Author Either force-require translation groups and limit the number a user can have, or actually monitor uploaders for abusive uploads Rejected
Avatar
As stated in the title. If unclear, the force-requiring groups is for the purposes of being able to apply our group blocks.
I did check, and didn't see any threads or notes in the "Read First" about this matter. Apologies for any redundancy.
Abusive uploads in this case simply being a reference to any upload which is a "snipe" and extremely poor quality.
[ie, rather than having subjectively determined benefits, clearly having no benefits at all].

Alternatively (and this is the main request of the post), one could allow blocking of uploads by user.
Either way, it'd just serve a bandaid approach for any of the many more reasonable solutions for such matters (many of which are well-established enough to be intuitive to a degree, and work without issue on other sites), but I haven't gotten the feeling that feature updates are something the site does often, nor the feeling that site management cares much improvement of such matters. True or not, I don't see any detriment to the addition of a user block, if site development time can be allotted to the addition. Even if the benefits end up being minor, it'd at least serve as a sort of "hide" function for the more immediate offending upload in question.

Do please feel free to clarify any site background elements I may be unfamiliar with, as my interactions with community elements have thus far been limited, and have exclusively involved extreme toxicity (and thus have been rather lacking in providing me with any constructive information). Thank you kindly for your time.
Last edited 1 mo ago by Thoughtgap.
Avatar
Read this.

I didn't even have to change the page for this. Anyways it's been rejected before and i'll be rejected again.
Avatar
pretty much impossible. lets take these 3 groups for example:
no group - the translator is known but has either done so few works that a group is unwarranted (often times just a single chapter). or a person that doesn't want a group in general and does it as a hobby.
unknown - the translator is unknown. no possible way to force a proper group on these ones
/a/nonymous - Very similar to "no group" this is comprised of thousands of individuals which wish to remain anonymous and simply gave credit to anon for the translation.

in all 3 groups a snipe is very possible. with all 3 groups you will never get what you are looking for. with all 3 groups translation could be shit. with all 3 groups translation could be great. with all 3 groups they could skip ahead and do a chapter out of order.

because these things exist in the translator community and MD explicitly refuses to get involved with policing what thousands of scanlators do for their respective communities. your wish is extremely impractical to implement without impacting thousands of chapters. (also, good luck finding out who did every single no group chapter that shit can be really hidden sometimes)

as for blocking the user that did the upload. any random person on the site can upload a missing chapter. just because you black a user by no means solves your problem. what if a series has been uploaded by like 30 different people? what if you block a guy that uploads a ton of chapters and is simply contributing to the site?

in my mind, there needs to a limit on what MD is willing to do to appease people. A user can easily destroy their site experience with the user block feature if they happen to block the wrong individual. For that reason alone, i think it would be a bad feature. a great example would be banning uploads from @electromaster people may find him annoying for always uploading the manga+ or placeholder chapters from groups not on MD. If they do that then they have destroyed the reading experience from thousands of other manga on the site. whenever you end up finding a manga you enjoy and its missing a bunch of chapter a user may think "here we go again yet another manga with incomplete chapters, lets just switch to another website" little do they know that popular uploader they blocked actually uploaded those "missing" chapters

Blocking a specific group makes sense because there do exist troll groups. blocking the guy that uploads somebody else's chapters makes no sense.

only way i will be ok with a user blocking feature would be if they added something to each manga (probably above the description of the manga) a warning that chapters are missing due to your group/user blocks. with a checkbox to show blocked chapters
Last edited 1 mo ago by Assasinart.
Avatar
Ahahahaha, someone else came to the same conclusion I did, way back when group blocking was implemented. It only took over a month for it to happen.

Also, this was rejected literally two days ago. https://mangadex.org/thread/191205

Read the fucking forums before rageposting. Starting a new thread about a topic that was literally just rejected without bringing anything new to the table just makes you look like a dipshit. Why didn't you bother to post in the previous thread? It's still on the first page lol, you have no excuse.
Avatar
@Thoughtgap

Too easy to circumvent your block user idea. The work around is making a new account. If Mangadex actually did what you wanted, the site will basically get flooded with dummy and fake accounts

Also, please at least scan the suggestion section's thread titles before you post. Some guy already posted your suggestion.
Avatar
@sterven @crazybars
"I didn't even have to change the page for this." "Also, please at least scan the suggestion section's thread titles before you post. Some guy already posted your suggestion."

I spent 10 minutes [that's not an exaggeration] looking through things. I can forgive you what is an easy mis-assumption, but you should at least be able to see how such an assumption comes across in a way which is almost hypocritical. You all rushed to action, to accuse me of rushing of action, when I ended up being the only one who put in actual effort [no matter how inept I, with my perception and processing issues, am at such things]. Again, not expecting that fact to have been apparent, but your replies don't seem to have held much inherent merit, either.

Or, put more simply: Who is behaving more poorly, someone who puts in the effort and doesn't reach an ideal outcome, or someone who puts in no effort and acts in a manner which is, perhaps, inherently crude?

Besides, it's well understood that the frequency and emphasis of a complaint can often highlight how strongly the element troubles the community it relates to. It may not be ideal, as far as forum spam goes, but it isn't in fact inherently criticizable (outside of a deliberate willingness to spam). To the contrary, you've just emphasized the implication that my topic is meaningful enough to the community to warrant multiple threads within a very short period of time.

@Assasinart
You touch upon some rather obvious elements within your own post. Uploads can rather obviously be limited, other sites already implement soft-locks without issue (in a more general sense, the typical approach is to have a soft delay on full upload from non-established uploaders [in the case of this site, uploader groups] so the upload can be vetted) . You note the fact that MangaDex doesn't moderate (or update) things [compared to other sites], but this is pretty well known, and also doesn't need emphasis.

The most interesting thing you brought up is "Blocking a specific group makes sense because there do exist troll groups". I assume you mean that as an agreement to the sentiment of my thread topic and that the current option serves as a partial fix to the broader issue, because the alternative would be claiming that the exact same circumstance "makes no sense" just by way of a difference in what labeling one chooses to apply to it.

Finally, a lot of your comments just flat out are bewilderingly lacking in any clear coherency, such as your statement of "blocking the guy that uploads somebody else's chapters makes no sense". I mean, it doesn't take any mental exertion or special experience to intuitively realize that 1: Obviously you probably wouldn't want to block that guy and 2: If someone does want to block that guy, it's their own business.

@AbyssalMonkey You've done more for my thread than I ever could have, and you don't even realize it.




I don't engage in anything without a clear constructive basis, so this'll be my last comment in the thread. Do as you all please.
Last edited 1 mo ago by Thoughtgap.
Avatar
Talk about a condescending asshole.
Avatar
Wasn't really sure which way you were going on your post.... blocking users that do uploads or blocking users that translate only a few chapters. Either way, your argument is wildly impractical for one and incredibly meaningless for the other.

Take your pick
Avatar
@Thoughtgap
Lol. Amazing. Another person to add to the entitled basket. Thank you for being another prime candidate for why scanning is fucked and readers are toxic. Nobody wants to put in any effort.

Feel free to block me. I'll continue mocking people who can't use ctrl+f. You included.
Teasday
Developer
Avatar
@Thoughtgap By "force-require" a group, you mean people shouldn't be allowed to post under "no group"? Hard reject.

And once again, we currently have no plans to implement blocking based on the uploader. It has been thoroughly considered. Please stop posting about it.

I suggest ignoring chapters you don't like.
Avatar
While I don't think OP's suggestion is currently practical, I don't think coming in with the amount of hostility some of y'all did is helpful either. If you're exasperated with folks posting the same suggestion over and over, then I'd suggest a break from the suggestion forum.
Avatar
Bestboy. It's more that it is on the first page, with a rejected tag, and was posted in literally 2 days ago. He claims he spent 10 minutes searching, but he failed to even bother reading the first page of suggestions. If someone is going to be bringing a new suggestion to the table, the very minimum they can do is read the first page of suggestion threads and the sticky (this time it's not in it @Teasday) before posting a suggestion.

If this was buried even a single page back, nobody would be mocking him. It wasn't, it was literally the 11th (before his posting) thread on the front page.
Avatar
@BestBoy

The idea was posted 3 days ago below one of the most infamous threads in the Mangadex Suggestion forums history,"Merge Shoujo and Yuri", where some guys kept it going for a week and 2 days.

I don't know about hostile, but I was pretty sure the guy didn't even go through the 1st page of suggestions so I merely said please look 1st before posting duplicates. The easiest way is using the ctrl F search function on the computer for key words etc.

============================

1st Page of Suggestions thread. 12/12/19








*edited 12/12/19 : Pics in case you're from the future etc.
Last edited 1 mo ago by crazybars.
Avatar
@AbyssalMonkey Mocking members of the community in such a hostile manner only goes to run people out of the community. It doesn't help the community grow. So while I agree they should have checked some of the other posts (forum search when?) before making their own, the hostility was completely unnecessary.

@crazybars I never disagreed with the notion that OP should have checked for similar posts so I don't know why you've brought that up again. I'm saying the response to a repeat suggestion was overblown, especially after the yuri tag post where it was displayed that perseverance to a (practical) suggestion that's been rejected can get it overturned and implemented.
Teasday
Developer
Avatar
@AbyssalMonkey posted:

the sticky (this time it's not in it Teasday)

Thanks for mentioning, added
Teasday
Developer
Avatar
@BestBoy posted:

especially after the yuri tag post where it was displayed that perseverance to a (practical) suggestion that's been rejected can get it overturned and implemented.

Do note that it was overturned only because while I was thinking of stuff to add for the new site, I happened to come up with a system for switching between exclusion modes conveniently and it worked well enough for the yuri case that I didn't have to write a whole new nightmarish tag system

If anything, the yuri thread got so annoying it very nearly made me want to keep the shoujo ai tag out of spite
Avatar
@BestBoy

If you're exasperated with folks posting the same suggestion over and over



I thought you were referring to posting the same Duplicate subject threads over and over. Since I know that's not the case anymore, I'm a Zoop out of this thread.

👉😎👉
Avatar
@Teasday Sure, but if they had dropped it after it was initially rejected, who knows if you would have even thought it could apply to the new compromise (Girl's Love/Boy's Love), much less if there even would have been a compromise.

@crazybars "Zoop" is a good verb.
Avatar
Bestboy, the thing with rejected ideas is that unless you bring a new option to the table, and show you've bothered to do even basic forum searching, it's just going to get ignored. Rejected ideas aren't just ignored ones, rejected ones are ones which have a reason for being so, either technically or community driven. If you want to change a rejection, there needs to be a good reason.

OP couldn't even bother to keep the momentum with the same thread because he couldn't do even basic searching, find out if it was rejected, and then refute. It's not like he had to dig up a thread on page 10. It was on the first page.

If he had bothered to show even basic levels of caring, he wouldn't have been mocked, he would have knowledge of why it was rejected, been able to try and convince people with counterpoints, and kept the thread momentum, just like you think how the yuri thread happened. Instead, he created a new one, didn't address any of the issues, and made a fool of himself claiming he searched when it was obvious he didn't.
Teasday
Developer
Avatar
@BestBoy posted:

Sure, but if they had dropped it after it was initially rejected, who knows if you would have even thought it could apply to the new compromise (Girl's Love/Boy's Love), much less if there even would have been a compromise.

I conceded the argument of the thread in the very first reply I made, the reason it was rejected was because I had no method for implementing it at the time and I explained as much

I could have locked the thread right then and there and we would have eventually re-opened it when I later came up with a reasonable enough solution

Arguing about it for pages on end did nothing but frustrate me for no reason