Can't view the TRP when the children are awake.

I joined PN 5 months ago and I have thoroughly enjoyed every minute

of it! During the summer, I used to love to flip through the TRPs,

finding some of the most wonderful images. Both of my daughters (9

and 12) enjoyed viewing the pages with me and the 12 year old is a

little budding photographer herself. But at some point-I'm not even

sure when -I realized I can't even click to those pages now until my

kids have gone to bed at night. I am not a prude - I have no problem

with most of the nude photos that are posted, (and I won't get into

the artistic merits of someone's fingers shoved inside themself) but

now it seems that nudes constitute most of the TRP spots - I can't

just quickly throw up a hand to hide the occasional nude and keep on

scrolling anymore. Is there any way that I can filter these so that

I don't have to restrict my girls from viewing? (or restrict myself

to only late-night viewing) I'm not trying to censor anyone and I

respect the fact that nude photography is so popular here - I just

miss sharing the beautiful work on this site with my family. To all

those responsible for ensuring this site runs smoothly - thanks for

all you do!

No. There is currently no way to filter content on the TRPs.

I'm going to echo Anne's sentiments here and should probably have commented on this before now. Like Anne, I feel strongly at this point that it would be nice to have an option to filter nudes and adult content on the site. Until a few months ago, I too would sit at the computer with my 7-year old (going on 17) son and thumb through the TRP. Like Anne, I no longer feel comfortable doing this. While I certainly don't mind viewing "someone's fingers shoved inside themself" after "prime time", it would be nice to filter it out when I choose so that I can share this site with my kids.

This is a very old topic which has been beaten to death here over and over again.

<p>

Look through <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Gae">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Gae</a> and see if there's anything new to add.

Sorry Bob -I didn't mean to beat anything to death. It wasn't my intention to irritate.

With all due respect, Bob, I could give a rat's ars that this topic has already been discussed or even beaten to death. So, feel free to tune out if you wish. Brian has a young child and I'd be interested in reading what he might have to say about this.

 

I have a proposal, which may or may not have been suggested previously. I'm guessing that the majority of users who peruse the TRP are most often viewing images uploaded during the past 3-7 days. How much effort would be required to implement a simple system, similar to that used by usefilm.com, in which images are checked off as containing nude and/or adult content at the time of upload? Any such content that is not appropriately marked would be subject to deletion by the moderators. We could be provided with an option to filter adult content (or not) in our user Workspaces. Choosing to do so would filter out images marked as containing adult content.

 

Obviously, the upload marking system I've proposed would not allow for filtering previously uploaded adult content. That's something we would all have to live with. However, if implemented, the system would within 3 days, allow for complete filtering of the default TRP, which at present consists of images ranked by highest average ratings uploaded during the past 3 days.

 

How do others feel about my idea?

Sounds like a great idea to me Steve. I understand the occasional nude would slip through the cracks (no pun intended); I'm not concerned with an occasional shot, they could be easily skimmed passed and go unnoticed by the children if a big deal isn't made. That's just not possible to do the way things are now. Thanks for your support and thanks for the thoughful suggestion!

Are you volunteering to review all the uploads to make sure people have tagged the nude photos appropriately? There shouldn't be more than about 2000 per day.

Sorry Mike, no... But in all fairness, my original question was "is it possible for me to..." , not "what can Bob do to..." I just wasn't sure if there was, already built in, a way to choose certain parameters of viewing. This is certainly not a condemnation of nude photography, Bob, Brian or PN.

I was typing in my response when yours came up, Anne. Didn't mean to aim the question at you. I thought your question was fair, but Bob answered it. I was directing the question to the person who hasn't bothered to read the previous discussion of the topic before proposing a "solution" that increases the workload for moderators who already catch flak no matter what they do or don't do.

Mike, as Anne pointed out, some adult content would inevitably slip through the cracks. If the system I proposed is implemented, I assure you that adult content that is not marked as such would be quickly reported to the site maintainers/moderators. Active policing by a moderator would not be necessary.

I understand Mike - and I wasn't offended in the slightest. You raised a very valid point. I wish there WAS a solution that would be only minutes away from implementation and done without effort. Much of the nude photography is no different from the art my children view in museums. But, increasingly, (or could just be my imagination) much of it seems to be becoming more and more vulgar and shocking. Thanks

BTW, for the record, I'm the antithesis of a prude, except when it comes to my kids. I would not want them to see a photo like this one, which I could easily see showing up in TRP, as it's quite "original", IMHO:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2703380&size=lg

Yep, that's exactly what I meant! While there is a time and place for this to be enjoyable viewing, it shouldn't be at 8 years old.

The human body isn't shameful until you TEACH your children that it is. Which is sad, actually, considering that the human body is completely natural, unlike violence which in the US is OK to watch even at a young age.

i agree with anne and steve's sentiments, and would like to know from the site managers if the image steve posted is acceptable content for the site. it does not stand alone; there have been photos posted for critique that are worse. i'm hoping you say it isn't and that you're taking steps to deal with it. to say the subject's been beaten to death is to ignore that the content of this site IS changing and you have to make changes to deal with that. no, i suppose you don't, but you will become captive of the vulgar more and more if you don't. did you catch the head and shoulders shot of brittiny spears kneeling in front of a just ejaculated penis that was recently posted for critique? and we're not talking about the women in various form of humiliating bondage shots yet . . .

edward, shame has nothing to do with it. the issue is what is appropriate for children to view and consider at various stages of development in childhood. i have problems with a nine-year old viewing a photograph of people engaging in oral sex, whether in silhouette (see the photograph posted by steve) or as in the "spears" photo in the critique requests forum earlier this week, which appeared to be a doctored up photogaph by the way.

The thumbs are small enough to be able to disinguish between naked and not. You don't need to blow to large size then go "omg hide the children" do you? Scan the trp on your own and find interesting people then take the kids there. If you want to subject your kids to the world of art then thats all inclusive and your personal perogitive is to instill the values shown as either bad or good examples Naked women as art objects aren't going to disappear and "filtering" them is plainly imposing some moral views on the community at large. To even imply filtering pre supposes the human form is something to be ashamed of and hidden away. Can't understand why you would need to hide naked "art" images of almost exclusivly females from the eyes of 9-12 yr old girls either. Take them to a public pool and they shower with other naked women probably...and these are art images. You say no prob with the art "museum"..whats the difference here on PN?..the only differnce is this comes into your living room via the web. You don't invite anybody off the street into that living room, you filter it personaly.

 

Funny i don't hear anybody complaining about a pic deplicting a guys big toe cut off, you all say congrats very unique and convincing....7/7...You sure thats photoshopped?

 

Or how bout that pic (can't locate it) of daughter laying in field eyes to the sky buried in leaves, deplicting a dead child...with the title "buried". I can look at naked women all day but found that distressing and so did others. I just can't come to grips with a mother doing that and displaying it as cute and funny and not having half a brain to even consider there might be people who have had children murdered seeing this....then again you can rent a dvd horror flic with similar scenes...is it art or reality? Is it healthy to distort reality to appease a childs percieved sensitivty? We aren't born with barriers, these are manufactured.

 

Yet even if a mod was appointed to scan all the uploads...then it would be left in the hands of one persons judgement of right or wrong...even if he had strict guidelines to follow those guildlines would have to be defined by the community at large, not one persons ideal of morality.

 

You have the power here to comment and vote. Give it a 1/1 and say its discusting if you feel that way. Other "puritans" will probably follow your lead once you stick your neck out and before long theres no incentive for these moral opportunists that you are catagorizing. Your "group" as such, would surely be able to control these images from even entering the upper trp . Then the complaints would start, just like "mate rating" a new term would have to be invented...may i suggest "moral majority mania"?...or...Mmm

 

And Mike not everybody has unlimited time to be "bothered to read the previous discussion of the topic before proposing a "solution" that increases the workload for moderators"...and all the views involved...and that was then and this is now. As times change old opinions change and take new meanings on present day values. Its a subjective thing. As an "expert" in the history of photography and forums it would be interesting to read your essay of the sumation of all previous points on this, lay the evidence on the table and allow us to measure exactly where we stand today in 2004. Thanks Mike.

Happened to be thumbing around and came upon this discussion.Low and behold there's a link to a photo I posted. Not here to defend the shot, or the right to post it, that's entirely different discussion. The shot is not artistic in the sense that so many here truly are, but none the less its there. Enjoy it or disapprove of it the choice is just a click away...

 

New to the game here, but would be nice to have you leave me message either in photo critique or thru photonet email..that you are using me as example in your post.

You almost imply that the TRP is trending towards nudity and offensive photographs. Looking at the first 500 today, I don't see that trend. Everyone will find something offensive at one time or another. You have the choice to look or keep on going. I don't consider photo.net to be a children's site. The nature of photography is that adult issues are part of the art. If you choose to let the kids view with you, power to ya, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect the site to add new filters to shield your children from photographs you may deem as offensive.

Anne didn't imply anything. She made an observation (more nudes lately) and asked if there was a way to filter them. Bob answered her question. She isn't making any political statement about censorship or a gross condemnation of the TRP. She just asked a simple question and got a simple answer.

 

It seems that since the nude catagory has been created they show up a lot more in some TRP listings. That is one of the big reasons that the default TRP was changed from number of ratings to ratings average I think.

<I>If the system I proposed is implemented, I assure you that adult content that is not

marked as such would be quickly reported to the site maintainers/moderators.</I><P>So

Steve , I take it you are willingto do the work to implement and then moderate to make

sure the system yo uare proposing is working?

It doesn't really have to work 100%. The option of filtering those images which the presenters have marked adult content could be implemented in the software and it would be based on trust.

Steve, leaving rat's asses aside (I'm sure there are pictures of them in the Gallery for those interested in the subject), Brian has spoken in this topic MANY times, including stating his position in the thread I cited. If you'd actually read it, you'd know exactly what his views were then, and as far as I'm aware, they're haven't changed.

<p>

I'm sure he'll chime in if he reads this thread and isn't tired of explaining things for the umpteenth time or he has changed his mind.

<p>

In a nutshell, there's no 100% effective way to keep objectionable material out of the Gallery (or TRPs) and it's better you expect it and take appropriate measures if it bothers you, than for you not to expect it and get caught by surprise. Nobody ever said that the Gallery or TRPs were suitable for browsing by minors. In fact the Terms of Use actually say "...<em>if you are a parent, you should carefully monitor your children's access to the Site</em>..."

Some sites allow member to filter. For example <a href="http://www.usefilm.com">www.usefilm.com</a>. There are many other which have a filtering feature. Filtering it is a good idea, but here it is not possible.