Pull/Don't Pull Dichotomy

Just thinking out loud, shouldn't "look for replacements before pulling" be a very reasonable third option besides "pull" and "don't pull"? I know there's no strict formula on whatever we put in our "official" vote (the ones with the !-heading), but at least there should be a common term for that kind of stance.

Many a time this dichotomy brings about no less than good ol' perfect solution fallacy.

edited 25th Oct '11 4:12:21 AM by Catalogue

I absolutely agree with this. Probably most of the tropers who open those topics have good intentions, but as a matter of fact, this forum is clogged with threads screaming for pulling not-so-horrible images -without even having the slightest idea of what to use as a replacement instead- just for the hell of it, that end up not being replaced at all. It feels like a form of griefing, and definitely UABPIF (until a better pic is found) should be an actual thing around here.

Bottom line, we should take action only for images that have genuine problems -whatermarks, copyrights, are misleading to the trope, and so fort- and let the other treads take place only if the person who opens the thread has an actual suggestion for a replacement, otherwhise locking them.

UABPIF... I like that.

The usual "bad IP thread" routine is:

• Someone (often with good intentions) protested that an okay page image (not misleading, not problematic, but meh) is not the most elegant solution possible.
• People voted for pulling. Image hunt commences.
  • Or, people started throwing suggestions and forgot to discuss whether the current pic needs replacing, instead just going with it.*
    ^{Occasionally with someone realising in page 24, "Hey, how's this better than the current one?"}
• Nothing gets done. Which is all right if the image is misleading or problematic ("no image > bad image"), but if it's even a "meh" one, eventually it hurts the page.

I personally agree that the current "+3 to pull and it's gone" is happening far too fast. Very often, there are 3 "Pull" votes in the first four or five posts — and the picture is pulled within an hour or so of the thread being made, even if it isn't a bad picture.

"I think it could be better, but I don't have any suggestions for how" shouldn't be a reason to pull a functional page image.

I'd be fine if we put a moratorium on all "this image is okay but we can do better" threads. We need to focus on getting rid of or replacing bad images, not wasting time on pictures that don't need to be changed.

Agreeing. The "+3 to pull" principle is good, but it needs some time. It's like calling a solid poll in the weekends.

Let's try it.

Motion to pull

Against pulling

UABPIF

Not bad.

Maybe we could add a waiting period for cases where the picture doesn't meet the insta-pull criteria or something. There are definitely cases where the picture just needs to go, but holding off on it a bit to get more input probably wouldn't hurt.

As far as "we can do better" threads, I not sure what to do. It's not like we can just lock every thread that doesn't have a suggestion offered, and I can't think of any other real way to deter those sorts of threads.

I usually vote pull only if replacement is found. You were allowed to do that. That has always been a thing.

Yes, I just thought maybe we can get a specific term for it so that it doesn't get flanderised into "oh this guy leans towards pulling/not pulling after all."

The problem isn't so much that images are getting pulled without replacements being put up, it's that they're being pulled before we get a real consensus on whether or not they need to be pulled. It isn't uncommon to get three pull votes really quickly, yank the image, and then have people show up and vote against pulling it after it's already been removed. And at that point we usually don't put it back up unless we run a new crowner or something. So images end up getting pulled that wouldn't have been pulled if the "motion to pull" didn't go so quickly.

That's why I think a waiting period would be a good idea. If the pic doesn't obviously fit the "pull on sight" criteria, we could wait to pull the pic until we've given people enough time to vote against pulling, regardless of how many votes there are. Then after a few hours or whatever, if nobody has voted against pulling, pull it.

edited 25th Oct '11 11:05:52 AM by JapaneseTeeth

I usually save my pull support for when I think a picture is actually bad.

The pic should either stand on its own, or get pulled, not "okay unless we find something better", that's just standard "if we find something better". If you don't think it's a bad image, vote not to pull. Vote on images you think don't show the trope (which are all bad images, "looking pretty" is not a good image). "Meh" means "don't pull".

I think this came up before, there were suggestions to bump it up to five votes, wait till ten posts, and other things. The three vote pull was put in place to prevent the ten month threads of pic just sitting on a page because no replacement could be found. A twelve hour (or whatever) "no pulling before this point" rule wouldn't be bad.

And please start locking down "I think we can do better than this picture" threads immediately. If the OP isn't even willing to do a Google Image Search, it's not serious.

I agree that a pic should stand on its own.

That said, there is really no hurry to get three-yes-votes-and-a-pull within twenty minutes of opening a thread here. It would be a reasonable guideline to not take any action for at least 24 hours.

(note that I said "guideline", not "hard rule"; if there's an extreme case then obviously it gets nuked instantly; but such cases are rare)

I'd be fine with a 24-hour waiting period on a pic pull, but something that people need to do in their posts is state, without question, whether they're for the pull, against it, or UABICBF once it's started. Something that really irritates me is when there's a pull vote in progress, but you get a lot of people posting around it with ideas and comments but not clearly voting.

Also:

• I'm in favor of a simple majority on the votes, rather than a 2/3 majority or something like that.
• I think UABICBF should count as a nay vote in tallies; agree/disagree?

edited 25th Oct '11 6:19:52 PM by Willbyr

Yes. 2/3rd majority is for things that are a Big Deal (tm). Swapping out a picture is completely not a big deal.

What do you mean as a Nay vote? As "Don't pull" on a a pull/don't pull count? They definitely should be counted as "don't pull" for those. Immediate pull with no replacement should be reserved for those pages that either have a clearly bad page image or are voted unpicturable. Pulling a decent but not great image and not putting up a better one leaves the page open for anyone who want to to slap up whatever they want.

Yep, that's what I meant.

I'm good with the 24-hour rule.

And yes, UABPIF should count as a "nay", the difference being the support the voter gives for formulating and finding an alternative picture.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Can we please use a less obtuse term than UATBIF? Or however you spell that?

That's fine. UABTIF. Until a better term i—okay that was lame.

Eh... Maybe Keep Until Better Image Suggested (Keep Until Better Is Suggested/Keep Until Better Image Suggestion) sounds better?

edited 4th Nov '11 8:38:52 AM by plenum

I like that. It's as catchy as it can get!

The real catch is "Better than no image." If you want to pull it, that means you think it's worse than having no image at all.

That works.