said:
The only thing I hate more than an empty source is a direct image link in the source field.

Because http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc1bqds54f8xrqfgnqo1_58860.jpg is super helpful.

MAH NIGGA

Seriously we should start giving out records for this.

Dogenzaka said:
At least with Tumblr, there's a link in the top left of the image page that lets you go back to the post page. Plus with Tumblr, you can replace "image" in the url with "post" and it gives you the post page.

But shit like this: http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/037/1/5/octavia_likes_you_v1_by_eichh_emmm-d5u0s5d.png

needs to stop.

I think that people are doing this, because they are lazy, and want to have picture ready to upload after pasting one link. If you paste direct link in source site gets the image to upload automatically. Otherwise you still have to upload from disk, or do paste direct link before pasting indirect.

Maybe there could be a feature to fetch image when source is image page of deviantart/FA/etc, not only when it is direct link.

KloH0und said:
The only thing I hate more than an empty source is a direct image link in the source field.

The only place I know where direct image links make sense is VCL

Digital_Kindness said:
I don't much understand the point of linking to the view page; if I'm going to the source, it's because I want to see more by that artist, not to see another (identical) copy of the image I just saw.

The point is a simple one, the view page is the source at the very end, often with a small commentary of the artist himself.
It is also only one or two additional clicks to get the the artist's gallery while the other option, linking to the profile, would sometimes mean to click through a couple dozen pages and trying to find the figurative needle in the haystack.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I think that people are doing this because they are lazy, and want to have a picture ready to upload after pasting one link. If you paste a direct link in source, the site gets the image to upload automatically. Otherwise you still have to upload it from disk, or paste a direct link before pasting indirectly.

Maybe there could be a feature to fetch images when the source is an image page of deviantart/FA/etc, not only when it is direct link?

Fixed.
I feel a bit bad about it actually, but reading it made my brain hurt.

Also, fairly good idea, but I'm unsure as to how easy it would be to implement.

NotMeNotYouMobile said:
The point is a simple one, the view page is the source at the very end, often with a small commentary of the artist himself.
It is also only one or two additional clicks to get the the artist's gallery while the other option, linking to the profile, would sometimes mean to click through a couple dozen pages and trying to find the figurative needle in the haystack.

This.

I follow a source link for one of two reasons: I'm looking for more art by that artist that isn't yet on e6 (I tend to search the artist tag here first), or I'm looking for the author's (or even just for additional random bystanders) comments on the work.
So let's look at the worst-case effort required in each situation:

For the first reason, a link to the gallery requires no additional clicks. A link to the artist page requires one extra click. A link to the view page requires two extra clicks (one on the artist's name, and then to the gallery). None of these clicks require significant mental effort. Average-case effort(assuming the "wrong" link): two clicks. Worst-case effort: register an account (plus three clicks, or a refresh and two clicks) (case:you don't have a FA account and it's porn)

For the second reason, a link to the view page requires no additional clicks. A link to the gallery requires a potentially unbounded (if it's not actually in that particular gallery, you might run through the whole gallery several times looking, and even if it is, it might be on the last page) number of clicks, with moderate mental effort per click (you have to examine every thumbnail on the page to determine which one is the image/if it isn't on the page and you need to go to the next page). Worst-case effort: unbounded. Average-case effort(assuming the "wrong" link): several minutes of examining thumbnails.

So, for optimal ease of use, we should have two source fields: one for the view page and one for the gallery. If we have to stick with one, the view page provides superior usability (if you came to FA to look for more porn by the same artist, you're gonna need an account anyway)

ETA: oh, and direct image links are acceptable only if they were used to upload, and should be replaced by the view page (or the gallery page, if you insist) ASAP

Digital_Kindness said:
I don't much understand the point of linking to the view page; if I'm going to the source, it's because I want to see more by that artist, not to see another (identical) copy of the image I just saw.

It makes sense since that is the source. One can find the artist's original comments on it and their gallery is one click away.

FOR EXAMPLE:
https://www.e621.net/post/show/273276/anthro-bandage-bell-blush-breasts-cleavage-disembo

In the comments for that image, after I fixed the source, people could get answers to questions they had about the image from the artist's comments. A lazy link to teckworks would have been less useful

It's simple: If somebody wants the gallery but they're given the image, it's easy to get to the gallery, but if they want the image but they're given the gallery, it's fucking annoying to find the image.

There's no reason the source should be the entire gallery.

There was a nice long discussion on this topic here. I pretty much only use galleries as sources because you cannot determine a FurAffinity submission URL from the image's filename, so my method of batch uploading would become more cumbersome to manually enter every submission URL.

Pfft.. tony stealin my credits again.

KloH0und said:
The only thing I hate more than an empty source is a direct image link in the source field.

Because http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc1bqds54f8xrqfgnqo1_58860.jpg is super helpful.

Even worse, Ive seen some people mis use the source by putting things like "me" or "I'm the artist" or "google" or even "yiffyfox.jpg" thinking the file type is the source....not only is none of that helpful, but its a pain to clean up every time when the user keeps doing it.

Bumping, cause I've just seen the change in rules which was made, probably, because of this topic.

ASK the artist before you upload their art. Since there is no way to verify if this is actually allowed here or not, it saves us a lot of hassle. This is not a suggestion.

Does this mean that everything tagged unknown_artist is public statement of uploader, that he or she is breaking the rules? (Unless uploader asked the artist, and then posted art without credit. But it's rather rude and improbable.)

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Bumping, cause I've just seen the change in rules which was made, probably, because of this topic.

Does this mean that everything tagged unknown_artist is public statement of uploader, that he or she is breaking the rules? (Unless uploader asked the artist, and then posted art without credit. But it's rather rude and improbable.)

I remember this being asked once before, and if I recall the answer correctly, it was basically "yes and no, because we understand our rule is actually absurdly impractical, you have to ask if you know the artist but it's okay if you don't, but don't ask if they're on the already-asked list, and if they're not and you don't ask, just don't say anything about it". I may be embellishing more than slightly.

Rules rules rules. I guess any take down requests should have the uploader banned then? If they are stating it as "not a suggestion"

We aren't punishing anyone for not asking.

ippiki_ookami said:
We aren't punishing anyone for not asking.

If by "punishing" you mean "not taking them to your rapecave", then I assume it's a yes.

CamKitty said:
Rules rules rules. I guess any take down requests should have the uploader banned then? If they are stating it as "not a suggestion"

I'd consider giving a warning for repeat offenders at least. Like if they upload certain artists but they keep getting removed because the artist doesn't want it here.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Does this mean that everything tagged unknown_artist is public statement of uploader, that he or she is breaking the rules?

I would take unknown_artist as a request not unlike, say, translation_request. A member has found this picture they want to upload, but can't figure out who to credit or where the source is. They then upload it so that someone who would know can fill in the blanks as necessary. This is ideally, of course.