|
heather I'm still reading through all the feedback... Further response soon. Posted 15 hours ago
"Soon" ... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Lol they must be watching video clips !
Loads of excellent points in this thread
and as yet no good answers ?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
They have a bigger issue this morning....contacts uploads aren't showing up. Again.
I'm sure that will keep them busy for a bit. And of course, all the uproar over videos.
Sigh.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
yes, the forum is busy on all fronts...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
At the risk of sounding melodramatic... *ahem*
OH MY GOD! YOU KILLED FLICKR! YOU B******S!!!!
[self-filtered because, you know, The Children might be reading this]
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I can not even post to the groups i administer! Too bad!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have a new development on this already, I'm afraid.
I have 2 members of my family-friendly PG13 groups who have always submitted tasteful, artsy semi-nude shots to our pool. As we've never had a problem with the odd classy boobie, they are more than welcome to add them to the pool. They have always been responsible in their safety filtering.
This morning they found they couldn't submit anything to groups any more. Guess what? They thought about it, then filtered their newest boobie shot as 'safe'.
Now they can post to our group again.
I guess it solves the problem for flickr though, right? The responsibility is clearly in the member's hands on this one. An incorrectly filtered boobie or two and you risk having your account marked as moderate by staff.
Please, don't encourage all those people who have been filtering their content responsibly for years. Don't put them in a situation where you on-do all that training!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@varones -- see my explanation of why this is happening for you in the other thread you posted in.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
At least the suggestions in this Topic are easier to sift through than the Official Video one. Maybe there is a chance they will not be over looked.
Safe Groups: flowers, kittens, landscapes, macros of eyes, and portraits and so on.
Moderate Groups: artistic nudity, and girls on the beach wearing bikinis and so on.
18+ Restricted groups: nudity and sexual activity you could get an NC17 rating for.
(don't nit pick what I included in the ratings, just broad brush strokes and I don't want the thread to degenerate into apples vs oranges in groups)
Mirroring how images are flagged by members and the groups themselves seems to make sense on the surface pretty much. How come that can't be done or wasn't done?
And organizing group flags/filters that way wouldn't cause the paying Pro members in Germany and elsewhere to get the faucet turned off more than it already is. Despite all the cries of "I am cancelling my account" and so on in the other official topic, I see the Germans being the ones that might actually leave Flickr because of the 18+ changes. That, as much as anything else, is a shame.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@Mike Wood Photography
Despite all the cries of "I am cancelling my account" and so on in the other official topic, I see the Germans being the ones that might actually leave Flickr because of the 18+ changes. That, as much as anything else, is a shame.
I totally agree with you. I am german and from now on have no chance to set my own groups moderate. I have no access to 18+ groups. I am Flickr-censored and so are all the members of my groups from now on. But even if I could set my groups to moderate, I wouldn't want to set them 18+.
My groups are family-friendly, but moderated pictures normally are family-friendly.
I again ask Flickr to rechange these group administration changes!
It's not a feature, it's a bug!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, another question just came to mind - all these groups that were now set to safe without any action on the administrators' parts, which includes groups that previously included all sorts of photos be they moderate or restricted... they now are listed as "safe" correct (until the administrator steps in)?
In other words, the most hardcore porn groups on Flickr could now be classified as "safe" and accessible by anyone because the system defaulted to call them safe. Seems like *that* could make for some "unpleasant surprises."
Plus experience in groups I'm a member of shows that in the past few days while even some of the groups defaulted to only allow "safe" content, previously included moderate content wasn't removed (I've no idea about restricted, that's where I draw the line on my own safe search filter).
Isn't this just making things worse by increasing the expectation of "safety" in safe groups?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@hrw worcester:
In other words, the most hardcore porn groups on Flickr could now be classified as "safe" and accessible by anyone because the system defaulted to call them safe.
the Safe only refers to the content which could be uploaded to the group. For example, quite a lot, but not all, of the nude related groups had 18+ designations before and after this roll out. that didn't change. But what changed was that only Safe content could be posted. No older content was deleted. Otherwise you would have seen a much larger uproar here.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hrw worcester wrote So, another question just came to mind - all these groups that were now set to safe without any action on the administrators' parts, which includes groups that previously included all sorts of photos be they moderate or restricted... they now are listed as "safe" correct (until the administrator steps in)?
In other words, the most hardcore porn groups on Flickr could now be classified as "safe" and accessible by anyone because the system defaulted to call them safe. Seems like *that* could make for some "unpleasant surprises."
Groups that were marked 18+ before are still marked 18+ ... but they also had their default for the photo pool set to "safe". So they're 18+ groups when it comes to finding and joining them still, but not (until an admin shows up and changes it) very useful to most of their photo-posting members. It's causing considerable consternation, actually, although few of the people concerned will come to the Help Forum about it.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But Heather said two things that jump out in her limited response to the questions raised - this was done because some groups don't properly mark themselves as 18+, and it's not just about the images, but also the discussion threads, etc.
So, the groups that weren't already properly marked 18+, but which now defaulted to safe, come up as available to those of all ages and all nationalities. Even if all the members have properly filtered photos so those users can't access the restricted photos that remained in the pool from the pre-safe-photos-only days, they still can access the discussion threads, member listing, etc.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I've given up entirely trying to add to a group.
Most of my additions are of my art work to various art groups.
Now even a simple innocuous watercolor cannot be entered.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
George Vye wrote I've given up entirely trying to add to a group.
Most of my additions are of my art work to various art groups.
Now even a simple innocuous watercolor cannot be entered.
A lot of your recent uploads are set moderate or restricted but really don't need to be. That would do it.
(Well, that and that some groups probably have chosen to focus just on photos, or whatever)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
OK..I am confused...my pics are all flagged as "restricted" and yet when I go to post them in an 18+ group they aren't accepted
Can anyone tell me (in simple terms please!) why that is?...I have checked the groups content and the group only accepts "restricted" pics
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
This is ridiculous! You've taken away our ability to administer/moderate our own groups. Talk about Big Brother! Wake up, Flickr. You've become a bunch of John Ashcroft's looking to drape nude statues. A virtual Hayes Commission. We don't need you to censor what can be posted to our groups. It's demeaning. You're so afraid of insulting someone, you insult us all.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lu,
Thanks for the reply and sorry to be so computer stupid, but how do I reset? I now call up a photo, and it says anyone can view it, and do I look for a "safe" setting? If so, where??
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi George,
If you *know* which images are causing problems for you, go to that image's own page and click "Flag this photo" (does it still say photo?? I haven't checked!). You can change the setting there (if it should be changed).
Probably the quickest thing if you're not sure which images this might affect is to go into the Organizr, and on at the bottom, just above the photo row, click "More Options". Now go to that new menu and pick "all moderate". Then "Select All" and drag them into the middle. Check them over, and drag any that should stay moderate back down to the bottom row so they go "poof". Now you can go the top, pick the Privacy settings option, and pick "Safe", and confirm. Then do the same thing, from the beginning, for restricted photos.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Is it true that if someone's whole account has been reviewed as moderate or restricted....that they can now only add photos to 18+ groups? Can they still be members of the groups and add comments and photos to the threads even if it is not an 18+ group?
How strange.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
 Well, there are strange things with this feature.
Any moderate or restricted content cannot be added to a safe group's pool. So, if one's entire stream is set to moderate or restricted, then their content will fail to upload to a safe pool.
The user could still be a member of a safe group, however. And due to how html works, moderate or restricted images could be posted to safe discussion threads (you cannot tell what type of content a link goes to anywhere), so it would then be up to the group admins/mods to ensure this sort of content is removed from a safe group.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Ther-esa
I can confirm this. I can read and comment on threads and post my pictures into threads (and blogs and so on) but I cannot post my pictures to the groups.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I just started a group/petition about the Moderate filter being treated the same as the Restricted filter.
www.flickr.com/groups/bring_moderate_back/
If this frustrates you, please stop by.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
This whole business is screwy. I'm getting a headache from all this confusion. I've seen that all the groups have been marked as safe. The groups that should be 18+ are now marked as safe. Nuts! We thought video was bad. This tops it times ten on the stupidity scale.
What I truly despise is the underhanded way changes are brought about here on flickr. Oh, we're all supposed to check our little help forum topics every single day to see what new weirdo innovation has come down the pike. I found out about this from one of the members of a group I administer.
One morning I'm going to wake up to flickr and find all my photos have turned into kittens, butterflies and sunsets? Will my background turn into the color of the day?
Actually that idea might be good for my fizzbin group. It's a no rules group based upon the principles of a purposefully random game invented on Star Trek.
If its Tuesday, at night do all the kittens turn blue?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
well the group admins could also ensure that unsafe content could not be uploaded to the pool.....(especially easy if its flagged)
Seems to quarantine users whose accounts have been reviewed as moderate. It prevents them from adding flowers to the flower groups or technical images to technique groups and so on with other safe content.
Furthermore if the admins are forced to switch the group to 18+ to accomodate members whose accounts have been reviewed as unsafe they will lose their entire german audience (at least those with german yahoo identities) as germans are not allowed to view 18+ groups.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paypaul I believe that the 18+ groups that were 18+ before are still 18+ but their content is switched to safe. This is why some folks with properly flagged content (restricted for example) cannot add to the 18+ pools until the admins re-set the safety level.
I don't know, but I wonder why this change was brought in at the same time as the video launch? It seems llike a major crackdown on adult content which deserves more of a backlash then the (to my mind) mostly harmless introduction of video.
Just sayin..
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Seems to quarantine users whose accounts have been reviewed as moderate. It prevents them from adding flowers to the flower groups or technical images to technique groups and so on with other safe content.
Well, if the users are properly categorizing their photos as safe, moderate, and restricted, their accounts won't be marked moderate in entirety, and this new change will only prevent them from putting moderate and restricted content into safe groups.
However, I'm in full agreement with those who think moderate shouldn't mean 18+.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Exactly. I shoot burlesque shows and, despite my best efforts, that's what got me in trouble and got my stream marked as "moderate". Unfortunately applies to everything, whether it's a burlesque act or a cup of coffee, so now I can't post pictures anywhere, not even some of the burlesque groups here!
And I have been informed that my account cannot be reviewed again, so I'm so screwed over by this change it's not even remotely funny.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ther﹣esa Adult content labeled as adult content should be allowed. I'm deeply against censorship yet with allowances for varying attitudes and ages. It is ADULT for adults who desire to view it. I'm almost certain that if any of those groups before this "change" had not flagged themselves as 18+ there would have been notice given to the group administrators already. Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The problem with the "FAQ" Kevin is that nowhere in it does it say that all groups will now be defaulted to "safe". Fix it sillies!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, if the users are properly categorizing their photos as safe, moderate, and restricted, their accounts won't be marked moderate in entirety, and this new change will only prevent them from putting moderate and restricted content into safe groups.
@ andyscamera
But that's just it: I thought I was flagging my content properly and I still got stuck with a "moderate" label. At no point was I told what was wrong, just that I had messed up and now my account is filtered. If I'd been told that this picture was safe and that picture was moderate, I could have changed what I was doing, but that didn't happen. I was told to read the terms of usage and "think of the children" until it was too late.
Read through this thread, you'll see people guessing that it wasn't a bare breast, but a homosexual kiss or a profile or... hell, maybe someone was offended that I posted a candid picture of someone in a coffee shop. I've actually gotten more complaints about that than I ever have about my burlesque shots!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
andyscamera: I was under the impression that people who have had their whole accounts reviewed as moderated or restricted couldn't put safe content into safe groups - simply because of their account status. I have seen a few accounts where a few viewers have managed to get someone's account reviewed as unsafe even though one was a well established artist and the other had no nudity (just party pix). Its all so subjective.
PayPaul I think you might have misread my comment/concern.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, that's my understanding too -- if their whole account has been set as restricted or moderate, all their pictures are the same, and they won't get into the safe groups. But if they are categorized properly, the account won't be marked unsafe, and it's possible to have both safe and moderate pictures in your stream and to post the safe ones to safe groups.
If your account has already been set as moderate or restricted by staff, you can properly reset all your photos in the organizer and then ask staff to review your account. I'm sure Lú has explained this process in detail above.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
*deep breath*
I did reset all my photos as close to "properly" as I could.
I was told that I'd not done a good enough job and I cannot submit my account for review again.
So what the hell do I do now, hunh?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Andyscamera:
re-read chrisB in SEA's comment here:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/70140/page2/#reply431606
and a few comments above that:
And I have been informed that my account cannot be reviewed again, so I'm so screwed over by this change it's not even remotely funny.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
the issue here is the difference between moderating content and censoring it. Moderating implies a level of self determination whereas censorship is imposed from above. It appears to me that the previous system of self moderating with safeguards in place to deal with abuse was appropriate and adequate. The new system smacks of censorship and I am very dissappointed flickr has chosen to implement it. I agree that this is a much bigger issue than video and wonder at the timing of It's roll out as well as the wording of this topic. I'd like to see more official reponse to this issue. Thank you
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
Angie C edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
|
Angie C @ Well said : )
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Right. Sorry, I missed that post. This help forum has been outrunning my RSS reader, thanks to all the video controversy.
And you've got me there. You might get more info via Help by Email, but it sounds like they've made their decision for now. Did they say "not again ever," or do they expect you to try resetting them again?
I'm hoping someone else here will probably have more experience with your sort of situation. I just know how it's "supposed" to work. :-/
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I deleted the e-mail a long time ago (it's been almost a year), but I distinctly remember being told
A) not to ask for another review, and
B) not to e-mail them because they wouldn't respond.
And, you know what? They didn't. I e-mailed asking for some explanation or rules or "This is good and this isn't..." and I got nothing in response.
So it'd be lovely to say that only the naughty pictures (which, yeah, I have) are blocked, but I wouldn't be able to post this picture to the appropriate groups:
I admit there may be some people who are really touchy about devil imagery, but come on!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I would like to point your attention to this photo here ( I don't dare post the thumbnail for fear of being run off the internet):
www.flickr.com/photos/hhjohnston/2352220032/
It's a perfectly harmless photo of some kids enjoying the Pacific National Exibition in 1965. I have pictures of myself from around that time (1967) so I probably saw that scene in the picture and somehow escaped being scarred for life by it. I don't even remember it, but there you go.
"Think Of The Children"
edit: fixed the link
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
Therrr edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
|
Should that photo be flagged? Its in all those public groups! should the whole stream be restricted? Maybe the history books should be rewritten too...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ther-esa: And that's a slippery slope right there.
Is a woman wearing a skimpy thong bikini a bad image? I mean, we see that on the cover of Sports Illustrated and Maxim these days.
How about if a woman is wearing a sparkly bra with fringe on the stage? Different context and, oh yeah, she's probably going to be stripping out of it in ten seconds (as I take the picture) but she's showing less skin than that cover.
How about something tasteful, an art nude where the model's genitals and breasts are obscured or hidden?
Meanwhile my burlesque shots (which I think are pretty much art) is lumped in with pictures of some woman's new Brazilian wax, which I don't even want to see.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What if I post a photo of a dead and mangled bird because its a shame that some people are so heartless as to run over a harmless duck? Thats social commentary. Should it be flagged moderate because some puritanical looney gets upset? I should have to cater to every single belief that is not my own? This is a bit off topic but flickr shouldn't be able to dictate arbitrary or ambiguous rules to what constitutes "moderate". A "naked" MANNEQUIN would be considered "moderate" as well? It's an undressed mannequin in a public store window visible to all for Pete's sake!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Chris, don't you see that you should pay for another Pro account so that all of your Burlesque photos can be "moderate" and all of your other photos can be "safe". *laugh*
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
if this were only about money I'd be happy. It's about dictating morallity (and I don't even have any remotely adult content in my stream if anyone is wondering).
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
PunkJr : Oh yes, it's obvious that the only way I can express my frustration at this recent turn of events is... to give the company more money! YEAH!
Oy.
For the record, I am actually going to try to get another review. I'm not optimistic about the prospect, but I'll give it a go after I see what "proper" is for these people.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I suggest being really conservative in how you set your photos this time. If in doubt, make it moderate or restricted. The guidelines are pretty vague, but you shouldn't go wrong if you equate safe with what could go into a Disney movie.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Dude, I'm blocking every burlesque picture (6,000+!), and the two nudes I know of.
If that doesn't cut the mustard, then I'm... insert various naughty words here.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Andyscamera, Disney has produced several R rated movies. Heck Bambi's mom dies, if that is not senseless violence I don't know what is! Sunsets, thats the ticket.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Ariel is showing more than some moderate photos I've seen here.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Proggie, You just proved my point! :)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You know this really should not be the place to argue about moderating your photos (and the arbitrary rules therein). I was content with being overly safe for the most part and not worrying about it. But the lumping of moderate with 18+ all of a sudden makes what should be irrelevant to the issue, relevant. In fact, I think if they simply lifted the association of moderate with 18+ (which has to be a simple change technologically), this entire discussion would die. Kaput. We would all go away happy.
Yes, some folks with moderate streams would have still have trouble posting to some groups, but I think most of the groups in question would not have problems accepting safe and moderate images if they were not tarred with the 18+ labels.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
you're welcome :)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Do take Lu up on her offer to help you get things sorted in a way that will work for Flickr.
She's got lots of moderate and restricted photos, but has maintained her safe setting.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
that really is the point. When I was marked moderate I begged flickr to give me a straight forward definition of what the rules were and I promised I would abide by them no matter what they were, Up until that point I had marked every single nude in my stream as moderate, restricted if it were a nude implying any sort of sexuality whatsoever. Any bikini pic or lingerie pic I left safe as my theory was so long as I wasn't break the rules that the covers of supermarket magazines (maxim, cosmo, sports illustrated) use, I was fine. Being in fear of being marked, I had always been particularly careful about following those rules.
I was told that I was being difficult by asking and that if I couldn't figure it out, then perhaps it was best for all involved that I be left moderate. I eventually managed to get unblocked by simply guessing until I got it right. I was denied 5 additional times before they finally got back to me with "good job, you've finally gotten it! Now continue moderating your stream and everything will be fine." Not only did I ask repeatedly, several members of the 365 Community wrote letters to flickr on my behalf asking them to simply be specific about the policy and they were sure I'd be reasonable enough to follow it. All of them were essentially told to go to hell.
To this day, I still don't know what my offensive picture was, but I do know that this was one of the last ones I ended up marking as moderate: www.flickr.com/photos/chrismaverick/399424365/in/set-7215...
Ok, yes its a nude. But it isn't really, its barely even a silhouette. There is nothing exposed. I'm fairly certain that it could appear on a commercial on broadcast television. And if I'm wrong, then fine. It'd be nice if someone had simply said "no silhouettes of nude pregnant women" and I would have abided by it.
So anyway if we cut through all the crap, we can assume that the main point of moderation is sex. Ok fine. But all I ever asked was where the line was. My general assumption above were nudity and underwear. It seems pretty clear to me that underwear shots are usually ok. If they aren't then fine. Someone just say so and it'll be easy to fix That said, I just went through the top 200 pics in explore for yesterday and 5 of them are implied nudes (including one of a child). None showing nipple or genitalia but all more explicit than the one I linked to. Btw, I didn't count any shirtless males. That would have added several more. Another 7 are underwear pics or otherwise clearly intended to be sexually evocative (at least in my eyes, and I'm clearly way liberal about these sorts of things). So if 6% of the the "top 200" are ones that I'm not sure would have passed my review (2.5% I'm sure wouldn't have) then that's clearly a problem.
The assumption people who've never gone through the review process make is that the process is reasonable or consistent. It is not. I've seen female nipple on the front page of explore. I've seen explicit violence. And I've also seen people banned for having bikini shots or a homosexual kiss. If flickr were willing to take a specific stance about criteria, then this would be easy. You'd have a lot of people bitching and moaning about censorship, but at least there's be a line in the sand that I could pay attention to and not cross if I didn't want to get in trouble. Instead, the line is invisible, and sometimes you're told "hey you crossed the line, go back across" and when you ask "I'm sorry sir, but I missed the line, where was it" you're told "look there's a line. Just don't cross it, if you can't find the line for yourself, then maybe you shouldn't be on the beach."
Sorry that was so long. I'm just stating stuff for the record since it keeps coming up. The real issue here is the effect of being moderated. Right now, my group 365Days, is set to allow all photos, because we have some members who couldn't use it otherwise. Consequently, the group can't be joined by people under the age of 18 or in Germany, and the group can't be seen from outside of Flickr anymore (you have to be logged in). Two days ago, anyone could post, but if you were moderated or you chose to moderate something then just that photo wouldn't show up to the kids, the Germans or those outside of Flickr. That was a solution that I was willing to deal with, but it is now broken. And in the end, the thing we actually had a problem with, that is people posting explicit porn who weren't really even trying to participate in the group is still a problem because those people never bother to flag their images anyway and frequently aren't caught by flickr, so the kids and the Germans and everyone else can see it regardless of if I set the group to safe or not.
So basically, this change has solved nothing, and instead just implemented a bunch of problems and headaches for me and many other group admins.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's a case of you say Potato And I say Potatto....
Do the screens go up for one person and not another?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
All of the mainstream magazines in Germany occasionally have titles with full frontal nudity. The leading news magazine Spiegel has had quite a few of them over the years. Those are perfectly fine and legal to show to german minors but would have to be flagged at least as moderate according to the rather nebulous flickr filtering rules.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Staff, PLEASE respond to the last 2 paragraphs that chris wrote. This is the gist of the problem that everyone has with this moderation issue. How does the new implementation improve things? It just makes it unfair for the people who follow the rules and doesn't at all address the real problem (those people that don't follow the rules).
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 @Proggie: exactly... maybe I should have split this into two posts. The "what makes someone moderated" issue is completely separate and I only addressed it because I hate when people bring up "well, if you were reasonable you wouldn't get in trouble."
The real issue of this thread is they way things have been broken for many who are trying to follow the rules and not at all tried to address those who are blindly ignoring them.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This discussion thread really shouldn't be about wether any specific individual photostream should be labeled safe or moderate. That is an interesting and related topic, but here we really should be focussing on the implications of the new policy.
In addition to what I wrote above, the problem as I see it revolves around treating moderate & restricted in the same way. Why have two categories if both categories are treated the same, i.e. recieving an 18+ label (which everyone knows means "porn").
Also if part of the problem with safe versus moderate/restricted groups is that their discussion topics may be unsafe, then why not allow the same type of self-filtering as photos. If the topic is racy, moderators or the post initiator can mark it as moderate or restricted and it would be visible to only those who choose to see that material.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
PS Why are the staff not responding to this topic? It is an official topic right?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Angie C I agree that they should be two separate discussions and pushing this one off track may do more harm than good.
If the problem is moderate conversation in the discussions what is to stop that from happening in a group marked "safe"? It is the job of the groups admins and mods to make that decision and eliminate those topics regardless of this new system.
I agree that there should be some response from the staff. If you agree and are talking it over then say so. If you disagree, say so. Ambiguous comments and the term "soon" do not mean things are better automatically.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The other thing I'm wondering about is why is this safety/moderating content issue linked with the video roll out. This topic discussion starts "With the launch of Video on Flickr..."
What has this to do with the launch of video? The only link I see is that the video discussion is a big distraction.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This discussion thread really shouldn't be about wether any specific individual photostream should be labeled safe or moderate. That is an interesting and related topic, but here we really should be focussing on the implications of the new policy.
One of the implications of the new group policy is that people who have had their accounts reviewed as moderate/restricted can no longer add safe content to safe groups. This is a direct result of the new changes.
Another implication of the change is that people in Germany can no longer view moderate content in groups. A group with moderate content must now be set to 18+. German members are not allowed to view 18+ group pools.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Why are the staff not responding to this topic? It is an official topic right?
It is. I apologize. It's been a busy, busy view days and the video feedback thread has monopolized my time. I need to head out shortly, but will do my best to come back as soon as possible to address concerns.
"Soon" ... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Within the flickrverse, that means up to two years. I promise it won't take that long.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Angie C says:
The only link I see is that the video discussion is a big distraction.
..
Exactly.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for the response Heather. I didn't see it until now.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And judging by heather's response the video thread is a distraction, though I'm not convinced that it was done on purpose. :)
I think they grouped the two things in one release because they implemented the bit about allowing/disallowing video in groups. Of course they should have made the moderate/18+ stuff a separate release so they could concentrate and respond to concerns for each. By now (especially after the original moderation changes) they know how passionate users get when things change. These are the two biggest changes flickr has made EVER in terms of impact on the majority of users. Each should be given the staff resources it deserves.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I only agreed with Angie C that the video discussion was a distraction
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry I didn't mean to imply you or Angie C thought it was on purpose (and I posted my comment before refreshing to see yours).
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I cannot believe you would introduce a new feature without fixing existing problems with Uploadr 3.0.5. Please bring back Yahoo Photos! Russ
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Just give them the "Moderate" finger!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
bethruss@sbcglobal.net
They did fix Uploadr. Download 3.1 for the newest version. Links are at the top of the Official Topic thread for Uploadr
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
In one of the groups I administrate, I saw this incredible announcement :
"People can post 3 things each day...?!
What things? The group is settled to accept only photos.
I cannot change that "things" post, it was implemented by Flickr staff.
It is hilarious and ridiculous to post "things" in a photography group!
Big Brother will oblige us soon to accept all kind of "things" in our groups, from socks to rope and soap.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The official topic says it's an uploader for video. I'm not being difficult, or making it up, thats what it says. Pile of shite I'd call it. Fix the uploader for god's sake.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's the uploadr for everything. Video, art work, screenshots, kittens, babies, the whole catastrophe.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BTW Heather, you wanted to ban someone today because he was speaking about "things" - and you denied the use of the word.
Well, I can state now, our photos were transformed into "things " over the night.
Thank you, much appreciated.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Another thing. It was mentioned in the other thread about videos but I'll mention it here. I don't allow videos in my group and it's highly deceptive for flickr to indicate "more photos and videos" after the first page of the pool. Please change that to reflect the content and settings of the individual groups.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
haha "things".
May I suggest files?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
or content files
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
my photos are safe.
my safe photos are being "moderate", because for some reason they aren't accepted in many groups that accept only "safe" photos.
I've tried to post butterfly, landscape, kids and self-portrait photos to groups. Some were added, some weren't.
I hope it will be fixed. It's frustrating and irritating.
and I think everyone would appreciate if flickr staff would stop using word play and slippery responses instead of giving direct and objective responses. It's highly disrespectful.
And it would also be wise to stop taking every user for granted.
Respect, always. Announcing changes before launching them would make people, if not admire the staff, at least would prevent them from hating your guts.
edit: typo
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
AnnuskA - AnnA Theodora edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
|
Theresa (hmmmmm love that name... I have an aunt named Theresa) >> files does sound better...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Dear Colleen, where does it say that? Maybe the next time you folks are included in the beta testing of new and ultra secret flickr content, you could consider "transparency" and the needs of folks who aren't you.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
|
