Okay it seems there is a bot that adds the hi_res tag to any image is greater than 1200 high OR 1600 wide, even if the image is a pixelated low quality image.

Hi_res seems to imply more quality, not large_image as its currently being used as. I think either a change in title is needed or another tag for such big images that lack res.

Thoughts?

What? Res means literally resolution, you know, which means "how many pixels wide and tall the thing is". Resolution has never meant quality. How pixelated and tiny image you manage to stretch into these pixels has absolutely nothing to do with wether it's considered high res or low res. Only how wide and tall it is matters. And yes, even a tiny pixel animation stretched to meet the width and height requirments of 1080p video is still technically hd video.

Also reading the wikis really wouldn't hurt. The wiki page is extremely clear about the fact that the tags are about imgae height and width, not quality.

There's no objective way to determine quality of the image. Even calculating compression of JPG file is only estimate.

Also like stated above, res literally is shortened from resolution which is in pixels. That's literally how the tag is being used, for how large the image is.

I have however been saying that hi_res standard is from two decades ago and even the tiny furaffinity images are magically considered hi res. Also the tags do not scale properly for animated content where even absurd resolution is rarely if ever hit.

Mairo said:
I have however been saying that hi_res standard is from two decades ago and even the tiny furaffinity images are magically considered hi res.

I agree, albeit for more site-specific reasons.

Currently, FA posts are capped at 1280 pixels height on upload and Twitter's default image resizing limits height to 1200. Both of these reach the tag's height condition, meaning that a majority of non-teaser, portrait-layout images qualify as hi_res. This devalues the tag by introducing a large pool of improperly retrieved or further compressed candidates. Increasing the height requirement to even 1300 would greatly reduce the usage of the tag and make its inclusion feel like more of an exception, rather than the norm.

Cat1778 said:
Okay it seems there is a bot that adds the hi_res tag to any image is greater than 1200 high OR 1600 wide, even if the image is a pixelated low quality image.

Hi_res seems to imply more quality, not large_image as its currently being used as. I think either a change in title is needed or another tag for such big images that lack res.

Thoughts?

The wiki reads: "Posts with this tag should be at least 1600 pixels wide or 1200 pixels tall."
Posts are tagged correctly.

felix_nermix said:
The wiki reads: "Posts with this tag should be at least 1600 pixels wide or 1200 pixels tall."
Posts are tagged correctly.

I'm not saying they aren't. I was wondering if the meaning of hi_res should change. Or if there should be something for posts lacking quality of pixels, so when i search hi_res i dont find huge images that are pixelated to the 9 gates of hell.

Cat1778 said:
I'm not saying they aren't. I was wondering if the meaning of hi_res should change. Or if there should be something for posts lacking quality of pixels, so when i search hi_res i dont find huge images that are pixelated to the 9 gates of hell.

high-res -pixel_(artwork) -type:jpg

We have images that are hi_res but entirely pixelated (not just censored in places)?

That sounds like either a miscommunication relating to the exact definition of 'pixelated', or an actual problem with things getting approved when they shouldn't.

(EDIT: yes, or legitimate pixel art, which there is an exception for since it must be upscaled in order to be reasonably viewed on modern screens. There is a difference between an image that is just pixelated, and pixel art -- even by e621's fairly relaxed standards)

I suggest posting examples of the images you think have this problem.

savageorange said:
We have images that are hi_res but entirely pixelated (not just censored in places)?

No, Im not talking pixel art or censorship. We just have HUGE bad quality images on this site with huge res. Thats what I had meant.

Cat1778 said:
No, Im not talking pixel art or censorship. We just have HUGE bad quality images on this site with huge res. Thats what I had meant.

Do you have any examples? Regardless, like it has already been said multiple times, the high res tag still applies. The image quality is irrelevant since the tag is for describing image sizes alone.

kahen_kilon_vittu said:
Do you have any examples? Regardless, like it has already been said multiple times, the high res tag still applies. The image quality is irrelevant since the tag is for describing image sizes alone.

https://e621.net/post/show/51364/
https://e621.net/post/show/109095/
https://e621.net/post/show/111725/
https://e621.net/post/show/84493/
https://e621.net/post/show/434010/
https://e621.net/post/show/161454/
https://e621.net/post/show/98936/
https://e621.net/post/show/86581/
https://e621.net/post/show/63582
https://e621.net/post/show/64890/
Just to point out a few.

Cat1778 said:
https://e621.net/post/show/51364/ x4031
https://e621.net/post/show/109095/ x1225
https://e621.net/post/show/111725/ x1334
https://e621.net/post/show/84493/ x1451
https://e621.net/post/show/434010/ x2309
https://e621.net/post/show/161454/ 3052x1672(better in both than reqs)
https://e621.net/post/show/98936/ 2000x
https://e621.net/post/show/86581/ x3140
https://e621.net/post/show/63582 x1590
https://e621.net/post/show/64890/ x4750
Just to point out a few.

All the ones you posted have above the requirements of the high res tag, one even surpasses both.

Do you have "Image resize mode" enabled in any way? https://e621.net/user/edit

Edit: Maybe there is a misunderstanding here but high res only refers to the resolution of the image, nothing else.

Edit2: a few of those rely on the image length for a stinger, others it is just part of the style, or various resized versions of the same thing.

deadoon said:
All the ones you posted have above the requirements of the high res tag, one even surpasses both.

Do you have "Image resize mode" enabled in any way? https://e621.net/user/edit

Edit: Maybe there is a misunderstanding here but high res only refers to the resolution of the image, nothing else.

Edit2: a few of those rely on the image length for a stinger, others it is just part of the style, or various resized versions of the same thing.

I just wanna know if there is ANY tag I can blacklist, so I dont see low quality posts like the examples above.

Blacklist meme and ms_paint maybe.
Of course this could hit some content that you consider OK; I'd suggest browsing the above searches first to be sure.

To be fair, "resolution" does not in general refer to absolute size, but to an instruments ability to "resolve" detail.
A microscope's resolution, for example, is a metric for the smallest angular separation at which it is able to clearly distinguish two images.

OP's issue with the tag is clear to me, in that the dimensions of an image tells us nothing about its true resolution. You may have a very large image of a body in profile where the resolution is not fine enough to distinguish small anatomical components such as the clitoris or urethra. Or a smaller image of the same body profile where the detail per area is dense enough to include such details. Artistic choice not being a factor.

Practically, measuring this with objectivity would prove beyond the means of this site.
Having absolute image size as a gross estimate of resolution may be an imperfect solution we're just going to have to live with.

felis_dulcis said:
To be fair, "resolution" does not in general refer to absolute size, but to an instruments ability to "resolve" detail.
A microscope's resolution, for example, is a metric for the smallest angular separation at which it is able to clearly distinguish two images.

OP's issue with the tag is clear to me, in that the dimensions of an image tells us nothing about its true resolution. You may have a very large image of a body in profile where the resolution is not fine enough to distinguish small anatomical components such as the clitoris or urethra. Or a smaller image of the same body profile where the detail per area is dense enough to include such details. Artistic choice not being a factor.

Practically, measuring this with objectivity would prove beyond the means of this site.
Having absolute image size as a gross estimate of resolution may be an imperfect solution we're just going to have to live with.

You are comparing analog concepts to digital concepts, you don't do that. Digital is discrete, analog is continuous.

When in the context of computers and digital images(what the tag is designed for), resolution refers directly to the pixel counts.

Honestly, the best solution is to properly use the meme and reaction image.

felis_dulcis said:
To be fair, "resolution" does not in general refer to absolute size, but to an instruments ability to "resolve" detail.
A microscope's resolution, for example, is a metric for the smallest angular separation at which it is able to clearly distinguish two images.

OP's issue with the tag is clear to me, in that the dimensions of an image tells us nothing about its true resolution. You may have a very large image of a body in profile where the resolution is not fine enough to distinguish small anatomical components such as the clitoris or urethra. Or a smaller image of the same body profile where the detail per area is dense enough to include such details. Artistic choice not being a factor.

I'm glad you understand.

Pretty much all of those examples would not be acceptable uploads these days and would be deleted as such.

deadoon said:
Honestly, the best solution is to properly use the meme and reaction image.

Problem with these tags for blacklisting purpose is that we do still accept high quality material falling under those tags.

One idea thrown around would maybe to have a tag or set which would be put on posts which would not be acceptable anymore, but that's kinda going back to the issue why those posts are grandfathered to begin with as it would most likely require oversigh from staff.

Mairo said:
Pretty much all of those examples would not be acceptable uploads these days and would be deleted as such.

Problem with these tags for blacklisting purpose is that we do still accept high quality material falling under those tags.

One idea thrown around would maybe to have a tag or set which would be put on posts which would not be acceptable anymore, but that's kinda going back to the issue why those posts are grandfathered to begin with as it would most likely require oversigh from staff.

Like that? https://e621.net/post/show/2078616/

That certainly seems like a post which will be deleted due to quality standards, if that is what you mean by that question.

Cat1778 said:
Like that? https://e621.net/post/show/2078616/

Like savageorange said, that is going to be deleted the moment that staff gets to it, which can take from 1 second to 30 days as we are getting over 1000 posts daily these days and there's only handful of janitors.

If you don't want to see these kind of posts, blacklist approval pending posts, status:pending.

Also, I'm at the point where I kinda just want to say to just maybe, consider of possibly just ignoring these things instead of specifically finding them? Because I have never seen this as an issue and those example posts are so old that I have not even seen them until you linked to them.