dt 
No Thank You
When you guys edit the description in someone else’s upload, please say it’s a mod edit. Thanks.
Feature suggestions and discussion [READ THE FIRST POST]
Background Pony #2FF1
@dt
Or just add a “description history” link, essentially a combination of the “view versions” link on forum posts and the “tag history” and “source history” links on images.
Or just add a “description history” link, essentially a combination of the “view versions” link on forum posts and the “tag history” and “source history” links on images.
The Frowning Pony
Administrator
13 blinks per minute
I generally do if I’m doing the edit, unless it’s something as simple as fixing a global site link to a relative one.
Mostly it’s only done if the description violates some rule (in which case a history for it defeats the point) or clearly violates the spirit of the description field (is just the uploader making a comment about the image, often disparaging).
Mostly it’s only done if the description violates some rule (in which case a history for it defeats the point) or clearly violates the spirit of the description field (is just the uploader making a comment about the image, often disparaging).
Kj2
I know its a tad old already but just to make clear that it was just because the downvote was removed but not the upvote, making it easier to trolls and etc.
Also i agree with Vree, one of if not the best site out there, simple but very effective on what it does
And like someone said back there, DB just became a hugboxEdit: i went to see what caused to ya’ll make this change and i agree that it may make people think more and with the fetish stuff, but downright removing it from tumbnails still doesnt feel rightWe’ve always been a hugbox, bro. Rule 0, don’t be a dick, and all that.Please take further discussion of this topic to one of the other threads - this thread is for general feature discussion and I’d like to avoid it being overtaken any more by a single issue
I know its a tad old already but just to make clear that it was just because the downvote was removed but not the upvote, making it easier to trolls and etc.
Also i agree with Vree, one of if not the best site out there, simple but very effective on what it does
IAmAPony 
Tags can violate rules and be disparaging, but this information isn’t removed from the change history. Considering violating descriptions would only be displayed on a separate page most people don’t care about, I don’t see any problems with preserving changes history of descriptions too.
By the way, I don’t understand why descriptions can only be changed by the uploader. Copying descriptions from the artist’s website, cross-linking related pictures and other useful activities can be performed by many users.
Mostly it’s only done if the description violates some rule (in which case a history for it defeats the point) or clearly violates the spirit of the description field (is just the uploader making a comment about the image, often disparaging).
Tags can violate rules and be disparaging, but this information isn’t removed from the change history. Considering violating descriptions would only be displayed on a separate page most people don’t care about, I don’t see any problems with preserving changes history of descriptions too.
By the way, I don’t understand why descriptions can only be changed by the uploader. Copying descriptions from the artist’s website, cross-linking related pictures and other useful activities can be performed by many users.
The Smiling Pony 
Somehow Omnipresent?
@IAmAPony
Beucase the ideal behind that field is to lock it down to the artist’s words. If there’s an issue with the description on an image, report it.
Beucase the ideal behind that field is to lock it down to the artist’s words. If there’s an issue with the description on an image, report it.
barbeque 
@The Frowning Pony
I tend to add alternate sources as I happen across them (for instance, an image is a dupe of another, one has a tumblr source and the other deviantart) to descriptions.
If people really want me to, I guess I can put a “[mod edit: added FA link]” or something when I do them in the future. I’m not going to stop putting alternate source links in there at any rate.
I tend to add alternate sources as I happen across them (for instance, an image is a dupe of another, one has a tumblr source and the other deviantart) to descriptions.
If people really want me to, I guess I can put a “[mod edit: added FA link]” or something when I do them in the future. I’m not going to stop putting alternate source links in there at any rate.
Background Pony #9BA8
@Vargus
Vargus, can you please stop talking? That’s my humble request. Every time you say anything I feel my faith in humanity tumble a little bit lower.
Vargus, can you please stop talking? That’s my humble request. Every time you say anything I feel my faith in humanity tumble a little bit lower.
Background Pony #9BA8
Every time you say anything I feel my faith in humanity tumble a little bit lower.
I don’t mean to be insulting, but you simply come off as being a person of low intelligence, and that’s annoying when reading through threads meant for serious suggestions and error reports.
dt
No Thank You
@Background Pony
This is much better idea than mine, since in retrospect my idea is open to abuse. Would require actual coding, though.
This is much better idea than mine, since in retrospect my idea is open to abuse. Would require actual coding, though.
Clover the Clever 
Like we ever do that.
History won’t happen, though - as mentioned we’d have to delete whole images if their description contained rule-breaking material, as history would retain the old material.
Lord and Saviour
@Background Pony
Would require actual coding, though.
Like we ever do that.
History won’t happen, though - as mentioned we’d have to delete whole images if their description contained rule-breaking material, as history would retain the old material.
Background Pony #2FF1
@Clover the Clever
Then why allow a tag history? If I throw a link to something illegal in the tags, is it there permanently? Surely you must be sufficiently competent programmers to implement a “delete from history” button for moderators to use, right?
Then why allow a tag history? If I throw a link to something illegal in the tags, is it there permanently? Surely you must be sufficiently competent programmers to implement a “delete from history” button for moderators to use, right?
Clover the Clever
The “delete from history” button rather negates the point of having an auditable history in the first place.
Tags are a different kettle of fish - namely, that you can’t include anything but text in tags. So at worst we’d have a link (not clickable) to some illegal content, or a copy of some banned text. We’ve never had to worry about it, but if we had to we could (with a dev’s help) remove a tag history item entirely. Descriptions may have embedded images, which is a different kettle of fish altogether, and removing dodgy content from the description on images is a fairly common thing (in the context of making edits to descriptions).
Lord and Saviour
@Clover the Clever
Then why allow a tag history? If I throw a link to something illegal in the tags, is it there permanently? Surely you must be sufficiently competent programmers to implement a “delete from history” button for moderators to use, right?
The “delete from history” button rather negates the point of having an auditable history in the first place.
Tags are a different kettle of fish - namely, that you can’t include anything but text in tags. So at worst we’d have a link (not clickable) to some illegal content, or a copy of some banned text. We’ve never had to worry about it, but if we had to we could (with a dev’s help) remove a tag history item entirely. Descriptions may have embedded images, which is a different kettle of fish altogether, and removing dodgy content from the description on images is a fairly common thing (in the context of making edits to descriptions).
PlotHole 
Born 100,000 years ago
This is probably too resource intensive or too low priority for anyone less OCD than me, but…
There ar a few tags that can be objectively defined, like absurd res, upvotes/downvotes galore and wall of faves. Would it be possible for the system to check those parameters and add the tag automatically? There are situations where the tag is appropriate without the parameter, like spoilered image jokes and pictures that are about the tag, and sometime taggers don’t know what the accepted value is. So, if someone adds a tag that doesn’t meet the requirement, it could pop up a dialog box giving the definition and asking if you want to do that.
There ar a few tags that can be objectively defined, like absurd res, upvotes/downvotes galore and wall of faves. Would it be possible for the system to check those parameters and add the tag automatically? There are situations where the tag is appropriate without the parameter, like spoilered image jokes and pictures that are about the tag, and sometime taggers don’t know what the accepted value is. So, if someone adds a tag that doesn’t meet the requirement, it could pop up a dialog box giving the definition and asking if you want to do that.
Parzival
@Clover the Clever
But there is a delete from history button Clover! I know it exists! I witnessed it with my own two eyes!
But there is a delete from history button Clover! I know it exists! I witnessed it with my own two eyes!
Background Pony #2FF1
@Parzival
Yep, it’s right there in the tag history. Of course it doesn’t actually do anything for normal users, but I assumed it worked for admins.
Yep, it’s right there in the tag history. Of course it doesn’t actually do anything for normal users, but I assumed it worked for admins.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!