|
|
This is a new official topic. There is also some valuable discussion on the first few pages of the older official thread on this topic: www.flickr.com/forums/help/35803/
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'll start things out by saying this is a *Wonderful* addition. I'm looking forward to the upcoming tweaks. This is much better than the approach other sites have. There is one in particular (I won't mention names, but you can probably figure it out from my profile ;-)) that will delete photos in *private* albums if they contain more skin than they think is appropriate. I like the flickr approach *much* better ;-)
Keep up the great work folks!
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, there is one question I keep forgetting to ask:
How does this affect guest passes? Will someone viewing on a guest pass be restricted to "safe" photos, or will the guest pass imply open access (as it used to do)?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I also have a question regarding the filters and RSS-Feeds.
Do I assume correctly that only safe stuff is included in the RSS feeds for photostreams?
How about non photo content that is safe like screenshots and art?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A couple of questions, just for clarification -
Is there something in the search functionality now that will tell people they are searching with SafeSearch on, including if they aren't logged in? (I haven't found it, but I might have just missed it, and I'd hope it wasn't too far hidden, especially since it's new.)
How long does it take right now review accounts marked moderate or unsafe? And are you doing that only via the email linked in the FAQ?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Does the "Hide this photo from public searches" hide the photo from both an API search and a search on Flickr ? I noticed that there are two distinct options in the Privacy and Permission Settings for the account, one for Flickr searches and one for API searches, but that there is only a single option on the photo page.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BTW. You should update the link in your news page so that it points to this new help topic instead of the old, locked one.
[edited to correctly point out the link in "Flickr News" instead of the blog]
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Suncat:
If you're not logged in to Flickr and surfing on a GuestPass, you're restricted to Safe content. If you are logged in, we respect your SafeSearch settings.
Short version: GuestPass is a way to override Privacy levels, not SafeSearch.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Andres.:
You're correct. Only Safe content can appear in RSS feeds. All content types (Photos, Screenshots, etc) appear as normal.
photosfab:
"Hide from public searches" hides the photo from both flickr.com searches and the API.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
GuestPass was also a way to share photos without having to require the guest to create an account. This would be a step backwards in my view if my guests were no longer able to see everything in the set they were given a pass for.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whew! I realized that I could fire up a browser via a different account and test this out myself. I'm happy to see that the entire set is still visible on the pass. Sorry for not being clearer in my initial question (I was wondering about the set itself, and not the rest of my stream). So, from my test observations, the answers are:
* A Guest Pass will still allow access to the entire set it is a pass for.
* It will not provide access to anything other than "safe" photos outside of the set.
It's the second item above that should get some consideration for future enhancements. The Guest Pass mechanism also allows you to provide access to your private photos (outside of the set the pass is created for). This becomes pointless if those private photos have been categorized anything other than "safe". I'd like to see some added granularity added to the Guest Pass system to allow us to tailor the filter preference inherited by the pass.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
SunCat - do you see how that creates a potential problem of exposing restricted content to people who may be under 18? That's not an option.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ouch! I just noticed that only the thumbnails were visible.
George,
The Guest Pass system has *always* allowed us to decide who to "expose" our content to (since it provided access to *private* photos). You have just killed the private photo access portion of it, and, as I have mentioned earlier, taken a step backwards in functionality. It just forces me to ignore the staff recommendations to categorize my private photos :-( (and I was so willing to before this).
If it helps to understand where I'm coming from, we maintain an age controlled group dedicated to fellow passengers on our favorite Windjammer charter. We set up a set and guest pass so that we could share the photos taken during those cruises with the passengers that were on the cruise, and who are often part of the photo. We would rather not have to force them to sign up with Yahoo and Flickr in order to view the shared photos. I don't see a Guest Pass exposing any more than a static URL. It's just a more convenient way of providing access without having to create a bunch of independent links.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
SunCat edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
George-- why is that necessarily a problem? I know it is in the US, but.. well I guess you know where I'm heading with this.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lu: I agree with you about somehow alerting Flickr users (and non-users) what search option they are using. And Google does do that, when you do an image search, right there under the searchbar is a a small, simple text link that says "SafeSearch is On".
That would be really great here. Simple tiny alert so the average person can know that he/she may not be seeing everything possible (and for my own self-serving ends, take them to the page that shows "art/illus" search options, as well.)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
SunCat - unless I'm misunderstanding (which is quite possible!), you can still use Guest Passes just like you were before, unless the content itself should be restricted.
You have just killed the private photo access portion of it
I'm not sure what you mean. We haven't killed the privacy aspect of Guest Pass. That's what it's for...
If it helps to understand where I'm coming from
Definitely, and always :)
Apologies if I'm not understanding you :/
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Marco - I can't tell if you're being serious or not... (only had one coffee so far...)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi George.
You are correct. The Guest Pass still provides access to private photos. It just doesn't provide access if they are marked "moderate" or "restricted".
Since I spent a great deal of time going through my stream and categorizing my skinny-dipping photos appropriately, I effectively removed them from my "guests" view. I'm now forced to take additional time and flickr resources uploading duplicate, private, uncategorized copies of all of the photos I want my guests to see in order to work around this new limitation. Since a Guest Pass is not generally public, I fail to see why you think allowing a Guest Pass access to restricted content is a problem.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi :)
It's great that you're prepared to work with the new filtering system - that's a good start! You could choose to do the workaround you suggest, if you really want to, but we're certainly not forcing you to ;-)
I fail to see why you think allowing a Guest Pass access to restricted content is a problem.
It's the same way that bars here in the USA have to ask everyone who comes in to show them identification so their age can be verified. (And yes, I'm aware that legal drinking age varies around the world - this is just another way to think about the problem.)
That said, the team is soaking up all this great feedback - the more stories we have about how people work with the new system the better. We're not claiming the first release is perfect, and will definitely make tweaks where they are needed.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
can folks still see "moderate" pics with a Guest Pass, or do they need to be signed in/verified as over 18?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for clarification to my RSS feed. Quite as I was hoping as it is working. :)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for giving us a forum for feedback. Your analogy of a bar is an interesting one. In that context, I see a Guest Pass as more of a pre-screen bracelet that you are now no longer honoring. But that's OK. I'll just tell the guard at the back door that the people wearing the "I've been pre-screened" bracelets are still just as adult as they were in the past ;-) ;-)
This is mostly biting me because I was trying to be too efficient. I was including public, categorized photos in my private set to minimize duplicates. Pardon the extra server load while I correct that.... ;-)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
amanky: non-members can only see "safe" content. If you're a member and under 18, you can elect to see "moderate" content, and if you're a member and over 18, you can turn SafeSearch off completely.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i have a bit of a random question...
under "my account page" it lists whether your account has been reviewed as safe, moderate, or unsafe. in my case, the account has been reviewed as safe.
i was just wondering does this mean that flickr staff are going through each account individually to review whether images are tagged appropriately, or is there some automated process? and is this the only variable that influences how an account is rated? if it's an automated process, without giving away any trade secrets of course, would you guys care to share a bit about how this works?
the main reason i'm asking is more curiosity than anything else. it just seems like if you had to go through each account one by one, that would be a LOT of work.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
SunCat: the original public/private system still works as always. If an image is private, it obviously doesn't turn up in public areas of the site, so is a non-issue when it comes to potentially offending members (the whole point of the filters).
The hope is that people will form habits around putting all their content into the right "buckets", even if they are private.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
George: I understand the intent of the new system (and I applaud it). I also understand the goal of putting content into the right "buckets" even when private. That goal (marking private photos) is currently in conflict with the Guest Pass system, so, hopefully, you will understand if we don't always adhere to it :-).
Since I have a workaround, and a paid account that provides me the bandwidth to do so, I don't mind working around the quirks in order to accomplish my end goal of creating a private set to share with non-members. Free account users might have a little more heartburn with the current system, so it would still be worth considering potential ways of providing the old functionality within the new filter guidelines.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
heya george,
maybe you guys could make it so that "moderate" material was visible through a guest pass but not "restricted" material.
i guess that's a bit of a compromise, but it might give the 'moderate' setting a bit more utility.
just a suggestion. probably not a good one, but one i'm putting out there.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Believe me, we're all about the consideration ;)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
George: " I can't tell if you're being serious or not... "
Sorta both. I had more of a reply typed out but I realised it'd involve me in more discussion than I have brain capacity left to share at this point, so I'm going to say I never typed that. (But I don't very much believe in deleting posts.)
mark daniel: I guess that's an automated thing depending on how many complaints you've had with the old flagging system and if you were marked NIPSA or not. But it could also involve an army of monkeys under the supervision of a magic donkey.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
Marco Wessel edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
thanks marco. i'm glad someone is paying attention to me... =)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mark daniel: You did say "without giving away any trade secrets of course" :P
Marco's on the right track though. Without giving too much away, a human reviews all new accounts, and after that it's just about staff being in touch with what's going on in the community, and if/when red flags are raised by features such as Report Abuse and such.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
George (staff) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
SunCat:
I see your point about the Guest Pass - it was supposed to allow unhindered access to stuff that was previously hidden from view. NIPSA ( as far as I know) had no bearing on guest pass visibility.
But I also don't see why you would be bothering to categorise private pictures at all. They don't get in the search process anyway, so why bother? The functionality of the filters is mainly (only?) for public images. You're making extra work (re-uploading) for the already superfluous effort of categorising private images...
Or am I missing something?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher said:
That would be really great here. Simple tiny alert so the average person can know that he/she may not be seeing everything possible (and for my own self-serving ends, take them to the page that shows "art/illus" search options, as well.)
i support that one. at least inform people that some content is being filtered, in case they are not aware that they need to change their SafeSearch settings to get bo filtering.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
striatic said:
maybe you guys could make it so that "moderate" material was visible through a guest pass but not "restricted" material.
i also think that's the way it should be.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brock: I was trying to be efficient and was combining private, private-in-groups, and public photos into the same set. It was the public and private-in-groups photos that I had categorized (to meet the new requirements). Those were the photos that were no longer visible.
As for why categorize private photos: I prefer to maintain some additional control over the viewing of some of my photos so I make them private. I have also added them to groups I am comfortable with. As soon as I add them to a group, they, in effect, become public (although to a slightly more controlled definition of "public"). For that reason, I categorize them to provide group members control over whether they want to see them or not. Probably too much work, but I'm still in that transition period ;-)
As a side clarifying note: If you take full advantage of the ability to make previously private photos public (with the proper categorization), they will no longer be visible to your guests. That was the fundamental problem. So, I am making copies of those photos that I wish to be more public, but also make available to my guests (which forces me to keep them private). Forced schizophrenia ;-)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
SunCat edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
I understand SunCat's problem.
I think Flickr is affraid that if Guest Passes could be use to access any private photo, regardless of their filter level, then someone could upload a bunch of hard-core porn private and "restricted" photos, and send guest-passes to minors who could then access them.
Flickr has no control to who receives guest-passes, so they cannot allow them to see "restricted".
but i definitely think that guest-passes should be allowed to access all "moderate" private content.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe the person creating a guest pass could click a box saying "allow access to restricted photos and I promise not to give this to anybody under 18" or something along those lines. I don't know the exact legal and social constraints Flickr is trying to work with. As long as Flickr allows unauthenticated access to the direct image URL it can be used to facilitate serving naughty stuff to innocent minors, and allowing guest passes with naughty stuff included might be considered similar to allowing direct access to image URLs.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The functionality of the filters is mainly (only?) for public images.
Actually, it should be for all photos that you plan on sharing. If someone makes me a contact, that doesn't mean if I want to see their restricted stuff, whether they've marked it private or public.
Or, if someone adds private stuff to a group, by having it in the right safety setting, that means group members who only want to see Safe stuff will still be protected.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just want to say that I am very pleased that Flickr has abandoned the notion of NIPSA in favor of user-controlled filters. (Yay Rippie.) This is significant progress.
I agree with the points made about the guest-passes.
May I please request that a topic be opened on the subject of the new Community Guidelines? I have reason to be concerned that I bore people.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lola, Please feel free to post any questions that you have about the Community Guidelines here.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
allowing people who don't wish to view certain types of images the ability to opt out gets an A+
allowing people to share all kinds of "restricted" art in an opt in way gets a solid B+.
resticting access to "safe only" for users of a guest pass gets an F.
setting default viewing for people not signed in to flickr as "safe only", gets another F.
restricting the api and rss to "safe only" (making my implementation on my own site and rss feeds for my favorite flickr members useless) gets a gigantic huge F-.
the default should be "moderate and safe" for people browsing and visiting specific streams (just like the rest of the net), "safe" for searching and explore (just like google and yahoo with safe search on) and anything goes for guest passes and api. in other words people that are specifically lnvited and searching for that content.
it's very silly that people specifically wanting to view my moderate stuff have to sign in.
come on, most people don't care about moderate stuff, make the people who don't like it CHANGE THE EFFIN CHANNEL, why do the prudes get the default?
A for effort
B+ for the technology and interface
F for implementation so far.
i have had no fewer that 20 people contact me today asking what happened to their favorite pictures on my stream -- i don't think any of this will strong arm them into joining yahoo/flickr, and honestly, it's not a really nice way to get more users.
safe search by choice not by default!!
you don't wanna take on the job of protector because it never ends. trust me. let people protect themselves.
ok enough of my yak.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
merkley??? edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
Hold off on the report card for another week or so - we're still tweaking, and definitely still listening to all the feedback. There are already a few changes which might help you out under consideration :)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ha ha -- ok. thanks stewart.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
OK, I'm still very confused. Why do some users streams say "Please wait... this user does not have any photos available to you"? Is this because they have not yet changed their settings since the filter? Or what?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O18BCO3&show_artic...
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last Fall.
The defaults are tuned way too high on the pre-censorship knob. Why? The Chinese aren't going to buy any ad space with you, Yahoo, don't you know that?
resticting access to "safe only" for users of a guest pass gets an F.
setting default viewing for people not signed in to flickr as "safe only", gets another F.
restricting the api and rss to "safe only" (making my implementation on my own site and rss feeds for my favorite flickr members useless) gets a gigantic huge F-.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just wanted first (since I didn't do it in the other thread) to say yea and thanks for this great improvement. I've been anticipating it for ages and I (mostly) like the way it's being implemented.
However - my biggest concern is the whole contact-issue that I stated here - namely, if you have your SafeSearch ON, find a photostream that appears to only have "safe" images (as that's all that you can see) that you enjoy, and then make that person a contact - if they have any "moderate" or "restricted" images, those all of a sudden become visible (the restricted only if you're over 18 I'd assume). So is that something that will be addressed in the future?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i agree with merkley.
sorta.
i think that if an unsigned user visits flickr to view merkley's account, which is solidly "moderate" if you ask me, that the user should not have to sign in to flickr in order to see the photos.
that said, they should still be presented with a screen that says "these photos are moderate blah blah blah click the button if you really want to see them" .. so you could still view his photos without signing into flickr .. but you would have to click through a warning page.
i think that's fair.
i also think that you should have to be signed in to flickr with safe search set to unrestricted in order to view restricted content. period.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
and i agree with flybuttafly.
i think that if someone sets a photo to 'moderate' or 'restricted' that their contacts should not be able to see the photo unless their safe search is set to the appropriate level.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe there should also be a notification that says "this person has some more interesting stuff, if you want to see it, click here" - much like the idea for the search results.
Though, of course, they may only have one moderate photo in 300 pages of safe ones, so it may be confusing.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe it should work like group pools for groups you belong to. If your contact has a photo that is below your safety rating, it should be 'snowed out' and you can then choose to see it if you want.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
restricting the api and rss to "safe only" (making my implementation on my own site and rss feeds for my favorite flickr members useless) gets a gigantic huge F-.
there was a point where flickr could get away without having password authenticated rss feeds.
i think that now would be a good time to allow people to see moderate and restricted content by using a password enabled rss feed.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As the SafeSearch filters are now applied to groups, can Deleteme Uncensored apply to have its threads made public to non-members who have the appropriate content filter preference?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If a user can see when a photos has had a safety filter applied to a photo, where can an admin of a group see a similar thing?
FCU is designated as restricted. Obviously I'm not going to apply for a review, but other groups might want to. How would I know it's been designated anything?
It seems weird that you've only applied the group safety filters half-way - ie. you've applied restrictions, but not the spangly new transparency afforded to individual stream.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i think that now would be a good time to allow people to see moderate and restricted content by using a password enabled rss feed.
This could possibly be avoided if Guest Passes were able to override SafeSearch and if the photostream could be guest passed.
Ideally, when we create a Guest Pass we would choose whether we make restricted and moderate photos available through it as well.
And being able to guest pass the photostream would also enable publishing private photos through feeds.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This could possibly be avoided if Guest Passes were able to override SafeSearch and if the photostream could be guest passed.
being able to guest pass the photostream would also enable publishing private photos through feeds.
if the guest pass code was part of the feed url, sure .. but that would require creating a guest pass for every stream on flickr photos that wanted to share restricted or private content through an rss feed. so you'd be people posting guest pass urls in the their flickr profiles and such.
that ultimately defeats the purpose the guest pass was initially designed for.
another option might just be to have three versions of each feed, one for each safety level, and only present the feed url matching the visitor's safesearch setting when they visit flickr to subscribe.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
serious question:
If I am uploading "full frontal intimate moments" (ie xxxx) photos, as long as I mark it restricted, I can leave it on public display. Is that correct?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@George
The hope is that people will form habits around putting all their content into the right "buckets", even if they are private.
Actually no.
At least not those of us using guest passes for for some our more "risqé" content.
Of course we would be deciding responsibly who gets the link. I would most certainly not send a guest pass link to any restricted content to any minors.
I have a couple of sets marked "friends only" that contain (please feel free to be disgusted) mostly nudes of myself and friends that I used to send gues passes out for. I was fully intending to flag these with the new content settings, but it appears to due the way content settings are implemented and because I have guest passes for them, I can't, really.
My own way of "content filtering" was:
* Safe photos for everyone (movie rating E) = Public
* Moderate (movie rating PG) or illustrations, screen shots = Private, Friends & Family
* Restricted (movie rating R or X) = Private, Friends only.
Since I never know when I might create a guest pass for moderate or restricted content, the new filtering system is essentially useless, because I still need to:
* keep everything moderate or restricted friends only (for guest passes) and not mark it moderate or restricted, so no change.
* public content is already marked safe anyway, so no change.
So, unless I am very thick and completely don't get it, for those of us using guest passes for previously NIPSA or rather private content, nothing changes.
But doing this, I somehow fear that Flickr will suddenly pull the "safe" rating of my account, even though all my moderate or restricted content is NOT public.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
if the guest pass code was part of the feed url, sure .. but that would require creating a guest pass for every stream on flickr photos that wanted to share restricted or private content through an rss feed.
The guest pass code is indeed part of the URL. I was assuming that a feed is created "on demand" (when the the feed URL is actually accessed) and not "pre-generated", hence assuming that a feed could be parameterized.
so you'd be people posting guest pass urls in the their flickr profiles and such. that ultimately defeats the purpose the guest pass was initially designed for.
I see what you mean, to work around this we would need to decouple SafeSearch and privacy options for a Guest Pass. E.g you can choose to expose restricted photos but not private ones.
In my experience a password protected feed is a pain to administer and use. I like you suggestion about the three feeds based on SafeSearch settings, I see it as less flexible and general than a solution around extending Guest Pass but it is probably easier to implement.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Merkley, suncat: I can see why it could be nice to have the opportunity to provide access to restricted photos to non-members. But as George stated correctly this would be a means to provide access even to minors, which flickr can't risk to have. Well, if it'd just about me, I'd say they will find what they're looking for elsewhere anyway ;-) but... I guess we have to choose: if we want the option to include adult content (and I know we could discuss years on what that means, but please let's not ;-) into the streams we probably have to accept that there are some restrictions in distribution for the sake of legal requirements in many countries - and this does even apply to free thinking states
to give an example: I hope we agree that Germany would not count as a country of censorship, but if a German site distributes pornography to minors, it would be shut down (and it's not sufficient to just ask the user to state his age or leave!)... I guess there are similar rules in other western countries, too
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Swisskiltbear said: Of course we would be deciding responsibly who gets the link. I would most certainly not send a guest pass link to any restricted content to any minors.
I guess the problem is that legally flickr is providing the content and they can't be sure to only have responsible users - so even if you share your links responsibly (which I definitely believe), others might not ... :(
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Noluck
Yeah, legal requirements are different in every country. Germany is a good example. the "child protection" laws are so restrictive that it's almost impossible to host an "adult" .de domain. The age verification process is very complicated wit a proposed "smart card login" (the same smart card that would have to be used in cigarette vending machines). So consequently, most german "adult" sites, have now moved to the Netherlands or other more liberal countries and are using .com or .info domains rather than .de.
Here in Switzerland, if I for instance sent a guest pass link for a set with restricted content to someone I personally know to be of legal age, I would be ok. If that person then would pass that link on to minors, it would be THEIR responsibility, not mine.
So yes, the matter of providing access to any restricted content directly from a site is very complex and I think for that purpose the filters work well. Just not for guest passes.
I am assuming though that it would be legally possible even with US law to amend the TOS so that responsibility for guest passes (which aren't readily available to those who don't specifically receive the email or link) is shifted to the issuer of the guest pass rather than remaining with Flickr.
(edited for the usual multiple typos)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Heather above says this is the place to discuss the new Community Guidelines.
"# Don’t vent your frustrations, rant, or bore the brains out of other members.
Flickr is not a venue for you to harass, abuse, impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, we’ll send you a warning or terminate your account."
Although I understand that Flickr staff is for the most part a bunch of reasonable people, incorporating the concept that "boring comments" might get your account terminated is a form of censorship in the extreme. Sure, you say you won't do that, perhaps unless you serially bore folks. But come on, harrassement and boring surely don't belong together. In fact , the whole subsection seems completely unlreated to ranting, venting of frustrations or boring. How about changing the lead on this to refect abuse or impersonation only?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
AustinTX, Thanks for the feedback. I'll share it with the team.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks!
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh, and for those providing all the great feedback on this new feature, I want to underscore what Stewart said a few hours ago... "we're still tweaking, and definitely still listening to all the feedback. There are already a few changes which might help you out under consideration :)"
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Does this mean that the cat and baby pic filters are coming later?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And the HDR one...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brock: It's not perfect (what filter is?), but here you go.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh yes I definitely want an HDR filter. PLEASE! In fact all HDR's of babies, should be set "not public search" restricted. :) (you laugh, they look like spawns of the devil!, see www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/145163443/ ). lol.
And Heather, I realize you try to keep the CG lighthearted, I think it was the mix of a humous heading with the serious topic of hate comments that set me off a little. Sorry if I was a bit pedantic.
And will "improvements" be announced?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
AustinTX: At the very least, they'll be announced here.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Myles: Gah. Arse. I clicked on that.
/removes own eyes with a spoon
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not sure if any one answered babyjesusiscrying's question about marking "full frontal intimate moments" public and restricted.
Comment: I accidently flagged one hundred photos as "Hide this photo from public searches." Ack. I forgot that I set the option "Hide your photos from site-wide searches on flickr.com."
Hopefully flickr.com will add a batch feature to organizer that will unset the option. I was wondering why few people were looking at my new photos. lol
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'd like to reiterate babyjesusiscrying's question yet again, since it is exactly the question I came here to ask:
If I have a photo with full-frontal nudity that I mark as "restricted", is there any reason I should check the "Hide from public searches" checkbox?
I'm assuming not, but if my account gets deleted because I'm wrong I'm going to be very annoyed.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi guys - As long as the safety level is appropriate (e.g. stuff that shouldn't be shown to kids is marked as 'restricted'), you can leave it public.
Once you've marked it at the right safety level, it's up to you whether you'd like to take the additional step of either hiding it from public search (in this case with SafeSearch turned off, which shows restricted content), and/or marking it as private or friends/family only.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good answer George. Thanks for the (probably nth time) clarification.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
any word on that batch option for unchecking the "hide from public search" box?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks George for the clarification. However, I would love to see it right on the FAQ (Need Help link when you click on Flag this photo ) or somewhere more obvious. I guess it's still a new feature so you have not put it there.
It would be easier for people to understand Public/Private permission vs. Safe/Restricted filter.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Myles: Thanks for the "not" filter example. Now I don't have to worry about categorizing my cat pictures as "restricted" for Brock ;-)
noluck: I understand the technical issues enough to recognize that the "think about the chill'uns" argument is not valid for the particular discussion of Guest Pass access (unless flickr plans on changing the functionality regarding uncategorized private photos). I'm currently betting that, once the technically savvy folks start thinking about it logically, they too will understand that I'm not really asking for a feature that isn't already provided for (albeit in a slightly less efficient manner).
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
lilyzaine: Good idea! Will do.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is there a way to prevent RSS feeds showing some (or all) my pics to a viewer outside Flickr at the same time as the user of my guest pass can view the same content? (I don't want my pics of my grandchildren to show up automaticly in someones anynomus RSS feed in the the cruel internet world outside Flickr but at the same time I would like it to be possible to show them to my guestpassers.). I have tried different settings but so far without any luck. And all this without making them Private to my dear Flickr members.
I find it somewhat strange to mark the harmeless pics "restricted" just to prevent the outsiders rss-feeds...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't want my pics of my grandchildren to show up automaticly in someones anynomus RSS feed in the the cruel internet world
i believe that if flag them as 'exclude from searches' they won't show up in the RSS feed. i think.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have tried that - and they show up...
And now I discovered that there is no way of hiding any pic from the outside. The last pic I uploaded was
www.flickr.com/photos/surstubben/434017506/
I marked it "hide this photo from public searches" and "restricted". And by default all my pics are "Hidden from API-based searches so they don't show up in searches done outside of the Flickr website (including most third party API-based applications)"
Highest security - but what happens: My pic can easily be viewed outside Flickr from
www.tagbrowsr.com/index.php?mode=photog&photogid=8277...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I checked tagbrowsr with my unique tag and none of my images showed up. The images are public but I have opted out of the API search. Don't know why yours are showing then
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
surstubben, the API Hide thing only works to hide your photos from a global tag search. If someone uses the API and specifically asks to see YOUR photos, then the API will show them. That's why tagbrowsr is showing you that photo, because the method you've used to access that photo is not by tag, but by userid.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks Brenda. But shouldn´t "restricted" stop it from global search anyway?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I admin a self portrait group, which we have made 18+. I'd appreciate clarification with the following
1. Private images
As far as I can work out, private images which are not classified are visible to group members, the same as they were before. Is that true?
2. Age
This is the tricky one. I check the profile/images of everyone who applies to the group and we enforce the 18+ rule rigorously. Now ages are removed from profiles I can't do that. The filter system seems to assume that everyone will classify their images and then the yahoo filters work by preference and age (I think) from yahoo logins.
What is the advice now, given that many of the images posted are private and unclassified?
Thanks
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 shouldn´t "restricted" stop it from global search anyway?
As I understand it, the API search function has not been updated yet to exclude 'restricted' content. BUT!! I may be wrong about that, so perhaps a Staff member could clarify.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
~Caytlyn~:
1, yes.
2, I'd let the age checking rest for a bit. Flickr has said the ages will return, and in the mean time you should make sure that all the recently submitted images have had an appropriate safety level set, even if they are private.
--
And that brings me to a question:
How would reporting a 'safety-level' violation on a private/F&F image work? The 'Flag this photo' thing is still there as always, and so is the option to 'review this photo'.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I also think the effects on the Guest Pass should be reconsidered. The argument about providing access to minors isn't meaningful, I don't think, not only because you could provide the same access with a direct URL to the image but also because it is not Flickr providing access to potential minors, but an individual user.
Lacking any compelling reason that Flickr should be aware of either the nature of the content or of the access given by the user, it's difficult to see where there would be any liability. Any shield Flickr already has under the common carrier rules would still be valid, and frankly restricting the access of a tool specifically designed to give access to restricted material is pretty silly.
I understood the Guest Pass as a way to provide access to private images to a selected audience. I could, for example, do a nude shoot with a model, post the results of the session privately, offer a guest pass to the model, and then discuss the various images without having the world kibbitz in on work that isn't done yet, and may potentially never be shown to the public at all.
Also, I can see where staff would encourage users to classify images that are posted as private, but as an actual user, why would I do that? They're private. No one is seeing them without a Guest Pass. As such their content is, by definition, safe.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> shouldn´t "restricted" stop it from global search anyway?
i don't think "restricted" photos should be removed from search.
if you have set your filter options to SafeSearch OFF, it means that you want to search and browse everything including possibly shocking and disturbing photos (although nothing illegal or not allowed by the Flickr Terms of Use, of course).
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
When a set contains photos that cannot be seen (e.g. they are "moderate" or "restricted" and the set is viewed by someone not logged-in or with SafeSearch ON), it would be nice if Flickr could display a message like:
"This set contains some photos that cannot be seen with your current SafeSearch level. In order to see all the photos in this set, you must be signed-in with a Flickr account and you must set your account SafeSearch filter level to 'moderate' or 'off'."
i also think the same message should be displayed when a photostream or search result containing censored photo is accessed. i.e. anytime when some photos are censored because of the SafeSearch level, the user should be informed.
this would also be an incentive for people to create Flickr accounts (therefore also good for Yahoo, because they have to create yahoo accounts).
and it would make it clear that some of the photos of the set have been filtered / censored by Flickr.
of course, i also recomment all members to add a similar text at the beginning of the description of all their sets that contain "moderate" or "restricted" photos.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
i agree with loupiote except i don't think the system should require that we as flickr users teach other (potential) flickr users how to use flickr -- it should all make sense from the get go and right now it doesn't.
all visitors, members or not, should be aware of their safe/moderate/off viewing status without having to dig.
the easiest way to do this would be to substitute moderate/restricted images with a gif explaining why it's hidden with directions to click for more info and then, instead of merely telling people why they can't view it, flickr should also include the necessary buttons to turn off safe search right then and there with the warning included etc and then that setting could remain until the visitor decides to change it.
should work the way most of the net operates with "yes let me in" or "hell no take me to church" options
as it is now people don't even know what they are missing and the process, especially for new non flickr members, seems unnecessarily wonky when it could be as simple and straight forward as flickr has always been.
a simple "yes i want to see moderate (or restricted) material" button would solve most of the problems insofar as browsing flickr is concerned. it would probably even be fair to make people set up a flickr account and go through the standard age verification deal for "restricted" content but even then it should all be laid out right then and there where the roadblock occured.
i'm sure it will all work out eventually.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
merkley??? edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
the easiest way to do this would be to substitute moderate/restricted images with a gif explaining why it's hidden with directions to click for more info and then, instead of merely telling people why they can't view it, flickr should also include the necessary buttons to turn off safe search right then and there with the warning included etc and then that setting could remain until the visitor decides to change it.
yes, i support this idea.
should work the way most of the net operates with "yes let me in" or "hell no take me to church" options
you mean: take me to the kittens :)
as it is now people don't even know what they are missing
unless ALL the photos of a stream are unsafe, in which case they are notified. but if one photo is safe, they don't know about the rest..
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks Marco. I think that is all we can do at the moment. But it really isn't enough as it appears that someone underage could be accepted into a group and see any image there which is either safe (great) or private and unclassified (not good at all).
If that is the case this is a backwards step and I think it is totally unrealistic to have a system which relies on others classifying their back catalogue of private images. It seems that this change has made the general flickr-verse safer (brilliant) but some groups more likely to get into trouble.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It only takes a few minutes in the Organizr to batch up your photos and mark them as 'restricted' or 'moderate'. Perhaps you should make a post in your group asking everyone to please classify their images.
Or, who knows? Flickr may very well implement a "group membership" safety thing so that your group can be classified "restricted" and only over-18 Flickr members will be able to join.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I didn't see this question asked , If someone else should flag your photo , do you see who did it and why?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Please leave the content filtering off by default, and leave instruction for those who choose not to view certain contents.
With the current changes, you have broken the concept of Community Policing itself, it is so unfair, so annoying. You have spoiled the freedom of expression on Flickr.
Flickr users are Smart, responsible Adult individuals not bunch of unsupervised kids.
Thank you
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> Please leave the content filtering off by default, and leave instruction for those who choose not to view certain contents.
I would also have prefered if the SafeSearch setting of existing users had been set to OFF, rather than to "SAFE" when Flickr rolled-in the new filters.
Also, I don't recall receiving a Flickr-Mail informing me of the change. I noticed them by monitoring the forums and "release notes" on the flickr pages.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Flickr users are Smart
Um. How come so many of them got phished then?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yeah, i agree with ♥ shhexycorin ♥ :)
even PRO members are not that smart.
in fact only Old Skool members are smart!
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
