vincetylor Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I never called you or anybody any names! I said you guys SOUND like a bunch of rednecks on a Friday night just before hunting season. It was a bit of hyperbole to get a point accross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I'm totally sick of these discussions. They constantly seem to come up and never get resolved usually getting personal. I've even found myself getting involved. Until management makes a decision or at least some kind of statement we're not only waisting PN's resources but our time as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 <b>Amul</b> <i>James O'Neil makes a pretty valid point, I think, only it's one he's been espousing for so long he thinks nobody is listening anymore. </i> I do feel like that sometimes. It also feels like Vincent and I are in a battle where the last one with a working keyboard wins. And if I thought the "all nudes are wicked, make those vile pornographers tag it to keep them away from the decent people" way of thinking was common, I'd give up photography altogether. But I think that humanity as a whole is better than that: the thought might be naive but I find it a comfort.<p> <b>Keith,</b> Although I agree with a lot of what you say, and Ray didn't help his arguments by posting when angry, the picture in question is more than just a <i>"boobie"</i>. I'm not convinced that porn damages children - I find the "kids mustn't see it" line a bit bogus - they'll find a way if they want. But if I'm going to sit down and look at pictures with anyone (my kids or adults) I don't want this kind of picture appearing. I don't think it belongs here at all. Reading how Ray was working he wasn't just letting his child run lose on photo.net, but got caught out. Granted, he could have used a better method to pull down pictures, but he wasn't being totally irresponsible. For once I agree with <b>Vincent</b>when he says <i>cut him some slack</i>; still with his "Rednecks" comment normal service has been resumed. <p> <b>Gerald</b> Since fewer people will see a tagged picture, it will take longer to report it. Since the site authorities will have additional work to do to enforce the system (I'm assuming they will still try to hold the line against blatant porn, although it is harder to do if people can opt out), this means it will be slower. I've said before I'm not flagging my work as smut, so I would come into your category of <i>"Frequent,persistant and constant abusers"</i>. Would you have a look in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=342238"> my 'Zoe' folder</a> - which is all "4 year old safe" in my view, and tell me which pictures you would have me banned for ?<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 <i> Sounds like a lot of repressed hatered </i><p> Looks like someone didn't get the 'South Park' reference, doesn't know how to spell 'hatred,' and doesn't know what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_bingham Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Yeah, but at least he doesn't hide behind some stupid symbol and rate 40,000 pictures - while submitting none of his own or bothering with any background, qualifications, or pictures of his own. An intellectual snob - or simply Joe Sixpack attempting to act like an intellectual snob? What fun - taking anonymous pot shots at people and their pictures. Off with your mask, Bailey. Be a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Get with it, Steve. I commented on the site feedback subject, but you are whining about tangential issues about me personally. Don't like the use of pseudonyms? Take it up with Brian. Don't like somone's ratings? Take it up with him too. Think any abuse is occurring? Send an email to abuse @ photo.net. Can't think of anything better to do than make an unrelated attack? Think twice, Stevorino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_merrill Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 James, Slack has been cut and I understand that the shot in question is not just a boobie (just got done watching "Family Guy" and that term just stuck in my head - my wife thought it was funny as hell when I made her check out these threads). I will go on the record once again and say that I think this shot is porno, plus it is too big an image to be posted on photo.net, therefore I think it should be removed. However, I still don't think a filter would work, because you have to draw the line somewhere, and the only place that I see the line being drawn at is nude. So, yes James, at that point your images would have to be classified to be caught by the filter. Its a shame too because they are very well done and not smutty at all. Plus, it wont completely stop a nude, or porn, image from getting through, so for all intensive purposes photo.net still will not be a family oriented site like Ray wants. Ray, I do apologize if I was rude and stepped over the line, your initial post to this and your first thread put me instantly on the defensive, but I still stick to the points I made. BTW Steve, submitting work, posting pictures and posting background qualifications are not needed to post to photo.net. AZ, Bailey, or just plain symbol Z's knowledge of photography and politics come out in his posts, like us all, and you can take them at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 How many times are we going to have this same thread, and how many times am I going to be called upon (by always the same people) to give photo.net's position? When you called for me to state photo.net's position two weeks ago, didn't you read what I wrote? I thought it was very clear. Or are you afraid that the position might have changed from what I stated two weeks ago, or two months ago, or a year ago, and you missed it? Here it is again, for the last time: We understand that many photo.net members would like a "filter" for various types of images; we understand quite well the reasons why people want this, and we understand that some people feel strongly enough about it to participate (ad nauseum) in every thread which touches on the subject. However, such a filter is not feasible, and it is not in our plans to implement such a filter. We are also not going to change the rules about what may be uploaded to photo.net. Images depicting nudity may be uploaded provided they are tasteful and fall within a definition of "fine art", in the opinion of the moderators. Images of nudes which do not meet this requirement should be reported to the moderators through the abuse@photo.net mailbox. We depend on such reports because we do not review all the images that uploaded to photo.net before displaying them, and we may not be aware of an image that violates our policies until somebody brings it to our attention. For this reason, pornographic images may be displayed on photo.net before the moderators learn of them and have the opportunity to remove them. People who do not wish to be exposed to nude images should not visit the photo.net Gallery. This is all stated in the photo.net Terms of Use. People keep demanding a "filter" as if it was simply a switch that could be thrown, as if photo.net is just being obstinate in not letting people throw it. It isn't: it requires the adoption of a classification scheme and thousands of hours of effort to classify images. Assuming somebody could download and classify 500 images per hour (I've tried it and this would be barely possible with a broadband connection), it would require about 1500 hours of work just to classify the images that we already have. That is the equivalent of 2 full-time people working for a year doing nothing but classifying images, presuming they get holidays and weekends off. Anybody care to volunteer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 If the only reason we don't have a filter is the time it would take to go back over all of the photos (2 people working full time for a year)then as policy of PN just require everyone to review their own files and have members make the appropiate "click" or whatever. As long as these photos were not banned and were continued to be welcome I don't think most people would have a problem. The few remaining photos that were not "checked" would be obvious to anyone who used the filter when they appeared and could be reported. If it is just the policy of PN not to have a filter because they don't think it is necessary then that is fine also. Just don't use the time it would take to go back as an excuse. Personally I would prefer a filter but if PN wasn't going to have one to me it is not a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 is thus: ●[●Z . Excepting any typographical errors, naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Gerald, we aren't going to implement a filter based on self-classification because many people will not do it, or will not take it seriously. If we give people a filter, it has to work all the time. It cannot be a filter that depends on the honor system, or that depends on people who uploaded images two years ago rematerializing and classifying all of them. The first time somebody gets fired while using the filter because there was an unclassified nude on their screen at work, I don't want to be sued because somebody claims we promised to filter out nudes and didn't. In addition, it already takes a lot of time and trouble to police the Galleries to remove offensive images and ratings abuse. We don't need yet another grounds for people to come running to the moderators to complain about other people's behaviour on the site, and another rule that we have to enforce. The current situation is that photo.net is a site where people will regularly see photos involving nudity. Even though there is a policy prohibiting them, and a practice of removing them when they are observed or reported, photo.net is also a site where there is a chance of seeing pornographic images and other images that are offensive. The only way to prevent that is for us to review and approve every image before it is displayed. That isn't how the site operates, and we aren't planning on operating that way. People who cannot abide images of nudes are not compelled to visit this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Well Brian, you did share your time and thoughts. THAT much is apreciated! You said- "Or are you afraid that the position might have changed from what I stated two weeks ago, or two months ago, or a year ago, and you missed it?" Sure Brian, quite a few perhaps hoped your position had adjusted somewhat. Bob Atkins, suggested a very nice idea since then. He also stated that nothing was decided for sure. Many others have reasoned on the subject. So why wouldn't we consider the possibiblity that you might at the very least be considering some type of a compromise?? After all you are the one that decides such things. I for one would certainly expect a person in your position to always be open minded with regards issues like these. You also said- "We understand that many photo.net members would like a "filter" for various types of images; we understand quite well the reasons why people want this, and we understand that some people feel strongly enough about it to participate (ad nauseum) in every thread which touches on the subject." Was the "ad nauseum" really necessary here?? You have minimized and even disrespected others views on this in the past and continue the same here. If you are going the wear the title of *Editor and chief*...then (you know the rest). Simply because you are more liberal than many, does not mean that those less liberal do not have valid points as well as valid reasons for having those points. At the very least be respectful of these views/opinions and those that share them. This is a public forum by the way...designed for what you see here. You also mention that such a task to classify all of the images would take a year for two people to do it full time. Well, why not simply start with all CURRENT images with a simple check-box as suggested by Bob. Then the top rated pages/images, and then in the next few "years" the remaining?? In other words you are telling us your reason for not implementing ANY type of filter is because converting the entire database of images is too great a task. Rome was not built in a day either. It would take a measure of time that is true. And yes there would also be some problems-snags-aggravations along the way. But the end result of allowing members, visitors, young and old ones, professional and amateurs, liberal and conservatives ...(and everybody else in between) the opportunity to filter out images that are found as offensive to some in all of these groups is a project that is simply WORTH that effort. These views are shared by many others as well. At least now your position is clear. Photo.net is a very special and useful site to say the least. It's just that in my opinion, the gallery has a few flaws that CAN be remedied. Thanks again for responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 This is your site and nothing can change without your involvement. We are not demanding a change but only asking you for one sometime down the road. It would require reprogramming (agreed, a BIG job) but would essentially rely on the uploader's judgement and honesty. I am optimistic that this would work. Please try to remain open to this request. Thanks for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 I think Brian has made himself clear and we should leave it at that. We asked him for the "official opinion" and he gave it to us. Eventhough I would have preferred some kind of filter I feel better knowing what the policy is so I can move on and enjoy the many features of an excellent site. Hopefully everyone else can also. I'm tired of the bickering on this issue that IMO has been resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Walter doesn't know how to spell either. (But he does know how to flame.) How sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 <em>"Bob Atkins, suggested a very nice idea since then. He also stated that nothing was decided for sure"</em> <p> By that I meant that nothing was ever decided for sure and for always. I did not mean to imply that any filter scheme was under active consideration. Brian has clearly stated his position. It's 100% his call. I don't speak for photo.net in any way. Brian does. <p> Brian's comment about any filter scheme that depends on users is totally correct. You can't trust people to "do the right thing" - even more you can probabl;y trust some of them to "do the wrong thing". I think the idea you may have been refering to was my idea that people could classify their images as "totally inoffensive", and so viewing those images would be safe for all. HOWEVER - it only takes one idiot to upload a bunch of porn and check the "totally inoffensive" box to bring the whole system crashing down on photo.net's head - possibly dragging lawyers with it. <p> I suppose in some future incarnation it may be possible to browse by category. In that case, I'd guess that if you browsed "sports" or "wildlife" or "landscapes" or "architecture", your chances of finding images some would regard as "offensive" would be lower than if you browsed randomly. The intent of any such scheme would be to INCLUDE images you WANT to see, NOT to EXCLUDE images you didn't want to see. <p> Again I'm <b>NOT</b> saying that is a plan that's being considered. I'm just saying it's a scheme which some other websites use and which seems to work for them. As I've tried to state often in the past, I don't speak for photo.net, nor am I involved in planning anything to do with the gallery, nor does Brian need or ask for my advice on this topic! <p> It would be nice if photo.net could provide every user with exactly what they wanted, but that's just not possible. If you want a totally "nude free zone", you should probably be browsing the Disney website, not photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 As I said in the last thread that discussed all this (about a week ago), there is nothing infeasible about categories except for the impact on the database, and once we have a new database server, I think categories are a good idea, and they wouldn't be hard to implement. In fact, we already have categories for Critique Requests, although they are somewhat broken at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amul Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Thanks for jumping in, guys. Out of curiosity, is there anywhere that lists the current Site State and sections currently undergoing construction? You know, somewhere we can all go check and see that the Categories thing is broken, and the Index is complete, but only linked to the Whatever, etc, etc? Oh, and are Photo Net's stance on topics like this posted anywhere for all to see and be directed to? Thanks for all your help, time and energy once again. Please try to remember that having to post to threads like this one is just a minor part of your jobs :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Categories might work. I know one thing, our buddy Mr. Carl would like that. There is perhaps hope after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 <em>Out of curiosity, is there anywhere that lists the current Site State and sections currently undergoing construction?</em> <p> No <p> FWIW I've just rebuilt the <a href="/photonet-index.html">site index to static content</a> and the <a href="/static_content.html">list of new articles</a>. I don't suppose the site index to static content is anywhere near complete and comprehensive, but it probably has 80-90% of the site content. There always seem to be a few more pages lurking in some deep directory that get missed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 As the flag carrier against a "one size fits all" check box for uploaders, having the ability to see top Architecture, top Nature, top pets, etc, is something I have been advocating for some time: as Brian says, he made a comment to me in another one of these threads saying that it wasn't hard to implement and it was on his "to do" list once the new servers were in. (Followed by a review of categories).<br> It is, I suppose, a de-facto filter, which is what Vincent et al have been arguing for so passionately (the <u>principle</u> of choice), but it doesn't insult the producers of decent nudes (which is what I have argued so passionately against - not the <u>principle</u> of filtering, just the <u>proposed practice</u>). It doesn't make unrealistic promises or require a retrospective reclassification. It adds value too, because (for example) if you are interested in architecture you're not very well served by the gallery. If you could select "top rated architecture" that would be an improvement. <br> It is possible after all that we may all live happily ever after. Now can we go and shoot some pictures ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_vann Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 This makes me very happy. This is what true debate is about, finding solutions. I had never thought of the category idea. A filter is nice, but a category solution would probably work even better. I realize that here and there a mis-categorized item might appear, but when I sit down with my daughter we can visit the top pets category, top nature category, etc. Then when she's gone to bed, I can check out the top nudes! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Creating filters and making sure they work takes too long. Thats in substance what Brian is saying, and he's correct to some extent. BUT... <p> 1) I agree with most of the logical (and not ad hominem) argumentation I've read in this thread by Ray Vann, Vincent T. and Gerald Widen. <p> 2) I agree that a lot of issues should be discussed in an attempt to solve problems. Bashing is unnecessary - no matter where it comes from. <p> 3) If I look logically at this thread and at another one posted by Carl Root regarding the possibility of having "PHOTO CATEGORIES", it seems to me that the 2 problems are related in some way: manpower. <p> 4) I noted that Brian asked whether anyone would volonteer to spen 1500 hours classifying images. <p> 5) I believe that 15 people spending 100 hours each or 30 people spending 50 hours each would do the job as well. <p> 6) As I see it, it is well worth having photo categories on photo.net. <p> Conclusion: couldn't we find, say 30 people willing to commit to spend 50 hours each on photo.net within 3 months or so, to classify all images in categories - and at the same time clicking a "For family viewing only" check box if a picture requires it...? <p> We could still ask all folks to do their part and classify their own images in photo categories themselves, while also asking them to click a checkbox "For family viewing only". That does not mean the site should trust them, but it will take away SOME of the workload off our 30 volonteers shoulders. <p> If Photo.net is interested in having photo categories and some sort of filter to "help" on the family viewing issue (eventhough it might never be perfect), and if photo.net finds another 29 (or more)volonteers willing to spend time going through the data base to classify all pictures, then we have a potential solution. <p> I haven't paid my 25$ to the site for various reasons, but I can give the site 50 hours of my time for 2 good causes. So I volonteer. Who else is in, based on these ideas...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_vann Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Since I started this thread, I guess it's time to put my "money" where my mouth is...I'll volunteer 50 hours over a 90 day period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I would not want to classify images that I have obvious issues with, but would be more than happy to volunteer my time classifying anything else...or doing anything that might make possible the *family viewing* as Marc suggested. (It is nice to be on the same side of an issue for a change). At some point it would be nice to know a few more specifics regarding how the categories might in fact work. But for now I'll just agree with James for once... and just shoot pictures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now