Beaches and Mountains PRO 7:16pm, 6 November 2010
Please could there be a catagory between "moderate" & "restricted".

The blurb next to the safe search "moderate" button says "you don't mind the odd artistic nude.", in fact anything nuder than a topfree woman is likely to end up being recatogorised as restricted.
Thus loads of harmless but naked pictures of, for instance the world naked bike ride protest, end up in the same category as pictures of people doing sex acts.
I don't have any problem with people who are just naked. I support the WNBR. I am a naturist. But I don't want to look at pictures of sex & close ups of genitalia.
Is there no way to put a catagory in between moderate & restricted that allows nudity, but not sex, close ups of genitalia, erections etc? I'm getting really hacked off with either having to turn safesearch off & put up with the porn, or keeping it set to moderate & having to guess if clicking through to a picture will get me some harmless naturists or close ups of sex!
Wil C. Fry PRO 7 years ago
I for one would never use such a category, but it seems pretty clear that there's a difference between the two types of nudity you describe.

(Of course, in many jurisdictions, in many cultures, *both* types would be considered out of bounds. I'm assuming Flickr is trying to cater to as wide a variety of nations as possible.)

From my own perspective, a finer tuning of the content filters would make some sense.

(On the other hand, the very few filters we currently have seem to cause quite a bit of confusion, as seen in multiple threads in the Help Forum. I wonder how much more confusion would arise if another category was added?)
D-eye 7 years ago
I agree that a fourth level is needed, but I would say put it beyond restricted and have it limited to photos involving sex acts. As a friend of mine says "When I go looking for photos like yours, I don't want to see people having sex".

As for clearing up the confusion, instead of using the mum wording on the FAQ pages, add in the rules of thumb that get put in the emails, they can still be vague while adding clarity. I know that I filter differently based on the mum wording and on the rule of thumb wording.
MrBigglesworth PRO 7 years ago
Unfortunately a good proportion of the wider-world do see casual/naturist nudity and sexual acts as the same thing; and although I don't personally agree with them, they are still entitled to hold that opinion.

A community website like Flickr is always going to have to err on the side of caution to reduce complaints from its members or maybe even in extreme cases, legal action. Therefore I'm afraid naturist photos likely to always be considered "adult" and lumped in with the "sex" photos. Again, I don't personally agree with it but I can understand why. If I was running Flickr I'd likely do the same thing myself.
Some of the confusion is from the safesearch moderate button being labelled "you don't mind the odd artistic nude." A bit more clarity would be good. The actual rule seems to be nothing showing the pubic region! This isn't quite the same thing.
I'd agree with Will C. Fry that both would be out of bounds in certain places & to certain groups. In fact a lot of stuff that is classed as "safe" is likely to offend muslims. Anyway, what I was thinking of was spliting the moderate catagory so that there is a catagory between the pressent moderate & restricted, into which can go actual nudes, including frontal ones, In fact anything acceptable on a family naturist beach. The safesearch filters etc, would have to be altered to allow this.
Sex,, erections & close ups of genitalia can stay in the restricted catagory.
Moderate can stick with anything that would be acceptable on a non-naturist beach, up to topfree. Or if flikr really is serious about catering to a global audience, add in a "sub moderate" catagory for people in skimpy clothing, not acceptable to some faiths.
and please add a category for "dog meat" :)

i don't like having to use "restricted" for asian food.
iansand PRO 7 years ago
While I understand the utility of this (particularly D-eye's point about the vast gulf between amateur porn and artistic full frontals) the more categories there are the more miscategorised images will result.
Being just a little more prescriptive about what the limits are for each catagory might help.
Whilst I wouldn't show my mum a full frontal nude, I know a number of mothers who are naturists, & would be totally unfazed.

Actually, my mum is a bit more broadminded than I often give her credit for. Nudes maybe, sex & erections? NO WAY.

We could add "ethnic food" to the one down from restricted, that should include haggis etc, as well ;)
Katie M 459 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Katie M 459 (member) 7 years ago
While iansand makes a good point about how it would be more prone to miscategorization, I think clearer descriptions would fix that problem.

On a related note, it would actually be nice if, instead of a single hierarchical "Safe Search" setting, we could instead pick and choose specific types of images that we're ok with seeing. These options might include something like:
Artistic nudes - partial
Artistic nudes - full
Explicit sexual images
Other "restricted" content

(Safe images, of course, would not need to even be an option)
kitby PRO Posted 7 years ago. Edited by kitby (member) 7 years ago
The advice handed out in the Help Forum* these days about what falls under each safety level has one notable advantage (from what I've seen): There's little to no need to make judgement calls. For example, if you can see someone's genitals, it's a restricted image, period. There's no need to decide whether it's an "artistic nude" or an "explicit sexual image."

*This is the sort of thing I'm talking about (third paragraph): www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157625177028357/7215762...
Katie M 459 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Katie M 459 (member) 7 years ago
That's a very good point, but I took a look at the post, and then I did a test upload and looked at what's available in the safety settings in the Organizr. I also looked at the descriptions under my SafeSearch options, and also did a test flag (later canceled)... and I didn't see that definition of what constitutes moderate and restricted in any of those places. A user posting a definition does not automatically make it an official definition, and since I don't see it defined anywhere official, unless I'm missing somewhere obvious, it seems that the possibility for different definitions and confusion is present right now.

As for the proposed definitions, actually, it's pretty easy, at least for me, to define an explicit sexual image vs. a simple nude photograph - a full nude, non-sexual image is one that fits both of the following criteria:
a) any genitalia is not prominently featured (space-wise, it takes up, say, less than 5% of the focused image space).
b) it's possible to mentally put winter clothes on any nudes in the image (that is, if you mentally put clothes on them it still makes sense), and if you do that, then the image does not seem sexual at all.
... if it fits both of those criteria, then I would say it could be called an "artistic nude - full," and not an "explicit sexual image." Perhaps that's just me, but I think that definition covers artistic nudes pretty well.
kitby PRO Posted 7 years ago. Edited by kitby (member) 7 years ago
The guidelines bandied about now by folks are at least free from subjective judgement. On the other hand,
Any nudes in the image are in a position that, if you mentally put clothes on them, it does not seem sexual at all.
is filled with vagueness and ambiguity. What kind of clothes? For example, for a woman, are we talking about a traditional nun's habit or an ultra low cut, tight fitting blouse and an extremely short mini-skirt? And doesn't "sexual" differ from person to person?

Defining "artistic nude" essentially requires a definition of "art." Last I checked, that wasn't so easy to come by, and any insinuation that Flickr is trying to define what is "art" is going to be met with howls I'd bet.

It's true that the situation is unclear now (unless you go by the informal guidelines that seem to be bandied about), but everything suggested thus far seems like it'll only increase the room for confusion.
Katie M 459 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Katie M 459 (member) 7 years ago
What kind of clothes? For example, for a woman, are we talking about a traditional nun's habit or an ultra low cut, tight fitting blouse and an extremely short mini-skirt?

Ack. Sorry. Right as you were posting this, I was thinking the exact same thing and editing my post accordingly. :)

Updated definition:
"b) it's possible to mentally put winter clothes on any nudes in the image (that is, if you mentally put clothes on them it still makes sense), and if you do that, then the image does not seem sexual at all."

By "winter clothes," I was thinking jeans, sweater, winter coat... :)

Basically, I was thinking that, like the earlier example of a biking protest (never heard of anything like that - interesting), or one of D-eye's photos where the model is, when you get right down to it, basically just standing or sitting... if you mentally stick jeans, a sweater, and a winter coat on them... not only is it technically possible to do that if you have an imagination, but it would also completely remove anything that anyone could possibly consider objectionable (or at least, not anyone who considers a person wearing jeans, a sweater, and a winter coat unobjectionable).

ETA: Good point about the pitfalls of defining an "artistic nude" (although Flickr does that now. Official definition of the "moderate" SafeSearch setting: "You're OK seeing the odd 'artistic nude' here or there, but that's the limit.") Best way to solve that problem is to simply call it something else, instead of "artistic nude." Perhaps "Full nudity, not otherwise sexual content." Contrast with "explicit sexual content with nudity." Both checkboxes could be in the "over 18" section of the SafeSearch options, and people who are not ok with either could leave both unchecked.
ColleenM 7 years ago
The Flickr 'Report Abuse' staff seems to get overwhelmed from time to time with the number of accounts that do not correctly apply the current "safe, moderate, restricted" settings.

I don't see that adding more settings will make people more likely to correctly flag their images. Safe search only works on images that have been correctly flagged in the first place. If you make the categories more complicated, you'll most likely lower the number of people who apply the correct flags, and increase the number of abuse reports filed because the viewer was shocked to discover that their "filtered' viewing was showing them stuff they didn't want to see.
Katie M 459 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Katie M 459 (member) 7 years ago
You make a very good point, and I can't think offhand of a good way around it.

It is unfortunate, though. Speaking for myself, I occasionally like looking at stuff like what D-eye has in his/her "People" set (which mostly boil down to solitary nude and partially-nude models posing for the camera). I do not like looking at close-ups of sex and erections. And according to the current safe-search filter, there is no difference between the two. None. Which... just seems wrong.
Quite a number of people seem to be confused by the "moderate" setting.
I know of one photographer (Haggis Chick) who got quite upset & left flikr for a bit because she was deemed to have misflagged some images. Hers really do fall into the catagory of art, or sometimes humour.
I would still like to be able to filter porn, whilst keeping plain nude.
Possibly setting up the flag system so you can say what rateing you think a picture should be? Or having pages of examples? Possibly a reminder to check your rating when you upload, or a reminder triggered by keywords in tags or title?
ColleenM 7 years ago
sandy_beach_cat

So she'd have to decide which images were "art" (and thus needed the 'arty nude' filter), and which were "humor" (and thus needed the 'sexual connotations' filter)?
andyscamera 7 years ago
If a sexual connotations image isn't funny, does it turn into art?
ColleenM 7 years ago
If you're frat boy and say it's funny, and I say it's degrading and abusive, what tag does it get?

So far I haven't seen a scheme to create more categories that doesn't also open every image up to interpretation of the photographer's intent and the viewers special feelings.

To limit the rule to what body parts are visible in the image, and not to try to define 'art', or 'humor' or 'tasteful' seems to me to be the only workable solution for dealing with all the various nudists and naturists and 'cover the body' ists that use Flickr for sharing their pictures with their friends and family.

Even the current system results in people sometimes seeing stuff they don't want to see when the flagging isn't done correctly.

Making people go through multiple pages of questions each time they upload an image doesn't seem to be workable either. FAQs and the Help Forum, for example.
Wil C. Fry PRO 7 years ago
"To limit the rule to what body parts are visible in the image, and not to try to define 'art', or 'humor' or 'tasteful' seems to me to be the only workable solution for dealing with all the various..."

You're right, of course. The reason is because we all agree on what body parts look like, but few of us agree on those other terms...

Even two very similar people will of course disagree on where the line is drawn between "tasteful art", "provocative art", and "nasty naked pictures."

Even if you and I agreed on *most* images, there will always be some image that splits us into two camps...

The "body part" definition is clearly the easiest standard for Flickr staff to deal with...
Beaches and Mountains PRO Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Beaches and Mountains (member) 7 years ago
But doesn't solve my beef which is "Why do I have to look at porn, when I don't want to, but am unoffended by nudity." I wasn't suggesting that the photographers intent (Humour, art.) was relavent to the filtering. The comment about Haggis Chick's material, was just a comment about Haggis Chick's pictures.
I wasn't suggesting that art & humour should be exempt from filtering. I have in fact seen a cheerful, & possibly slightly funny picture of a couple having sex on here. I still would want it classified as restricted. I wouldn't want it turning up in a moderater search. (BTW, since no "bits" were on view, under the "if you can see genitalia, it's restricted" plan, it was moderate!)
Sorry if I confused the issue. The problems with inappropriate filtering, seem to stem from:
People not filtering at all. Either because they don't realise they should, or in a few cases, on purpose, which amounts to online flashing.
The woolly nature of the advice on the moderate setting.
If an extra level was added, then for practical reasons all existing restricted images would have to stay restricted, unless the owners reclasified them., so any new level would have to be between restricted & moderate. Surely it would be possible to differentiate between simple nudity & sex? Pictures of people touching their own, or each other's genitalia, or appearing about to, erections & pictures giving prominence to genitalia = sex. People just naked isn't. In case of dispute, the house has the final say. The bottom line might be "if you could do it in Trafalgar square, & not end up in the clink, it isn't restricted." As an example www.flickr.com/photos/alohaorangeneko/3938578775/ or www.flickr.com/photos/39489180@N06/4755309662/
P.S. I edited this in the cold light of the following day in an attempt to make it clearer, & remove the worst typo's.
UNCOMMON Stock 6 years ago
I would Love to add to this as well please tell me why these two images are SAFE and my breast cancer survivor images which have been on TV and magazine covers need to be set t MODERATE???

SAFE examples currently on flickr

www.flickr.com/photos/50113762@N03/4601778069

www.flickr.com/photos/sausagelinks/4037505906


Here are samples of my survivor project.

This survivor literally has no nipple reconstruction...
www.flickr.com/photos/uncommonstock/3317219796/in/set-721...

Does the bump of a reconstructed nipple under paint offend?
www.flickr.com/photos/uncommonstock/5560873616/in/set-721...

I really think there should be something cause elated or in between as suggested. These are designed to be child safe and family friendly. They are about awareness....

I'm sure some ultra conservative may have reported an image of mien though they have been here over a year helping survivors worldwide - now they are restriced :-( That's just SO wrong.
IrenicRhonda Posted 6 years ago. Edited by IrenicRhonda (member) 6 years ago
UNCOMMON Stock wrote
Does the bump of a reconstructed nipple under paint offend?
It would offend in some cultures. For instance a Moslem man from Saudi Arabia. Those images are not 'safe' to his family

You must remember that this is a global community of many cultures and faiths. That may not sit well with your western, US centric, outlook but Flickr has to fit the world community
UNCOMMON Stock 6 years ago
So your saying any women walking in public in front of him that had any bump on her breast in real life would be offensive too?

The problem is under MODERATE all non flicker visitors are restricted from seeing this project.

Also, I seriously doubt he would "randomly come across these images unless he was searching for breast images. Not to mention he mass of other even more revealing images that are here in SAFE mode.

Also, the main image on my project album has a survivor with no nipple reconstruction so I think that would be a safe WARNING to not click to enter. Additionally It's titled the Breast Cancer Awareness Body Painting Project - I think that clues people in a bit to if they WANT to avoid that type of thing.

M
IrenicRhonda Posted 6 years ago. Edited by IrenicRhonda (member) 6 years ago
UNCOMMON Stock wrote
I think that clues people in a bit to if they WANT to avoid that type of thing.
Safe Search is for people who 'WANT to avoid that type of thing'.

Yes there are misflagged images on Flickr. And Flickr will deal with them (by moderating the entire account, as yours was) if they are reported.
MOD
ernstkers PRO 4 years ago
Groups Beta