Nudes, nudes and more nudes

[alethea_hollis]

No I have nothing against nude photographs, some of them are

very artistic, its just that the top pages seem loaded (forgive the

pun) with them at the moment, and I am just trawling my way

through them trying to find other categories of shots,

landscapes, nature etc. so that I can comment/rate etc.

 

Please can we have categories of top photos, just as there are

critique categories, and come to think of it why do we have to

categorise our entries, when they are all lumped together

anyway ? I also think this suggestion will enable netters to

receive more effective comments from those interested in a

particular category.

 

Alethea

[phule]

Alethea,

 

That would require 1) the photographer to flag the image as a nude 2) the moderators to scour the pages for mis-labled nudes, both of which are going to be spotty at best.

 

I rarely go to the Gallery anymore. I have dialup at home and it's painfully slow to try and download all those images, and I can't browse through it at work because of the nudity.

 

At least photo.net is not quiet as bad as photosig.

[james_oneill]

Actually Rob, I think Alethea is asking for something slightly different. People who want to never, ever, see a nude are tough to please. But Alethea has a choice already. (And its how I rate) go to the Gallery and click the Critique Requests link on the left. Then on the right you can choose the categories you're interested in. Nudes are mostly in portraits and fine art. <br>

Two things the powers that be could do. One is to revise the categories. (Why Pets, but no category for farm, zoo, or wild animals, where does landscape go - Nature or Fine art).

The other is to allow people to view "top rated Architecture" etc as one of the options.

[Jerry_]

...and some folks have "dirty pictures" to display<div></div>

[alethea_hollis]

Hi James,

 

Yes I understand I can rate nature this way, thanks, if I can get it

to load that is.

 

I think probably the main point for me is being able to see top

rated nature, or top rated landscape, top rated abstract etc etc

without having to have to look at nudes along the way, if you get

my drift. They are fine if this is where ones interest is, but I am

finding them a little intrusive, and wondered why we cannot have

top rated categories, it might just make netters make more use

of the top pages easier as it would take less time to go through

all the other types on the pages.

 

Alethea

 

Alethea

[phule]

<< Nudes are mostly in portraits and fine art >>

 

I know what Alethea was asking, and I would like to see how you can filter the nudes while still allowing the other photographs through.

 

I would argue that it is not possible without someone watching every single photo and flagging it as "nude" or not. Your very statement of "mostly" is a perfect indication of how the system would quickly and easily fail.

[root]

Why does a system have to be virtually foolproof in order to be

considered? The current setup has obvious flaws, not the least

of which is a poor distribution of genres. If you had to make a

choice on a check list - like we do for camera equipment now -

why would someone deliberately not check nudes if that's what

they wanted to share with others?

[jhenry]

A Category set up looks more than welcome here...!

[phule]

<<Why does a system have to be virtually foolproof in order to be considered? The current setup has obvious flaws, not the least of which is a poor distribution of genres. If you had to make a choice on a check list - like we do for camera equipment now - why would someone deliberately not check nudes if that's what they wanted to share with others?>>

 

How many people currently check "no" on the manipulated or not question? How many of those who have not checked "no" are, in fact, not manipulated? How many people don't check (or care to check) what equipment they've used?

 

The system will be broken not only by the people that don't understand it but by people that are intent on breaking it. In the same way people mate-rate, flame-rate, bait-rate, lie about manipulation, etc, people will purposly try to inject nudes into other non-nude categories. This makes more work for moderators, more work for admins, and will produce hundreds of complaint threads in the feedback forums.

 

I'm not against the idea of providing more ways to categorize images, I'm simply trying to point out that this could produce more work and more problems than realized benefits. Maybe this is just a reaction to the mess that's always created every time the ratings system is modified, I don't know. I just feel like whatever is chosen, there will be more problems than we currently have.

[bacsa]

As to the last comment, it's easy. Put the "nude" checkbox there, just above the "manipulated" one, and write it there that <i>if you don't check it and we catch you that it's still nude</i> (= you can see any of those bare body parts which you don't see naked at your office in a normal day), <i>you will be banned for a week</i>, let's say,<i> from accessing your pn account. Three bans like this = deletion of account.</i>

<p>

People don't read this type of warnings, "promises", about what will happen if...,i know. But after the first 1-week tempopral ban, they will. If not, they don't deserve to be here.

<p>

Then, any of the moderators, when they feel bored, can check randomly the uploaded photos if they are nude-checked correctly. Of course, they cannot cover the massive upload of a day, but hey, it's not needed!

<p>

ANother possibility is, that was already written somewhere here, that, instead of a checkbox, put something in the filename and/or picture caption that indicates nude. Like ** or something. Easier to implement, easier to automatically categorize the nude pictures in a different critique category if that will ever happen. At least I think it's easier.

<p>

Cheers.

[alethea_hollis]

"people will purposly try to inject nudes into other non-nude

categories."

 

WHY ? When they will have their very own category ?

 

Alethea

[james_oneill]

Hang on there's two things going on here. Alethea didn't ask for a ban on nudes or even a fool proof method, there was just a request for some more ways of browsing. Some extra searches seems to be something which requires modest effort for the gain, and doesn't take on-going work. <p>

Then we get csab' coming in and saying "I want the site re-structured to support a nudes/no nudes split, and the people who run the site to put time into enforcing it so that I can use my employer's bandwidth (and possibly time) to use photo.net. After all I don't pay to use photo.net so why shouldn't they ensure that I can use it at my employer's expense".

Sorry but that I'm afraid that stinks. Fortunately when Freeloaders ask for this kind of thing it gets ignored. There are other sites which offer what you want, use one. If this site goes that way I'll stop subscribing and go elsewehere myself.<br>

To see how hard the classification process is have a look in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=342238"> this folder of mine</a> All of the pictures are "nudes" but of the 6 there are no genitalia (I just don't find that pleasing to the eye), no bare buttocks, and only one with bare breasts. Now #1 and #2 have visible buttocks and a breast, #6 has a model who is plainly naked but showing none of the "offending areas". <br>

So anyone like to tell me what they which the powers that be to ban me for if I don't tick the "this should be censored" box.

 

[sorry if I seem even more feisty than usual. I have an eye infection and have been caring for a sick child which in combination have made me iritable.]

[root]

The reason we want categories is not that we are offended by naked

ladies . . . . we are offended that so many other people like naked

ladies - so much so that there are a disproportionate number on the

top pages. The same is true of landscapes incidentally, as noted

above. Many of us would like to see more variety and realize that our

best chance of finding it is by having separate categories. It's more

about the limits of popularity and mass appeal, less about what a few

find offensive.

[Coho]

As has been suggested before, you can go to the critique requests and look at what you wish; however, what would be useful would be a way to view thumbnails of each category of critique requests. This would speed up the downloading and the occassional nude could be avoided by those who don't wish to view them.

[bacsa]

James-

<p>

since you have those troubles nowadays, you're excused.

<br>

However, just a few corrections:

<br>-I did never say "i want the site re-structured". Please don't put words into people's mouth. I just had an idea. Honestly, I don't give a shit about where, how explicit and how many nudes are on photo.net; I ain't the one who gets offended if a naked body pops up full-window on his screen. Which is not very often, on PN, anyway (+see thumbnail related comment above).

<br>-If you are concerned about PN's bandwidth and slowing YOU down in accessing the site, check my nr of ratings. You should worry more about the click-click hudred-per-hour raters eating up your speed.

<br>-If you're worried about the bandwidth expenses of "my employer",...that's no problem, over here, believe me. But thanks for worrying.

<br>-As to ignoring "freeloader" ideas/oppinions: the feedback forum is <i>public</i>, not "for members only"...(so far). However, if that makes your eye infection disappear, feel free to think that We Miserable "Freeloaders" are more ignored than you.

<br>-The fact that I would happily pay $25 per year or more for PN membership, I posted here seventy seven times, together with the reasons why i can't donate, and how could PN solve this issue - for me and many others. I got no reasonable answer on that from PN, so I guess they don't bother. And, by the way, you also should not bother. The fact that you are a paying member gives you some advantages, but not a superiority in <i>expressing your oppinion or giving ideas</i>.

<br>-I never asked for banning any kind of photo on photo.net. Your phantasy takes over again. The checkbox I (and others) suggested was "nude" for the sake of separability(is this an english word?) and has nothing to do with the fact if it should be censored or not.

<br>-<i>"There are other sites which offer what you want, use one."</i> This is just nonsense. I am perfectly happy with PN at this moment. You obviously have no idea about "what I want", and about what and why I suggested above.

<p>

Sorry for being a bit off-topic, Mr. Moderator. I should not care if some folks fully misunderstand what we write.

<br>Actually, i don't.

<p>

with respect,

<br>[csab']

<p>

PS: the "zoe:net" photo of yours is quite good, James. Is this the reason of your slightly off-topic "examples"? to get some views? I hope not.

[james_oneill]

Hmmm. I should have put some things differently. Don't post when you know you're grumpy. <br>

But ...<br>

<i>-I did never say "i want the site re-structured". </I>

Actually, you're asking for an extra field in the database (nude/non nude), and the presentation of the photos to reflect this, based on their choice from "I want pictures Censored for me/Show me everything". That's what I meant when I talked about wanting a re-structure. And why stop at people who worry about seeing the body. Lets just make the check box "Could not be offensive to anyone" or "Should be censored"...<br>

- Not that bothered about bandwidth, but you're right the drive through raters use bandwidth and don't make a financial contribution to allow it to be upgraded.<br>

- I read<i>"those bare body parts which you don't see naked at your office in a normal day"</i> as "which can't view on your office PC". If you <b>HAD</b> said that, then what I said would have made sense ;-) <br>

- I should have not have called you a freeloader, and I think I have seen you posting about being willing to pay before. I do think requests for changes to the site from people who have not paid up are likely to fall on deaf ears, whereas those from people who have paid will reach ears which are distinctly hard of hearing :-)<br>

- When you say "-I never asked for banning any kind of photo on photo.net" I never accused you of asking for a type of picture to be banned. You wanted PEOPLE banned: in your posting that I was reacting to. <i>[if someone doesn't check the 'Should be censored' box when they should] <u>you will be banned for a week</u>... ...<u>Three bans like this = deletion of account</u></i>.<br>

- What you call seperability (seperation) is what I am calling (self imposed) censorship. After all what else do you call seperating what people should and should not see ? <br>

- I do nudes. I've been doing photography semi-seriously for 20 years, but I shot my first nude last year. I use photo.net as a sounding board because I am a very poor judge of my own work. There are some sites with a simple no nudity rule which I can't use. I'm frankly a little tired of people (who don't pay to be here) trying to change photo.net into such a site. You say you are perefectly happy with how the site is, but you're proposing that I should be required to brand my work "suitable only for some viewers", or leave the site. I say people who are very picky about what they see are catered for elsewhere, so they should there.<br>

- I used my most recent uploads as an example of the pit falls. According to your first post you'd ban someone for showing a bare breast or bottom without flagging it. But what if that was covered with a net ? Do you say I'm banned for showing a nipple, but otherwise OK ? Would you replace nudes with a bunch of cheesy bikni shots ? And if so how wide does a bikini string need to be to say a bottom is "covered." etc. I'm not really after extra views per se, but I'd love someone to have a look and say "I think you should be thrown off the site if you didn't mark [THIS-OR-THAT SPECIFIC PICTURE] 'Only suitable for perverts'".

[alethea_hollis]

This has gone off the point a bit, I repeat I don't feel there is

anything wrong with most of the nude photography on here, I just

don't want to look at it personally.

 

I was asking why we cannot have categories in top photo pages.

Then we would have top nature, top architecture, top abstract, top

nude, top landscape, top fine art etc etc etc.

 

This was never meant to be a thread about no nudity. There is

a place for everything within reason surely.

 

I feel I have made a good suggestion, to have top rated photos in

categories would attract more comments/rates as "specialist"

photographers would probably look at their "specialist subject"

first and it would take less time to trawl through other material

which is no interest.

 

Could I have a moderators view please ?

 

Alethea

[bacsa]

I feel happy to be such kind of "pervert", James:o)

<br>

I think there's nothing wrong with marking a picture "nude", it's jkust for easier "seperation", not for segregation or banning or whatever. It's the same like marking a picture" unmanipulated/manipulated". The result is, people who post nudes will not get any more "this is just porn, does not belong here" crap, so I think you should actually agree!!!

<br>

Of course, deciding what is nude and what isn't, can be overcomplicated...what I ment with the everyday at your office, was not about your office <i>monitor</i>, but just office=a place where people don't really walk around nude, so it might be a good definition.

<p>

Alethea, you did make a good suggestion, just as seventy-seven other people made a (slightly different maybe but) good suggestion before. So I thought I can make my own suggestion too:o)

<p>

Have a nice light.

[navarra]

Some photo sites split nude pictures in different sub-categories. Think this would work here as well?

 

Simone

[navarra]

Re-sized the picture for display.

 

Simone

[bacsa]

:o)))i'm sure it would, simone

[james_oneill]

Alethea, I agreed with your suggestion, indeed I made it myself. Your position is NOT the one which is often articulated of wanting no-nudes, but advocating a "live-and-let-live" policy. There are days when I think if I see another flower shot I'll gnaw my own leg off. I'm sure there are people who think that about landscape, kittens, etc (as well as nudes). Simply providing "top landscape, top Pet" is practical to implement.

csab' we're closer to agreement than it seemed at first, but I don't think an extra checkbox is going to happen, and I'd have reservations if it did. Why check only for nudes ? There is material which is upsetting despite being good photography (Leslie Hancock springs to mind). Like I said I misunderstood what you meant by at the office, but women at my office don't wander round with bare backs - some of my favorite nudes are backs...