|
|
ok, so if groups can have varied levels of pictures, and simply obscure the thumb for viewers, depending upon their levels... why can't friends see a contact's stream in this way????
obscuring/warning for the 4 pics that fall out of their "safe" settings
*eager to get this addressed!*
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 didnt get that option trying to open, only its unavaliable.
Ah, have you actually set your SafeSearch setting to Safe? Or were you signed in already when this came into effect? If you go to your account setting page, it will say "you need to sign in again in order to change this". If you do that, and then set it to Safe On again, then you'll get the choice. Without doing the sign on bit, Flickr actually doesn't know that you are over 18, so you're fully restricted until the next time you sign in using Yahoo.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Flickr thank you. This is an awesome new feature. ( Clapping loudly )
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for all the weirdness reports, suggestions, and comments. There's a couple things that I think aren't working as they're supposed to (e.g., Brenda Anderson's report about having to switch to the moderate setting in order to see the "This photo falls outside your current SafeSearch filter" message when looking at a photo in a group you admin or moderate) and one of two things that we're still debating about (whether contact relationships should override SafeSearch settings).
It'll take some time to work through everything and we're going to be continually tweaking the system based on the feedback we get from monitoring usage, what people write in here and analysis of the results. But I'm glad most people agree this is a huge improvementfrom where we were and it solves a lot of longstanding problems.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stewart, Myles & I worked out my problem that you linked to.
I was signed in when the Filtering took effect. It appears that, because of that, Flickr didn't know my age, so clicking on a Restricted photo gave me the "you can't see this" message. When I went to my account settings to change to "moderate", I had to sign into Yahoo again before doing so. Once I'd done that, and, later, when I set my account once again to "SafeSearch ON", I could then override the Restriction on that photo and see it. So my problem was solved that way.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Also, big thanks to all the Flickr team members who worked on this - it was a massive effort of a complexity that I don't think can be understood without poring over a few dozen 'before and after' diagrams of the software and an appreciation of the system's scale (in both technical and human-cultural teams). Thank you, and: yay!
Brenda: Aha! Glad to hear that it was actually working as planned.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You might want to warn people somewhere that until they sign into Flickr again, their account is set to Under 18 Safe only. Otherwise, you might end up with lots of help questions. :)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 There's a couple things that I think aren't working as they're supposed to [....] (whether contact relationships should override SafeSearch settings).
How about a setting on your preferences page, tick box one if you want to see all photos from contacts, box two if you want your filter settings to apply? Afterall, someone who has just been doing landscapes may suddenly branch into nudes etc...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda i signed back in after setting and havent tried yet...probably will get the push through thing no doubt. There is however a problem with the blanks a user set on safe would see.
Many colour groups, including ours have very strict colour criteria. So in a group like Yellow or Green red and blue are totally illegal, viewers on safe will see a messed up page. And they are ugly. Suggest if viewers on safe "must" see them, can they be pure white and occupy a space?
Another suggest is give group admins the option to filter group content. Many family groups out there and currently admins have to scan and remove. A lot of time on their parts, but this could make family groups immune to rated pics in the first place.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Perhaps you can put in a group rule that says "only Safe photos allowed" and then you can just delete the ones that come through with the black/white thumbnail thing.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So then NIPSA still applies to groups? I'm confused. Is there a way to know which groups have been NIPSA'd and which have not?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
...and it all wouldn't have been necessary, if some people just would have used their brains!
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda: you misinterpreted. I saw his stream without the restricted photos. The message popped up after I looked at my browser's back history and found one in there that I had visited earlier didn't pop up with my safesearch on.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i noticed that some of my photos are incorrectly marked as restricted while they should safe or moderate, and some are out of the public-search while they should be in.
how can i search for all my "restricted" photos?
is there a third-party tool to do that?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for clarifying that, Marco.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
some of my photos are marked
"This image was moderated as RESTRICTED, PHOTO by Flickr Staff. "
On those photos, i cannot select if the photo is in public search or not, and i cannot see if they are in public-search or not.
What is the public-search status in that case?
Does marking a photo "Moderate" automatically remove it from the public search?
If yes, then the "public search" should not be selectable on photos that i mark "Moderate".
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
is there a way to "batch-flag" a bunch of photos as "moderate" in the organizer?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Does marking a photo "Moderate" automatically remove it from the public search?
No, it can still be searchable and be 'moderate'. But people whose account settings are set to Safe won't see it in the search results.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
is there a way to "batch-flag" a bunch of photos as "moderate" in the organizer?
Yes. Put all the photos up into the batch area (either by tag search or by set, etc), then choose Permissions>Set Safety Filter
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but then why can't i control the "public-search" flag on photo that have been "moderated as RESTRICTED" by Flickr Staff?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> Yes. Put all the photos up into the batch area (either by tag search or by set, etc), then choose Permissions>Set Safety Filter
ok, thanks.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but then why can't i control the "public-search" flag on photo that have been "moderated as RESTRICTED" by Flickr Staff?
Um... because they forgot to put that on there? I don't know. I've got one screenshot that I know of that was set to Restricted by Flickr staff and I can't change the search flag on it either.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
My account is currently NIPSA, one a photo page I can see the option to untick "Hide this photo from public searches" - but if I untick this and save, the change isn't saved.
Either the option should be visible, but greyed out and not functional, or I should be able to save changes on individual photos so that I could prepare my photostream for review by staff should I so wish - maybe with a message indicating that my account status would override individual photo settings.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> My account is currently NIPSA
that's probably because your very controversial photo of the ACM.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
also, is there a way (external tool?) to find all my photos that have been forcefully moderated by flickr?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, lou, it was because Heather is jealous of my cute little button nose.
FACT
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, there's no way. An outside programmer would have to be quite keen to have already written a tool for something announced 12 hours ago, eh? As it is, I don't think the API has even been updated for these new fields yet either.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
my understanding is that SafeSearch OFF will always look at "safe" and "moderate" photos, but it will look at "restricted" only when the user is logged and age 18 or older. is my understanding correct?
my understanding is that SafeSearch ON will only look at "safe" photos. is my understanding correct?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
> No, there's no way. An outside programmer would have to be quite keen to have already written a tool for something announced 12 hours ago, eh? As it is, I don't think the API has even been updated for these new fields yet either.
i hope the API will allow reading those new fields, and that such tools will be available.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> Also, big thanks to all the Flickr team members who worked on this - it was a massive effort of a complexity
personally i don't like censorship and search filtering, but i understand that some people feel it is necessary. so it's good if it makes those people happy, i guess.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Okay, first of all thanks to Flickr staff for that feature. I like it because finally all the prude people can limit themselves, and I am no longer limited in what I can handle to see. However, I've got some questions and suggestions (and yes, I read through the whole thread, but maybe I missed something):
1) I think you need to get a lot clearer (what about examples?) on what is "moderate" and what is "restricted". As I understand it now, "moderate" means things that other people might not want to see because they are offended by that kind of photos (like a naked butt, maybe?), while "restricted" are things for adults only.
2) There should be some guidelines for deciding what safety level to apply to a photo. For example, I've got a photo that shows me and two "gimped" clones of myself having a threesome, but it doesn't show genitals or butts, but it's clearly suggesting nakedness and sexual activity, even though in a highly unrealistic manner (click if you want to see for yourself can handle that). It's not "frontal nudity", as the old community guidelines would have called it. Nevertheless, it was flagged as restricted by Flickr. I would have flagged it as moderate. That's what I mean with "you need to get clearer": It's something I would show to my mom as well as to my Uncle Bob. Flickr says themselves that we have "vastly different cultural and personal comfort levels", so you should keep in mind that we have vastly different moms as well. :)
3) Where's the sense in the "hide from public searches" checkbox now? Can you give an example where this might be useful?
4) Is it correct that people may now upload really explicit self-made porn and the like as long as they flag it "restricted"? So the "restricted" flag is like a replacement of the "I'll upload my porn as "for friends", add me to your contacts to see it" tactic?
5) There really needs to be a possibility to find photos with certain safety levels in the Organizr, as well as the ability to search for photos flagged by Flickr staff.
6) When I have a look at my "popular" photos list, I can see that the "restricted" photo I talked about above, which was #2 or so (>5,700 views, 12 faves, 25 comments) is now placed #31, right after a photo with 44 views, 0 faves and 8 comments. It seems to me that you have modified the Interestingness algorithm to include the safety level. Is that correct? If so, I think it's not a great idea, because the photo is definitely more interesting, and the "popular" page can be seen by me only, so there's no need to censor there.
7) Lastly, where's the border between a "photo" and a "CGI"? If I use three photos and some filters to create a new image in my favorite editing software, is that still a photo?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is it correct that people may now upload really explicit self-made porn and the like as long as they flag it "restricted"?
I assumed that the Community Guidelines still prohibit this, but it seems they have changed now, there's no mention of no genitals in public. Wow.
*waves genitals about*
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I assumed that the Community Guidelines still prohibit this, but it seems they have changed now
That's the first half of why I was asking.
*waves genitals about*
That's the second one. :D Seems that Flickr is gonna be a new home porn sharing site if this is really the intention. I wouldn't mind.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
they just realized that sex is where all the eyeballs are, and that you can make money with that (e.g. sell ads for whatever adults - or adult males - mights want to buy). as long as people who see it are not kids, and are willing to see it.
it's no surprize that all my top-viewed flickr photos with 50.000 views or more are photos of topless women - ok, i have one photo of a dead dog that has 52.195 views, but that must be a quirk :)
in fact my 34 top viewed photos are topless women, over almost 3000 photos (and less than 50 photos of topless women). that tells you what people look on flickr, really!
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
i would love to know where my 192 images in explore went after flickr made all my images private...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> It seems to me that you have modified the Interestingness algorithm to include the safety level.
i bet "Interestingness" can only contain "safe" photos.
but clearly the photos that people *really* find interesting are not safe (based on the number of views, favs and comments on my photos).
maybe they could have a "Adult Interestingness" category that only logged 18+ people could look? :)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3) Where's the sense in the "hide from public searches" checkbox now? Can you give an example where this might be useful?
here is an example:
i have a series of photos with dead dogs. they have the tag "dog" among other tags.
flickr asked me to make them "hide from public searches" (previously called NIPSA = Not In Public Search Area) because people searching "dog" expect to find only cute (live) dogs and puppies, and when they find dead dogs, they are upset, shocked and traumatized.
of course a search of google with find those photos, since google is immune to the flickr search filters :)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
i have a series of photos with dead dogs. they have the tag "dog" among other tags. flickr asked me to make them "hide from public searches"
Oh. And how am I supposed to find photos of dead dogs, then? I need Flickr to satisfy my zoosexual necrophilic fetish...
No really, that's a serious question (except for the fetish part). I mean, this should rather be solved by flagging the photo as "moderate", shouldn't it?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whereas this is disgusting the foot fetishists. heh heh.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No really, that's a serious question (except for the fetish part). I mean, this should rather be solved by flagging the photo as "moderate", shouldn't it?
in that they wanted my dead dogs photos marked "restricted" and "hide from public search".
you can use google to find photos of dead dogs :)
if i just flag then "moderate", people looking for dogs with SafeSearch OFF would find my dead dogs and be shocked... (photos dead dogs cut in pieces on vietnam street markets are a bit too graphic for some westerners).
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
2) There should be some guidelines for deciding what safety level to apply to a photo. I'd agree with this. The current guideline is based on 'would you let your mother or a child see the picture.'
On that basis, I'm extremely comfortable tagging all my artistic nude pictures as 'moderate' - my mother already has seen them, and I'm entirely comfortable with children seeing them too. This makes sense to me, with the top restriction level being there for goatsex, genitalia, penetration and the like.
However, I'm all too well aware that there are lunatic factions who wouldn't have a mirror in the house in case their children saw themselves in it naked; so whose mother should we be worrying about - the well adjusted normal ones, or the ones who think Janet Jackson's nipple is a weapon of mass destruction?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i think that unless there are visible genitalia or semen or sex acts or the like, "moderate" is sufficient (female breasts does not count as genitalia! neither do "bottoms").
all my artistic nudes are also marked "moderate".
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
On that basis, I'm extremely comfortable tagging all my artistic nude pictures as 'moderate' - my mother already has seen them, and I'm entirely comfortable with children seeing them too. This makes sense to me, with the top restriction level being there for goatsex, genitalia, penetration and the like.
i think that unless there are visible genitalia or semen or sex acts or the like, "moderate" is sufficient (female breasts does not count as genitalia! neither do "bottoms").
I'm not sure about the goatsex (did you mean goatse? if so, if that dude ever shows up to upload his photo, I have a few questions), but otherwise (in the words of my esteemed boss)..... Good!
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
you can use google to find photos of dead dogs
That's not the point here. If I'm searching Flickr for photos tagged "dog", the system can't know if I'm looking for this, that or that. In these links, no dead dogs are included, but I could as well be searching for those. If Flickr removes "unappropriate" photos (according to whom?) from searches, the search function is of no use if I'm searching for "un-cute" photos. And seriously, I think Flickr has way too many furry cat photos. If I'm offended by them (maybe because I'm an artist and I'm searching for something ugly or dead, because I want to depict the world as it is), who cares about me? The question here is, does Flickr want to become a cutesy-furry teenage Hello Kitty camphone sharing website? If so, this is the right way. If not, they should re-think their policy. I'd love to hear a staff comment about that.
if i just flag then "moderate", people looking for dogs with SafeSearch OFF would find my dead dogs and be shocked
Okay, if it's not just the dog hit by a car, then maybe flag them "restricted". That way, at least I could still find it. Hiding them from searches however sucks. But really, people who are having problems seeing life as it is should maybe stay in their homes and not use the internet at all. There are ugly things out there, and there's no safe search filter for you if someone decides to jump off the house you happen to walk by.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scy83 edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
goatsex = man having sex with goat - a country-side tradition in some remote parts of the world, maybe?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> The question here is, does Flickr want to become a cutesy-furry teenage Hello Kitty camphone sharing website?
i think the answer is yes (for un-restricted photos in public search).
many people have complained to flickr and asked some of my photos to be removed after seeing a blog with reference to my dogs photos, even though they just depict the world as it is.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
That sort of thing still makes me cross, lou
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i know, looking at some of those photos also make my stomach sick, but that's the world as it is, as Scytale says...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not sure about the goatsex (did you mean goatse? if so, if that dude ever shows up to upload his photo, I have a few questions), but otherwise (in the words of my esteemed boss)..... Good! Ahh, in that case great, our interpretations match on the whole :-).
goatsex = man having sex with goat - a country-side tradition in some remote parts of the world, maybe? That's it loupiote, you've hit the nail on the head. Obviously, I understand that sheep are preferable, but if all you have to hand are goats you just have to play with the hand the good Lord has dealt you, I guess.
Edit: I should add, of course, "err, that's what I heard" - such acts are illegal here in the UK (although I think the Welsh claim some kind of special exemption,) but aren't illegal in some US states, I understand. So I suppose theoretically the "how do I categorise my photos of me and my girlfriend Goatey here" question could legitimately arise...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What, Corin, there are photos that are disturbing to you? See, that's exactly what the whole "vast variety" thing is all about. And that's why I say the safety levels is a good thing for people who can't handle life (my hard opinion, no need to discuss that), but removing photos from searches just sucks. But okay, it says "hide from public searches", and as long as I as a member can set my safe level to "show me the genitalia" and still find those photos, it's okay for me.
Which, kinda, brings us back to my original bunch of questions including the one that led to this discussion: Where's the sense in the "hide" checkbox now that we've got safe searches and non-members are limited to "safe" anyway?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Where's the sense in the "hide" checkbox now that we've got safe searches and non-members are limited to "safe" anyway?
i agree, i think that if you are looged-in and 18+, and do NOT want SafeSearch, you should be able to search all the tags of all the photos.
so yes, i agree with you 100% that "not in public search" is useless and should not exist.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
tim_walls: So I suppose theoretically the "how do I categorise my photos of me and my girlfriend Goatey here" question could legitimately arise...
It's the old problem with location-based crimes on the internet again. If it's illegal where you live, the Community Guidelines say "don't upload". If it's illegal where Flickr HQ are, well, I don't know. If it's illegal where the viewer is: That is bad luck, says Mr. Kim. You can't take care of all the legal stuff all over the world. For example, Corin might get into trouble for her Swastika tattoo photo here in Germany (although I really don't see the point, but well, it's the law).
loupiote: so yes, i agree with you 100% that "not in public search" is useless and should not exist.
Thanks. I guess now we've got to wait for staff to explain why it's still there.
Staff? :)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What, Corin, there are photos that are disturbing to you?
Hahahahaha. No. Really.
I love lou's set, it's my all-time fave on Flickr. I meant that the idiotic torch-burning villagers, who think that eating dog is in some way worse than eating any other animal, make me cross. And not a lot makes me cross.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
♥ shhexy corin ♥ edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
So if I want to be able to see NIPSA'd photos and groups? Is there a way I can set my account to over 21 instead of 18 or something? What if I *want* to have NIPSA'd stuff included in my searches along with safe stuff? What if I just want to see everything on Flickr without having anything filtered out, is this possible?
Can we have an option that turns off all flickr filtering with an over 21 option or something? Maybe like an ID system or something or will Flickr always filter some material out of our searches irrespective of any age?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk: Remember that NIPSA does no longer exist since about 24 hours. That said, if you're a member, logged in and chose to view "restricted" stuff, nothing should be hidden from your searches. It says "hide from public" searches.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If an image is in a group pool and set to visible by friends only, does the fact that it appears without static covering it in the pool page when I'm viewing the pool with SafeSearch on mean that the photo is not set to moderate or restricted? I'm seeing static covering an image that's not at all offensive (but which has what the FCC would consider to be "indecent" title and tags), which is set as viewable to public but presumably moderate or restricted, but a topless photo set to friends only (by someone who's not a contact of mine) without the static.
Also, if NIPSA/18+ for groups is going away, will it be replaced by safe/moderate/restricted flagging of the groups?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow, I *think* this is a really great thing, if I understand it correctly. Ihave read the new guidelines, and I want to be sure ...
I was recently NIPSA'd because of scans of illustrations in my stream. Yesterday I marked them all as "hidden from public search" and sent a request for my account to be reviewed.
If the staff removes my NIPSA status, and if I mark the non-photo images as "art/illustration", is it kosher to keep them within the sphere of public search, and "safe"? That's actually not all that clear to me. I don't want to be un-NIPSA'd on the basis of having removed all those images from public search, and then put them back into public search (marked art/illustration) and have powers-that-be have to re-review my account again.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk - you probably want to read the FAQ
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow. I'm still getting my head around this. But here's my opinion on "one of two things that we're still debating about (whether contact relationships should override SafeSearch settings).: Please do move toward *not* having this override. I like to think that someone with very conservative tastes might like to add me as a contact to look at pretty buildings without ending up dismayed by the pictures I'm going to un-privatize and mark moderate or restricted.
Also, does this happen also for accounts of people who are under 18?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
as I understand it, the point of the "hide from public searches" feature is now that the owner of the photo can choose not to have the photo found in public searches.
I suppose this means, for example, that I could tag photos of my friends with their names and click "hide from public searches", and those photos wouldn't turn up if someone were searching for photos tagged with my friends' names. but if someone visits my stream and then clicks on the name tag, will they still see all photos I've tagged with that name?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh yeah -- and I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But here's my opinion on "one of two things that we're still debating about (whether contact relationships should override SafeSearch settings).: Please do move toward *not* having this override. I like to think that someone with very conservative tastes might like to add me as a contact to look at pretty buildings without ending up dismayed by the pictures I'm going to un-privatize and mark moderate or restricted.
Please don't! What if you generally want to be "safe" but a contact's "unsafe" work interests you? You'd either have to change your preference for one person, or not see their stuff ever.
Unless you'd have an option to flag someone as "someone whose work I want to see regardless of my safesearch setting", maybe?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just one question: Will there be any notification to me for the case the safety level of one of my pictures is changed by flickr?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I say, make it an option for each contact. The default should be "keep my safe settings".
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
manganite: Currently, no. I'd love to see something like that as well.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Two questions: What's a photo and what's art and illustrations? Is a mosaic made out of photos still a photo? Or what about these scout posters with explore pictures? To which category belongs that? Or what about photoshop? Is it already art if change the toning of a bw picture. Or what about all this clone pictures? Art or just a photo?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This couldn't possibly be one of those features that required the Yahoo! ID, could it?
This would have been well easy to design and manage using two separate ID systems! Wimps!
;)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk: Remember that NIPSA does no longer exist since about 24 hours. That said, if you're a member, logged in and chose to view "restricted" stuff, nothing should be hidden from your searches. It says "hide from public" searches.
But Scytale, it would appear that NIPSA'd groups are still being hidden from me even when I've turned "safe search" off.
For instance, do a search for "Uncensored" in group search and the group "Del*te Uncensored", which had been previously marked NIPSA, for the free speech that goes on there, is not returned.
My question is how do we get a version of Flickr where nothing is censored out? I'm sure that if De*lete Me Uncensored is being filtered out of my public search that other things are too.
Here's a review I wrote up on the new feature by the way: thomashawk.com/2007/03/flickr-introduces-filtering.html
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You need to spell-check your blog-postings as well as read the FAQ, Thomas
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's hard work in these long long threads to get a clear answer on some questions, so at the risk of going over ground already covered let me pose a set of questions regarding family-friendly groups.
1. One group that I admin was changed to "invitation only" after a bombardment of offensive pictures. In the present situation I gather the such postings would be obscured for all members of that group who opted for "Safe" pictures, while others who chose more open categories might see them. Is this right?
This will, presumably, over-ride the system whereby a "private" picture could be posted to a group and seen by every member of the group.
2. Presumably there still is the danger that posters of offensive pictures may mis-categorise them to bypass the filters - at least till caught.
3. Would it be possible for a group to be set up to reject absolutely given categories? eg to be set for "safe" pictures only.
Depending on the answers we may decide whether or not to continue as an invite only group.
May I add that I am glad to see progress on a matter that, notably with Rippie, I have been agitating for a long time. Time will tell how successful the changes have been but I wish them every success.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk: But Scytale, it would appear that NIPSA'd groups are still being hidden from me even when I've turned "safe search" off.
Might be. I was talking about NIPSA'd accounts. I have no idea about groups, but you might be right. And, for the record, I'm with you about that "uncensored Flickr" dream.
Oh, and Corin: As far as I know, English sentences end with a full stop. ;P
πρώρα (Prora): Presumably there still is the danger that posters of offensive pictures may mis-categorise them to bypass the filters - at least till caught.
Yes, definitely. Edit: Oh, but we could have some nice feature were Flickr staff flags every newly uploaded photo... No, seriously: Stay invite-only then. And even then: What happens to photos that already are in a group pool and get replaced (with the replace feature available to Pro accounts)? I'm sorry if I crush your perfectly safe universe...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scy83 edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
You need to spell-check your blog-postings as well as read the FAQ, Thomas
What, is screenshooot not spelled that way?
I skimmed the FAQ as well as did a search for "group" in it and nothing was returned. Maybe there could be a 21+ designation to also allow NIPSA'd groups into your search on an opt in basis. Like a super show me whatever I want sort of feature. So you could have "safe search" turned on or off and then like a double safe search turned off sort of thing.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You assume, I had finished, Scytale. I was muttering under my breath.
:)
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This will, presumably, over-ride the system whereby a "private" picture could be posted to a group and seen by every member of the group.
Prora, groups can still be marked NIPSA irrespective of the photos in them. This is not meant as a NIPSA replacement there best I can tell.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk:
πρώρα is not talking about NIPSA'd groups at all. In fact, this whole thread is not about them.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This bit of photoshop silliness was apparently flagged "may offend" and banned from public search under the old system. It was set to "restricted" and not for public search under the new system.
I've put it back into public search and set it as "moderate", but I can't see any reason why it's not "safe". Tell me, are there really people who are so offended by a kitten photoshopped onto an image of a waterfall that this pic is genuinely upsetting to them? How do they get through life?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
πρώρα is not talking about NIPSA'd groups at all. In fact, this whole thread is not about them.
Scytale, I guess I had erroneously assumed that this filtering feature was meant to replace NIPSA on Flickr. Yesterday Flickr staff seemed to indicate that groups would no longer be hidden from public search if you designated 18+
Maybe we need to get Rev Dan involved. He can fix anything.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
Yersinia, you are an artist. Never let anyone tell you differently.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk: Scytale, I guess I had erroneously assumed that this filtering feature was meant to replace NIPSA on Flickr.
Yes. For users and photos, not groups.
Yersinia: How do they get through life?
This is not a question to ask in a thread about a feature that only exists for such people. But as long as this feature keeps these people from bugging me, I like the feature.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Scytale: *looks at your name* Are you into Dune? :)
I'm really happy to see this, after I remember getting help from Heather about this being in the works. I've requested a re-review, many thanx in advance.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Unless you'd have an option to flag someone as "someone whose work I want to see regardless of my safesearch setting", maybe?
that would definitely be the best thing...
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
May a private for friends photo (no nudity at all) be made public, flagged as moderate, and left 'hide this from public searches' unchecked? It should only show up for those not on SafeSearch- no one else- right?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yesterday Flickr staff seemed to indicate that groups would no longer be hidden from public search if you designated 18+
This is correct. We're still rolling it all out and groups NIPSA to filtering is a work in progress. When complete, group filtering will work as content filtering does.
Your patience while we continue through the migration would be appreciated.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Torley: Are you into Dune? :)
I am. But this is slightly off-topic. ;)
The Spouter Inn: May a private for friends photo (no nudity at all) be made public, flagged as moderate, and left 'hide this from public searches' unchecked? It should only show up for those not on SafeSearch- no one else- right?
"SafeSearch" is not a binary on/off setting, but instead has three levels. Your photo would show up for people having set their search filter to "moderate" or "restricted", but not for those having it set to "safe".
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Scytale: Yes. For users and photos, not groups.
Scytale, yesterday Flickr staff seemed to indicate that this was also for groups. I can't find where they said it now. It may have been edited out.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk:
According to Heather's post, you're right. This must have been one of the things I was talking about when I said in my original bunch of questions (hint, hint!) that I might have missed some things.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Scytale:
Yes, I understand the three new levels of search. So photos flagged moderate (no nudity, no pornography, no genitalia, etc.) may now be public?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Spouter Inn: So photos flagged moderate (no nudity, no pornography, no genitalia, etc.) may now be public?
Yes, and even better: Photos flagged "restricted" may as well.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
NIPSA to filtering is a work in progress. When complete, group filtering will work as content filtering does.
Your patience while we continue through the migration would be appreciated.
I like that ;).
Perfect, we'll wait then.
I still think we should get Rev Dan involved though. I like that guy.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Scytale:
"Yes, and even better: Photos flagged "restricted" may as well."
Now, that's a real change for the better! I've got some photos to make public! :-) Much thanks for the help.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The guide to filters says: Triggers to flagging an entire account as "unsafe" include staff receiving an unusual number of complaints about your photos, or photos in your stream receiving an unusual number of votes, or if there are an unusual number of blocks against your account. All of these factors can be remedied by you...
I don't like the way this is phrased.
The blocks can not necessarily be remedied via the content filter, especially because the block feature does not hide the blocked person's photos (unless that's a new feature). If I'm posting nude photos of myself and adding unsuspecting but hopefully hot girls as contacts so they visit my stream, that's going to cause blocks that the filter can address. (That's probably a TOS violation anyway.) If I make obnoxious comments, I can get blocked without having offensive content. If I hide all my photos, some people will reflexively block me because I must be evil.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
to repeat my question: in the past, I took any marginal pictures out of the public searches. What effect does that have under the new system? Is it necessary to go back and redo all these.? These is no way to do this in the batch organizer.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
(whether contact relationships should override SafeSearch settings)
contact relationships should NOT override the "safe" "restricted" "moderate" SafeSearch settings, for the reasons that Lu outlined above.
.... BUT!
but but but ..
but i think that the contact relationship SHOULD override any restrictions on screen shots and illustrations, if that's workable.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You don't like my idea of flagging someone as ok in spite of your preferences?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@wooble: my albeit-slightly-uneducated guess would be that these cases are simply folks who have not gone through their streams and adjusted to the new filters... yet!? example... I'd love to know if you look in the 365 pool if you see all my shots plain as day. I have one marked private (since a couple friends have issue with it) and it's marked moderate...
I'm willing to experiement with you and change settings to see how it shows up, or not... give me a holler!
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have safesearch on (and I first logged out of flickr and yahoo and then logged back in, then turned safesearch on) and if I click on someone's photostream, I see everything. Does safesearch only apply to searches? In other words if someone's stream is public and I click on it, I'll see everything safe or not? Because that's what happening right now. I've yet to see a covered up thumbnail...
(Although, I think one of the people I used as a test has me marked as a contact, which may explain why I saw everything...will have to double check).
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
is there a need to explicitly classify my (yet uploaded) pictures as safe/photo or have they inherited this as a default with the invention of the new system?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
noluck edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
Morning!
I should just give up sleeping if I have any chance to keep up with the questions. However seems there are more good suggestion that'll no doubt turn into tweaks in one form or another, than questions.
So on that note, good, carry on, I'm off for some breakfast and meetings. No getting into flame wars or off topic while I'm away, m'kay!
fannybunda The effect is that you can put marginal pictures back into public if you wish, (if you have that option otherwise ask for review in the link given by Heather at the start of this thread) as long as you mark them how you think they should be marked. Or you can leave them as they are.
You can't find them in the organizer at the moment, but I'm pretty sure something will pop-up soon that'll help you do batch finds and changes to your photos.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It was because the person(s) has me marked as a contact. When I go to a stream of someone who hasn't added me as a contact I get this message: "... photos fall outside your current SafeSearch filter.
You can click through to see them if you want."
Personally, I'd like to see the filters override any contact designation. For the reasons Lu suggested.
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If the staff removes my NIPSA status, and if I mark the non-photo images as "art/illustration", is it kosher to keep them within the sphere of public search, and "safe"?
julia (ticky tacky): Yes! (As long as the content is actually safe, and shouldn't be moderate, or restricted.) That's the reason for the "content type" categories - so art and illustration can be published as public, searchable content. You just need to flag any art etc that you have as such, and everything's golden!
There are probably a fair few people who may still be flagged as "NIPSA" after the release of the new filters because using the old system, we would have flagged their account as NIPSA, instead of letting the art & illustration run free :)
That make sense?
Posted 63 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads