I have made this caption from this post and I'm wondering if I would be allowed to post it here? Also not sure what tags would be allowed, since "caption" seems to be for other kinds of caption. "Third party edit" and a new tag for mysef would apply thou I assume

This is the literal definition of a trivial edit.

lafcadio said:
This is the literal definition of a trivial edit.

Sorry for asking I guess

Also where could I find the definition of a trivial edit please? If I understood you correctly adding captions would basically never apply

You can add Notes to existing posts if you're looking to fix or translate text on the post itself. Otherwise no, this site does not look fondly on 3rd party edits that are not a visual and equal-quality contribution

i mean I ran into a couple 3rd party edits to comic captions that were approved ,one of them turned nice writing into broken english so idk

141893 and 141851 (ik the edit prob grandfathered in I just found it funny)

It's a metaphorical tightrope walk because the standards for them are much higher than other things

nin10dope said:
It's a metaphorical tightrope walk because the standards for them are much higher than other things

Honestly yea, youll get one 3rd party edit that just color shifts it and that gets approved and then you have another that fixes bad anatomy and that gets rejected

nin10dope said:
You can add Notes to existing posts if you're looking to fix or translate text on the post itself. Otherwise no, this site does not look fondly on 3rd party edits that are not a visual and equal-quality contribution

I wasn't really trying to do that thou, rather use the image to accompany a short story. But I guess this isn't the website for that

stitch_the_snitch said:
I wasn't really trying to do that thou, rather use the image to accompany a short story. But I guess this isn't the website for that

I wasn't sure, but yeah that would qualify as trivial by the site standards, most of those edits are just set in Twitter/BlueSky

nin10dope said:
I wasn't sure, but yeah that would qualify as trivial by the site standards, most of those edits are just set in Twitter/BlueSky

For some reason it hadn't even occured to me to post on these places lol

stitch_the_snitch said:
For some reason it hadn't even occured to me to post on these places lol

That's just where I've noticed them congregating

funkwolfie said:
i mean I ran into a couple 3rd party edits to comic captions that were approved ,one of them turned nice writing into broken english so idk

141893 and 141851 (ik the edit prob grandfathered in I just found it funny)

The translation guidelines are very new, like barely 2 years old new

grandfathered_content:
In March of 2023, the translation guidelines were added which restricted content such as...

• Non-English translations embedded in a post by third-party editors.
• Low-quality translations embedded in a post by third-party editors.
• Low-quality image/video edits made with the intent to add translations.

stitch_the_snitch said:
Sorry for asking I guess

Regardless of the answer to your questions, thank you for asking and checking with us first. It saves you a lot of headache. :)

Also where could I find the definition of a trivial edit please? If I understood you correctly adding captions would basically never apply

Here you go: It's in the Uploading Guidelines under the Edit part of ''Quality standards''.

• Edits of images need to be at least on the same level of quality as the original.
• Low effort edits (adding stories, changing text, bucket fill coloring, cutting out parts, etc.) are not allowed.

Taking a pre-existing image and putting a caption on it would qualify as a low effort edit. Also, since the original image is a .jpg, a lossy file format that always adds artifacting, it wouldn't be possible to resave the result without either degrading the image even more (if resaved as a .jpg) or bloating the file size unnecessarily (if resaved as a .png).

stitch_the_snitch said:
Also not sure what tags would be allowed, since "caption" seems to be for other kinds of caption. "Third party edit" and a new tag for mysef would apply thou I assume

Granted, it's a moot point as it's a trivial edit, but were it not, third party edit would apply. However, unless you've added enough to the image for it to essentially be on the level of a collaboration, you'd just tag the original artist.

clawstripe said:
Regardless of the answer to your questions, thank you for asking and checking with us first. It saves you a lot of headache. :)

Here you go: It's in the Uploading Guidelines under the Edit part of ''Quality standards''.

Taking a pre-existing image and putting a caption on it would qualify as a low effort edit. Also, since the original image is a .jpg, a lossy file format that always adds artifacting, it wouldn't be possible to resave the result without either degrading the image even more (if resaved as a .jpg) or bloating the file size unnecessarily (if resaved as a .png).

Granted, it's a moot point as it's a trivial edit, but were it not, third party edit would apply. However, unless you've added enough to the image for it to essentially be on the level of a collaboration, you'd just tag the original artist.

Got it, thank you! I guess I missed that part of the guidelines

I think a big trip-up point for people is "low-quality" and "trivial"
It's not being communicated that those adjectives are being used as a comparison to the original work
Because for a lot of people it just comes off as snobbish and elitism because it reads more like an insult to call someone's work trivial and/or low-quality/effort

I think that terminology needs workshopping to improve user perception

nin10dope said:
I think a big trip-up point for people is "low-quality" and "trivial"
It's not being communicated that those adjectives are being used as a comparison to the original work
Because for a lot of people it just comes off as snobbish and elitism because it reads more like an insult to call someone's work trivial and/or low-quality/effort

I think that terminology needs workshopping to improve user perception

"Trivial" is the workshopped version. We made the change in January 2023.
post #2369613
This post includes sufficient material to create visually-consistent, good-quality andromorph/gynomorph versions, but we still wouldn't accept it because it's trivial enough that anybody can do this.

The only way you would "improve user perception" around a change like this is to just stop communicating why these posts are deleted (and thus subject staff members like me to more "why u do this" dmails), or give an endless list of alternatives such as abysmal, appalling, atrocious, awful, deficient, dissatisfactory, dreadful, frivolous, godawful, horrible, horrid, inconsequential, inferior, insignificant, lousy, mediocre, negligible, shabby, shoddy, terrible, trifling, trite, unsatisfactory, valueless, or worthless. I'm sure even you can tell that this would not have the effect you want it to.

There is no word in the English language that suggests "not meeting a quality or effort standard" without implying something about the creation or creator. That is simply the nature of language, and no amount of feel-good inoffensive HR-speak is going to change it.