Does the "Does not meet Guidelines Standards" reason in flagging a post count for audio that peaks repeatedly?
Specific post in question
post #5479644

Audio is not considered relevant to any post. It leaves audio edits in a weird state, where technically they should be deleted as duplicates of the original but in practice are usually left to stay if they're made competently.

scth said:
Audio is not considered relevant to any post. It leaves audio edits in a weird state, where technically they should be deleted as duplicates of the original but in practice are usually left to stay if they're made competently.

Fair enough

nin10dope said:
Does the "Does not meet Guidelines Standards" reason in flagging a post count for audio that peaks repeatedly?
Specific post in question
post #5479644

If it was already approved by a janitor (or auto-approved by someone with the "unrestricted uploads" privilege), then you can just leave it as is unless it is very obviously of terrible quality.
If it hasn't been approved yet and is still pending for approval, just leave it as is also since it is the Janitors' job to determine whether or not it is against the uploading guidelines.

The Uploading Guidelines do not specifically cover audio quality, but it can fall under low quality submissions if it was a trivial or bad edit made by a third-party.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If it was already approved by a janitor (or auto-approved by someone with the "unrestricted uploads" privilege), then you can just leave it as is unless it is very obviously of terrible quality.
If it hasn't been approved yet and is still pending for approval, just leave it as is also since it is the Janitors' job to determine whether or not it is against the uploading guidelines.

The Uploading Guidelines do not specifically cover audio quality, but it can fall under low quality submissions if it was a trivial or bad edit made by a third-party.

Thank you for clarifying for me. So bad audio can only be validly flagged (by users, at least) if it's a third-party edit, not the original work.

nin10dope said:
Thank you for clarifying for me. So bad audio can only be validly flagged (by users, at least) if it's a third-party edit, not the original work.

That is typically the case when it comes to user-flagged posts. However, that does not mean that the artist is immune to deletions as well due to their audio quality.

Artists are still bound by the Quality Standards part of the uploading guidelines and it is not uncommon to see posts get deleted for having corrupted/poorly-rendered or poor audio quality by a janitor.

thegreatwolfgang said:
That is typically the case when it comes to user-flagged posts. However, that does not mean that the artist is immune to deletions as well due to their audio quality.

Artists are still bound by the Quality Standards part of the uploading guidelines and it is not uncommon to see posts get deleted for having corrupted/poorly-rendered or poor audio quality by a janitor.

While of course artists are bound by the quality guidelines, I'm not sure they apply to audio. I've never seen a post deleted for audio quality, and of the about 150 results in delreason:*audio* none seem to be about the audio's quality.

scth said:
While of course artists are bound by the quality guidelines, I'm not sure they apply to audio. I've never seen a post deleted for audio quality, and of the about 150 results in delreason:*audio* none seem to be about the audio's quality.

I'm not sure if a post was ever outright be deleted for having "shitty audio", but it can happen (albeit very very rarely) that a post be deleted for audio issues; e.g., post #4866044.
There is even one instance of a post getting deleted for using real-life violence audio, but I will not link the deleted post.

thegreatwolfgang said:
That is typically the case when it comes to user-flagged posts. However, that does not mean that the artist is immune to deletions as well due to their audio quality.

Artists are still bound by the Quality Standards part of the uploading guidelines and it is not uncommon to see posts get deleted for having corrupted/poorly-rendered or poor audio quality by a janitor.

Yeah that was ultimately the goal of my question, can a user create a Flag if they genuinely believe that the artist did not meet the standards for audio quality. Hypothesizing that the approving Janitor made a mistake or just hasn't gotten to it yet.

nin10dope said:
Yeah that was ultimately the goal of my question, can a user create a Flag if they genuinely believe that the artist did not meet the standards for audio quality. Hypothesizing that the approving Janitor made a mistake or just hasn't gotten to it yet.

Simply put, it is a case-by-case basis since audio guidelines do not really exist in the Uploading Guidelines.
The best course of action a normal member can make is to let the Janitors do their job or (in the case, they did do their job) to escalate the issue with an admin or on the e621 Discord helpdesk.

I don't think randomly flagging posts you find the have "poor audio quality" is going to be a good idea, especially since you cannot specify which parts you find to be of low quality without leaving a comment on the post itself explaining your flag reason.
Without any comments, it would look like Abuse of Site Tools since there is visually nothing wrong with the post.
And with comments, it will look like you are needlessly going around animated posts spamming flags and commenting that they have "shitty audio".

thegreatwolfgang said:
Simply put, it is a case-by-case basis since audio guidelines do not really exist in the Uploading Guidelines.
The best course of action a normal member can make is to let the Janitors do their job or (in the case, they did do their job) to escalate the issue with an admin or on the e621 Discord helpdesk.

I don't think randomly flagging posts you find the have "poor audio quality" is going to be a good idea, especially since you cannot specify which parts you find to be of low quality without leaving a comment on the post itself explaining your flag reason.
Without any comments, it would visually look like Abuse of Site Tools. And with comments, it will look like you are needlessly going around animated posts spamming that they have "shitty audio".

Lmao yeah I see what you mean. I'll definitely hold off unless one day some actual static-ear rape gets approved in a dystopian future

nin10dope said:
Lmao yeah I see what you mean. I'll definitely hold off unless one day some actual static-ear rape gets approved in a dystopian future

Ear_rape of the meme variety does get approved.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Ear_rape of the meme variety does get approved.

Yeah I definitely didn't mean that stuff lol