Who is adding unauthorised tags to my folders?

<p>One of my uses for photo.net is to create private galleries for models where I can upload photos for them to peruse at their leisure and let me know which photos they would like edited.</p>

<p>The photos are watermarked "unedited proof copy" and are never intended for general exhibition, which is why they are in a private gallery.</p>

<p>However, three times in the last month, I have had entire galleries tagged by persons unknown with the result that the photos generate many views by a totally unintended audience.</p>

<p>Who has the authority to do this? </p>

<p>Why are they doing it to private galleries?</p>

<p>Why are they doing it to photos that are clearly marked as unfinished products?</p>

<p>Do they realise that unauthorised tagging looks like a serious breach of trust and abuse of privilege?</p>

<p>Do they realise that I am seriously reconsidering my association with Photo.net?</p>

<p>All uploads are viewed daily by photo.net admin to prevent issues with spam. As part of that process, we will add a nude tag to any all nude photography that is not tagged at upload. Quite often photos will move from private folders to public, which is why we will tag even if it resides in a private folder.<br>

Our terms of use outlines this in more detail - but please feel free to send me an internal message if you wish to discuss directly with me.<br>

<a href="/info/terms-of-use">Terms of use</a> section 2:<br>

User Content may include nude photos or other images or material that an individual might find offensive, indecent and/or objectionable. We will determine, in our sole discretion, whether User Content containing nudity is acceptable. Our decision is final even if an individual user disagrees with our judgment. We reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to edit, redact or delete User Content that we consider unacceptable or inappropriate, or for any other reasons, which we need not disclose, at our discretion and convenience. When removing images that are contained in User Content, we may remove only the images to which we object, all the images in a folder, or all the images in the User's portfolio, at our convenience and discretion.<br>

User Content may be, and often is, edited. Our editors and moderators, most of whom are volunteers, strive to highlight User Content that we determine to be most interesting or useful to our user community. We reserve the right to edit, redact or delete any User Content that you upload to the Site, at our sole discretion. Photo.net also contains material from experts, organizations and advertisers ("Third Party Content"). Photo.net is not responsible for the accuracy, reliability or usefulness of Third Party Content.</p>

<p>There are many objections to this practice, but the real deal-breaker is that routinely tagging nudes is a gift to soft-porn operators.<br>

<br /> I learned some time ago the inadvisability of tagging nudes when I found my photos turning up on soft porn sites. In fact, I am still sending take-down notices for photos uploaded to photo.net over two years ago but which "escaped" and are being perpetuated by tumblr and russian web sites.<br>

<br /> I earnestly hope that photo.net will reconsider what it is doing, because this new practice has destroyed photo.net's value to me, and, quite possibly, to many others.</p>

<p>I don't think that tags are supposed to allow access to <em>private</em> galleries. Maybe they do allow access to <em>hidden</em> galleries though, I'm not sure. The original intent of the private gallery was to allow access only to images via a URL and that access is only to the individual image, not the whole folder or other images in the folder. There's no password of course, so it's not a secure system, but the only access should be via the specific image URL, known only to the poster and anyone it is given to. Hidden galleries were created so you could "warehouse" images for later display, not to specifically hide images from view.</p>

<p>If somehow images in <em>private</em> galleries that are tagged are showing up in searches on tags then it's a bug in the system. If that's the case then Jin should probably take a look at it. I know he did fix some accidental "leaks" earlier this year.</p>

<p><strong>ALL</strong> images should be tagged, <em>especially</em> nudes. Photo.net needs to filter nudes for users who chose not to have them displayed. The only way to do that is if they are correctly tagged. I don't see that changing, though I don't make the rules.</p>

<p>I can assure you that private galleries CAN be accessed by tags! </p>

<p>That is how I discovered the problem.</p>

<p>I just did a search on "nudes" at <a href="/gallery/tag-search/">http://www.photo.net/gallery/tag-search/</a>, sorted by "newest to oldest" and I do not see your images.</p>

<p>That is because I removed the images.</p>

<p>Give me a couple of minutes and I will upload a test set for you.</p>

<p>I have created a test set of six photos in a hidden folder, all photos tagged with "nude" and "nudes"</p>

<p>Don't see anything yet. I've also uploaded a tagged image to my own private test folder and that's not showing up either.</p>

<p>However we know that the servers and not continuously updated in real time so it's possible something may show up later.</p>

<p>UPDATE: They just appeared. I've sent a note to Jin Choi to ask him to take a look at what's going on.</p>

<p>I believe the leak should now be fixed. If it is, Jin Choi is the guy to thank!</p>

<p>Tagged images in private folders should no longer show up in a search by tags (or any other search). However my guess is that the photo.net policy of reviewing and tagging all images (especially nudes) will probably stay in effect. Not my call though.</p>

<p>I think Robin is the one to thank...Thanks Robin.</p>

<p>Yes indeed. Photo.net welcomes "bug" reports. If we don't know something is wrong we can't try to fix it.</p>

<p>The test set of six photos in the private folder scored a total of 30 views in the first couple of hours, but that seems to have stopped.</p>

<p>I will keep an eye on the folder over the next day or so, but it looks like the leak may be plugged.</p>

<p>Well done, Jin Choi, or whoever is responsible.</p>

<p>The leak may not be plugged. The test set of six images in a private folder is continuing to record views - 63 at the time of writing.</p>

<p>I will create a duplicate private folder with the same images to see if time of creation makes a difference.</p>

<p>This may be slightly off topic but wouldn't this be a good time to disable the 'right click.' Yes! If someone wants to pull a photo from this site (or any site) they can. However I am quite sure the practice would be significantly reduced if this was implemented. I never fully understood why this was never implemented. Many have asked for this before. I can only assume that the powers at p.net feel that the ability to 'steal' image readily attracts more people to the site. I appreciate there is a menu function in 'My Workspace' to enable / disable this but as I far as I can see, it doesn't work.</p>

<p>I think the menu function to disable downloads is working OK.</p>

<p>Thanks for mentioning the "Block downloads of images from browsers" feature in "My Workspace". 9 years as a subscriber and it's the first I've seen it. </p>

<p>Now I turned it on and refreshed "My Workspace" page but I find I can still drag and drop my gallery images onto my desktop. Does this feature only disable others from downloading my images? Or does this only apply when using "right click" invoked downloads?</p>

<p>I can still download your images. (Not that I have.)</p>

<p>The leak seems to be plugged, at least as far as photos posted after the bug fix are concerned.</p>

<p>The initial test hidden folder is still getting viewed, but its twin, which was created after the fix, has recorded no views.</p>

<p>Thanks for the confirmation, David.</p>

<p>As of this posting it's now working for me. If I try to drag/drop all it allows is the image's PN URL as it highlights under my cursor. </p>

<p>This is the second time within the past several weeks I tried to use the PN interface in ways I've never attempted in the past 9 years as a subscriber and have to wait for a fix or for it to kick in where others don't seem to have a problem. </p>

<p>Wonder what the cause is for the inconsistencies among members.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is working for me now too. It wasn't when I made my last comment. Maybe someone has seen this post and fixed the bug.</p>