PDA

View Full Version : Collection Limitation



DragonTalon
11-02-2012, 08:02 PM
So I tried out the collections feature as I was curious how it all worked, and suspected a problem which it confirmed.

Basically it's just like an extra favorites folder. Just a link to the actual submission and nothing else.

The biggest problem is you can't write a description for the image. So if I commission a picture of a character and I want to post it and explain who they are, what story they came from, explain stuff, that sort of thing, I can't.

I'm not going to be happy with just linking to an artists page that says "a commish" and nothing else.

I'd still want to upload all my commissioned art, even if other artists upload it for that reason alone.

One nice feature to add would be notifications if a collection image gets a comment. Not sure if that's added yet or not.

It's a complicated issue though. I can see as an artist wanting to keep it the way it is to collect all the comments/favs from it.

GingerM
11-02-2012, 11:54 PM
There was another thread raised on the subject of collections, but I can't find it now, so I'll re-post as best as I can remember:

What I would like to see is that when the artist sends it to someone (or several someones) as a collection item, the recipient has the ability to ADD to (no modify!) the artist's description, so they can, as you suggest, add some character info, back story to the image, whatever it may be. However, that added description should appear ONLY when viewing the item in the person's collections. If you go to the artist's gallery to look at it, you should see just their description.

Like this:

artist posts art with description foo

artist offers it to commissioner and friend.

commissioner accepts collection item and adds bar to description; cannot modify original foo.

user looks at art in commissioner's collection; the total description is foo bar.

user looks at art in artist's gallery; the total description is foo only; commissioner's description bar is not seen.

Does this make sense? To take it further, let's now say that later on, artist (who owns art, after all) decides to offer it as a collection item to their friend friend. friend accepts the collection item and adds pthud to description foo. Again, they cannot modify the original description foo.

When friend or anyone visiting the collection portion of friend's gallery looks at art now, they would see description foo pthud. If they looked at the piece in artist's gallery, they would see simply foo. if they looked at it in the collection portion of commissioner's gallery, the description there would still be foo bar.

At all times, the only people who could alter descriptions would be the people who posted them.

Temrin
11-03-2012, 02:54 AM
Mainly @GingerM but also some stuff about the OP's post : )

Hmm, i believe the point was (of collections) to have it linking back to the artist because its that artists art. (having a different description per each one -depending on whos page you are looking at it from- is a bit redundant. imo anyways.) I think the artists should be getting the faves and whatnot. (and possibly the faves adding to the collection owner as well if you want to take it that far) As for comments though, Its been suggested a few times in the past that the comments should notify both the artist and those who's collection item it is because it could be about the art or it could be about the characters or commissioner, when someone comments right? So the commissioner would get notified and so would the artist so they can comment back about comments that pertain to either of them. (so i do hope they implement that because that would be nice.)

But i dont think having a different description depending on where you see it would be suitable. (lots of extra cod to DB query if its coming from what page and then dictating how and which info to show, etc.)

But having the notifications going to both the artist and the collector would be awesome (with a section to have the artists description, and an extra section for the collector to add to but as you said, not modify the original artists description.)

eh my two cents anyways.

Khorax
11-03-2012, 09:08 AM
I generally have a problem with collections, from a logistical standpoint. It creates extra work in the hands of the commissioner, should an artist decide to clean up the gallery, remove old pictures or go full nuclear and delete all art. All of the followers of the original picture must now re-follow the second image as posted by the commissioner. This means that comments and credit must be provided, and it's just.. well, it's a mess.

While an artist does have the right to display work, generally speaking, artists extend this right to reposting of works for personal display. In this case, Weasyl actually interferes with a commissioner's right to post said work. While it defaults to the artist, it is generally accepted that commissioners get the ability to redisplay works created. There are some issues:

- What do you do if you and the artist do not get along any further and are no longer on speaking terms?
- What do you do if the artist gave you permission prior to this tiff and now chooses to -lie-?
- What happens when an artist cries and vanishes -and- your HD dies? (This has happened to me IRL)

I understand that Weasyl is a gallery, but Weasyl is also going to be using ad revenue and pay-for services to support it. At this point, as someone who is not an artist, I am seeing very little reason to join this site, aside from popularity. which bothers me. I really wish that the admin would consider the above points and make Collections as every bit in depth as a first-hand gallery (or replacing the main gallery), and provide a more robust toolset for users, out of respect for those who help keep this medium alive.

Without commissioners, there'd be far, far less furry artists.

taasla
11-03-2012, 10:50 AM
Your points are ethical points, Khorax.

A good artist who runs their business fairly understands that business is business. When my clients agree to my contract, it states that they have the right to repost. The only way they lose that right temporarily is if they alter my art in a way that is not allowed in their contract, and they regain the right to upload the original version.

If I turn out to dislike someone, then they will never lose that right. Because it's a contract, not based on friendship.

When it comes to deleting things because I am leaving, then that is my right as an artist. The client may reupload as they wish, but I am not a backup service. The onus is not on me to ensure you have copies of your work.

As for the collection issue, I think an addition to the main image akin to DeviantART's critique feature would be really nice. When someone accepts something up for collection, you can tack on your version of the description beneath mine. I don't know my clients' characters. It would be really awesome for them to be able to add their own flair onto my own submission.

DragonTalon
11-03-2012, 12:22 PM
GingerM, I see one problem with the foo and bar descriptions, and that is if a viewer looks at the artists and doesn't see bar, he will be confused trying to follow any comments made by people who saw a different description than they did. I assume the coding issues will kill this idea though, as interesting and useful as it is.

Khorax, that's another good point. If an artist deleted their art or account, will I even know it? Or will I just have to notice that hey, there is something missing from my collections. Another reason I wouldn't want to use them.

taasla, I think the point being made was that by being unable to upload an image if the artist is here, you are forced to rely on the artist not deleting the image. Worse, all the comments and discussions on that image will go away too, as well as everyoen who faved it. I can re-upload it but all those comments and favs will be gone. That for me would be the worst part, having a year or more of feedback vanish. People ragequit and mass delete galleries all the time, and sometimes clean out their gallery of old stuff on a regular basis. I'd rather not have to rely on an artist to keep my stuff up and online. They are fully within their right to quit or delete as they wish, but once art is shared then it becomes a problem when it's deleted.

taasla
11-03-2012, 01:05 PM
taasla, I think the point being made was that by being unable to upload an image if the artist is here, you are forced to rely on the artist not deleting the image.

I'm pretty sure the site doesn't keep you from uploading work if the artist is already here. The site encourages users to receive the item from the artist first and foremost, but they may upload it otherwise. Unless they clarified this since the last time I read the rules and I've missed it?

DragonTalon
11-03-2012, 01:24 PM
I'm pretty sure the site doesn't keep you from uploading work if the artist is already here. The site encourages users to receive the item from the artist first and foremost, but they may upload it otherwise. Unless they clarified this since the last time I read the rules and I've missed it?

From https://www.weasyl.com/help/collections ...

Although we have this system, users are still allowed to upload pieces made for them/that include them, as long as one of three conditions are met:
1. The upload in question that was made for you is personal, and you wish to set friends-only permissions to it
2. The original creator does not want to put it in their gallery
3. The person who made your upload does not have a Weasyl account, although we strongly encourage our users to invite those artists who made works for them to the site. If they decline the invite, then go ahead and proceed!

If the art is uploaded by the artist you can't post it yourself. Not sure if you upload art before they come here if you have to take it down when they upload it, but a strict reading of the rules would indicate that. Means any comments/favs would go away there too.

Collections is a great idea but I think needs a bit of work. That's the nature of Beta testing, to find broken features and fix them, or verify that it's working as intended.

Clarifying what happens if an artist comes here and uploads art after you did would be great though. For artists with 100's of submissions I can see them not wanting to upload it at all, but if they do decide to do that later it would be annoying to have a bunch of submissions deleted. Do I need to delete art I uploaded before an artist was here? Or if they are here, don't want to post some art and later change their mind and upload it?

Khorax
11-03-2012, 02:08 PM
It's that rule, solely, that is preventing me from fully supporting the site. It's asking to inconvenience a large portion of the user base to save on bandwidth. Look at FA. How many people on FA submit unique pieces of art versus following others that do. Having a place to post your own commissioned work is vital. I understand that the site is not a back-up service. It's a gallery, but galleries aren't always sponsored by the artists who drew the pictures. Sometimes, they are based on subject matter.

I have to ask then, with this rule, what's the point in me, as a commissioner, having an account here. I have fewer rights to display and promote artwork that I have paid for, which often uses my intellectual property. This is why you often see 'Character belongs to X'. The character is mine, and a creative work as a result. Should I hand-write a description of the characters, I can have that on my page.. and that's it. The rest -must- go into collections, excepting a lack of the work on the site.

There are a lot of problems that this creates, as the bulk of financial gain by artists -are- people who love to proudly display the works they provide. Fan-attentions aside, it could cause problems with convincing people that this is a good site for the non-artist.. which is a fairly sizeable portion of people who would use sites.. such as this.

Ben
11-03-2012, 03:44 PM
You can upload your commissions if you want. We won't be enforcing any sort of rules regarding the Collections system until we can actually improve it.

RadioCatastrophe
11-03-2012, 04:00 PM
Yeah all this has been suggested, mostly what GingerM has described. And the Admin (such as Ben) have said countless times that you can upload commissioned work so long as artists have given you the right to. They just encourage the usage of Collections to keep things from popping up multiple times (though someone suggested that the commission appear on the front page once received as a collection which I don't personally think is needed. A simple notification is fine) from multiple users when the artist can simple upload and share it to commissioners.

So if you wanna use Collections use it, otherwise ignore it. I'm sure artists who use Weasyl won't change or edit their TOS to out rule uploading commissioned work.

DragonTalon
11-03-2012, 04:20 PM
Yeah all this has been suggested, mostly what GingerM has described. And the Admin (such as Ben) have said countless times that you can upload commissioned work so long as artists have given you the right to.

Might want to update the official rules listed on the Collections Help page if they are no longer correct.

As for being able to upload things, when the collections system gets improved and the rules get enforced again I guess we will have to take the risk of submissions getting deleted. It is a Beta after all.

RadioCatastrophe
11-03-2012, 04:25 PM
If an artist gives you permission to re-upload work commissioned for you I'm sure Weasyl won't step in to deny you the leisure of re-uploading it. I'm not denying that they might enforce using collections more, but it'd be silly of them to deny commissioners of uploading work that they paid for or were gifted/traded and would possibly lose if an artist decides to up and leave and clear out their account. It'd also be smart to save all images to your HD as well as an external (online or physical HD) such as dropbox or a flash drive.

Also the rules were never out-dated, from my understanding they never outlawed commissioners uploading work, it's more of a way to better encourage/enforce using collections more otherwise how would we be here now with these suggestions if no one used them? However it should be added that commissioners are not being forced to keep from uploading their commissioned works.

DragonTalon
11-03-2012, 04:44 PM
Also the rules were never out-dated, from my understanding they never outlawed commissioners uploading work, it's more of a way to better encourage/enforce using collections more otherwise how would we be here now with these suggestions if no one used them? However it should be added that commissioners are not being forced to keep from uploading their commissioned works.

They very clearly outlaw uploading commissions drawn by other people unless it falls under one of the three exceptions.

I'll repost the rules from here again... https://www.weasyl.com/help/collections

Although we have this system, users are still allowed to upload pieces made for them/that include them, as long as one of three conditions are met:
1. The upload in question that was made for you is personal, and you wish to set friends-only permissions to it
2. The original creator does not want to put it in their gallery
3. The person who made your upload does not have a Weasyl account, although we strongly encourage our users to invite those artists who made works for them to the site. If they decline the invite, then go ahead and proceed!

That seems pretty clear that uploading commissions is NOT allowed unless the artist is not on the site or has stated they do not wish to post that piece. It doesn't state what happens if I upload art and THEN the artist joins. Will it then need to be deleted?

Earlier Ben stated that this was not the case FOR NOW, and we can disregard those rules until the Collections system is improved. That's why I said the rules listed there should be updated to reflect this, and why I was wondering what will happen when they do go back into effect.

GingerM
11-03-2012, 04:44 PM
@Temrin, I don't disagree without about artists should receive faves for art, but I feel that the people who purchase the art (or are given it, or however it comes into their hands) have an interest as well.

I'll walk back the idea of additional description being visible depending on whether you're viewing it in someone's collection or not, but I do think the person(s) who have the piece in their collections should be able to add something to the description, As someone else pointed out elsewhere, sometimes an artist will simply put "Commission for <<name>>". There is no context, no story, and maybe that's not their job as the artist. But the commissioner may have a story to go with the image, and they should have a way to add that story. So here's what I suggest:

Description of art by artist, appears when first posted:


lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum.

comment notifications go to artist only.

artist then offers the piece to commissioner as a collection item. commissioner add to the description, which ends up looking like this:


lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum.

Collection member commissioner added:

look at my cat flying through space. Fly, cat, fly.

Note that commissioner cannot edit or remove artist's original description; likewise, artist cannot edit or remove commissioner's addition. Everyone sees the full description, whether looking at artist's gallery or in commissioner's collection. Now that commissioner has accepted the collection item, comment notifications go to commissioner as well as artist.

If now artist also offers it as a collection item to friend, friend also could add to the description, and would be the only person who could edit or delete their addition, and it would simply be tacked onto the current description's end.

Since the item is in artist's gallery, commissioner and friend are unable to delete the submission. However, once artist offers it as a collection item, they cannot delete it either; they can hide it from view in their gallery but it continues to appear in the collections of commissioner and friend. If artist chooses to hide it, they also no longer receive comment notification on it. This would give the effect of deleting it from artist's gallery without suddenly yanking it from commissioner and friend's collections.

Does this sound like a reasonable middle ground?

ETA: If people would like, I can try to mock up something of what it might look like?

Temrin
11-03-2012, 05:05 PM
I definitely do agree with you GingerM : )

I also said i agreed with adding comments and all that.
Just that, the way you explained it, is that it would show via whomever page you are looking at, would show that persons description. I would be okay with that, if there were expanding sections (accordion folder type deal for any coders) below to show artist/other collectors descriptions as well. Since i can see the description getting very lengthy if all were shown at the same time. Specially if there are multiple characters in the piece and collected my multiple.

Otherwise though, i agre with being able to hide/store the image and so it not being deleted! I very much agree to this! DA has a store function and it is VERY useful. I dont want to delete my work. but it doesnt mean i really want to show it either. Sometimes i will change what i want to store and hide depending on what i'm trying to promote with my gallery! So store function + multiple descriptions. yes! :D

Khorax
11-03-2012, 10:06 PM
It would be nice to have something official to back up the people who go ahead and act on the admin's word. I'm not a fan of hearing one thing and having something else enforced. I understand that this may be splitting hairs, but this kind of thing is how FA is run, and if Weasyl wishes to have higher standards, I expect it.

RadioCatastrophe
11-03-2012, 11:06 PM
They very clearly outlaw uploading commissions drawn by other people unless it falls under one of the three exceptions.

I'll repost the rules from here again... https://www.weasyl.com/help/collections

Although we have this system, users are still allowed to upload pieces made for them/that include them, as long as one of three conditions are met:
1. The upload in question that was made for you is personal, and you wish to set friends-only permissions to it
2. The original creator does not want to put it in their gallery
3. The person who made your upload does not have a Weasyl account, although we strongly encourage our users to invite those artists who made works for them to the site. If they decline the invite, then go ahead and proceed!

That seems pretty clear that uploading commissions is NOT allowed unless the artist is not on the site or has stated they do not wish to post that piece. It doesn't state what happens if I upload art and THEN the artist joins. Will it then need to be deleted?

Earlier Ben stated that this was not the case FOR NOW, and we can disregard those rules until the Collections system is improved. That's why I said the rules listed there should be updated to reflect this, and why I was wondering what will happen when they do go back into effect.

Maybe I'm just taking what that said with a grain of salt, but when I first read it I didn't feel they were trying to tell commissioners not to upload their commissioned pieces. A nice edition or change of words to reassure non-artists that they can still upload to Weasyl definitely should be added.

And as far as what Ben said I still don't think they'll be cracking down on commissioners to invite artists or request a collection, though if an artist adds to their TOS that any commissioner on Weasyl has to accept the Collection but is allowed to re-upload elsewhere then I can see staff possibly stepping in if said commissioner refuses to accept the collection and re-uploads without the artists permission. I could be twisting words and hearing things wrong again but it's just what I think is going on.

Kihari
11-04-2012, 12:54 AM
Earlier Ben stated that this was not the case FOR NOW, and we can disregard those rules until the Collections system is improved. That's why I said the rules listed there should be updated to reflect this, and why I was wondering what will happen when they do go back into effect.

For my part I'll say that we're not really concerned with going back and saying, "Oh no you can't upload this after all because the artist uploaded it now!" in such a case.

In a perfect world, you might discover that it was uploaded and would be willing to remove it from your gallery and re-collect it. That's something we may suggest later on when the feature is rather more like submissions proper, but to make a big fuss about it just for the sake of using collections isn't something I believe the staff should spend time on, nor does it seem right to go back and change our minds about it since it's currently acceptable.

The idea behind collections was to help keep each submission a unique thing, with the artist credit going where it is due and avoiding wasted space from reuploads. It's not at all intended to be "one more rule people have to follow, no matter what, just because," and I hope we never treat it that way.

Khorax
11-04-2012, 08:43 AM
For my part I'll say that we're not really concerned with going back and saying, "Oh no you can't upload this after all because the artist uploaded it now!" in such a case.

In a perfect world, you might discover that it was uploaded and would be willing to remove it from your gallery and re-collect it. That's something we may suggest later on when the feature is rather more like submissions proper, but to make a big fuss about it just for the sake of using collections isn't something I believe the staff should spend time on, nor does it seem right to go back and change our minds about it since it's currently acceptable.

The idea behind collections was to help keep each submission a unique thing, with the artist credit going where it is due and avoiding wasted space from reuploads. It's not at all intended to be "one more rule people have to follow, no matter what, just because," and I hope we never treat it that way.

Ah. So then the rule is "working as intended" and, as they are, eventually are likely to be implemented. It's really sad that this kind of thing needs to be a rule and needs to be inforced. While collections are a nice option to have, forcing me to take that option has turned me off of what should be a good site. I'm not an artist. Right now, I feel as if Weasyl is less inclined to be 'for me'. Putting the "power in the hands of the artist" as it were has just as many problems as not, as most artist provide reposting rights defacto.

Perhaps there should be an option, instead, for artists to choose to make art unrepostable. This option, if checked, would do the same as the rule above, but only for artists whom -really- need to keep their art from being posted in other galleries. It will cut down on the number of fake claims and arguments with the admin, and leave it up to the community to decide whether or not artwork should be posted, rather than the site. These rules just don't reflect the spirit of the fandom as a whole, and comes across as crass and archaic to most of the non-artists I have brought this up with.

As a result, I'm a bit insulted that I'd be treated like this, and be expected to abide by rules that limit expression of my own creativity, simply because I paid someone else to put it down on a piece of paper. I undertstand how the laws work, but I feel that this is such a heavy handed approach, that the site is not welcoming to people who are not-artists. At least in the above suggested idea, the rule is enforced for those artists who need it, rather than have it be the defacto approach.

Again, we're all in this together. I'd love to see Weasyl reflect that.

Roki
11-04-2012, 07:18 PM
@Khorax: I didn't get the impression that that was what Kihari meant. As I understood it the intent was for the collections system to be used, but not forced on users if that wasn't their chosen path, and that staff time shouldn't be spent tracking down duplicate submissions in the case of commissioner/artist. I'm sorry, but I am not sure where you were coming from.

A couple suggestions that might make the collections feature more useful for commissioners and artists both:

- Persistant artwork even if it is removed from the artist's gallery. The artist's name is still attached and it displays only through the commissioner's collections. It can only be completely removed if removed from gallery and any collections it is attached to. This also preserves all faves, comments, and so forth.

- Ability to upload directly to collections. In this case the artist's name is added to a "creator" field. If they join at a later time the collections offer can be extended as per usual.

- Ability to place collected pieces directly into your gallery. You can flag them as collected in the corner with a little 'c' or something. This option means that:
a) A commissioner uploads a piece of artwork from their favorite artist, who is not a member yet. When this artist joins they want to display the piece in their gallery as part of their portfolio. With the option to display the piece in their gallery they are able to do it without uploading a duplicate. In combination with the option to upload directly to collections the artist receives all credit for the work and the commissioner has the piece to display.
b) An artist uploads a commission for their favorite commissioner. The commissioner does not draw and only has pieces he has purchased. By being able to display it in his gallery he can now show that he is an active user with an appreciation for his different pieces.

- Collections gallery displays as your main gallery by default if you do not have anything in your main gallery.

- If a file with the same filename has already been uploaded add in an alert with the name of the person who uploaded it, suggesting you request it for your collections instead. Some folks might not know if their artist or commissioner is already on the site! It can be ignored, but it would be nice to have in case it's already up.

- Ability to select persons you share your collections with/yourself under specific titles, and display them as such. For instance: Creator or Artist, Character Owner, Commissioner, Collaborator. It gives a little more context to the submission in that way.

Khorax
11-04-2012, 10:25 PM
They very clearly outlaw uploading commissions drawn by other people unless it falls under one of the three exceptions.

I'll repost the rules from here again... https://www.weasyl.com/help/collections

Although we have this system, users are still allowed to upload pieces made for them/that include them, as long as one of three conditions are met:
1. The upload in question that was made for you is personal, and you wish to set friends-only permissions to it
2. The original creator does not want to put it in their gallery
3. The person who made your upload does not have a Weasyl account, although we strongly encourage our users to invite those artists who made works for them to the site. If they decline the invite, then go ahead and proceed!

That seems pretty clear that uploading commissions is NOT allowed unless the artist is not on the site or has stated they do not wish to post that piece. It doesn't state what happens if I upload art and THEN the artist joins. Will it then need to be deleted?

This has been posted several times in this thread, It clearly shows -intent- that the collections system be -forced- upon users, not as an option, but as a rule. From what I can tell most people haven't realized this or read the actual text and have skimmed it. I feel concern, because as much as I seem to rally against it, I actually want Weasyl to succeed, just.. not with this rule in place. It's a nice -option-, but choosing to make it a hard and fast rule makes me, as a non-artist, feel less important. My character is still my idea. I put a fair amount of work in them, just like any other creative medium. I'd like to have recognition on Weasyl that it's just as important as the artists whom are paid to provide artwork. :P

I've already posted how this could turn into a logistical nightmare for non-artists. Why do I have to be a second-class citizen?

Wuvvums
11-05-2012, 03:16 AM
Don't mean to be a wet blanket about this but between feeling insulted, discriminated against, and being a second-class citizen you are really victimizing yourself over a website feature.

I honestly love the collections feature and I am eager for more of my friends to join weasyl so I can put my gifts/commissions into their collections. This feature is wonderful.

Khorax
11-05-2012, 09:13 AM
Don't mean to be a wet blanket about this but between feeling insulted, discriminated against, and being a second-class citizen you are really victimizing yourself over a website feature.

I honestly love the collections feature and I am eager for more of my friends to join weasyl so I can put my gifts/commissions into their collections. This feature is wonderful.

Honestly, I'd love the collections feature too if I wasn't being forced to use them. I'm not really victimizing myself. It's very clear that the rule is intended to target those individuals who do not create their own artworks. I even understand some of the logic behind it: it helps ensure that artists get proper credit for their works. By and large, however, this 'feature' just doesn't work. I'm not asking for 'collections to go away'. I'm asking for the rule to be altered or options to be made so that it doesn't make me feel like Weasyl doesn't want me here. I'm a customer. A potentially paying customer. I'm someone whom, if I gave the money, didn't read the rule, and then found it enforced, would be demanding my 'donation' be returned. I'd leave the site.

Most people haven't realized that this is a requirement. Weasyl doesn't plan on enforcing it for now.. maybe.. depending on who you talk to. That worries me. That even the admin are uncertain about it bothers me. That combined with the pay-for features? It feels fishy, and it's not inviting.

The furry fandom is -based- on the internet, perhaps moreso than any other fandom in existance. They truly have roots and growth within centers of community like FA, SoFurry and even VCL and Furnation back in the day. I'm old enough to realize 'It's a website feature'. I'm also old enough to realize that there's a problem with it. I'm not asking for the feature to be removed, again. I'm asking for admins to reconsider making it a rule that people -must- use it, especially when it inconveniences the majority of people.

Wuvvums
11-05-2012, 12:11 PM
Maybe I am confused but how does collections really make you feel like they don't want you? I think once they have the option for users to ask for collections from the author, then there wouldn't be much to worry about. Collections are still part of your user page so it's not like people visiting you don't get to see them. I just don't know what's being missed here since it would save on redundant submissions and focus the comments and faves on the person who made the piece.

Collection folders would be neat, though so we can organize our collections.

Also, how is it an inconvenience? You type in a user name and it gets forwarded to them, and then they approve. It's a very easy system.

Thistle
11-05-2012, 12:41 PM
It's very clear that the rule is intended to target those individuals who do not create their own artworks.

I've not really seeing that. As far as I'm reading (and correct me if I'm wrong), all users would have to comply, whether they're visual artists, musicians, writers, or only here as commissioners. You can also use other artists' works on character pages without issue (once again, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

There's definitely some kinks to work out, but I don't find anything particularly inconvenient or alienating about the policy.

DragonTalon
11-05-2012, 01:03 PM
Collections are a great idea, I agree. Linking artists and commissioners like that is something that hasn't been done before.

Mainly because it's so darn tricky. No matter how many features you add, there will be trade-offs.

It's been started they are being worked on and improved, so here are some quick reasons and later some suggestions based on how it is now, and an attempt to explain why some people see them as a bad thing as they currently stand.

The downsides to the current system are...

* Collections don't have folders or show up on your profile page. I don't click the Collections tab on most profiles I view and am probably not alone.

* The commissioner has no control or input over the submission description, title or comments.

* If the artist deletes their account or a submission, all those comments and favorites vanish.

* Current posted rules say you have to use it. Admins have said that for now this will be waved, but it's still unclear.

I hope the site owners/admins don't get too discouraged over all the complains. Part of the problem is it's such a complicated idea that it's easy to point out flaws but HARD to offer solutions.

The comments problem is one that I am not sure how to fix. Here is an example.

Some artists like and ask for critiques. Others demand that nobody critique their art, and delete comments that do. Some artists don't mind people RPing in submission comments. Others hate it and will delete any RPing that starts.

The problem with making one submission for the artist and the commissioner is that they ail often NOT agree on these things. Maybe the artists likes constructive critisisim but the commissioner is insulted by people critiquing his fursona design. Maybe the commissioner likes to RP with people who post on their character but the artist doesn't.

It could be set up so each role (inker,shader,commissioner,writer) gets their own separate comments page, but now we have split things up again which breaks the idea of collections. It's tough.

I think most of the discussion so far is revolving around the idea of using Collections being enforced. My view is it should be a feature people can choose, but not required. That gets mixed up with complaints and ideas about how it's implemented which has made this thread go in circles for the last dozen posts.

Khorax
11-05-2012, 03:08 PM
Simple. The rules in place means that I would be only allowed to submit images that are either my own creation, or items that are otherwise not on Weasyl. It means that, until collections are treated just as equally as submissions on pages, that they are, for people who have little to no submissions, secondary. Likewise, if it does not fit into the top two categories, you have -Zero- control over the submission under your gallery. If the original description said something snarky, or if you wished to have something different posted, it has to be in addition, it only shows up as part of Collections, and only for those who view it.

As mentioned later in the thread, there -are- a lot of issues that have already come up, and the site is -just- in beta, from a design concept forcing people to use collections is different from having it as an option. Given that I don't have a plethora of works, my gallery would likely be reposts of artwork of my intellectual property or characters. The characters belong to me, but I get nothing from Weasyl for that. Neither does anyone else who doesn't post works of their own. What reason why I ever need to sign up for a site like this aside from popularity.

It's not hard to imagine how this could be off putting to some people. Check out FA and count the number of 'character' galleries there are versus individual artists. The number is staggering, but Weasyl is showing initiative to force these people to take the back seat. Of course I'm not going to be happy with it.

I've said this before, though. I don't have a problem with collections. I have a problem with A. The way it's implemented versus Submissions and B. That you are required to use it as opposed to having it as an optional folder you can place works in.

Fiz
11-05-2012, 03:32 PM
Khorax, no one is going to remove your work because it was already posted to the site. If they do, submit a complaint, and we will deal with that staff member.

It's been stated several times that collections are not the rule, they are optional, but just a preference for the site so we don't have double uploads. If you're uncomfortable with using collections, don't use them then.

Collections are also a major WIP at this point, we've gotten a lot of good suggestions on how to improve them and I'm hoping we can get some of these ideas implemented in the near future.

Khorax
11-05-2012, 03:46 PM
Khorax, no one is going to remove your work because it was already posted to the site. If they do, submit a complaint, and we will deal with that staff member.

It's been stated several times that collections are not the rule, they are optional, but just a preference for the site so we don't have double uploads. If you're uncomfortable with using collections, don't use them then.

Collections are also a major WIP at this point, we've gotten a lot of good suggestions on how to improve them and I'm hoping we can get some of these ideas implemented in the near future.

Thank you for this. I'm just concerned that it's still stated as a rule, although at this point, I have an official statement saying otherwise from you and that's encouraging. Again, I didn't want to cause problems, and I want the site to succeed, but I felt that the spirit of collections and the rules presented represented two different approaches, and it turned me off heavily. I'd hate to have some of my favorite artists moves solely to Weasyl, only to find that artwork they made of my characters could not be posted to my account and given prominence. I thank you for listening, and for taking the time out to allay my concerns.