|
Look forward to reading through this!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
ok, how do I edit the "safety" on one shot in particular?
I've had it as private as some "friends" found the art too tantilizing...
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Go to the shot you want to change. Look for the "Flag your photo" link at the bottom of the right hand side, click it, pick the safety level.
[Edit] However, if they have marked you as a contact, friend or family that relationship overrides the safety level setting.
Example: They have set their own safely level to 'safe' and you have public photo marked as 'restricted' content, they'll not see it
But if they mark you as a contact, they are implicitly saying they want to see your photos and therefor it overrides the safety setting.
In those cases you still have to move it up to friends, family or friends & family, or if they don't like your 'restricted' content they can choose to remove you as a contact.
Phew, that's kinda tricky to explain.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
Rev Dan Catt (staff) edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
a ha! thanks... sweet, it's always bothered me that I had to make that shot private, simply since my close friends found issue with it!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ok... now, if freinds choose to only see safe? will they see something marked moderate? or does it magically "disappear"?
or maybe this only filters out the search capabilities?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Congratulations, Team Flickr. This is a huge improvement. You continue to inspire.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Nice work.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
arg... ok... I got it!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
any way to find all shots marked moderate? *off to check organize*
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Just a question...... if nude images are in someone's photostream and marked "restricted".....is that account still subject to being made NIPSA, presuming all frontal nudity and anything pornographic is made private?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
You may have a bug. if I view one of my pools some of the icons are blank: Example the sketches pool...
flickr.com/groups/78983216@N00/pool/
If your in the pool you should be able to see the images.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Violentz, this system replaces NIPSA.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
If I have marked a photo friends only, is there any further need to classify it as moderate or restricted? If so, do I need to go back and find all of those??????
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
AustinTX: The safety levels are primarily for Public photos -- so -- no, there's no great need to classify your friends/family and private photos.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Violentz: if one is categorizing photos as per the Community Guidelines, there's no need for your account to be NIPSA. This may just be a "hangover" of the old system.
AustinTX: Well, it's not required, but you probably should. Good habits and all.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
haha, George and Treebjen, you in different offices??? lol.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Who wants to know what content am I uploading? Yahoo?
I guess my viewers check really fast what that is. And I can still tag and describe my work, right?
So please: keep it simple!!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Who wants to know what content am I uploading? Yahoo?
The community. As per the blog post, we're a big global community and people come from all walks of life.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
wow. just.
wow.
I've got some reading to do. thanks guys. seriously.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@ben_on_web- those are likely the placeholder images for things outside your Safe Search level (which you can adjust via that link). Someone not in the group would not see any placeholder images, which you are seeing blank. Right click an empty image and just try viewing that. Do you have AdBlock installed?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So if I mark some of my photos as either moderate (or friends photos as restricted) am increasing or decreasing the chance I will have my account marked moderate? I am safe right now and don't want to mess with fate too much. :)
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I really think "the community" can read my description and my tags.
And why is everything but photos excluded from the search (if not edited)?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I've never been NIPSA, and 99.99% of my stuff is photos (and what's not is private, and will stay private), so I don't think any of this effects me, but can somone simply explain how the safety levels interact with designating a photo "friend or family." I'm confused.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Wow! Schweet work guys!
NIPSA is dead, long live filters!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
AustinTX
We view Self Moderation as a very good thing.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
what a great new feature, thanks guys.
and the new custom layout options are uber cool too. is there a related discussion thread for this where people can sound off or make further suggestions about this feature?
keep up the great work!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
RubyMae...it affects you in that other people's photos should be set accordingly, which means that depending on what filter level you set in your own account, you should be able to decide what you can and can't see.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
RubyMae
somone simply explain how the safety levels interact with designating a photo "friend or family." I'm confused.
Contacts, Friends or Family override any safety level settings.
Safety levels only effect people who aren't your contacts.
[edit - grammar police]
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
George (staff) edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
Wow, this looks like a great new system! I think every Flickr member should get an email about this.....or perhaps a page at sign in to tell them about it.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Violentz, it's listed as the first news item right now.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"But if they mark you as a contact, they are implicitly saying they want to see your photos and therefor it overrides the safety setting."
That sounds like a very simply implementable toggle to override: "Apply SafeSearch to contacts". I suppose most people won't need that but I can imagine a few cases where it'd come in handy.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So let me get this straight...so I don't do anything "wrong". I can have an artistic nude in my photostream that shows frontal nudity marked "public" as long as I mark it "restricted" ?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Violentz
Pretty much yes.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Silly question here:
I assume that the playing cards with Chinese propaganda pictures I uploaded should be set to art/illustration. What about playing cards with old photographs, or postcards with photographs?
Likewise, how should I classify the photographs of WWII propaganda posters that I took at the Canadian War Museum? Or the photographs I took of the tapestry my dad wove just before he died?
What about things like tickets, programs, and so forth? I usually keep these as souvenirs from trips, and have been either photographing or scanning them and tagging them as "Ticket" and so forth. How would you like me to classify them?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
etherflyer edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
_ Claudio Brazil edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
etherflyer: I'd say the latter cases are all photographs as they were all taken with a photocamera. (The museums things, not the tickets.)
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
Marco Wessel edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
OK here's one [question]: Up until now, I've been flagging my art images as 'not in public searches" individually, to comply with Flickr terms.
So I've gone through with the Organizr and batch edited all of my artwork to be "safe" and "artwork".
But.
Each image, when I select the "flag image" link, still has them checked as "out of the public searches".
I can uncheck it right there. But my question is, is there any way to BATCH uncheck them? I can't seem to find it anyplace.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Marco, that's one way of looking at it, but I can see a counter-argument that there's little difference between a camera on a duplicating stand and a scanner, and what counts is the content.
I'm OK going either way on this -- I'd just like to be consistent so that the filtering system works as intended.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I guess I could have hoped for the search defaults to include all the non-photo stuff (they're off by default). but I could see losing that argument already.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hmm, question:
Can we somehow see what images from other people have been classified as?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
etherflyer Yeah Marco has it, but generally just go with gut instinct.
It's mainly for places where there's a big difference from what you've marked it as and what the community mark it as. i.e. You're marking something as one thing i.e. a safe illustration and the community look at it and flag it as a for review screenshot.
When that happens it'll end up going for review.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
Rev Dan Catt (staff) edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
The Searcher, look for that batch option soon. Maybe tomorrow.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I know I'd find it handy when looking at a picture's page to know how I flagged it, without clicking the "flag this photo" link.
I suggest that for non safe/photo picture this is changed to something like:
You flagged this picture as Art/Ill. Change?
With "Change?" being the link to the widget.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Eric: roger. thanks!
Marco: click on one of my art images and select the "flag this image" link (down where NIPSA/may offend used to be). Does it tell you if it's art from there?
yours tell me yours are photos.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher: no, it just allows me to tell The System what it is. The default for all is photo. (And mine would tell you that in any case, 'cause all I have are photos ;)
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher: If you set your entire account to "Hide your photos from site-wide searches", here, and then unset it -- all your photos will be reset to un-NIPSA.
However, it'll probably take about a day for that to process.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
Rev Dan Catt (staff) edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
I just recognised that others can flag my photos as a screenshot (for example).
WTF is that good for?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla: they can report misclassifications. Sorta like the old 'flag as offensive' thing, except more detailed.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But that is the "view again"-thingie, not?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Pardon?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
<- doesn't get it either.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Pardon?
For these changes?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
<-- scratches head.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla... We're not sure what your point is.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Cool stuff. :) Out of curiosity, should *photos* of computer/TV screens (where it's only what's being displayed that I'm interested in - I'm not taking about artistic shots of screens) be classified as screenshots, too? My gut instinct says yes, but it'd be nice to hear what others think... :)
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't want no one telling me (or whomever) what for work (photo/screenshot/..) I uploaded!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think he means, "I can understand why there's a 'please review this photo' option, but why is there a separate option to let other people reclassify my images. Surely that will confuse things tremendously; it should just be a 'please review' option and that's it."
Or at least, if that's not what he means, he should, because there's some validity. It's not entirely clear what the distinction there is - does mob rule get a picture reclassified if enough people 'vote' for one of the options, or is it still a case of referring to manual review - in which case, there's redundancy in the options there.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Exactly.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla: If I'm undestanding correctly, that's not what's happening. Like I said, this is exactly like the old system of 'mark as offensive' except it's more detailed in what someone is reporting it as. It's not like I can mark all your photos as screenshots, it takes a few more people (and a staff review?) to do that.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Like I said, this is exactly like the old system of 'mark as offensive' except it's more detailed in what someone is reporting it as. It's not like I can mark all your photos as screenshots, it takes a few more people (and a staff review?) to do that.
Bingo! Think of it as "this may be offensive" on steroids. We've broken it out to be more granular.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
In that case Marco/Heather, what is the 'please review' checkbox for? To put it another way, if I pick another option from the three (say, 'screenshot',) and click "Save" but don't have 'Please review' checked, what does that mean? If it does nothing, it's just bad UI design. If it does something, what exactly?!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
vovchychko My personal opinion is that photos of screens are photos, because well, they're photos. Mainly because it still gives some useful information about the camera used. Anecdotally, I had a camera that was awful at representing the colours from a screen due to it's onboard image processor, that information may be useful to someone, if they were looking for a camera to er... take photos of the screen with.
Although that may be my own purist point of view, and other people's view differ.
Please don't ask me about scanning photos though.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
Rev Dan Catt (staff) edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
@ Marco: But why should it marked by others as screenshot anyway??? It should be up to me!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
photo guerilla edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
tim_walls: 'please review' is for marking images that should be restricted, the other options are for classifying what type of image it is.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The UI design is awful then. If the two sets of options are entirely separate, they should be separated in the UI - and have separate 'save' buttons.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla: and if you're marking them correctly after uploading, it is up to you and you won't run into this problem. This system is just to prevent a situation where lots of people don't mark their images correctly.
tim_walls: what, I can't have an offensive illustration?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, on second thoughts the fact that we're even having this conversation suggests that bit of UI design is awful :-). Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great feature, but it's not at all obvious what the precise semantics and consequences of that 'flag this photo' pane are.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I still don't see them. I set everything to show and logged out and in.
I will have to try something else and see why I can't see them.
B
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Marco, you can have as many offensive illustrations as you like, but the current UI suggests that the two ('mark for review' and 'whether or not it's an illustration') are linked together, when they apparently aren't.
Of course, at the moment we only have your word for it that they aren't, so this is pure speculation on your part ;-)
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Rev Dan Catt : thanks. :)
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Marco: Of course I mark them correctly. Because it's up to me how I mark my stuff. It's that easy.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Going through my images, I find a few marked "not for public search" and "restricted", but not the "restricted by flickr staff" message (which I found on one). Did somebody already go through today and mark those? or is that some kind of auto mark think if they had been flagged as offensive earlier?
Can I just remark those as I think appropriate?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
tim_walls: read the info behind the 'need help?' link :) Specifically this bit is at the bottom.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So this
"When you upload content to Flickr, you need to choose where it "fits" in these 2 categories."
is not true because everyone else can do it as well?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla: but what of the folk who aren't as dilligent as you? What of the images that are paintings, but are marked as photos? Flickr still has a community-policing system in spite of this change, that allows others to enjoy the hobby of correcting people and deciding what is or isn't offensive. I guess Flickr didn't want to alienate this neighborhood watch.
Tim Walls has a point tho: if I just check "screenshot" to an image, what happens? I'm guessing this goes to the Flickr catagorization of a stream, covered in the FAQ. "safe" means you follow the rules, "moderate" means you don't always catagorize correctly, and "unsafe" means you're a total loose cannon. So maybe collecting enough corrections on your page just contributes to the general catagorization of your whole stream?
But the fact that I put a question mark on there means the UI may be trouble for people, me included.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
AustinTX If there's not the "restricted by flickr staff" message and you have the option to remark them, then remark them as you think is appropriate.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Marco, telling people they should read the help is a sure sign that your UI sucks. Equally, that help is not terribly clear. For a start, clicking 'need help' when you're looking at someone else's photos takes you to the help on tagging your own photos - you have to search to find stuff about marking other people's. Secondly, the language isn't clear; it says "You can also suggest... [changing the photo category]"; does that mean 'If you have chosen to mark for review... then you can also suggest...' or is the 'You can also suggest' meant to mean 'As an alternative to marking for review, you can also suggest...'.
If these two acts are indeed completely independent, then they should not be defined within the same frame with the same action button.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
AustinTX: see this comment: www.flickr.com/forums/help/35803/187857/
and the staff response just below it. If you have an image flagged "out of public searches" it is still flagged that way until you change it.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla: no. what happens is if you upload a screenshot and don't set it to 'screenshot' for whatever reason, then I can tell flickr that this image, marked as a photo, should have been marked as a screenshot. Nothing will happen just then, but if a certain amount of people do this, a flag will go up alerting flickr staff to take a look at it. This is basically how the old system worked, except now you get to say more than just 'I'm somehow offended by this'.
tim_walls: don't get me wrong, I'm not completely disagreeing with you there. Discussion about UI does tend to mean something could be better. However I'm just saying I didn't have the same problem you did.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
Marco Wessel edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
Tim: in this case, if the feature doesn't work the way staff intended, I think they'll be the first to know there's a problem. In other words, if they get flooded with "please review this image" when in fact it's just a general catagorization error, it will only help their workload to simplify it.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ben_on_web: "I set everything to show."
Double check your settings here:
SafeSearch preferences.
Now regarding the blank image, something is likely blocking the placeholder image.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is a screenshot that offending?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla: If I'm looking for photos of something, and don't want screenshots or graphic icons, it matters to me how they classify things. Being able to filter those out of my search if I want to (and I understand that it's my choice whether to do that or not for each search) makes Flickr more useful to me.
As I understand it, if you flag one of my pictures as, say, Art/Illo, then a human at Flickr will look at it and decide if you are right. If they agree, then they will change the classification.
I could be wrong, of course...
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ok, will do, still wonder if those happened automatically or something. Hard to believe folks have already had time to go thru and mark those.
I realize this might be opening a can of worms, but it would be good to know when that happens (like in recent activity).
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla: a screenshot isn't offensive, but it's often not what I'm looking for. Being able to filter out the clutter is useful.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@The searcher, I had never marked it out of public search. i guess that is what I was asking, if somebody else marked it "may be offensive" six months ago, did the photo inherit that trait even without staff review. Its not like I would ever know it was marked that way (until today).
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ flyer: but still: if I don't mark my work as a screenshot, you have to live with it.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
AustinTX: don't misunderstand, no one can mark any of your images for you (other than staff). They can suggest to staff what your images should be, but that's it.
Having an image "not in public search" is a choice, but if your catagories are set properly, one you never have to choose. So of you have images set that way, either you did it or they were set before this change today, and for a specific reason, like offensive or because they were non-photos.
So we are all free now to allow all of our images to be publicly searchable, as long as they are catagorized correctly (priority on the adult material, I'd assume.) you can either follow Treebjen's advice to clear yours up, or wait a day and the option will be in the batch options. Or like me, hit the ones you really want one at a time now.
[edit: AustintX: yes exactly. If it is out of public search, it was without your knowledge, from some time before today.]
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have been doing lots of batch changing of restrictions in Organizer. I'm not completely comfortable with it......as I batched a few hundred photos as "restricted"....and when completed it said...."175 out of 200" photos have been changed". Then I re-did it....and it said....."350 photos out of 200" have been changed" hehe
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
photo guerilla: "If I don't mark my work as a screenshot, you have to live with it."
uh, no. That's what this whole thing is about. Up until now, if you were "Caught", your image or your entire stream could have been marked hidden or private, until you complied. Now, if you don't comply, you get categorized by staff as "unsafe", which I assume can still lead to the same sanctions.
There are still rules to Flickr, they've just given us some expanded definitions and freedoms.
which. you know, yay!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think these are Yahoo rules! Fu*king Yahoo rules!!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
AustinTX There are probably some hang overs from kinks in the old system, don't have any specific answers for you though.
Violentz It probably averages out in the end. We'll* look into it.
(*and by "We'll" I mean Eric will probably catch it before anyone else)
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
Rev Dan Catt (staff) edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
and considering [Photo Guerilla] that all of your images appear to be photos, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
[edit: now I really know you don't know what you're complaining about. Do you realize that this change just reversed MUCH more restrictive rules on content that have been with Flickr since its inception? Calm down, it's a happy.]
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
photo guerilla, now you're kidding, right?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm still hoping flickr is kidding with these changes!
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
photo_guerilla: Fu*king Yahoo rules!!
Yes! Yahoo rules! And you rock, man!
That's what you meant, right?
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'd like to rehash a question I asked before but haven't seen answered yet:
"Can we somehow see what images from other people have been classified as?"
And if not, will we ever? Why? Tell me! TELL ME NOW! RAAAAHHhhh!
*cough*.
Posted 21 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
