Danbooru

Question about same art from different sources

Posted under General

Yes.
If it happens, one needs to be parented to the other.
As a general rule of thumb, the one with the better quality is the one to get parented.
Twitter compresses images, while pixiv doesn't. But if the Twitter resolution is higher than the pixiv one, usually that's the one which becomes parent.
If both are pixel-perfect_duplicates, usually the one uploaded first takes precedence.

Updated

Just to clarify, don't intentionally upload multiple identical copies of the same image. We only need one copy of the best version, so please don't start uploading inferior copies of things we already have, or both the pixiv and Twitter versions at the same time when both are identical or one is inferior.

Also, duplicate only applies to inferior and/or identical copies that were uploaded after the better version. Don't just add it to every inferior child post you find, as many are uploaded before the superior version (usually because the artist uploaded them at different times, but some users do it intentionally or just don't bother to check if there's a better version available).

blindVigil said:

Also, duplicate only applies to inferior and/or identical copies that were uploaded after the better version. Don't just add it to every inferior child post you find, as many are uploaded before the superior version (usually because the artist uploaded them at different times, but some users do it intentionally or just don't bother to check if there's a better version available).

That rule only applies to pixel-perfect copies; duplicate applies to inferior copies regardless of when the superior version was uploaded.

blindVigil said:

Just to clarify, don't intentionally upload multiple identical copies of the same image. We only need one copy of the best version, so please don't start uploading inferior copies of things we already have, or both the pixiv and Twitter versions at the same time when both are identical or one is inferior.

Exactly. And it is unlikely an inferior version of an image that was uploaded after the best version will even be approved.

blindVigil said:

That's not what the wiki says

Full disclosure, I just revised the wiki to clean up some grammar and change most references of "images" to "posts". In any case, the very first line from the wiki:

A post that is the same or inferior to an already existing post.

Later in the wiki:

A few cases where the tag applies:

There's no mention of upload date at all. It's only a factor for pixel-perfect dupes because they're identical; as such, there is no inferior version and we have to use something else to determine which is the child/duplicate.

The upload date being relevant does make sense though. Because logically speaking, the later uploaded image is always the duplicate. Technically even if it is better than the previous upload. It's just a better duplicate.

Yeah, I don't think we should start tagging older inferior versions as duplicates. Uploads are already competitive as it is, i don't want to see people using it as yet another way to spit on people they're 1upping.

AngryZapdos said:

Full disclosure, I just revised the wiki to clean up some grammar and change most references of "images" to "posts". In any case, the very first line from the wiki:

Later in the wiki:

There's no mention of upload date at all. It's only a factor for pixel-perfect dupes because they're identical; as such, there is no inferior version and we have to use something else to determine which is the child/duplicate.

So we're just going to pretend that "already existing" doesn't imply specifically being uploaded later than the better version? The entire wiki implicitly speaks from the perspective of inferior/identical images being uploaded when we already have a superior/identical version of the image on site. If all inferior copies regardless of context should be tagged duplicate the wiki should explicitly say so. Currently it is implicit that upload order matters.

Regardless, it doesn't make much sense for an artist to upload something, at a later date upload a higher quality version, and then for us to go back and retroactively tag the original image as a duplicate, when at the time of upload it was the best and only version that existed.

nonamethanks said:

Yeah, I don't think we should start tagging older inferior versions as duplicates. Uploads are already competitive as it is, i don't want to see people using it as yet another way to spit on people they're 1upping.

blindVigil said:

Regardless, it doesn't make much sense for an artist to upload something, at a later date upload a higher quality version, and then for us to go back and retroactively tag the original image as a duplicate, when at the time of upload it was the best and only version that existed.

Then what's the point of having the tag at all? It's not like getting a deletion; a majority of users wouldn't even notice the tag edit. The only thing adding duplicate does is help those who have duplicate blacklisted by filtering out the inferior versions. Especially for artists with hundreds of inferior Twitter duplicates, it's insane to have policies against having an incredibly simple method of removing them all from one's searches just because some uploader might notice and might get their feelings hurt. There's no negativity involved, it's purely QoL.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the kind of spiteful behavior some users have resorted to just because someone uploaded something before them. Just because it's neutral in theory doesn't mean users won't try to weaponize it. We can ban people for it, but it's better to just not hand them the loaded gun in the first place.

Personally, I think the tag is useful for marking posts uploaded by unres users who upload inferior copies that wouldn't have gotten approved otherwise, since you're not allowed to flag them.

Edit: Also this may not be a perfect solution for you, but is:child exists. It'll hide more than just duplicates, but it's free, and avoids the bothersome side effect of the blacklist leaving blank or sparse search pages if included in the search as a negative. Most users don't need to specifically know whether or not a post's children are duplicates, variant sets, or what have you.

Updated

blindVigil said:

Personally, I think the tag is useful for marking posts uploaded by unres users who upload inferior copies that wouldn't have gotten approved otherwise, since you're not allowed to flag them.

If all duplicates were tagged with duplicate, then we wouldn't lose the ability to check this.

blindVigil said:

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the kind of spiteful behavior some users have resorted to just because someone uploaded something before them. Just because it's neutral in theory doesn't mean users won't try to weaponize it. We can ban people for it, but it's better to just not hand them the loaded gun in the first place.

The amount of coddling we assume is necessary to give uploaders is getting completely out of hand. Right now, the argument is that we can't have a mark on posts saying "a better version of this post exists" because a few uploaders might not be able to handle it. In other words, the only thing standing between us and the ability to remove all duplicates from a search with just a few keystrokes is a hypothetical tantrum being thrown by a hypothetical uploader. Such behaviour should warrant a reminder to step away from the screen and cool off, not be seriously considered to the detriment and inconvenience of all other users.

Take naga_u, for example. I can't get an accurate count because as has been established, we don't tag all inferior versions as duplicates, but they have almost 900 posts under parent:any. A majority of these are duplicates, but I can't add -parent:any to my search/blacklist because then posts like post #5808017 are excluded, which are not duplicates in any sense of the word. What I'm left with is a sea of hundreds of duplicates that I'm forced to wade through because we refuse to tag older duplicates as duplicates despite them inarguably being inferior versions of existing posts.

nonamethanks said:

Yeah, I don't think we should start tagging older inferior versions as duplicates. Uploads are already competitive as it is, i don't want to see people using it as yet another way to spit on people they're 1upping.

I think we should do exactly that, it would make the tag actually useful.
Currently the tag means "inferior or identical version that was uploaded after the parent", that's completely useless for searching so we might as well nuke the tag. If it is used on all inferior versions it can be used to exclude these from a search which is actually useful.

I don't know what parallel universe you have to live in to think we coddle to uploaders at all. Maybe you've never actually used the site. The one thing we do (not punish people for uploading from Twitter) is too much now. Absolutely insane.

If we don't care at all then why do we even keep them active? Just delete them at that point.

AngryZapdos said:

That rule only applies to pixel-perfect copies; duplicate applies to inferior copies regardless of when the superior version was uploaded.

This was my understanding of the tag until it was stated otherwise.

I have the duplicate tag on my blacklist, and use it as negative query term when searching for posts. Duplicate posts aren't a good thing to see in search results, and I don't care whether it was posted before or after the post which is higher quality than it.

nonamethanks said:

Yeah, I don't think we should start tagging older inferior versions as duplicates. Uploads are already competitive as it is, i don't want to see people using it as yet another way to spit on people they're 1upping.

Isn't 1upping supposed to be a good thing? You've found a higher quality version of an existing post.

I don't think there should be any stigma for having the duplicate tag on your posts; it's a natural part of uploading on the site. And we shouldn't prevent a legitimate use of it because some people might throw a tantrum.

Talulah said:

If we don't care at all then why do we even keep them active? Just delete them at that point.

It's not a guarantee that a Twitter post will be uploaded to Pixiv by the artist, or that the Pixiv version will be higher quality, so I don't think it's right to punish users for uploading Twitter posts.

However, a technical solution like having a third category of "status:" like "status:duplicate" which is hidden by default, but doesn't contribute to the uploader's number of deleted uploads, might be ideal.

Updated

I'm not against using the duplicate tag on every inferior upload, as long as someone is willing to check if it's used correctly. I already saw a lot of posts, where it was used, even though the "duplicate" had minor changes.

Obst said:

Isn't 1upping supposed to be a good thing? You've found a higher quality version of an existing post.

It's kind of openly accepted that 1upping is just a way for people to lazily increase their upload count.

1 2