|
I see that Flickr has cracked down on groups, so that any group that allows Moderate images, automatically becomes an 18+ group.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. There are a number of groups that have an occasional moderate image, that will now not be able to have anyone under 18 in them.
Secrets of Explore, for example, will become 18+ because zycster posted a deer head that had been eaten by some wild animal, and (appropriately) flagged it as moderate.
It's a bit gory, but not something that a PG 13 movie wouldn't show.
Could you perhaps create a PG 13 group rating, so that we don't have to turn every group into either G or 18+
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm so confused. If a person has to be over 18 to accept seeing moderate or restricted images, why can't they join a group that allows moderate or restricted images, since they won't show up for them anyhow?
There are plenty of groups that have a wide range of ages and interests, and as long as everyone is properly filtering them, it seems narrow minded to assume it has to be either/or.
What happens to groups that are now set to only accept safe images, but previously had moderate or restricted photos added? Are those images removed?
And if a group chooses to allow moderate content, are all under 18 users just booted out? Do they get notification?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm trying to post butterflies and flowers, how on earth can anyone be offended by that? I'm also trying to post to my groups where I'm a regular, in that I post and comment daily. Indeed I post so many comments I continually get asked to type in codes show I'm not a bot.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'd appreciate a bit of clarification on the 'any moderate content = 18+' rule as well, particularly as it relates to pool that have minimal non-safe content, but still want to allow the occasional moderate photo (basically the situation Colleen describes, though I was thinking of Film is not dead it just smells funny). How will this effect their visibility through group search? What about through broader web search?
Presuming I post a safe photo to a group like those described above (and marked 18+), what effect will this have on that photo and my photostream? E.g., will my 14-year-old cousin still see the photo? Will they see that it belongs to the 18+ pool? Will they be able to browse the pool from my page (bearing in mind that it's predominantly safe content, and she'd be prevented by existing filters from seeing the few examples that aren't)?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Also, how does this impact users in countries that are not able to see restricted content? Will they be instantly kicked out of any groups that allow restricted content? It seems from the FAQ that's the case, and is even more ridiculous than not allowing 15 year olds in.
(So, apparently "if you have any questions, post away" doesn't imply "and get them answered." My bad.)
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
hrw worcester edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
Secrets of Explore, for example, will become 18+ because zycster posted a deer head that had been eaten by some wild animal, and (appropriately) flagged it as moderate.
The default on SoE is set to Safe, if you check it, and my photos are still in the pool because they were there prior to the launch of this feature.
I just can't add any more of them now, unless you change the settings for the group to moderate (18+). I'd talk to Steph before you do that, because she is aware of this issue, too, and suggested leaving the group set to safe but using a Dead Animals thread.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not changing anything for a day or two.
But the Rules As Written are not very sensible, and I'd like to see some adjustments made to these new rules.
There really is a need for a group setting between "G" and "18+"
Even movie ratings have some in between steps.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
This new venture of Flickr is MOST annoying - I am in a position of not being able to post any of my photographs to Groups - including one which I administer!!! Is it because my Account was marked as "moderate" a few months back? Why has Flickr sought fit to alter something which was working perfectly ok?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 I totally agree with you, and I think the 18+ setting for moderate content is not the right direction.
Miss Magnolia Thunderpussy With the launch of these features, most groups defaulted to Safe. Perhaps you should try filtering your content correctly and then ask for an account review to get the moderate status lifted from your account.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
..well, go ahead and add me to the ranks of the confused concerning making groups that have occasional "moderate" content "18+" ..don't the under-18s and those of us who keep safe-search turned on just see the black boxes anyway?
..and re: group posting: ..I also wasn't able to post a benign photo to a group this evening ..through trial and error, it seems (to me) that there may have been some sort of time-shift from what had been the "new day" start time ..I ended up removing the post I'd made yesterday and then was able to post the one I wanted for today ..the group posting day had previously seemed to be GMT, but now I'm confused about that too
..personally, I think I'll just catch up on my reading and come back to Flickr in a couple of days, when things have settled down a bit
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I totally agree that only Safe content should be permitted and I am glad to see the groups I am an admin for being set to only allow Safe content for both videos and photos.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
*gathers pitchforks & torches*
I got a feeling about this one!
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Like I said in the "Find Your Friends" topic, Flickr just seems to get better and better with these great additions!
Now my groups can get better!
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
friendboy12 edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
Thanks for adding the control which content is allowed in group, this allows me to keep me group manageable by german moderators as they are not able to see restricted content.
But I'm concerned about the new policy, that groups that allow moderate content will become 18+ automatically. I think this worsens the situation for ALL users in the countries that have SAFE SEARCH FILTER FORCED ON THEM like Germany, Hong Kong, South Korea and another one I just cannot remember at the moment. As those users may not be able to post to many of the groups.
I can imagine many of the groups would allow moderate images as they now also allow tasteful nuditiy. Until now it was no problem for users of mentiond countries to join this group.
When photos were filtered correctly they just didnt see them, if not filtered they see them.
With the new way Youll lock the users out from this group affecting.
I think this should be changed to: Restricted content allowed --> 18+ Group. Moderate content allowed --> up to admins choice if 18+ or not.
Thanks for consideration and very worrying now that I'll booted of many of my group s I'm member of now.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think Americans should give up being the world's nanny.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Next thing ya know, Big Brother will be watching!!!!
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Flickr is clearly run by idiots. I can't send anythjing to groups, even 18+, anymore, simply because I did the right thing, and marked my own account restricted.
To hell with it. I quit, and will not renew my pro- account, since these jerks are so impossible.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Actually, your content is showing up as "moderate", not "restricted"...
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
What said... :( We're big enough to think for ourselves...
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"Moderate" is now 18+ ?
Flickr Loves Victorian Morals.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I am utterly confused now - I run Little People, a kids group. Of course I want to allow moderate content. I can imagine people flagging breastfeeding pictures as 'moderate' for example, and they sure are welcome in a group of kids' photos.
Now if I allow moderate, will the group become 18+ ???? No way! Can't have that - the term '18+' equals 'porn'. Wherever on the internet it says that something has 18+ content, you can be sure it's going to be very graphic and explicit and has the sort of things we do NOT want in a group of children's photos at all!
So what do I do? Tell group members to flag their images as 'safe' first, I guess...?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
By the way , I don't think the evil American Flickr is imposing its national prudeness on the world - I think they simply goofed up on this one.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
German members are allowed to see moderate photos but not 18+ groups. So flickr once again did introduce unnecessary censorship for germans.
I already decided to not renew my pro membership for a few months to protest against the existing restrictions. But I doubt that flickr or yahoo notices that.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
American members currently have access to 14351 groups that mention the word nude somewhere. Most of those groups are fully suitable for german members too. But they can only find 9240 of those groups right now. And once the group administrators update the group rules to allow posting in their groups again there will be 0 groups left open to germans.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Andreas Helke:
I'm also disapponted by this as I'm afraid some groups I'm member of will allow moderate content and therefore boot me and all other germans from the group. So there need a change VERY FAST to improve this situation, see my post above regarding this.
I hope flickr staff will give clarification about this soon and if it was intended by them to introduce this big disadvantage to the whole german userhood.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Group page with videos turned off. Any chance of having the line under the row of photos change to:
More Photos...
instead of
More Photos and Videos...
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
What an unbelievably bad decision! Groups that allow moderate photos are 18+???? What JPaul23 said above "Flickr Loves Victorian Morals.".
Why on earth do you need group level filtering when you already have image level filtering? If safe search is on you won't see the images that are moderate or restricted, why do you have to make an entire pool unviewable because some images in it are??? That simply does not make sense.
Please, please reconsider this.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Agreed. Last year my account was listed as moderate despite my best efforts at moderation. I primarily shoot the local burlesque scene, which means I have a lot of pictures of scantily clad women in my stream. I did my best and I was still slapped with the "moderate" label with no hope of appeal.
But I also take pictures of coffee art and street shots and funny odd things here and there and suddenly I can't post any of these pictures anywhere? When I could do so, literally, last night?
And I simply do not have time to write all the groups I post to in order to point out that these new rules are cutting people out.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ChrisB in SEA "no hope of appeal"
You can always ask for a re-review of your account. Use the Help By Email, I'd like my account to be re-reviewed by staff.
Before you do that, go to Organizr and set the safety flags on all your images correctly. If you can't seem to get it, ask in the Adult group for advice and guidance.
Your account can be marked 'safe' if you correctly filter everything.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That is actually another side effect of this bad decision, folks whose streams are marked moderate might of though, well so what? And not worried about it because it didn't affect their Flickr experience very much. But now they won't be able to post any photos of any kind to most of the pools on Flickr. Ugh, this idea sucks.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ColleenM
I'd like to be reviewed, but unfortunately we're talking about an accumulation of some 9,760 pictures (as of this morning) with no graceful way to go through and pick and choose. Hell, if I could just do a Boolean search and pick all the non-burlesque shots, I'd be happy.
Plus, the last time I had a run in with the mods, I was informed that there could be no more appeals/reviews. So I'm guessing out SOL.
AustinTX
Exactly. As it stands now, the only way I can get around these limitations is to open another paid account. Because I am so dissatisfied by the way the service here has changed, I have to... give them more money? Hunh?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
van Rijn nudes wrote Flickr is clearly run by idiots. I can't send anythjing to groups, even 18+, anymore, simply because I did the right thing, and marked my own account restricted.
You could always let the mods and admins of the groups you belong to know that they may need to go into their Administration settings to kick in moderate and restricted content permissions.
I'd also like to see moderate photos permitted in non-18+ groups. But that's probably a better topic for Flickr Ideas.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Have you tried using the organizer to choose "only moderate" shots, and then seeing if any of them should be restricted?
After you do that, choose 'only safe' and see if any of them should be moderate.
don't know if that would work with the size of your stream, but at least you don't have to go one by one through everything looking at flags.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Have you tried using the organizer to choose "only moderate" shots, and then seeing if any of them should be restricted?
After you do that, choose 'only safe' and see if any of them should be moderate.
That won't work if the account was reviewed moderate by staff, unfortunately. You can remoderate one set at a time, though, which might help, or first public then private photos -- at least for people who haven't used up their number of chances at getting it right.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
back to the old "nicht mit uns" dilemma, eh? A wee lack of foresight there.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lu says: "I'd also like to see moderate photos permitted in non-18+ groups. But that's probably a better topic for Flickr Ideas. "
I don't think that is a Flickr Ideas topic, this is the exact right place to discuss this, the change was made yesterday and could be unmade tomorrow with the flip of a switch. It was an arbitrary and totally unnecessary change ( filters work, that is their point). I don't care about restricted images, but there are tons of reasons for having a photo be marked moderate (a violent news image for example). Making entire pools 18+ on that basis is just downright silly.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I am a member of a lot of groups. Is there any way I can choose which groups I want to see the updates from on my home page? There are many groups which I am a member of just to look at the photos. I dont' care about the discussions happening in those groups. Thanks!!
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And "at least for people who haven't used up their number of chances at getting it right. "
Exactly, Mark Velasquez, a truly talented photographer with zero exposed nipples/etc in his account was still marked permanently moderate. Without getting into that decision, reasonable people can disagree about what should and shouldn't be marked moderate. But to irrevocably shut them out of every group on Flickr (until marked 18+) is an enormous change of policy.
And again, its is not needed!!!! If you have safe filter on, you won't see his or any other work marked moderate, not matter what pool they are in.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The new restrictions suck !
Come on flickr let's have some answers ?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I answered you in your other topic. The answer hasn't changed. It is still "no"!
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You'll need to ask the admin of No Censorship to stop censuring the group content then :-)
A group admin can change the setting to allow non-Safe material if they want to.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@Manish Bansal -- I've found the best workaround is to subscribe to the RSS feeds for the groups I'm interested in, then look at them through my RSS reader. You can subscribe separately to the pool or the discussion threads.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Patrick -- the problem is that they just instituted these changes -- lots of group admins know nothing about them, and don't know that images are getting bounced. The default is to Safe, which then blocks out anything moderate. But if you want to allow moderate images, your group gets marked as 18+, the same as Restricted.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I know - but if oddsock wants to post moderate/restricted images to a group, it's up to the group admins to allow it - Flickr aren't going to supply any answers.
Personally, as a group admin who keeps safe search set to on, I'm happy that no one can now post moderate/restricted images that I can't see to my group.
Whether groups that allow moderate/restricted images should be classed as 18+ is a different question. I think that's taking it too far.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Patrick Costello @ Yeah I am an admin ! it would have been nice to have been told in advance of these changes, also it seems to work against the idea of being carefull and flagging work as moderate.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think my main concern is that Group Admins like myself were not not notified of this change. Therefore several groups just simply stopped having new content last night and Admins had to field questions from Members who were wondering what the heck an artistic nude group already 18+ and or private was now set to Safe for.
I am sure there must be a way for flickr to broadcast a flickrmail to all group admins to let them know of upcoming changes on a given day. I only saw it by accident when I saw "Upload Photos and Videos" and was quite confused about it, then found I couldnt post to quite a few groups.
After changing my own groups' settings as appropriate, I emailed probably 30 group admins to let them know what was going on and no one had any idea, some had posted discussions on it in their groups showing their confusion and several had been bombarded by emails from members.
It is a way of controlling content, and that is not my point here one way or the other nor is the Moderate equating to 18+ or should breastfeeding or pregnancy groups be Moderate etc..
We should just have been told that it was going to be switched on last night.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lú all of a sudden, as a side effect of something else, moderate pictures can only be shared in groups with adult content. That means something went horribly wrong. Please don't redirect it to Flickr Ideas.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think that restricting moderate images to "adult (18+) content" groups is creating a smarmy connotation for images that may have no sexual content at all.
Surely, since Yahoo! allows 13+ members, we can have some groups that have a moderate (13+) rating?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I don't want moderated pictures beeing banned from my groups (I cannot say anything about restricted photos, as I can't see them. I'm German...) But I don't want a 18+ group! I ask flickr to change this!
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And to boot, it isn't working!!!!!
I tried to add a "Safe" "Photo" to "A garden for Venus" (http://flickr.com/groups/90349308@N00/pool/) and it says it isn't allowed. The popup window clearly says Photos and Safe and Moderate images are allowed.
Why oh why does flickr seem to always try to fix stuff that isn't broken.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think that restricting moderate images to "adult (18+) content" groups is creating a smarmy connotation for images that may have no sexual content at all.
Exactly. The language of this annoys me. This picture of the Space Needle in Seattle, despite being vaguely phallic, is not at all sexual:
But it's in a moderate stream (thanks Flickr!) and can only be posted to an 18+ group.
I know better than to post an "adult" picture to a general group, but now my general pictures are lumped in. And don't think I necessarily enjoy being lumped in with those "adult" streams. I'm tired of fending of people cruising for masturbatory materials.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But look! Now we're like YouTube! Isn't it great?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry to keep adding the same info, but I just checked Flickers own definition of moderate:
# Moderate - If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience but you think that it doesn't need to be restricted per se, this category is for you
# Restricted - This is content you probably wouldn't show to your mum, and definitely shouldn't be seen by kids
Moderate doesn't say anything about "adult" or 18+. Only restricted does.
Ugh, the video stream discussion is getting lots of responses from flickr staff, but nothing here at all. Even to bug reports that the new system is already broken.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Well, FWIW, I agree with you :-) I don't see why allowing moderate content to be added to a group should force the group to become 18+
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Austin Tx: that happened to me as well in that group when I tried it out.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Don't you just hate it when they pull a stunt like this and then refuse to comment ? the silence speaks volumes.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@oddstock: In all fairness to them, it has only been 18 hours and over in the other Official topic with 1000 posts, Heather has chimed in saying they are having meetings and getting all their ducks in a row on this launch. Like any roll out there will be bugs and tweaks. I would rather they communicate also, but I prefer it when they do stuff. :)
Not defending how they rolled it out though btw. :)
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This one's a bug report:
When an admin chooses to make a group pool, for example, "restricted" content only, the front page of the group will end up reading that it accepts "safe", "moderate" and "restricted. When someone then goes to add a "safe" photo to that group, it won't be accepted, but the message will say, e.g.:
This item could not be added to the ... group because it violates the pool rules.
* Accepted media types:
o Photos
o Video
* Accepted content types:
o Photos / Videos
o Screenshots / Screencasts
o Illustration/Art / Animation/CGI
* Accepted safety levels:
o Safe
o Moderate
o Restricted
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'd like to (calmly and rationally, I hope) add my voice to those hoping for some sort of in-between step. After reading through this thread (so much easier when a thread doesn't have hundreds of responses yet), I think Andreas had a good suggestion:
* Safe content only = open admission
* Safe and moderate content = admin's choice as to whether or not to mark the group as 18+
* Safe, moderate and restricted content = 18+
Short of adding a third 'tier' of ages (13-17, perhaps) to go along with the 'moderate' rating -- and I have no idea how easy that would be to do for Flickr, Yahoo!, or both -- this seems to be the simplest solution.
I am a little surprised to learn of the situation that ChrisB and others are facing, though. I suppose I'm lucky in that I've always been good about self-flagging and therefore ended up with a 'safe' rating for my photostream, despite having a good amount of 'moderate' and some 'restricted' material scattered throughout my photos. This aspect -- that some members have now found themselves excluded from many of the groups they used to actively participate in -- seems to be to be the most troubling, and the one most in need of attention.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
the problem is that the 18+ thing shouldn't be there at all anyway. I was always capable of marking my group 18 and over, so really, that hasn't added anything except for a lot of confusion.
The bigger problem is the exclusion of people marked moderate. That's a HUGE policy shift, no matter how anyone wants to spin it any differently. As someone who has been marked moderate before, I can tell you its a major pain in the ass, and flickr's base stance is "all features still work for you, so long as you're logged in." that wasn't true before and it CERTAINLY isn't right now at this moment.
Even that would be vaguely acceptable if flickr had clearly publish guidelines of what makes you moderate and what makes you safe. They don't. I know Mike Wood had the same problem as me. When you get marked moderate, there's not even a way to tell what the offending pictures are. You're expected to go through your stream and moderate them all, but since organizr won't tell you what USED to be safe, you can't even tell what's broken.
Furthermore, the process is automated. It someone doesn't like you, they and their friends can go through your set of kittens and flag them all and eventually you'll flip over. A mild annoyance yesterday. Today, you're effectly banned from the site until you pass the review process. And since flickr won't tell you what's broken, you could spend days trying to find an offending nipple when in reality its a bunch of kitten pictures.
I know it sounds like an exaggeration, but I know people who have been moderated for having completely clothed, homosexual kissing in their stream. Now, as the admin of 365days, I am forced to choose between effectively banning them or banning my underaged and german members. Neither of those things seem fair. And it accomplishes nothing, since before today, I could simply require that anyone posting nudity self-moderate (which, if I make the group safe, they'd still have to do) and everyone was happy.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
chrismaverick edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
|
chrismaverick @ It's no exaggeration to say that all of us admins put in hours of work ! along with our members we all make flickr the fun platform it is, this is very shoddy treatment.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Furthermore, the process is automated.
No it is not. A person will review it and if you are being flagged up by a bunch of loons, flickr can tell that too.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Walwyn: yes... a person will review it once you request. But that's after the fact. The point is you get auto-blocked ahead of time and then you have to wait out the weeding out process. The kitten example was extreme. My own case is much more middle of the road. Any nudes I have a re moderate or restricted, but I have lingerie pics. What should those be? Well, the answer is, Flickr has no published policy and it depends on who you get to review you. And you're forced to spend time just guessing. If you're lucky like me, you can kinda say "oh, I guess it must be one of these horrible underwear pics" On the other hand, you could spend weeks figuring out that the offending picture is one of a homosexual kiss. I didn't make that up. I know it to have happened.
Anyway, the point is, none of this actually fixes any problem. It more punishes people who are trying to follow the rules, or who the other rule had been forced upon them. If someone doesn't flag their own photos, and flickr hasn't noticed yet to mark them as moderated or restricted, they can still post to the safe group.
Yesterday's moderation system was broken. Everyone knew that. A million better ideas have been pointed out. None of them have been implemented. Today's moderation system is simply worse in every way, and it hasn't solved any of the problems that we had with the old one, or even made it any easier for me to administer my group, which should have been the point in the first place.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'll chime in again and say that I have no problem with there being tiers of accessibility. By all means, some of my burlesque shots are rated R, fine.
But as my fellow chris stated, it's the lack of transparency that drives me buggy. I know that I have pictures that should be "moderate", because I had most of them flagged as such and they still got me. So was it that someone had SafeSearch off and stumbled onto something or was it another picture that I thought wasn't that bad? Is a picture of a woman wearing a bra worse than a picture of a woman in a swimsuit? Or was someone just offended that the Space Needle is phallic? I don't know.
I have no clue what happened and I don't know who or what or when things changed. All I know is that I got a warning, at which point I started flagging things a bit more conservatively. For nine months, nothing happened and I thought I was fine. Then I got another warning and when I tried to get an explanation and a proper review, I was told that I'd not kept up my part of the bargain (I wasn't thinking of the children enough, apparently) my stream was now moderate and I would have no further appeals.
If someone looked through my stream and told me what was offensive and should be flagged, I'd fix it and keep that in mind. Instead I get pointed to terms of service that includes the phrase "Think of the children!" and told that I've messed up and have a nice day.
And now I've lost most of the functionality of the site in total. Put your filters on or off for all I care, but let me use the services that I've been paying for.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Those of you having problems figuring what is safe and what is moderate might want to take a look at this group.
Adult Flickr Members: How NOT to get Deleted
flickr.com/groups/unsafe/
It has rational people, with lots of experience in getting things right.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ChrisB in SEA: exactly... That's what happened with me. I was lucky and managed to catch whatever the offending pic was before exhausting my appeals (so far anyway). But I was never told which of the pics was offensive, and in fact was told I was being difficult after I said on at least 3 occasions "I'm fine abiding by the rules, just tell me where I'm breaking them." I ended up making a set of all the pics I was moderating as I went. And I'm pretty sure it was either an underwear pic or a woman's nude back, but I have no idea which one, and I had plenty of underwear pics and implied nudes that I DIDN'T have to block, so the whole thing was very confusing.
Anyway, that said, there is the problem. Assume I couldn't have figured it out, and had simply chosen to remain moderated (as flickr actually recommended I do, since it would probably be safer for all involved) or as Chris B has. Now 365 Days is forced to decide between allowing Chris to post his non-nude, non offensive, daily self-portraits or allowing a 17-year old to do so. So I either punish ChrisB or I punish the 17 year old, even though both may have been following the rules. And it punishes me, the group administrator, as I am now in the unenviable position of making that decision. It would be far better to just allow them both to post and not allow the 17 year old to see ChrisB's photos.
You know... kinda like it was yesterday.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
This is the first time I have ever been truly outraged at the powers that be at flickr. chrismaverick hit it on the head completely. I'm mainly concerned because the groups I administer have many members from countries which censor flickr. Thusly, if I change the status it means they do not get to participate anymore.
I'm not saying a system shouldn't be in place, but the current systems needs a complete overhaul.
Ugh. Just...ugh.
Also, I'm going to throw my two cents in about who gets flagged, perhaps photos tagged with such words as "masturbating and penis" should automatically get flagged. I have friends who have been flagged for far less atrocities and yet, continuously these images pop up as public and "safe" in some of my groups.
This system is flawed. Seriously flawed. And until you get it right, maybe you should just take it down (or like Chris said, go back to yesterday).
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
Rachel.::.K edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
|
Adult Flickr Members: How NOT to get Deleted
flickr.com/groups/unsafe/
@ColleenM: First of all, you have to be a member to read that group. Just so people know.
Second, that's not an official group. It's simply people guessing and posting their experiences, same as we have.
Thirdly, Allow me to speak on behalf of erotic photographers world wide. None of us are idiots. We know there is stuff that is inappropriate for children. Many of us, go out of our way to protect the community from such. We're not refusing to moderate. We're looking for flickr to tell us their policy so we can follow it accurately without guessing which is what we have all had to do (as well as those in that group).
Fourth, this is a tangent and doesn't really belong here, as it is orthogonal to the real issue. The real issue is that yesterday's changes BROKE flickr by banning users. The rationale that "well, it only banned the bad people is irrelevant."
Allow me to present another case. 365 has long allowed tasteful nudity, so long as it was flagged correctly. We've also allowed minors. We were able to do that, as the system prevented any kids (or anyone who didn't want to) from seeing said nudity. That doesn't work anymore, and we weren't warned about it ahead of time. Any way you slice it. That's wrong.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm so confused. If a person has to be over 18 to accept seeing moderate or restricted images, why can't they join a group that allows moderate or restricted images, since they won't show up for them anyhow?
I think that restricting moderate images to "adult (18+) content" groups is creating a smarmy connotation for images that may have no sexual content at all.
Because groups are more than their "image" content. While it might be easy to distinguish between what makes a photo or video "moderate" or restricted (photos only), the behaviour that can accompany those bits of content in the discussion, etc., is more harder to distinguish.
Why has Flickr sought fit to alter something which was working perfectly ok?
I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately. As such, this change will ensure that there are fewer suprises in group search, etc.
Group page with videos turned off. Any chance of having the line under the row of photos change to:
More Photos...
instead of
More Photos and Videos...
Gah! That is wrong. I'll openn a trouble ticket.
I think my main concern is that Group Admins like myself were not not notified of this change. Therefore several groups just simply stopped having new content last night and Admins had to field questions from Members who were wondering what the heck an artistic nude group already 18+ and or private was now set to Safe for.
I am sure there must be a way for flickr to broadcast a flickrmail to all group admins to let them know of upcoming changes on a given day. I only saw it by accident when I saw "Upload Photos and Videos" and was quite confused about it, then found I couldnt post to quite a few groups.
I'm sorry for that. It's great feedback to hear and something that we'll take into consideration for future feature launches. With some things, it's very "chicken and egg".
I'm still reading through all the feedback... Further response soon.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But Heather, absolute nothing in the definition of moderate (Flickr's own definition) hints that age has anything to do with the classification. Only restricted says that kids shouldn't see it. And to believe that allowing moderate photos to a pool somehow indicates that the discussions are not appropriate for people under 18 is an incredible insult to the Flickr community. You hit a speck of dust with a 20 pound hammer.
And you broke, literally, tens of thousands of groups with no notice. Come on, to say that is great feedback is an insult. Every major change in flickr has gone the same way, "Oh sorry, next time we will pay attention and take that into account." Nothing in your track records suggests you will at all.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Any way of Staff checking how much posting to groups dipped today because of the breaking of the groups as Austin TX put it? Say compared to last week same time?
Heather: Maybe you didnt read it yet, but will a ticket be opened for the group issue that despite Safe and Moderate being selected Safe pics can't be added?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Walwyn: yes... a person will review it once you request. But that's after the fact. The point is you get auto-blocked ahead of time and then you have to wait out the weeding out process.
If your account is marked 'moderate' or 'restricted' it is not done automatically in response to any flagging, blocking, or reporting. Someone actually looks at the account first.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
heather Because groups are more than their "image" content. While it might be easy to distinguish between what makes a photo or video "moderate" or restricted (photos only), the behaviour that can accompany those bits of content in the discussion, etc., is more harder to distinguish.
But there's nothing in the rules that I read that say the non-image parts of the group have to be safe with this change.* What's to keep a group that only allows safe images from having all sorts of hardcore "bodice rippers" in the discussions?
And where is that line drawn? If I have a photo that's safe but along the lines of the comments someone makes a family-inappropriate joke, do I need to change the content filter?? ("Oh, please, won't someone think about the CHILDREN who might stumble upon it??")
I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately.
Oh, joy. So some people can't play by the rules so punish everyone. Why not just start replacing all photos uploaded with smiling kitten pictures and be done with it. Fewer unpleasant surprises are ensured.
*I just double checked the FAQ - it states admin can determine "What kind of content can be added to the group pool (photos, video or both)" and "what safety level of content is appropriate for the group (“safe”, “moderate” or "restricted")."
If the second point truly is meant to apply to EVERYthing in the group, not just the photos/videos, then defining "content" in the first point as "photos, video, or both" makes that completely unclear.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
hrw worcester edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
Here is my issue with all of this:
I am an admin of a D40 group, we have a lot of members and one moderator who are under 18. It is an entry-level camera so that it to be expected. I would like to allow moderate content to the group but can't because it would not only make the group pointless for a large number of members but also keep the moderator (who, oddly enough moderates the pool content) out.
Heather Because groups are more than their "image" content. While it might be easy to distinguish between what makes a photo or video "moderate" or restricted (photos only), the behaviour that can accompany those bits of content in the discussion, etc., is more harder to distinguish.
So then why not set it up on two levels? Accept moderate photos but set the group safe. Groups with active admins and mods should not have a problem keeping the discussion to a "safe" level. I know I don't. I also don't know what groups you are going to but even large groups are able to keep things from becoming profane. Most of the people in groups not previously marked 18+ are capable of carrying on a conversation without profanity.
I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately. As such, this change will ensure that there are fewer suprises in group search, etc.
So deal with those groups the same way you deal with streams that weren't being appropriately labeled... I know it seems like a crazy idea, but rather than effect thousands of other groups negatively why not deal with the ones breaking the rules...
These are just my few cents. I have been on the border about flickr as of late and these changes are kind of steering me in the direction that there has to be something better. All this time was spent implementing video and changing group permissions but you can't even subscribe to threads you've replied in without rss or quote reply without a greasemonkey script?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Heather said:
"I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately. As such, this change will ensure that there are fewer suprises in group search, etc."
Had any of the group admins ever received *any* notice that their groups were improperly classified? Had you ever tried any kind of notification to warn groups their content was inappropriate to their rating? Shakes head in disgust at the lack of a common sense approach.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
