[X] My Assistant

Good change indeed! I see some in Vigilante being happy about this (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Cheers.

BTW, if you have news of our Joe...

our Joe

(IMG:https://ul.ehgt.org/fe/3c/fe3c23552df729d6cb505e5aecca281e51cc1979-140452-800-450-jpg_l.jpg)

I think this needs some work, or several people need to calm down a bit. Case in point:
https://e-hentai.org/g/1752658/9f5bc3b554/

The expunge log for that shows it's currently at -223 modpower. If someone posts a better upload, which really isn't unthinkable given the low resolution and awful watermarks of that thing, the vig will have to slug through 300+ modpower to actually expunge it.

This post has been edited by chivoef: Oct 19 2020, 22:11

I think this needs some work, or several people need to calm down a bit. Case in point:
https://e-hentai.org/g/1752658/9f5bc3b554/

The expunge log for that shows it's currently at -223 modpower. If someone posts a better upload, which really isn't unthinkable given the low resolution and awful watermarks of that thing, the vig will have to slug through 300+ modpower to actually expunge it. Also, the layout on the tracker stinks, but that might just be me.

It was the first gallery we tested after this revamp went live, and people were just too excited to try the new expunge downvote feature. As you can see, many big names tried it around that time, who otherwise would not have done unnecessary stuff like that. As Z.G. said in his expunge comment, "thanks for letting us test the new feature."

This should not be a problem in general, because:

- As Tenboro said in OP, in the future there could be a "rejected" state where the petition will be stopped entirely, so excessive downvotes cannot really happen.

- Voting against expunge petitions or appeals currently do not grant rewards, so hopefully users will not be incentivised to do that excessively before the "rejected" state is implemented, at least not the fairly well informed ones.

- A gallery can now have multiple independent petitions, so the current petition may not affect future petitions.

This post has been edited by Mayriad: Oct 19 2020, 22:09

I think this needs some work, or several people need to calm down a bit. Case in point:
https://e-hentai.org/g/1752658/9f5bc3b554/

Fair point. I'm assuming petitions get wiped after 7 days as they did before, though.

Maybe 10b can confirm?

edit: re-read the thread just now, they don't seem to be expiring atm I guess. hopefully it doesn't cause havoc on the tracker

This post has been edited by nasu_sensei: Oct 20 2020, 01:19

let alone that once it's been tested most people using it should be regular expungers. I have no doubt this situations gonna be dealt with in the most appropriate way, but even without, it should rarely come to a point where we have to fight through the entire mass of downvotes, it'll be bumped with each new vote and those vigs should see it and check/withdraw/reapply as a positive vote if appropriate.

Of course, people going inactive or just not being around during the bumps is an issue to, but like nasu, I was expecting them to wipe with time eventually

This post has been edited by Angaver: Oct 19 2020, 22:45

With the new system withdrawing vote is no longer an option.
Will it be added back? Thanks!

you can withdraw your vote before it's finalised

Man, this is amazing update. I can finally vote against invalid expunges, sick of 'child porn' nonsense all over the place (that's what report is for).

The new system is far more complex than the old one, so some bugs should be expected. Please report anything you find here.

I want to appeal this one here: https://e-hentai.org/g/1486439/08befb6e3f/?act=expunge
This is below 8 images, but it is also a completed set: [twitter.com] https://twitter.com/Yorutamago/status/1174374933213908995
I cannot start an appeal like I can on newly expunged galleries. Is this because of how old the gallery is? I didn't see any details on age here. I didn't vote for the original expunge, so I shouldn't be restricted?

I'm also planning a new expunge type for invalid updates (i.e. sabotaged galleries, or updates that remove images, or updates that are just for bumping), but as this will have different behavior than other expunges and potentially summon administrative action, it also needs some work.

Can we add petition for a rollback of galleries where they purge images and such? Rather than post on the forums.

I cannot start an appeal like I can on newly expunged galleries. Is this because of how old the gallery is? I didn't see any details on age here. I didn't vote for the original expunge, so I shouldn't be restricted?

Additionally, only vetoers can start an appeal on expunges that activated more than 7 days ago.

List of vetoers here:

https://ehwiki.org/wiki/E-Hentai_VIP

Just post any galleries that need DX'ing in the wrongly expunged galleries thread over in vig.

Can we add petition for a rollback of galleries where they purge images and such? Rather than post on the forums.

It's better if this kind of thing is handled the old way imo, just post galleries to be reverted in the DX'ing thread as before.

This post has been edited by nasu_sensei: Oct 20 2020, 02:27

The problem with rolling back galleries is that it is destructive (i.e. the more recent updates are deleted from the database), and therefore it's only something I can do. I have a somewhat long-term plan to change how galleries are stored in the database to allow for non-destructively changing the "current" version, but there's no ETA for that.

The problem with rolling back galleries is that it is destructive (i.e. the more recent updates are deleted from the database), and therefore it's only something I can do. I have a somewhat long-term plan to change how galleries are stored in the database to allow for non-destructively changing the "current" version, but there's no ETA for that.

Yeah, I always thought it was weird that reversions deleted all the updates after the reversion.

I remember discussions about "bumpless" updates.

Maybe reverted galleries can keep the updates, but their position on the search index remains the same, and the link points to the gallery before the reversion? Any viewer would still be able to see the "update" like how it appears in parent galleries right now.

It is a frequent case that invalid updates can also contain a handful of new images alongside removing them.

That's the cleanest idea I have from the perspective of a user, but it's trickier on the backend.

Some fixed stuff:

- Petition expiry has been updated and re-enabled.

- Added two more filters to the expunge tracker tool: "Pending Expunge" and "Pending Appeal"

- Petitions that are about to activate are now listed in the tracker as "Activating" and displayed with a brighter red.

I remember discussions about "bumpless" updates.

Maybe reverted galleries can keep the updates, but their position on the search index remains the same, and the link points to the gallery before the reversion? Any viewer would still be able to see the "update" like how it appears in parent galleries right now.

It is a frequent case that invalid updates can also contain a handful of new images alongside removing them.

It's difficult to handle automatically since some image removals can be valid (like duplicates or images that don't actually fit the gallery theme), so galleries that remove valid images but also add new ones should probably just be frozen and replaced with a new gallery from whoever cares enough and/or want the points.

PS: For the case where a valid gallery is replaced with another valid gallery, a backend tool was recently created to properly split these out as a separate gallery. Galleries that are suicided or fake-replaced can either be PM'ed to me or reported as an "Other" type report to have them handled, but those that add some valid images and remove some valid images should still preferably be reuploaded as a new gallery and expunged as replaced as I mentioned above.

Well, the idea is that the gallery that is visible on the search index is the "most" complete of the chain. The weird updates would then be visible as children on that gallery's page.

The most complete of the chain would be submitted through a field like the current conflicting gallery one.

Any updates from that point on would be blocked like currently or just not bump and continue to add onto the list of children.

If someone wants to replace the gallery with content, they can do so because the updates are still visible alongside the most complete of the chain.

When a proper version is uploaded, it can expunge the previous gallery chain as a replacement, and it would override the reversion as a proper expunge.

This post has been edited by saltcutlet: Oct 20 2020, 10:37

(IMG:https://ul.ehgt.org/fe/3c/fe3c23552df729d6cb505e5aecca281e51cc1979-140452-800-450-jpg_l.jpg)

I expected but didn't believe someone would use that meme. Great!

nasu_sensei and I are trying to get the wiki article in shape. Can I ask a better view into the behaviour of this:

Note that a gallery can now have multiple independent petitions active at the same time. In the event that multiple petitions are "activating" at the same time, the one that entered "activating" first will take effect and the rest will be deleted.

For the same gallery with several expunge petitions:

behaviour 1: someone voted on petition 1 and made it go over the 100 threshold.

petition 1: score 99 -> 102
petition 2: score 70

at this point petition 2 is deleted.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


behaviour 2: petition 1 is at score 120 for the last 14minutes and 59 second and now another second passes

petition 1: score 140
petition 2: score 107
petition 3: score 29
petition 4: score -7

here petition 1 activates and the gallery is expunged. petition 2, petition 3, petition 4 are all deleted.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe we have behaviour 2, right?

EDIT: Doo-dee-doo! Thank you!

This post has been edited by blue penguin: Oct 20 2020, 22:14

For the same gallery with several expunge petitions:

...

behaviour 2: petition 1 is at score 120 for the last 14minutes and 59 second and now another second passes

petition 1: score 140
petition 2: score 107
petition 3: score 29
petition 4: score -7

here petition 1 activates and the gallery is expunged. petition 2, petition 3, petition 4 are all deleted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe we have behaviour 2, right?

Correct, any other pending (i.e. not revoked) petitions are deleted at the same time the "winning" petition activates, after the 15-minute countdown.

Correct, any other pending (i.e. not revoked) petitions are deleted at the same time the "winning" petition activates, after the 15-minute countdown.

Is is intended that the person who started a petition can kill it at any time (before it gets locked probably), no matter who else upvoted it? I can see problems coming with that

Edit: You can also get rid of all the downvotes. Can't imagine this to be intended. Please fix

This post has been edited by Dnkz: Oct 21 2020, 04:39

It may be a good idea to cut off visible votes on the tracker at something like 10 for each petition with a link to the petition page for the gallery where you can see the full list of votes.
A handful of controversial petitions can clog up the tracker.

[i.imgur.com] https://i.imgur.com/YMQnRzk.png

Is is intended that the person who started a petition can kill it at any time (before it gets locked probably), no matter who else upvoted it? I can see problems coming with that

Edit: You can also get rid of all the downvotes. Can't imagine this to be intended. Please fix

It's intended, but I might change it so it can only be done until it enters the activating phase.

It may be a good idea to cut off visible votes on the tracker at something like 10 for each petition with a link to the petition page for the gallery where you can see the full list of votes.
A handful of controversial petitions can clog up the tracker.

Possibly, but it should be less of a problem when the "rejected" state is actually added.