A Discussion on a working NSFW filter

[mananee]

I suppose that if the management, Slug and Emily, made their views known, that would be very helpful. Their silence on this thread and on pmails directed to them is deafening. Where is leadership? When dues are required, notification is swift.
As for those who say moving galleries is a pain, it appears there are services that do this.
https://www.uploadjunction.com

[vneilknobbe]

<snip>
This whole discussion is pointless anyway because management isn't going to do anything. </snip>

That is really the crux of it isn't it.

Look at the numbers. (And this is a whole lot of guessing on my part.)

According to the Forum home page there are 197000 members and if everyone pays the lowest amount for storage.

197000 registered members * $23/year = $4,531,000 per year income

Yep that is over $4 million a year.

Now I don't know if the number of members are people that have paid or everyone, including those who have trial memberships or have let their memberships lapse.

Even if only a quarter of the members are paying the base amount it is still worth over $1 million per year to the owners, not taking in server/web space cost, but if you are bringing in over a million the costs are most likely a drop in the bucket.

Not bad work, if you want to call what we see from the Administrative side work, if you can get it.

I wish I could get a job that paid me that well.

[lynnh]

I've stopped looking at the Popular Gallery altogether, after glimpsing live sex acts... and I think I am a very open-minded person when it comes to nudity and sexuality. Unfortunately, the SMUT that filters to the top makes the entire website NSFW according to the filter we use at our office. Shame that I can't share Pbase with friends and family anymore. Even more shameful is the lack of response from Pbase staff.

[amoxtli]

I just looked through the first ten pages of popular photos. Not a single nude image.

I also looked through the first ten pages of popular galleries. There were ten (out of 120 thumbnails) that depicted nude or partially nude images. No sex acts or anything hard core.

Maybe "Management" is doing something behind the scenes.

[lainesphotos]

If management are doing something behind the scenes it would be nice if they could say so before members who have put a lot of money, time and effort into this place pack up and go....disappointing and badly done if this is the case.

[kstuebin]

@Walter, you made me look at the popular galleries again. :) Actually, you have to click through them to get to popular photos. But I did page through to page two where there was a nude gallery. I don't want to see nudes. Nudes are NSFW in any universe. You think they're art. I don't. It's a matter of what I want to see or don't want to see which I can do on other photo sites. The Popular Photos rarely do have nudes in them. It doesn't mean management is doing anything. We'll never know, will we?

[lynnh]

I've had a Flicker account since 2009. Flicker has lots of nudity... just as much as Pbase. And Flicker has sex scenes. I don't see a whole lot of difference when it comes to content. It's how the content is handled, Flicker is a little more responsive by having Safe Search function.
If you hunt for sex, you'll find it... no matter where.

[clickaway]

I have just this minute clicked through the first twenty pages of Popular Photos and every image there is family friendly.

I've also clicked through the first twenty pages of the most popular galleries (heading photos only) of the last 7 days and there is only one gallery that features nudity and the heading image here features sufficient clothing, although that image suggests that further shots of the same model could be of an adult nature, and indeed there are. I think most responsible adults would see this gallery and be quick to exit it in the presence of children, work colleagues and so on.

Bear in mind that an NSFW filter would not be a cure all, as it would be up to the owner of the photos. Given the exercise I've just undertaken, I don't think the site reveals an excessive amount of adult material and I think that in practical terms you may have to accept some as that is the nature of photography. I really don't know if there are photo sites that are foolproof in this regard, but that is for others to research.

Given the amount of people complaining, I do wonder sometimes if I'm looking at the same site - or maybe PBase has again been blocking some images from the populars?

Ray

[kstuebin]

@Ray, when I started this thread there were popular galleries that featured graphic details of female genitals. The photographers' even described the models as "porn stars" and I doubt anyone could call them art or in any way acceptable to most viewers. They are gone now. Whether or not Pbase did something or they just got pushed down by other galleries being voted up, I have no idea.

We were not imaging this. It was pretty bad.

As for "normal" nakedness being acceptable, I think that should be a personal decision.

Right now I only see one nude gallery after several pages and that is of a pregnant woman. It is a lot more revealing than Leibovitz's famous photo of Demi Moore.

The bottom line is some of us do not want to see nude women or men at all. We don't want our grand kids to see them because we're on Pbase. We don't want viewers of our photos to see them and associate us with them. We're not prudes either as has been stated before.

And yes, NSFW filters do seem to work on other photo sites. If the photographer fails to tag a gallery as such and it is then members bring it to the management's notice and it is dealt with accordingly.

It also seems everyone agrees as to what is considered NSFW including the photographers who for the most part play by the rules.

Yes, I'm still here and I'm still opinionated about this. :) However, I have stopped looking at the popular galleries except when I click through to popular photos and I am becoming more active on another site. Pbase management may have done something but I am not psychic and can't know that they have or if this is just a lull until these photographers find some new "models."

[clickaway]

Karen,

It also seems everyone agrees as to what is considered NSFW including the photographers who for the most part play by the rules.

I have to disagree with you here as there will surely be some grey areas where some will say NSFW is applicable and others not applicable. Taking the heading photo of the pregnancy gallery 'Katya' she may be naked but in the side view and her arms blocking her breasts, I don't think NSFW is applicable. In my view, nothing 'private' is revealed in the initial image. But other photos in the gallery surely do need the filter. But I do realise that you and others will disagree. If there are representations to management, people should respect whatever decision PBase makes.

And also, I feel that it is not just about what is shown, it is also about context. In journalistic photographs showing a given African tribe where the women may be topless in everyday life, would you see this different from a topless model? Just saying this for an example of context, rather than asking for an answer or opinion!

It's human nature that there will be a difference of opinion over what is acceptable and what is not, and in fact that, in a wider context, has been a major discussion point here in the UK lately.

Ray

[bobfloyd]

The more things change the more they stay the same...

I don't think you will find anyone who disagrees that an NSFW filter is long overdue. This has been an on going theme of "discussion" since before I joined the site 10 years ago and in that time even the photogs posting the most graphic shots who have chimed in on the topic agree that a filter would be a good thing.

The only real disagreement is the ages old "one man's treasure is another man's trash" thought process and we will never all agree on that one.