Is it in the interest of PNet to display NSFW images on the front page?

[paul_f3]

<p>....Or, possibly more to the point, <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00Wwyz">this recent thread</a> discussed the problem of the recent appearance of photos on the front page which has caused PNet to be classified as porn by various "net nanny" filters, resulting in PNet access being blocked.<br>

In the above thread, it was stated this was a problem back in the late 90's, so it is not a totally new problem.<br>

But does it seem to others that we have seen a change in the appearance of photos on the front page that until recently were not posted on the home page?<br>

Is this the reason for the recent reclassification of PNet as porn by various filters?<br>

Is this in the interest of PNet?<br>

Is the home page the best place for NSFW photos?</p>

<p> </p>

[py-photography]

<p>I would have to say no, and wish anything NSFW would be filtered out of being displayed on the homepage.<br>

Currently on parental leave so don't care about getting filtered out ATM. However that will change when I return to work. </p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>I don't get this. If you're at work, bookmark the forum pages instead of the home page.<br>

<br />All this reminds me how happy I am to live in San Francisco.</p>

[py-photography]

<p>Jeff if the domain gets locked out... bookmarks aren't going to help...</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The artistic and erotic depiction of nudity is as old as art itself. Most visual arts oriented websites I visit - photography, painting, sculpture - all feature depictions of nudes and eroticism that some folks might consider not safe for work.</p>

<p>For all I know some workplaces might block wikipedia because it features graphic illustrations to accompany descriptions of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex">various sexual activities</a>.</p>

<p>The best compromise I can think of is to wait until you're off work or school before viewing any arts oriented website, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy">certain wikipedia pages</a>. Seems more reasonable than expecting an arts oriented website to conform to ever-changing mores and strictures for the workplace or school environment.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I presume the front page images exclude those posted in the "nudes" category. However if people post nudes elsewhere then there may be a chance they show up on the front page. In fact I don't doubt that some people, if they thought this was true, might "accidentally" mis-categorize their images in the hope of more views.</p>

<p>Other than excluding images from the "nudes" category, there's no way Photo.net can be sure of selecting images that are not "NSFW" unless someone wants the job of manually reviewing everything.</p>

<p>To answer the question, posting NSFW images on the front page isn't something likely to be of long term benefit to Photo.net, rather the contrary in fact.</p>

[joshroot]

Bob is correct.

 

The site makes an effort to limit users being surprised by nudes. Though as a site we obviously support nude/fine-art/etc,

we would rather people have to choose to look for them by their own choice.

 

But it is an imperfect system and mistakes can and do happen. We fix them as soon as we catch them, but that isn't

instant.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff if the domain gets locked out... bookmarks aren't going to help...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My response was to the person who wanted nudes off the home page. I understand that if it's already blocked, that won't help.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>....Or, possibly more to the point, <a rel="nofollow" href="00Wwyz">this recent thread</a> discussed the problem of the recent appearance of photos on the front page which has caused PNet to be classified as porn by various "net nanny" filters, resulting in PNet access being blocked.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Also, the statement above should not be taken as fact.</p>

<p>The theory that nudes on the front page were causing problems was just speculation by one user. And as the guy who runs this site, I can tell you that theory is VERY unlikely to be true. When photo.net ends up on "bad" lists of net-nanny programs it is because we have nude images in the gallery. Not because once in a blue moon a nude somehow makes it to the front page by mistake.</p>

[al_derickson]

<p>I don't think it is coincidental that the day after a nude image was on the front page my work IT blocked the website. Make that speculation by two users.</p>

[joshroot]

I'm not saying that it is impossible. I'm just saying that based on my experience it is highly improbable. Nudes have

popped up at one point or another on the front page by mistake for years.

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...my work IT blocked the website."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The IT industry doesn't work in a vacuum. Internet trends are discussed daily and techniques for dealing with problems are communicated almost instantly and adopted and implemented very quickly. So it wouldn't be unusual for the effects of a technique - such as site filtering - to be seen simultaneously in many places. Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the site being filtered or blocked. Filtering and blocking probably affects dozens or hundreds of sites, but users don't notice because they don't visit those other sites.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>WHAT "front page"? You mean <a href="../">http://www.photo.net/</a> ? I personally haven't seen that for years and had forgot it existed. Always come in to the Unified page.</p>

<p>I suppose that newbies come in thata way? </p>

<p>So maybe on that page use only the categorized images from the critique line just as the new "bottom of the page" feature does. Fewer nudes? No nudes is good nudes?</p>

[joshroot]

Don't cry for the nudes folks, they get more views than anything else on the site. Excluding them from some of the

"featured" areas doesn't even come close to equalizing the numbers.

 

Human nature being what it is and all that.

[bobatkins]

<p>It's very easy to block websites if all your traffic is going through a proxy server, which is the case for most large companies (and many small ones). With that you can see who is accessing what website at what time and you can easily create a "blacklist" of blocked sites. I assume there are many "blacklists" circulating containing the urls of sites offering porn, gambling etc. Once you get on a blacklist it may be hard to get off.</p>

<p>Remember that even if you are allowed to visit such sites, the proxy server logs contain data about what you have been viewing...</p>

[kiwirob]

<p>I suppose it ain't the time to point out what you're probably meant to be doing at work...? heh ;-)<br>

IT depts are usually quite approachable. If your internet policy says you can use the net for personal use during breaks, etc, whilst there then log a job and tell them why it should be allowed. Probably take 5 days as it wont be a priority but, unless you got some guy having a bad day or you've previously been a bit of a numpty towards them, it takes no time at all to let it back through and it'll be ok'd.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>if you MUST have PN at work and the IT gods have shut it down, provide your own computer and internet access. employers are under no obligation to provide this service, after all. if your day won't be complete otherwise, dig down and make your own provisions.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I presume the front page images exclude those posted in the "nudes" category.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is interesting that this should come up now. I saw a provocative image of a bare-breasted woman on the front page last evening, and I was not shocked--but I was surprised. It could as easily have been a picture of genitalia.</p>

<p>It apparently was simply the most recent upload to the entire site, and it appeared at the top dead center of the main page--automatically, I presume, not by design.</p>

<p>Even so, is that what Photo.net wants to show persons when they access the site for the first time?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is where they are appearing--in the photo box just below the following:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<h3>Photo Upload Contest</h3>

<p>Upload the 4 millionth photo and get a <a onclick="return hs.htmlExpand(this, {contentId: 'contest-terms'})" href="../">free lifetime subscription</a>.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Whatever photo appears there is much more dominant to visitors (and all viewers) than is the Photo of the Week: it is the first thing one sees when one accesses the site.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Even so, is that what Photo.net wants to show persons when they access the site for the first time?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure beats another photo of Half Dome.</p>

[WJT]

<p>I agree with Lannie's comment. It would be better to swap locations of the "Featured Member Gallery" with the new "Photo Upload Contest" feature.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Gosh, Jeff, I always thought that Half Dome was a real turn-on.</p>

<p>Here she is unwrapping herself:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8533923</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Again, it's just the fact that we have nude images on the site that cause issues, not that they appear any particular place. And even if that was the case, moving things around on the front page would not make any difference.</p>

<p>In any case, given the amount of positive feedback I have received regarding having the most recent upload on the front page, I'm not inclined to remove it. There are other ways to solve the issue of a nude popping up for 30 seconds until the next image is uploaded.</p>

[WJT]

<p>Yes Josh, I have positive feedback for having the most recently uploaded image on the front page too; that is why I did not say that it should be removed. On my monitor runing at 1600x1200 with IE8 at it's default size the Featured Member Gallery is off the page and needs to be scrolled to in order to see it. Swapping this feature with the one under discussion makes sense as the Featured Member would be more of a<em> featured </em>item. Seems to me that this is an opportunity to make both sides happy. Regards.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>In any case, given the amount of positive feedback I have received regarding having the most recent upload on the front page, I'm not inclined to remove it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Josh, I personally like having the most recent upload on the front page, too, for what that's worth. So far I have not had a conversation with anyone who does not like it, although someone wrote me last night to say that it tends to push the POTW down a bit in terms of visibility. We both agreed, however, that we would miss not seeing the most recently uploaded image.</p>

<p>I do consider it an asset to the site, although I guess that it does have its liabilities. I'm glad that someone else (<em>i.e.</em>, not me) is making policy and taking the heat.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>