To stop the abuse, create a seperate catagory for nudes

[michaelseewald]

Dear Management,

This recent onslaught of phoney high nude ratings and low 'regular

art' ratings has been real upsetting to most everyone.

 

It is derived from a type of revenge rating, I believe. The hackers

feel many people don't like nudes (and rightfully too, many don't) and

therefore rate them low to keep them from getting to the top of the

heap. Undoubtedly the hackers/phoney account people are producing

nudes. Now I've seen many nice nudes with indiscriminate 2's, 3's and

4's with demeaning comments left on them, so some of these folks are

taking it upon themselves to try and rectify the situation. I 'feel

their pain' now that indiscriminate 'low rating fever' has hit my art

too, as well as to most of the others here. The only thing missing

are the demeaning comments, such as 'landscapes suck', etc..

 

I do understand the feelings of many people that rate the nudes low

though. I too wish that I was not exposed to much of it, if not most

of it. Yes, many are done in good taste, but more and more is S&M,

genatile close-ups and other borderline or outright porn (once was a

close-up of a ladies butt hole with come dripping out- YIKES. Try

telling me that did not drive some real nice folks from returning

here!?!)

 

A way to solve this would be to make a separate category for rating

and displaying nudes, and then it would have it's own 'top photo'

category and those artists would not need to keep up this revenge

effort.

 

Name the two categories 'standard art' and 'nude art' or some such

thing. Those that wish to view or rate one section or the other would

just have to hit a link at the top of the page.

 

I don't believe it would be that hard to set up, but I'm no computer

whiz either, I just make art. I do believe that the site would have

many more people participate /join it, while at this point I's sure

many have been driven off by that genre. There are some folks I tell

about this site but many more I don't, just because of this problem.

 

I enjoy helping people with their art here through my critiquing, as

many people also do, but feel it would take just a couple of changes

to move it up a level to get a higher 'user appreciation' rating from

folks. I hope management sees all of the advantages these changes

would/could make for this wonderful site. Blessings to everyone here

this New Year, and may the Photo.net website grow in leaps and bounds. MS

[._._z]

"Most everyone," huh? Did you do a survey of the thousands of regular visitors, or are

you just extrapolating from a bunch of the same people who regularly make the same

complaints?

[root]

You're right, Bailey. People who don't upload images and haven't been subjected to these BS rates are not concerned.

 

Michael, you can't prevent trouble makers from uploading images into the wrong category or from rating images according to some perverted agenda.

 

The only logical conclusion is that if you're going to keep the rating system intact, it can't be used as the primary means of viewing images unless the sorting process is fairly sophisiticated and can not be deduced.

[hsksla_ddygff]

i suggest two catagories, photographers who are sinners and will burn ing hell for photographing people nude, and catagorie two, photographers who dont photograph nudes and who will sit on the right hand of god. I dont believe it would be that hard to set up. I just make tarts.

[knicki____]

Bailey (may I call you Bailey since we havent been properly introduced) a bit fiesty tonite?

 

Carl has a point and while Michael's suggestion is well intended I do not believe it would really solve the issues but create different problems.

 

Hsksla- do you make your own pastry when making your tarts?

[._._z]

You're only subjected to what you let annoy you, Carl. Brian's said far too many times

that the rates aren't for the photographers, but it doesn't sink in. Regardless, that was

not the point of my post... which you too missed.

[._._z]

Knicki?, the Prude Police always have some scheme to ghettoize nude photography on

this site.

[root]

. . . but the reasons for suggesting it are different. Go back and reread the question.

[cfimages]

Hmm, a separate section for nudes. So how do you police that? P.net is an open-to-all website - all ages are welcome. I'm sure that there'd be a lot of 15 year-old boys who'd love it if they had access to a section of p.net that was freely accessible, and full of nudes. Would p.net then have to set up some kind of age-check thing to allow people to view/rate/post? Or would it be limited to paid-up subscribers only, as presumably, most of them have paid by credit card? In that case, isn't that a bit discriminatary? Nude photogs wouldn't then have their work seen by as many other photographers - but I'm sure they'd be seen by a lot of people who just like to look at nude women, but don't know a lens from a tripod.

[root]

A nudes section already exists.

[spaghetti_western]

"...Go back and reread the question..."

 

the question suggests giving in to unstated demands of some unknown rating terrorist(s) who perhaps are pushing for a nudes filter and not a nudes forum as the question surmises. i agree with Z. one, two. this is photo.net

[mottershead]

The way to deal with phoney nude ratings is to delete the phoney nude ratings, the accounts that gave them, and if necessary block the IP addresses from which the phoney nude ratings originate. We've done all of the above. If you know about other phoney nude ratings, let us know.

[tijean]

I have to agree with Mr. Western here.

 

I have been an advocate for a G rating filter that users can enable, making the site viewable in it's original form by default, but letting people in places where they can't have nudes popping up (work, school, ect.) filter out images checked by the photog as "nude." It would be nice, but not necessary and the administrators (Bob? Brian? Doesn't really matter) have decided it's either not necessary, not worth time that can be spent on more important thing, or just a bad idea.

 

That being said, I don't think we should do anything because of forceful persuasion. Even if they wanted to (I wouldn't want to chop up a site so focused on community, but that's not even the point) the admin couldn't give in to something like that, or they would no longer be controling the site.

 

I think we all learned the answer to this one from that bully in the 2nd grade. Ignore them and they will go away. Give them attention an dyou are their new favorite punching bag. Brian's handling it and they will tire themselves out soon.

[mottershead]

Jessica, its not a bad idea. But with over a million photos already in the Gallery and a couple of thousand new ones coming in per day, even if we had a group of volunteers who we all would trust to censor (i.e. classify) the photos, and who would do it methodically day in and day out, it isn't really feasible. Its like shutting the proverbial barn doors after the horse has already escaped.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Brian,

 

That's not completely true, it is in fact an out and not a clever one. To use your analogy;

Not all of the horses have even been delivered to the

barn so they haven't had a chance to escape from it yet. My sense is that given the deluge

of

photos posted, most of the older stuff sort of drops off into oblivion after a couple of

weeks and doesn't

need to be classified or gone through or filtered. The older images that do keep surfacing

above a certain level of hits per day or week can be brought into the new system.

 

I don't know anything about software & coding but I know a little bit about stock

photography and this is the

way it works there -- the older work that is popular gets scanned (sometimes it even gets

rescanned to better standards) and the stuff that isn't getting called out goes into the

archive, maybe someday to surface again if somebody is looking for a particular image.

[tijean]

Brian, I understand. I was thinking a self imposed thing (a radio button, required field on upload) on new uploads, effecting mostly the rate recent and TRP areas. It would still probably be a lot of time/work for something that wouldn't totally solve a problem. A problem that's solving isn't vital to the operation of the site. Thanks for the feedback.

[mottershead]

Ellis, we could perhaps start classifying nudes (assuming we could find enough trusted and dedicated classifiers), but what would be the use of having only some of the nudes classified? And even if every photo were properly classified, there is going to be some non-zero length of time between the upload of the photo and when the censors inspect it. During that time it is not classified. If there were to be a "safe" part of photo.net where photos would not be displayed unless certified as "not nudes" by trusted censors, it would initially be nearly empty, and would not contain either older photos, nor any of the very recently uploaded photos.

[michaelseewald]

Brian, I'm glad to see some dialog going on here. My suggestion was not to 'corral' all of the nudes and put them in some sort of obscure box (hidden area) but to give it it's own space for new uploads for critiquing/rating, as some people have figured out here. Of course, some have turned paranoid, as I see from the first couple of responses, but there is no need for that.

 

As Ellis Vener properly deduced, it would be something that would require no previous re-coding or moving of images, it would be for future posts, the horses not yet delivered and pranced around in the arena.

 

 

And as Jessica Withheld stated, "I was thinking a self imposed thing (a radio button, required field on upload) on new uploads, effecting mostly the 'rate recent' and 'TRP areas' ", I thought that this was understood as my original proposal, but I see not. Well thanks Jessica for helping clear this up.

 

Carl R. is 'hip' to things here too with his statement to that sleeping guy ZZZZ: "You're right, Bailey. People who don't upload images and haven't been subjected to these BS rates are not concerned."

 

This would be for the sake of those posting the nudes actually, not to harm them or hide them. If they wish to continue to be judged against the other section they will continue to be, for the most part, hit with lower ratings and sink into oblivion whereas with a separate section, a volunteer one, they would have a good chance of getting to the top. See my point? I think it's win/win. I'm also not suggesting whatever a 'G' rating is, nor some sort of 'credit card', age limit area as another paranoid person deduced from I don't know where.

 

I don't visualize someone that 'patrols' the site, again it would be a voluntary section that those artists would probably want to be included into so they would have a better chance to 'reach the top'. Yeah, some will put up their 'shock factor' images up to be cute in the 'floral' or some such category, and you can decide it that should be moved or not. Again, I'm not too concerned about this and I expect there would be no perfect system in that regard anyway, but does that mean the system can't be changed/improved some? Yea or Nay? I'm off to go make tarts- I mean go fishing.

[beepy]

Brian, I always felt you should classify (self censor) nudes with a radio button approach

(well, the Nudes category does that). Adding a filter choosable in preferences for "Family

safe" or whatever can key off the categorization.

<p>

You ask - what have you achieved? Well, I believe that actually most uploads by photo.net

members are correctly flagged "Nude". I think those people with "Family Filter" on would

*quickly* point you at uploads in violation of the filter choice. And you can determine

those *small* number of violators of whether is was a simple mistake or malicious - in the

latter case you can then block that account from further uploads.

<p>

Me, I have not much personal interest in this one way or another. But others seemingly

do. Given that sites like Google and OneModelPlace.com have some similar feature (and I

believe OMP asserts you will be banned if violating the categorization requirement etc.) it

seems better than nothing.

<p>

That said - you will get escapes - but you might get a reduction overall of these threads.

<p>

Also - "Family Safe" (not my family:-) would be the default when implemented.

[laurie_m]

Isn't there already a separate category for Nudes in the critique section? Is it being suggested that nudes not show up on the TRP along with all the other images? I can understand the concern that some may have about children viewing nudes. Where there's a concern, those children should be supervised when on the internet. There are several quality sites that are "Family Friendly" and would be more appropriate for young children. BetterPhoto.com is one that comes to mind. For older children, it seems to me this site would offer a unique opportunity for an open healthy discussion between parents and children about the differences between art and exploitation. I don't personally shoot nudes(I might if I had willing models). I'm also not some pervert that just wants to view naked pictures. I appreciate the effort and talent that goes into shooting quality photographs, nudes included. To separate them from the rest of the pack is to suggest that there is something morally or aesthetically wrong with them. I don't buy the separate but equal arguement. There are other images posted to this site that I would argue are more disturbing than any of the nudes I've seen. National Galleries don't have a separate wing- ID required- for nudes. Why should this site be in the position of acting as the morality police for those who are offended by another's art. If the images in the gallery and TRP are too graphic, immoral, explicit for someones sensibilities, they should probably avoid those areas. They can always go to the critique section and click on landscapes, pets, etc. Everyone here has the ability to "filter" what they see. I for one don't want to have to go to some other place to see ALL the images because a handful of members are squemish. Life is already censored enough!!

[tijean]

I think what I said is being misread. I was suggesting that the site remain as it is for anyone who does not specifically choose to filter out nudes.

<br><br>

Would this keep people from not marking nudes? No, just as the current system doesn't stop people from uploading flat out porn in the Pets section (though the mods have been good about cleaning up after jerks)? Count yourself lucky that they haven't decided to pick porn more relevant to the Pets section. But it would decrease the motivation. Right or wrong, some people don't want to see nudes around the site. They are attacking the nude section because they want to rate them into oblivion.

<br><br>

Why would I like a filter? Because photo.net is my break at both work and school (once I get home, I want little to do with my computer), and both the "rate recent" section and TRP page is a very dangerous place for a computer covered in by standard <i>no drugs, nudity, adult materials, illegal activities, blah blah blah</i> usage policies.

<br><br>

As for the "let the children see the nekkid people" section of the choir, I would agree whole heartedly if everything in the Nudes section was tasteful or artistic, but is not. Some of it is <i>very</i> not. I'm not saying that is should be zapped from the face of the planet, I just don't think anyone would be too happy if they found some of the grungier stuff in the Nude section on the 12 year old son's computer. As for throwing the censorship word around - if people specifically choose to see only G rated stuff, that's not censorship. Now if the site were to make itself G rated by default and make one dig for everything unacceptable to a Disney movie, then we could talk about censorship.

<br><br>

But this is all moot, because Brian (You've all met Brian. You know, the guy who knows the back and front ends of the gallery better than any human being on Earth) says it is not feasible. They know where their users stand on the issue (all over the place) and if they decide that is both important and possible, then they know how the always vocal handful of us would like it done. What I don't understand is why it's such a big issue, for both us here and the people attacking the Nudes section.

<br><br>

I still think they will tire themselves out though. And I will wait until I get home to check out the TRP. And Pnet will go on.

[laurie_m]

Jessica, If you're referring to my comment, it was in response to the original post requesting "separate" forums and galleries for nudes.

 

"A way to solve this would be to make a separate category for rating and displaying nudes, and then it would have it's own 'top photo' category and those artists would not need to keep up this revenge effort.

 

Name the two categories 'standard art' and 'nude art' "

 

I don't think there should be separate categories. "Nude art" IS "Standard art". Take a look at any art history book-it's filled with nudes! I also don't appreciate Michael's suggestion that the recent rating attack was perpetrated by one of the photographers who happens to post nudes. I have come to know a few of the photographers on this site that shoot nudes. I'm offended that someone would suggest they were responsible based on their choice of subject matter. It could just as easily have been someone pushing to have a separate category for nudes. Most likely, it's some hack with too much time on his hands that has never posted a photo here.

 

I have no issue with the site making a feature available to those who want to eliminate nudes from view as long as it doesn't interfere with the rest who want to view ALL images in one group.

 

What I think would happen if the site were able to implement something like you suggest is that when an occasional nude does slip through the cracks, it will create an uproar. Say for instance....you're at work, you log onto the new and improved Pnet feeling confident that no nudes will be visible. Some absentminded photographer mistakenly selected pets instead of nudes when categorizing his photo (one is below the other on the list, it happens all the time) and also forgot to check the "nude radio button". Just as that happens, your boss walks by and sees you viewing a nude photo at work. Wow....now what? I'm sure you wouldn't blame the site for the problem it caused you. Others surely would.

 

This is probably an exaggeration of the potential problem. The site may just not want, or be able to go to the effort and expense to accomodate your request. After reading other threads, your suggestion seems the most reasonable compromise, even if it doesn't solve your dilemma entirely. Your's is a practical concern and your solution seems reasonable if it can be implemented. For others, it seems to be a moral position. I just doubt it will be enough to satisfy the majority of those who complain about nudes.

[john falkenstine]

I didn't know that there was any nude photography on photo.net.....so what is all the fuss about?

[paul e. wog]

Well heres a "phoney nude rater"...in one day rated 750 pics..all nude high. http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1471029

[laurie_m]

I know the rating thing has gotten out of hand, regardless of the subject of the photos (high or low). It's no laughing matter but...... "phoney nude rater" .... makes me laugh.