'Flashes' Now considered 'Inferior Version' to WebMs?

In category: Art Talk

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this, and I will probably be punished for questioning actions of a staff member - and I apologise in advance for doing this, but I'm honestly confused about this.

I uploaded the Flash animation of http://www.furaffinity.net/view/23083837/ by EvilBanana , See the deleted post here: https://e926.net/post/show/1219533

But what I'm confused about, is that it was flagged and removed for being inferior to the WebM/Video version. As well as Janitor Mario69 comment about the flash I uploaded on post #1219543
What I'm confused about is that on this site there are both approved WebM video AND Flash versions of the same content.

Was there a rule change that flashes are now considered inferior versions to video formats?

And if so, doesn't that mean dozens of flashes should be taken down, because they have both Video WebM and Flash versions on this site.
(And wouldn't it make sense to have both Flash and WebM, since some people's browsers don't support WebM, like Internet Explorer)

Two examples from EvilBanana:


or

Once again, I apologise in advance for questioning staff actions and creating a forum, espically if I turn out to be in the wrong about this, but this doesn't make sense to me, and I just had to get clarification. I probably just missed an update to the rules


The flash you posted is a downscaled and worse compressed version of the webm file specifically created to allow the post to be uploaded on FA.
We don't have FA's 10mb file size restriction so it makes no sense to keep an intentionally inferior version around.

However, this also means that we will keep the flash version if it actually offers something of value and doesn't just exist to satisfy archaic filesize requirements on another gallery.


@NotMeNotYou:
Ohh, ok. I understand now why it was taken down. Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for questioning staff actions and creating a forum about this - I just needed to make sure, as I was confused about it.


DeservantHurricane said:
@NotMeNotYou:
Ohh, ok. I understand now why it was taken down. Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for questioning staff actions and creating a forum about this - I just needed to make sure, as I was confused about it.

I can understand confusion as usually differend file formats are accepted with animations and sometimes it's good to check on things. With animations I do hope that common sense is practised more often. At least with this one it wasn't as clear, but I have been deleting 100 MB gif files made from 1080p videos (still hoping for gif specific filesize limit on here) and visually compressed video convertions from low resolution under second long gif files.

There have now been several of these cases where artist themselves posts highest quality version directly onto the site, then weeks or months later someone finds FA flash version and posts it. I personally do not see any advantage from this, other than easily getting bigger post count.

E: Also one big thing to consider, is that earlier flash files were usually primary/original files, meaning that at that point webm files did offer advantages, but were also conversions from flash files. Now we are talking about two seperate files which are both primary/original, but other has been done to counter websites upload limitations.