Filtered gallaries?

I would browse and critique the site more if there were a way to

remove nude photos. Is there a way for me to get a filtered view?

This has been discussed at length. What seems like a simple request

turns out to be quite difficult for a number of reasons. What is a

'nude'? How much skin? Where do you draw the line without offending

uploaders who fall just short of it? There is also the problem of

asking the database to do yet another sort which would stress site

resources which are already stretched pretty thin. I have lobbied for

a variety of categories, but the demands on the database and on code

writing time have put this on the back burner for the forseeable

furture. So for the time being, just avert your eyes.

I think that is bologna and salami Carl. Usefilm is not near as large or sophisticated as this site, and yet they have the nudes filters. It's really a poor excuse to just keep them up there. There has been zero honest attempts to offer anything like it even though many keep asking! Nonsense.

One more filter is one more sort that the database has to make. You know perfectly well that the single greatest stress on the system on this site is the number of individuals looking at various groups (sorts) of images per unit time.

 

There's also a pandora's box here which Brian is all too aware of. If you allow sorts for nudes, but not for altered, then people like me will probably have something to say about our priorities. If we ever get a handle on the volume-to-resources issue, I suspect that categories will be introduced and we'll deal with the subject in a comprehensive way.

This is really like talking to a wall here. "No nudes" filters CAN be installed. There have been numerous requests for some type of action by MANY responsible Photo.net members. The decision has been made to ignore these requests. Why?? Which nudes are filtered and which are not is a question that does not need to be brought up because ALL NUDES would be filtered out.

 

Listen, if the site can filter ratings, aesthetics, originality, average, sum, curators, comments, views, highest of day, photo of week, photographers highest, photographers sum (average), photographers sum (ratings), photo of the week, folder views FOR 24 hours, 3 days, one week, one month, 3 months, 1 year and all time...I think a simple nudes filter can easily put into place that will not crash the system. Your arguments here Carl, and that of the site are really pretty sad if you want the truth. It can be done and because this is the largest Photo website in the world...it SHOULD be done!

Or how about these categories below?? Copy and pasted from the critique by category page. They must be filtered somehow. But of course, adding a nudes filter will only stress out the system. Okay..sure.

 

Critique By Category

Architecture (List) (New)

Digital Alterations (List) (New)

Events - Concerts (List) (New)

Events - Other (List) (New)

Events - Sports (List) (New)

Fine Art (List) (New)

Nature (List) (New)

News/Jou#åJÐism (List) (New)

News/Journalism (List) (New)

Other (List) (New)

Pets (List) (New)

Portraits (List) (New)

Street (List) (New)

Uncategorized (List) (New)

Underwater (List) (New)

Chill, my friend. I know you've read threads on this issue, so how can you say Brian has ignored it?

 

Is a bare shoulder a nude? Who will spend the time enforcing the standard? Who will go back and mark all of the older nude uploads? It's much easier to deal with these issues when you set up a site from scratch where the resources of all kinds exceed the demand.

 

I do agree with your notion of prioritizing sort choices. No one has been more vocal than I have about categories and I would gladly give up many of the other search options in order to get the ones that I want. What I would be asking, and what you are too, is that we think it's OK to ask others to give up on searches they've grown accustomed to using so that we can have our new features. If you belong to any organizations in the real world that have been around for a while, you know that folks coming in with brilliant new ideas are frowned on. Older organizations are conservative by nature; the longer they've survived and prosperred, the less inclined they are to give up any features that are a part of that success. I don't like it much, but I understand where it's coming from. It's not processed meat of any sort.

just read your critique list. . .

 

It's woefully inadequate as far as I'm concerned. More importantly, the category is attached to the RFC, not to all images.

Brian has not ignored the threads entirely Carl, because he has occasionally commented. However, he has ignored the requests to do anything about it! Plain and simple.

 

This site is simply an outstanding tool for any photographer to learn and to simply get better. The knowledge posted in the different forums is simply astounding....limitless it seems. Yet the gallery is not suitable for younger people. Many are offended to see so many nudes surrounding the gallery pages. The simple ability to filter those out would bring so many others that are very responsible people, as well as a greater appreciation by all just to have that option. The arguments that it is too much of a load or a stress on the system is the point I am making as nonsense, bologna or whatever else you choose to call it. It's just dumb.

 

Again, it can be done! Look at all of the categories already separated as mentioned above. It has already been done. But for some ridiculous reason, it has not been done with nudes! There is no way around it Carl. I appreciate your desire to defend the site. I too think enormously of it. But in this case, with this subject, you are defending nonsense!

Nothing has been separated per above. That feature is currently disabled. I'm wondering if you ever used that feature when it was active. Nature included all sorts of things. Fine art included everything . . including nearly all of my uploads in part because there was no compelling reason to carefully categorize them.

 

You have yet to address all the images that are not marked as nudes in any way and who will enforce it when asked to.

 

Email Vince at nudeabuse@photo.net.

 

Have fun.

Are you serious Carl? Usefilm has this simple statement when uploading any photograph.

 

DO NOT UPLOAD NUDE IMAGES IN THE WRONG CATEGORY!

 

 

The photographers have the responsibility to put those into the nudes category. It's simply a matter of checking a little box...that is it! If not, then they are simply deleted.

 

Photographers over here can certainly respect the right that some do not want to look at nude images...for whatever reasons (kids, morals, beliefs etc). Really no different than a non-smokers right to clean air. The same people that say they delete all pornographic material and that manage this site, can also take the responsibility to give responsible visitors the option to avoid nude images. Is this rocket science here Carl?? It can be done because it is already being done!

. . . . and the old images?

 

Basically I agree with you, but you must concede that changing the

rules on a huge site is much harder than establishing new ones on a

new smaller one. .

I'm only responding here to indicate that there are more than a couple people who would like to see these filters put in place ... not that it hasn't been discussed extensively already. Not only would I rather not see the nudes all the time, but some users like to check in on this site from work sometimes and that could theoretically get them into trouble. I'm sure a filter wouldn't be perfect but even if it decreased the problem by half or 3/4 (for those who consider it a problem) then that would be an appreciated difference.

Of course I agree with that Carl. However, because it IS a larger site with so many more people visiting, the level of priority this issue should receive is not happening in my opinion.

 

This issue has been brought up often (although never by myself) because it is an important issue to many many people. Perhaps Brian and others do not feel the same way personally...and are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, being in a position of oversight, to govern or manage the site as a whole, it is very imporatnt that their, or any one persons opinion not carry more than a reasonable amount of influence. You simply need to do what is best for the site as a whole rather than what a few people in charge think. In this case it is my opinion as well as the opinion of perhaps half the members here (or more) that having nude filters would be in the best interest of the site as a whole. A choice is all we are talking about here!

 

I agree with Phillp's point as well

"and the old images"

 

I am sure somebody would be more than happy to volunteer to go through ALL the nudes on the site to mark them accordingly. You could start with the more visible (higher rated) pages first. In fact finding a volunteer for that job might be the easiest ...ever!

Vincent, it is disingenuous to say that photo.net staff "ignores" your opinion, as you know very well this issue has been discussed many times and reasons have been given why it is not feasible to implement a nude filter. Your suggestion hasn't been ignored; it has been rejected.

Perhaps you should re-read my comments Brian. Not only did I thoroughly commend this site as a whole, but I also recognized that you have been involved in dialogue. Here, I will copy and paste what I said for you.

 

Vincent K. Tylor , jan 01, 2004; 02:41 p.m.

"Brian has not ignored the threads entirely Carl, because he has occasionally commented. However, he has ignored the requests to do anything about it! Plain and simple."

 

In fact I believe then we both agree on this same issue now, that you have indeed heard the feedback by many, many P-netters for some type of nude filters, but simply "rejected" the idea altogether. At least then we know it's not a hardware issue as some have commented on, but simply a decision to reject the idea altogether. Too bad Brian, because the consensus is that most would greatly appreciate having that option.

I don't think the decision to reject the idea is based on the opinion that it's a bad idea. In fact I think it's a good idea.

 

The question is whether or not it's practical. With maybe 500,000+ images in the database already, how do find all the nudes? What do you define as nudes? Who decides? With maybe 3000 images uploaded on a typical day, who is going to look at all 3000 of them and decide if they are nudes or not? What counts as a nude? No clothing, or no display of certian anatomical regions (known as "the naughty bits"). In some countries, showing an ankle would be a nude!

 

Is it better to say "THERE WILL BE NO NUDES" and then have then pop up unexpectedly, or is it better to say "Warning, there may be nudes here", resulting in no surprises? In a law suit happy country like the US, it's better to say the latter, since if we say "NO NUDES" and one pops up while your boss is looking over your shoulder at work and fires you, I don't think photo.net wants to get sued.

Bob, if YOU think having nude filters is a good idea, and Carl agrees it's a good idea (even though you both are defending the sites position) and MANY other members here agree it's a good idea. And if it certainly possible to do just that (which other sites are doing)...then why is it not getting done here. My honest opinion here: Brian does not want them! If I am wrong here, then I am sure he can speak up and I will certainly change my position. I have only heard his comments that they delete porn. I have yet to hear him comment on this exact issue, even though many are clearly offended my the number of nudes on the gallery pages.

 

I think it is quite noble of you and Carl to go out on a limb trying to invent reasons why it cannot happen. As I have said before, I thinks it is all bologna. No offense, I think you both (and Brian as well) do a great job with this site. But on this subject of nude filters, you really are fighting a losing battle, and the reasons you are giving are getting quite ridculous....funny actually. It can be done. The desire must come first!

NUDE ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd, nyd) adj. nud·er, nud·est Having no clothing; naked. Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body: a nude beach. n. An unclothed human figure, especially an artistic representation. The condition of being unclothed.

 

To answer your silly question as to what is a nude and what is not...here is the writen definition above. A person in a bathing suit is not a nude now is it. A person showing the ankle or shoulder (please Bob!) would not be considered nude would they. Naked or showing parts of the body that we humans do not norally show would be considered nude. Give me a break guys. See, it just proves that you are really not being reasonable here with these types of questions. As I also said above, start with all current uploads, then begin with the top-rated pages. Or how about this idea....Just allow the filter to be used with the TRP images. Does THAT at least that sound reasonable?? This way the public is protected from walking into these (offensive to many) nudes by just happening on the site.

 

Did you guys know that many libraries have filtered out this site because of the nude images are considered pornographic by many responsible people. And remember, this is a LEARNING photographic site. But high schoolers cannot even access the site because of this very issue. It just makes sense to work through these supposed issues to offer the best photo site around to ALL that might be interested! This really is all that is being asked here.

Vincent, this is tedious. How many times do we have to go around this bush? It is irrelevant whether anyone "wants" nude filters or not. It isn't feasible to implement nude filters in a way that would bear any resemblance to what people want. People "want" to be able to surf the photo galleries without encountering nudes. There is no way to accomplish that without (1) putting the entire existing database into the "unclassified" area; (2) putting every newly uploaded photo into the same area; (Thus the nude or unclassified area would start with about 600,000 photos which would grow at the rate of 1000 to 2000 photos per day) (3) having a group of trusted people who, having agreed on definitions, gradually classify the unclassified photos as nude versus not-nude. You might start with the most recently uploaded photos and work backwards. At the beginning you would have a small gallery, growing at the rate of at best a thousand photos per day that would certifiably not be nudes. These volunteers by the way are going to be people who by definition don't mind looking at nudes, but they have to be so extremely dedicated to the site and the concept of segregating the nudes that they will do their volunteer duty day in day out without fail in order to keep up with the influx. That is a psychological contradiction. Where are those people going to come from?

 

If you say, let the photographers classify their own photos, my answer is that their classification cannot be trusted. If you tell people: there are no nudes in this part of photo.net, that had better be true. The usefilm approach of asking photographers pretty please flag your nudes, or we'll delete the photos is lame: people still will see nudes. As for libraries, a segregated area for nudes is still going to cause photo.net to be banned in libraries. Filtering software in libraries isn't smart enough to look at URL's and know that this is the no-nudes section, so it is OK. To pass muster in libraries, we would have to delete all the existing nudes and forbid any more to be posted.

 

Even if all this were feasible, which seems doubtful to me, is it really worth so much trouble for people to avoid ever having a "nude" (the horror! the horror!) cross their gaze? The decisions that nudes would be allowed in the photo.net Gallery, that they would not be segregated; and that all photos would be visible to all viewers without out any prior review by moderators -- were all made 4 years and several hundred thousand photos ago. It is not possible to change that now, no matter how many people "want" that, without starting over.

Thank you for a more thorough reply Brian. I definitely do respect the load you bare, as well as the time it takes to answer these concerns. This is not flattery but quite sincere.

 

I obviously cannot continue an argument that has very little to zero chance of being accepted. All of those (myself included) that are offended by the number of nude images in the TRP gallery, have to either work around this issue, continue to try avoiding the images as best as possible, or leave entirely. I am sure you are aware that many have left entirely because of this issue. Most including myself do try very hard to work around this issue...since this site has much value in other areas. But at times (not always but often enough) the gallery pages are simply filled with these images. Some are not that offensive for a conservative person as myself. However, as you know there have been many images that are questionable at best. You know by now which ones I am talking about. Close-up of a woman's anatomy, male with erect penis etc. Sometimes these images practically dominate the pages... no exaggerations. While I have no choice but to accept your decisions and then decide how to proceed according to my own conscience, I do have a few doubts...or thoughts about a couple of points you made.

 

For instance: If a photographer was asked to follow the program so to speak, by marking the nudes box (such as is done at Usefilm) if he or she refused to do this, and then having their image deleted, wouldn't you think they would catch on rather quickly?? Even now people try to upload graphic porn that you know is deleted once it is caught. THAT will never change. However, I do think once you adopted a nudes category so that they can be filtered out, the majority of photographers by far would support this newer format. Even if only the NEW images were to be filtered out, what a difference it would make for those that are troubled by this situation.

 

And finally, even though as you mentioned above that this is how it has been for four years, I certainly believe that any opportunities to improve the site would we worth looking into. THIS would indeed improve the site! How many more threads need to be started (again, none by myself) before somebody really does attempt to do something about it?? Your comment above "is it really worth so much trouble for people to avoid ever having a "nude" (the horror! the horror!) cross their gaze?" only suggests to me, a bit of insensitivity on your part to those that really do feel this way. It is probably also the single greatest reason why it's just not worth the trouble for Photo.net. If you did feel as many do about this issue, I can promise something would have already been done...or at the very least, given an honest attempt! Thanks again for taking the time.

"All of those (myself included) that are offended by the number of nude images in the TRP gallery, have to

either work around this issue, continue to try avoiding the images as best as possible,"

 

Vince, are you offended by the number of nudes, do you want a site that guarantees a 'no nudes' area, or do you want a guaranteed no nudes site? Pick one, please, and try not to insult my intelligence or anyone else's.

 

If it's the first, then that can be done by setting up categories which would give viewers the option of looking at, let us say, architecture knowing that there may be a nude or two thrown in accidentally or on purpose. If you want to view all categories, nudes would be included.

 

Right now, there is no where to go where you aren't bombarded with them. Since I'd rather look at one category at a time more often than not, this would give me a place to go where nudes, . . . . . or flowers, or kittens, or whatever would not litter the page. I don't want a guarantee, just an option. Would that satisfy you? . . . recognizing that even that can't happen easily because of the current load using the sorts we already have.

Exactly. An option would be all I, and many would like to have. Usefilm has nude filters...they work perfectly.

 

How in the world did my comment insult you or anybody's intelligence Carl. I have not wavered back and forth in what it is that many want...an option!

A nude filter was not what I was suggesting in my first option. If you attempt to filter them out, some people will assume that it can be relied on. It can't. Instead, I'm suggesting sorts where they are less likely. That's all.