Help / The Help Forum

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Detailed explanation of new features in Flickr 3.0 apps
Latest: 7 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Take a survey to help us improve Flickr groups
Latest: 14 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Update on the new photo experience
Latest: 31 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Using a Yahoo username and password to sign in to Flickr
Latest: 3 hours ago
[Official Thread] Providing feedback on Flickr 3.0 for iOS and Android
Latest: 2 days ago
[Official Thread] Using Flickr over a secure (SSL) connection
Latest: 4 days ago

 

Current Discussion

[bug?] why are these images returned by a search for "chickens"???
Latest: 8 seconds ago
Some pictures are just gone, why?
Latest: 37 seconds ago
Number of comments Limited
Latest: 59 seconds ago
What happened to Sets ?
Latest: 63 seconds ago
Blackout
Latest: 6 minutes ago
Travel Lens
Latest: 33 minutes ago
Flickr photbooks
Latest: 39 minutes ago
Can't view my original sizes
Latest: 45 minutes ago
[BUG] Two types of Albums in the Italian version
Latest: 46 minutes ago
Sharing is restricted for this photo
Latest: 55 minutes ago
Auto sync isn't working on Android (Samsung Galaxy S4 i9505 v4.4.2)
Latest: 68 minutes ago
Slideshow
Latest: 2 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

[Official Topic] Group Administration Changes

Flickr Staff

Kevin says:

Hi there-

With the launch of Video on Flickr, there are some changes on how you can administer your group, and decide what content you would like to be able to have in the pool. If you have questions about how this will work, please post away!

Revised FAQ on group administration:

How are groups administered?

UPDATE

4/22 please see this update
Posted at 6:53PM, 8 April 2008 PDT ( permalink )
heather (staff) edited this topic 73 months ago.

← prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1 to 100 of 659 replies in [Official Topic] Group Administration Changes)
view photos

ColleenM says:

I see that Flickr has cracked down on groups, so that any group that allows Moderate images, automatically becomes an 18+ group.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. There are a number of groups that have an occasional moderate image, that will now not be able to have anyone under 18 in them.

Secrets of Explore, for example, will become 18+ because zycster posted a deer head that had been eaten by some wild animal, and (appropriately) flagged it as moderate.

It's a bit gory, but not something that a PG 13 movie wouldn't show.

Could you perhaps create a PG 13 group rating, so that we don't have to turn every group into either G or 18+
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

hrw worcester says:

I'm so confused. If a person has to be over 18 to accept seeing moderate or restricted images, why can't they join a group that allows moderate or restricted images, since they won't show up for them anyhow?

There are plenty of groups that have a wide range of ages and interests, and as long as everyone is properly filtering them, it seems narrow minded to assume it has to be either/or.

What happens to groups that are now set to only accept safe images, but previously had moderate or restricted photos added? Are those images removed?

And if a group chooses to allow moderate content, are all under 18 users just booted out? Do they get notification?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dunkeld. LRPS says:

I'm trying to post butterflies and flowers, how on earth can anyone be offended by that? I'm also trying to post to my groups where I'm a regular, in that I post and comment daily. Indeed I post so many comments I continually get asked to type in codes show I'm not a bot.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

matt says:

I'd appreciate a bit of clarification on the 'any moderate content = 18+' rule as well, particularly as it relates to pool that have minimal non-safe content, but still want to allow the occasional moderate photo (basically the situation Colleen describes, though I was thinking of Film is not dead it just smells funny). How will this effect their visibility through group search? What about through broader web search?

Presuming I post a safe photo to a group like those described above (and marked 18+), what effect will this have on that photo and my photostream? E.g., will my 14-year-old cousin still see the photo? Will they see that it belongs to the 18+ pool? Will they be able to browse the pool from my page (bearing in mind that it's predominantly safe content, and she'd be prevented by existing filters from seeing the few examples that aren't)?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

hrw worcester says:

Also, how does this impact users in countries that are not able to see restricted content? Will they be instantly kicked out of any groups that allow restricted content? It seems from the FAQ that's the case, and is even more ridiculous than not allowing 15 year olds in.


(So, apparently "if you have any questions, post away" doesn't imply "and get them answered." My bad.)
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )
hrw worcester edited this topic 73 months ago.

view photos

zyrcster says:

Secrets of Explore, for example, will become 18+ because zycster posted a deer head that had been eaten by some wild animal, and (appropriately) flagged it as moderate.

The default on SoE is set to Safe, if you check it, and my photos are still in the pool because they were there prior to the launch of this feature.

I just can't add any more of them now, unless you change the settings for the group to moderate (18+). I'd talk to Steph before you do that, because she is aware of this issue, too, and suggested leaving the group set to safe but using a Dead Animals thread.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

I'm not changing anything for a day or two.

But the Rules As Written are not very sensible, and I'd like to see some adjustments made to these new rules.

There really is a need for a group setting between "G" and "18+"

Even movie ratings have some in between steps.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )
ColleenM edited this topic 73 months ago.

view photos

Miss Magnolia Thunderpussy says:

This new venture of Flickr is MOST annoying - I am in a position of not being able to post any of my photographs to Groups - including one which I administer!!! Is it because my Account was marked as "moderate" a few months back? Why has Flickr sought fit to alter something which was working perfectly ok?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster says:

I totally agree with you, and I think the 18+ setting for moderate content is not the right direction.

Miss Magnolia Thunderpussy With the launch of these features, most groups defaulted to Safe. Perhaps you should try filtering your content correctly and then ask for an account review to get the moderate status lifted from your account.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ericdege says:

..well, go ahead and add me to the ranks of the confused concerning making groups that have occasional "moderate" content "18+" ..don't the under-18s and those of us who keep safe-search turned on just see the black boxes anyway?

..and re: group posting: ..I also wasn't able to post a benign photo to a group this evening ..through trial and error, it seems (to me) that there may have been some sort of time-shift from what had been the "new day" start time ..I ended up removing the post I'd made yesterday and then was able to post the one I wanted for today ..the group posting day had previously seemed to be GMT, but now I'm confused about that too
..personally, I think I'll just catch up on my reading and come back to Flickr in a couple of days, when things have settled down a bit
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Chrisser says:

I totally agree that only Safe content should be permitted and I am glad to see the groups I am an admin for being set to only allow Safe content for both videos and photos.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

*gathers pitchforks & torches*

I got a feeling about this one!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FriendBoy12 says:

Like I said in the "Find Your Friends" topic, Flickr just seems to get better and better with these great additions!

Now my groups can get better!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )
FriendBoy12 edited this topic 73 months ago.

view photos

Andreas. says:

Thanks for adding the control which content is allowed in group, this allows me to keep me group manageable by german moderators as they are not able to see restricted content.

But I'm concerned about the new policy, that groups that allow moderate content will become 18+ automatically. I think this worsens the situation for ALL users in the countries that have SAFE SEARCH FILTER FORCED ON THEM like Germany, Hong Kong, South Korea and another one I just cannot remember at the moment. As those users may not be able to post to many of the groups.
I can imagine many of the groups would allow moderate images as they now also allow tasteful nuditiy. Until now it was no problem for users of mentiond countries to join this group.
When photos were filtered correctly they just didnt see them, if not filtered they see them.
With the new way Youll lock the users out from this group affecting.

I think this should be changed to: Restricted content allowed --> 18+ Group. Moderate content allowed --> up to admins choice if 18+ or not.

Thanks for consideration and very worrying now that I'll booted of many of my group s I'm member of now.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

johnmperry says:

I think Americans should give up being the world's nanny.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

hipnlip says:

Next thing ya know, Big Brother will be watching!!!!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

van Rijn nudes says:

Flickr is clearly run by idiots. I can't send anythjing to groups, even 18+, anymore, simply because I did the right thing, and marked my own account restricted.

To hell with it. I quit, and will not renew my pro- account, since these jerks are so impossible.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats says:

Actually, your content is showing up as "moderate", not "restricted"...
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

*Louise** says:

What said... :( We're big enough to think for ourselves...
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

JPaul23 says:

"Moderate" is now 18+ ?
Flickr Loves Victorian Morals.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

eτi says:

I am utterly confused now - I run Little People, a kids group. Of course I want to allow moderate content. I can imagine people flagging breastfeeding pictures as 'moderate' for example, and they sure are welcome in a group of kids' photos.

Now if I allow moderate, will the group become 18+ ???? No way! Can't have that - the term '18+' equals 'porn'. Wherever on the internet it says that something has 18+ content, you can be sure it's going to be very graphic and explicit and has the sort of things we do NOT want in a group of children's photos at all!

So what do I do? Tell group members to flag their images as 'safe' first, I guess...?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

eτi says:

By the way , I don't think the evil American Flickr is imposing its national prudeness on the world - I think they simply goofed up on this one.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Andreas Helke says:

German members are allowed to see moderate photos but not 18+ groups. So flickr once again did introduce unnecessary censorship for germans.

I already decided to not renew my pro membership for a few months to protest against the existing restrictions. But I doubt that flickr or yahoo notices that.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Andreas Helke says:

American members currently have access to 14351 groups that mention the word nude somewhere. Most of those groups are fully suitable for german members too. But they can only find 9240 of those groups right now. And once the group administrators update the group rules to allow posting in their groups again there will be 0 groups left open to germans.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Andreas. says:

@Andreas Helke:

I'm also disapponted by this as I'm afraid some groups I'm member of will allow moderate content and therefore boot me and all other germans from the group. So there need a change VERY FAST to improve this situation, see my post above regarding this.

I hope flickr staff will give clarification about this soon and if it was intended by them to introduce this big disadvantage to the whole german userhood.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Leo Reynolds says:

Group page with videos turned off. Any chance of having the line under the row of photos change to:

More Photos...

instead of

More Photos and Videos...
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AustinTX says:

What an unbelievably bad decision! Groups that allow moderate photos are 18+???? What JPaul23 said above "Flickr Loves Victorian Morals.".

Why on earth do you need group level filtering when you already have image level filtering? If safe search is on you won't see the images that are moderate or restricted, why do you have to make an entire pool unviewable because some images in it are??? That simply does not make sense.

Please, please reconsider this.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Chris Blakeley says:

Agreed. Last year my account was listed as moderate despite my best efforts at moderation. I primarily shoot the local burlesque scene, which means I have a lot of pictures of scantily clad women in my stream. I did my best and I was still slapped with the "moderate" label with no hope of appeal.

But I also take pictures of coffee art and street shots and funny odd things here and there and suddenly I can't post any of these pictures anywhere? When I could do so, literally, last night?

And I simply do not have time to write all the groups I post to in order to point out that these new rules are cutting people out.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

ChrisB in SEA "no hope of appeal"

You can always ask for a re-review of your account. Use the Help By Email, I'd like my account to be re-reviewed by staff.

Before you do that, go to Organizr and set the safety flags on all your images correctly. If you can't seem to get it, ask in the Adult group for advice and guidance.

Your account can be marked 'safe' if you correctly filter everything.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AustinTX says:

That is actually another side effect of this bad decision, folks whose streams are marked moderate might of though, well so what? And not worried about it because it didn't affect their Flickr experience very much. But now they won't be able to post any photos of any kind to most of the pools on Flickr. Ugh, this idea sucks.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Chris Blakeley says:

ColleenM

I'd like to be reviewed, but unfortunately we're talking about an accumulation of some 9,760 pictures (as of this morning) with no graceful way to go through and pick and choose. Hell, if I could just do a Boolean search and pick all the non-burlesque shots, I'd be happy.

Plus, the last time I had a run in with the mods, I was informed that there could be no more appeals/reviews. So I'm guessing out SOL.

AustinTX

Exactly. As it stands now, the only way I can get around these limitations is to open another paid account. Because I am so dissatisfied by the way the service here has changed, I have to... give them more money? Hunh?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

van Rijn nudes wrote

Flickr is clearly run by idiots. I can't send anythjing to groups, even 18+, anymore, simply because I did the right thing, and marked my own account restricted.

You could always let the mods and admins of the groups you belong to know that they may need to go into their Administration settings to kick in moderate and restricted content permissions.

I'd also like to see moderate photos permitted in non-18+ groups. But that's probably a better topic for Flickr Ideas.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:



Have you tried using the organizer to choose "only moderate" shots, and then seeing if any of them should be restricted?

After you do that, choose 'only safe' and see if any of them should be moderate.

don't know if that would work with the size of your stream, but at least you don't have to go one by one through everything looking at flags.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

Have you tried using the organizer to choose "only moderate" shots, and then seeing if any of them should be restricted?

After you do that, choose 'only safe' and see if any of them should be moderate.


That won't work if the account was reviewed moderate by staff, unfortunately. You can remoderate one set at a time, though, which might help, or first public then private photos -- at least for people who haven't used up their number of chances at getting it right.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

greynotgrey says:

back to the old "nicht mit uns" dilemma, eh? A wee lack of foresight there.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AustinTX says:

Lu says: "I'd also like to see moderate photos permitted in non-18+ groups. But that's probably a better topic for Flickr Ideas. "

I don't think that is a Flickr Ideas topic, this is the exact right place to discuss this, the change was made yesterday and could be unmade tomorrow with the flip of a switch. It was an arbitrary and totally unnecessary change ( filters work, that is their point). I don't care about restricted images, but there are tons of reasons for having a photo be marked moderate (a violent news image for example). Making entire pools 18+ on that basis is just downright silly.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Manish Bansal says:

I am a member of a lot of groups. Is there any way I can choose which groups I want to see the updates from on my home page? There are many groups which I am a member of just to look at the photos. I dont' care about the discussions happening in those groups. Thanks!!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AustinTX says:

And "at least for people who haven't used up their number of chances at getting it right. "

Exactly, Mark Velasquez, a truly talented photographer with zero exposed nipples/etc in his account was still marked permanently moderate. Without getting into that decision, reasonable people can disagree about what should and shouldn't be marked moderate. But to irrevocably shut them out of every group on Flickr (until marked 18+) is an enormous change of policy.

And again, its is not needed!!!! If you have safe filter on, you won't see his or any other work marked moderate, not matter what pool they are in.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

oddsock says:

The new restrictions suck !
Come on flickr let's have some answers ?
Safe images only
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

I answered you in your other topic. The answer hasn't changed. It is still "no"!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:


You'll need to ask the admin of No Censorship to stop censuring the group content then :-)
A group admin can change the setting to allow non-Safe material if they want to.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

carljohnson says:

@Manish Bansal -- I've found the best workaround is to subscribe to the RSS feeds for the groups I'm interested in, then look at them through my RSS reader. You can subscribe separately to the pool or the discussion threads.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

carljohnson says:

@Patrick -- the problem is that they just instituted these changes -- lots of group admins know nothing about them, and don't know that images are getting bounced. The default is to Safe, which then blocks out anything moderate. But if you want to allow moderate images, your group gets marked as 18+, the same as Restricted.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

I know - but if oddsock wants to post moderate/restricted images to a group, it's up to the group admins to allow it - Flickr aren't going to supply any answers.
Personally, as a group admin who keeps safe search set to on, I'm happy that no one can now post moderate/restricted images that I can't see to my group.
Whether groups that allow moderate/restricted images should be classed as 18+ is a different question. I think that's taking it too far.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

oddsock says:

Patrick Costello @ Yeah I am an admin ! it would have been nice to have been told in advance of these changes, also it seems to work against the idea of being carefull and flagging work as moderate.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mike Wood Photography says:

I think my main concern is that Group Admins like myself were not not notified of this change. Therefore several groups just simply stopped having new content last night and Admins had to field questions from Members who were wondering what the heck an artistic nude group already 18+ and or private was now set to Safe for.

I am sure there must be a way for flickr to broadcast a flickrmail to all group admins to let them know of upcoming changes on a given day. I only saw it by accident when I saw "Upload Photos and Videos" and was quite confused about it, then found I couldnt post to quite a few groups.

After changing my own groups' settings as appropriate, I emailed probably 30 group admins to let them know what was going on and no one had any idea, some had posted discussions on it in their groups showing their confusion and several had been bombarded by emails from members.

It is a way of controlling content, and that is not my point here one way or the other nor is the Moderate equating to 18+ or should breastfeeding or pregnancy groups be Moderate etc..

We should just have been told that it was going to be switched on last night.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

eτi says:

Lú all of a sudden, as a side effect of something else, moderate pictures can only be shared in groups with adult content. That means something went horribly wrong. Please don't redirect it to Flickr Ideas.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

I think that restricting moderate images to "adult (18+) content" groups is creating a smarmy connotation for images that may have no sexual content at all.

Surely, since Yahoo! allows 13+ members, we can have some groups that have a moderate (13+) rating?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Natascha♫ says:

I don't want moderated pictures beeing banned from my groups (I cannot say anything about restricted photos, as I can't see them. I'm German...) But I don't want a 18+ group! I ask flickr to change this!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AustinTX says:

And to boot, it isn't working!!!!!

I tried to add a "Safe" "Photo" to "A garden for Venus" (https://flickr.com/groups/90349308@N00/pool/) and it says it isn't allowed. The popup window clearly says Photos and Safe and Moderate images are allowed.

Why oh why does flickr seem to always try to fix stuff that isn't broken.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Chris Blakeley says:

I think that restricting moderate images to "adult (18+) content" groups is creating a smarmy connotation for images that may have no sexual content at all.

Exactly. The language of this annoys me. This picture of the Space Needle in Seattle, despite being vaguely phallic, is not at all sexual:



But it's in a moderate stream (thanks Flickr!) and can only be posted to an 18+ group.

I know better than to post an "adult" picture to a general group, but now my general pictures are lumped in. And don't think I necessarily enjoy being lumped in with those "adult" streams. I'm tired of fending of people cruising for masturbatory materials.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

carljohnson says:

But look! Now we're like YouTube! Isn't it great?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AustinTX says:

Sorry to keep adding the same info, but I just checked Flickers own definition of moderate:

# Moderate - If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience but you think that it doesn't need to be restricted per se, this category is for you
# Restricted - This is content you probably wouldn't show to your mum, and definitely shouldn't be seen by kids

Moderate doesn't say anything about "adult" or 18+. Only restricted does.

Ugh, the video stream discussion is getting lots of responses from flickr staff, but nothing here at all. Even to bug reports that the new system is already broken.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

Well, FWIW, I agree with you :-) I don't see why allowing moderate content to be added to a group should force the group to become 18+
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mike Wood Photography says:

@Austin Tx: that happened to me as well in that group when I tried it out.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

oddsock says:

Don't you just hate it when they pull a stunt like this and then refuse to comment ? the silence speaks volumes.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mike Wood Photography says:

@oddstock: In all fairness to them, it has only been 18 hours and over in the other Official topic with 1000 posts, Heather has chimed in saying they are having meetings and getting all their ducks in a row on this launch. Like any roll out there will be bugs and tweaks. I would rather they communicate also, but I prefer it when they do stuff. :)

Not defending how they rolled it out though btw. :)
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

This one's a bug report:

When an admin chooses to make a group pool, for example, "restricted" content only, the front page of the group will end up reading that it accepts "safe", "moderate" and "restricted. When someone then goes to add a "safe" photo to that group, it won't be accepted, but the message will say, e.g.:

This item could not be added to the ... group because it violates the pool rules.

* Accepted media types:
o Photos
o Video
* Accepted content types:
o Photos / Videos
o Screenshots / Screencasts
o Illustration/Art / Animation/CGI
* Accepted safety levels:
o Safe
o Moderate
o Restricted

Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

djwudi says:

I'd like to (calmly and rationally, I hope) add my voice to those hoping for some sort of in-between step. After reading through this thread (so much easier when a thread doesn't have hundreds of responses yet), I think Andreas had a good suggestion:

* Safe content only = open admission
* Safe and moderate content = admin's choice as to whether or not to mark the group as 18+
* Safe, moderate and restricted content = 18+

Short of adding a third 'tier' of ages (13-17, perhaps) to go along with the 'moderate' rating -- and I have no idea how easy that would be to do for Flickr, Yahoo!, or both -- this seems to be the simplest solution.

I am a little surprised to learn of the situation that ChrisB and others are facing, though. I suppose I'm lucky in that I've always been good about self-flagging and therefore ended up with a 'safe' rating for my photostream, despite having a good amount of 'moderate' and some 'restricted' material scattered throughout my photos. This aspect -- that some members have now found themselves excluded from many of the groups they used to actively participate in -- seems to be to be the most troubling, and the one most in need of attention.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

chrismaverick says:

the problem is that the 18+ thing shouldn't be there at all anyway. I was always capable of marking my group 18 and over, so really, that hasn't added anything except for a lot of confusion.

The bigger problem is the exclusion of people marked moderate. That's a HUGE policy shift, no matter how anyone wants to spin it any differently. As someone who has been marked moderate before, I can tell you its a major pain in the ass, and flickr's base stance is "all features still work for you, so long as you're logged in." that wasn't true before and it CERTAINLY isn't right now at this moment.

Even that would be vaguely acceptable if flickr had clearly publish guidelines of what makes you moderate and what makes you safe. They don't. I know Mike Wood had the same problem as me. When you get marked moderate, there's not even a way to tell what the offending pictures are. You're expected to go through your stream and moderate them all, but since organizr won't tell you what USED to be safe, you can't even tell what's broken.

Furthermore, the process is automated. It someone doesn't like you, they and their friends can go through your set of kittens and flag them all and eventually you'll flip over. A mild annoyance yesterday. Today, you're effectly banned from the site until you pass the review process. And since flickr won't tell you what's broken, you could spend days trying to find an offending nipple when in reality its a bunch of kitten pictures.

I know it sounds like an exaggeration, but I know people who have been moderated for having completely clothed, homosexual kissing in their stream. Now, as the admin of 365days, I am forced to choose between effectively banning them or banning my underaged and german members. Neither of those things seem fair. And it accomplishes nothing, since before today, I could simply require that anyone posting nudity self-moderate (which, if I make the group safe, they'd still have to do) and everyone was happy.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )
chrismaverick edited this topic 73 months ago.

view photos

oddsock says:

chrismaverick @ It's no exaggeration to say that all of us admins put in hours of work ! along with our members we all make flickr the fun platform it is, this is very shoddy treatment.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn says:

Furthermore, the process is automated.

No it is not. A person will review it and if you are being flagged up by a bunch of loons, flickr can tell that too.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

chrismaverick says:

@Walwyn: yes... a person will review it once you request. But that's after the fact. The point is you get auto-blocked ahead of time and then you have to wait out the weeding out process. The kitten example was extreme. My own case is much more middle of the road. Any nudes I have a re moderate or restricted, but I have lingerie pics. What should those be? Well, the answer is, Flickr has no published policy and it depends on who you get to review you. And you're forced to spend time just guessing. If you're lucky like me, you can kinda say "oh, I guess it must be one of these horrible underwear pics" On the other hand, you could spend weeks figuring out that the offending picture is one of a homosexual kiss. I didn't make that up. I know it to have happened.

Anyway, the point is, none of this actually fixes any problem. It more punishes people who are trying to follow the rules, or who the other rule had been forced upon them. If someone doesn't flag their own photos, and flickr hasn't noticed yet to mark them as moderated or restricted, they can still post to the safe group.

Yesterday's moderation system was broken. Everyone knew that. A million better ideas have been pointed out. None of them have been implemented. Today's moderation system is simply worse in every way, and it hasn't solved any of the problems that we had with the old one, or even made it any easier for me to administer my group, which should have been the point in the first place.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Chris Blakeley says:

I'll chime in again and say that I have no problem with there being tiers of accessibility. By all means, some of my burlesque shots are rated R, fine.

But as my fellow chris stated, it's the lack of transparency that drives me buggy. I know that I have pictures that should be "moderate", because I had most of them flagged as such and they still got me. So was it that someone had SafeSearch off and stumbled onto something or was it another picture that I thought wasn't that bad? Is a picture of a woman wearing a bra worse than a picture of a woman in a swimsuit? Or was someone just offended that the Space Needle is phallic? I don't know.

I have no clue what happened and I don't know who or what or when things changed. All I know is that I got a warning, at which point I started flagging things a bit more conservatively. For nine months, nothing happened and I thought I was fine. Then I got another warning and when I tried to get an explanation and a proper review, I was told that I'd not kept up my part of the bargain (I wasn't thinking of the children enough, apparently) my stream was now moderate and I would have no further appeals.

If someone looked through my stream and told me what was offensive and should be flagged, I'd fix it and keep that in mind. Instead I get pointed to terms of service that includes the phrase "Think of the children!" and told that I've messed up and have a nice day.

And now I've lost most of the functionality of the site in total. Put your filters on or off for all I care, but let me use the services that I've been paying for.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

Those of you having problems figuring what is safe and what is moderate might want to take a look at this group.

Adult Flickr Members: How NOT to get Deleted
flickr.com/groups/unsafe/

It has rational people, with lots of experience in getting things right.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

chrismaverick says:

@ChrisB in SEA: exactly... That's what happened with me. I was lucky and managed to catch whatever the offending pic was before exhausting my appeals (so far anyway). But I was never told which of the pics was offensive, and in fact was told I was being difficult after I said on at least 3 occasions "I'm fine abiding by the rules, just tell me where I'm breaking them." I ended up making a set of all the pics I was moderating as I went. And I'm pretty sure it was either an underwear pic or a woman's nude back, but I have no idea which one, and I had plenty of underwear pics and implied nudes that I DIDN'T have to block, so the whole thing was very confusing.

Anyway, that said, there is the problem. Assume I couldn't have figured it out, and had simply chosen to remain moderated (as flickr actually recommended I do, since it would probably be safer for all involved) or as Chris B has. Now 365 Days is forced to decide between allowing Chris to post his non-nude, non offensive, daily self-portraits or allowing a 17-year old to do so. So I either punish ChrisB or I punish the 17 year old, even though both may have been following the rules. And it punishes me, the group administrator, as I am now in the unenviable position of making that decision. It would be far better to just allow them both to post and not allow the 17 year old to see ChrisB's photos.

You know... kinda like it was yesterday.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Rachel.::.K says:

This is the first time I have ever been truly outraged at the powers that be at flickr. chrismaverick hit it on the head completely. I'm mainly concerned because the groups I administer have many members from countries which censor flickr. Thusly, if I change the status it means they do not get to participate anymore.

I'm not saying a system shouldn't be in place, but the current systems needs a complete overhaul.

Ugh. Just...ugh.

Also, I'm going to throw my two cents in about who gets flagged, perhaps photos tagged with such words as "masturbating and penis" should automatically get flagged. I have friends who have been flagged for far less atrocities and yet, continuously these images pop up as public and "safe" in some of my groups.

This system is flawed. Seriously flawed. And until you get it right, maybe you should just take it down (or like Chris said, go back to yesterday).
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )
Rachel.::.K edited this topic 73 months ago.

view photos

chrismaverick says:

Adult Flickr Members: How NOT to get Deleted
flickr.com/groups/unsafe/


@ColleenM: First of all, you have to be a member to read that group. Just so people know.

Second, that's not an official group. It's simply people guessing and posting their experiences, same as we have.

Thirdly, Allow me to speak on behalf of erotic photographers world wide. None of us are idiots. We know there is stuff that is inappropriate for children. Many of us, go out of our way to protect the community from such. We're not refusing to moderate. We're looking for flickr to tell us their policy so we can follow it accurately without guessing which is what we have all had to do (as well as those in that group).

Fourth, this is a tangent and doesn't really belong here, as it is orthogonal to the real issue. The real issue is that yesterday's changes BROKE flickr by banning users. The rationale that "well, it only banned the bad people is irrelevant."

Allow me to present another case. 365 has long allowed tasteful nudity, so long as it was flagged correctly. We've also allowed minors. We were able to do that, as the system prevented any kids (or anyone who didn't want to) from seeing said nudity. That doesn't work anymore, and we weren't warned about it ahead of time. Any way you slice it. That's wrong.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

heather says:

I'm so confused. If a person has to be over 18 to accept seeing moderate or restricted images, why can't they join a group that allows moderate or restricted images, since they won't show up for them anyhow?

I think that restricting moderate images to "adult (18+) content" groups is creating a smarmy connotation for images that may have no sexual content at all.

Because groups are more than their "image" content. While it might be easy to distinguish between what makes a photo or video "moderate" or restricted (photos only), the behaviour that can accompany those bits of content in the discussion, etc., is more harder to distinguish.

Why has Flickr sought fit to alter something which was working perfectly ok?

I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately. As such, this change will ensure that there are fewer suprises in group search, etc.

Group page with videos turned off. Any chance of having the line under the row of photos change to:

More Photos...

instead of

More Photos and Videos...


Gah! That is wrong. I'll openn a trouble ticket.

I think my main concern is that Group Admins like myself were not not notified of this change. Therefore several groups just simply stopped having new content last night and Admins had to field questions from Members who were wondering what the heck an artistic nude group already 18+ and or private was now set to Safe for.

I am sure there must be a way for flickr to broadcast a flickrmail to all group admins to let them know of upcoming changes on a given day. I only saw it by accident when I saw "Upload Photos and Videos" and was quite confused about it, then found I couldnt post to quite a few groups.


I'm sorry for that. It's great feedback to hear and something that we'll take into consideration for future feature launches. With some things, it's very "chicken and egg".

I'm still reading through all the feedback... Further response soon.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AustinTX says:

But Heather, absolute nothing in the definition of moderate (Flickr's own definition) hints that age has anything to do with the classification. Only restricted says that kids shouldn't see it. And to believe that allowing moderate photos to a pool somehow indicates that the discussions are not appropriate for people under 18 is an incredible insult to the Flickr community. You hit a speck of dust with a 20 pound hammer.

And you broke, literally, tens of thousands of groups with no notice. Come on, to say that is great feedback is an insult. Every major change in flickr has gone the same way, "Oh sorry, next time we will pay attention and take that into account." Nothing in your track records suggests you will at all.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mike Wood Photography says:

Any way of Staff checking how much posting to groups dipped today because of the breaking of the groups as Austin TX put it? Say compared to last week same time?

Heather: Maybe you didnt read it yet, but will a ticket be opened for the group issue that despite Safe and Moderate being selected Safe pics can't be added?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn says:

@Walwyn: yes... a person will review it once you request. But that's after the fact. The point is you get auto-blocked ahead of time and then you have to wait out the weeding out process.

If your account is marked 'moderate' or 'restricted' it is not done automatically in response to any flagging, blocking, or reporting. Someone actually looks at the account first.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

hrw worcester says:

heather Because groups are more than their "image" content. While it might be easy to distinguish between what makes a photo or video "moderate" or restricted (photos only), the behaviour that can accompany those bits of content in the discussion, etc., is more harder to distinguish.

But there's nothing in the rules that I read that say the non-image parts of the group have to be safe with this change.* What's to keep a group that only allows safe images from having all sorts of hardcore "bodice rippers" in the discussions?

And where is that line drawn? If I have a photo that's safe but along the lines of the comments someone makes a family-inappropriate joke, do I need to change the content filter?? ("Oh, please, won't someone think about the CHILDREN who might stumble upon it??")

I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately.

Oh, joy. So some people can't play by the rules so punish everyone. Why not just start replacing all photos uploaded with smiling kitten pictures and be done with it. Fewer unpleasant surprises are ensured.



*I just double checked the FAQ - it states admin can determine "What kind of content can be added to the group pool (photos, video or both)" and "what safety level of content is appropriate for the group (“safe”, “moderate” or "restricted")."

If the second point truly is meant to apply to EVERYthing in the group, not just the photos/videos, then defining "content" in the first point as "photos, video, or both" makes that completely unclear.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )
hrw worcester edited this topic 73 months ago.

view photos

mullenite says:

Here is my issue with all of this:

I am an admin of a D40 group, we have a lot of members and one moderator who are under 18. It is an entry-level camera so that it to be expected. I would like to allow moderate content to the group but can't because it would not only make the group pointless for a large number of members but also keep the moderator (who, oddly enough moderates the pool content) out.

Heather Because groups are more than their "image" content. While it might be easy to distinguish between what makes a photo or video "moderate" or restricted (photos only), the behaviour that can accompany those bits of content in the discussion, etc., is more harder to distinguish.

So then why not set it up on two levels? Accept moderate photos but set the group safe. Groups with active admins and mods should not have a problem keeping the discussion to a "safe" level. I know I don't. I also don't know what groups you are going to but even large groups are able to keep things from becoming profane. Most of the people in groups not previously marked 18+ are capable of carrying on a conversation without profanity.

I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately. As such, this change will ensure that there are fewer suprises in group search, etc.

So deal with those groups the same way you deal with streams that weren't being appropriately labeled... I know it seems like a crazy idea, but rather than effect thousands of other groups negatively why not deal with the ones breaking the rules...



These are just my few cents. I have been on the border about flickr as of late and these changes are kind of steering me in the direction that there has to be something better. All this time was spent implementing video and changing group permissions but you can't even subscribe to threads you've replied in without rss or quote reply without a greasemonkey script?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AustinTX says:

Heather said:

"I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately. As such, this change will ensure that there are fewer suprises in group search, etc."

Had any of the group admins ever received *any* notice that their groups were improperly classified? Had you ever tried any kind of notification to warn groups their content was inappropriate to their rating? Shakes head in disgust at the lack of a common sense approach.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SunCat says:

Part of the problem is not really understanding what the real implications of 18+ are. I think it's time for some definite, clarifying answers. I know that an 18+ group will not show up in group searches, but what other restrictions actually exist?

* Are <18 flickr members allowed to join a group that is marked 18+? (assuming they already know about it)
* Are current <18 flickr members allowed to continue to participate in 18+ groups where they are already a member? (informal testing is indicating that they can)
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

d.rex says:

Just wanted to add my voice to the masses here and ask Flickr to reconsider.

I run a group where we do weekly photography assignments (https://www.flickr.com/groups/classwithdave). The large majority of the photos in this group are "safe" but we do allow tasteful nudity. Anyone who has their filter set accordingly won't see these occasional images, so they can enjoy the group without having to see the occasional (female) breast. I never had much of a problem with this concept.

But now, if I'm understanding things correctly, I have two choices:

1. Make the group "moderate" (or "restricted" -- we probably have 1 or 2 restricted photos in the 7000 image pool) and therefore lose any under-18 or German members.
2. Leave the group "safe" and no longer allow these artistic photos (the sort of thing you could see in any art museum, no?).

What scares me is that I'm sure the people who made this decision actually gave it some thought and still somehow came to this very poor decision.

I hope you will consider the impact this has on groups where the FOCUS of the group is not "moderate" photography, but which allow it on occasion. Perhaps some additional way of marking groups like these (e.g. "allows occasional moderate content") that would let people know what they might find without being so painfully restrictive about it.

Please?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Kevin says:

" will a ticket be opened for the group issue that despite Safe and Moderate being selected Safe pics can't be added?"

There is one, thanks.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

haraldamsterdam says:

flickr - you screwed it up again. congratulations!! You proved that you will never learn from your own mistakes. Now "moderate" is 18+ ???? Your're insane.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mike Wood Photography says:

@Kevin: Thanks!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

hipnlip says:

If you can't put a picture in a group of a girl wearing a bikini, then flickr will have to go to every beach in the world and take every kid that's under 18 home, put them in a closet and tell them that is is "immoral" for them to see a woman in a swimsuit! Hell, it doesn't even have to BE a bikini! I can't even put one in of a girl wearing a 1 piece! According to flickr, every woman will have to wear a dress this summer that goes down to her ankles to go swimming! Probably even have to wear socks!!! I wonder if someone could put a picture of a 17 year old boy wearing a Speedo in? Could the girls look? Thank God I don't wear them or Flickr would have a "real" problem!!
I have got 944,000 photostreams and I was hoping to reach a million! But now I will be lucky to get ONE photostream view because most of my pictures are of Lisa and she just happens to have BOOBS (can we say that here or are minors LISTENING, too!) Jesus H. F------ Christ! Since when is the freaking POPE in charge of Flickr! And even he sucked on a TEAT when he was born! OOPS, I did it again! I sure as HELL don't want to offend those minors! So, to make things FAIR, 17 year old girls that have KNOCKERS bigger than Dolly Parton's better NOT wear a skimpy bikini on the beach this summer around me or I WILL issue them a Flickr TICKET!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sadandbeautiful (Sarah) says:

We need more information on this, Flickr.

I find it very disconcerting that this broad change was made "in conjunction" with the video capabilities. I have no problem with the videos, but I am sure you anticipated the uproar as evident in another thread here. I don't want to sound paranoid, but I have to wonder if this change wasn't intentionally made at the same time.

There should have been warning, first of all. Right now, there are tons and tons of group admins out there who have no clue that their group is only allowing 'safe' photos all of a sudden.

This is the Internet, so this will spread quickly. But an announcement (and I know that courtesy has been requested MANY times before) would have been nice.

In the meantime...what do admins do with their groups that previously allowed moderate images and have many active members who are under 18?? As has been asked above...will those members be booted from the group? Is this just a 'name only' sort of thing and we should all just relax?

Can you just tell it to us straight, please?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

matt says:

Because groups are more than their "image" content. While it might be easy to distinguish between what makes a photo or video "moderate" or restricted (photos only), the behaviour that can accompany those bits of content in the discussion, etc., is more harder to distinguish.

I still don't see why this requires accepting a single 'moderate' photo necessitates the entire group be 18+. While it will certainly reduce surprises in the search, it also reduces utility by hiding groups that have entirely safe discussions and general behaviour, and 99% safe content. For all intents and purposes, that's a safe group, but under this rule, it's '18+', and I really find that hard to fathom.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mimbrava says:

It would have been preferable for you to have had groups opt in to allowing videos instead of making us admins revise all our settings to keep them out, and sometimes having to do that more than once per group because the new settings wouldn't take.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

rotary cooling says:

The only good news I can see in this is that it reminds us we really aren't part of a self-regulating community. There is a big brother, all the time, and he really doesn't give a damn what the rest of us think.

An alternative community would be nice to find. Suggestions?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Andreas. says:

@Flickr Thanks so much for screwing many german users again

Thanks for reducing functionality I paid for.

Thanks Flickr for ignoring the german hong kong, singapore and korea users as there was not a single staff reply regarding them.

Yeah it seems Flickr loves me.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

fallsroad says:

Gotta say I'm not enamored of the automatic classification of groups to 18+ just for accepting moderate images, be it one or 100,000 of them.

Seems the days of relative autonomy for groups on Flickr have come to a screeching halt. I suppose it was inevitable, but it seems over kill to me.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

wiredwierd2007 says:

Looks like the Bible Belt and the great state of Utah have taken over Flickr!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

manganite says:

"Moderate - selecting this will flag your group as a group with "restricted" content

Restricted - selecting this will flag your group as a group with "restricted" content"

I'm not a native English speaker, but does this really make sense?

moderate = restricted content
restricted = restricted content

For me it sounds strange...
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ZoneZero says:

Party Like It's 1933
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Cyan Del Mar says:

This Moderate = 18 + issue is extremely irritating.

Lets look at the only justifying statement so far.

"Because groups are more than their "image" content. While it might be easy to distinguish between what makes a photo or video "moderate" or restricted (photos only), the behaviour that can accompany those bits of content in the discussion, etc., is more harder to distinguish."

What exactly does this statement mean? When did Flickr get in the business of behavior monitoring? Some people are acting inappropriately, so cripple the site for everyone? Weren't there safeguards for inappropriate behavior already? Things such as flagging users, and moderators ejecting the strictly porn people from the safe and moderate groups?

I don't buy this justification, It sounds like made up boilerplate to make it sound like this is an appropriate solution to the problem. Simply making it impossible to post restricted images sounds like a lazy automatic alternative to letting groups self regulate. But then again, if you are worried about behavior in discussions, and you have mentioned that groups can differentiate between safe, mod, and restricted images, then why make this policy change at all? If it is behavior, not images, as stated, deal with the behavior, but as I said, sounds like made up BS to justify the ill conceived policy

And one more review on the moderate and restricted.

# Moderate - If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience but you think that it doesn't need to be restricted per se, this category is for you
# Restricted - This is content you probably wouldn't show to your mum, and definitely shouldn't be seen by kids

If RESTRICTED is the category that shouldn't be seen by children, then make that category of image that people can't post in the "normal" groups. Don't sanitize everything, especially when it doesn't even sync up to your own policy on image. This whole policy makes even the category of moderate, moot and needless. Then there is just child safe flickr and everything else.

Good luck Flickr. Good luck dealing with people who are trying to work around restricted freedom. It gives even more reasons for kids to fake ages, and for people to mark everything as safe because they actually want their pictures seen (imagine that).
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )
Cyan Del Mar edited this topic 73 months ago.

view photos

~ fernando says:

Another issue that seems to not have been considered is that of perception. There was that attempt by MPAA to rate some movies NC-17 to remove the XXX stigma, yet nothing rated NC-17 managed to wash away the stigma of XXX.

We (talking of a group I admin, but I presume there are plenty others), get some photos with nudity... the so-called artful nudes. Our group is also moderated to some rules for submission, but now it seems that if a person submits an artful nude(*) meets the rules, that it has to be turned away, or we have to switch the group to 18+, when in reality, the same photo subject can be found at museums.

Again, as someone said above (US=nanny for the world), it seems that this is the case of the least common denominator dominating all content and use of flickr.

There has to be a solution that is more appropriate: if Explore algorithms can be developed, I am sure something smart can also be developed where a warning of tasteful nudity can be given, much in the same way that news warn about graphic content, without limiting the access -- or in this case adding a stigma of 18+ -- to the content.

However, until the proper programming for such an execution can be done, groups should not be penalized with the 18+ stigma for porn/whatever for having some tasteful nudes contents.

Thanks.

(*) this gets into the whole problem of legislating what is 18+ nudity and what is not... which we, on both sides, know how it goes. Too bad that there is two sides to this, and not just a simple case of subscribers and provider working together.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )
~ fernando edited this topic 73 months ago.

view photos

~ fernando says:

PS: Heather >> "I don't think that it was working at all. There were far too many groups that weren't classifying themselves appropriately. As such, this change will ensure that there are fewer suprises in group search, etc."

I understand this predicament, but zero tolerance is a silly goal. Flickr checks a user's stream to declare their content safe or not... but somehow this cannot be done for groups?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

haraldamsterdam says:

"Again, as someone said above (US=nanny for the world),"

Yes, people still think America has the spirit of J.F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. But, unfortunately, it's the America of G.W. Bush now and the whole world has to deal with the consequences.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Proggie says:

This is making me literally sick. I can't believe what I'm reading. Bad decision after bad decision. So many of my talented contacts are thinking of leaving, and now I'm thinking about it too. I can't take any more of these poor decisions and arbitrary limits placed on what my fellow flickrholics are allowed or not allowed to see and post (and now write?). The original filters were bad enough, but this is taking it way too far. Now i'm convinced that all we're going to see on flickr next year is a bunch of 11 year old youtubers. So much for a community of talented and intelligent photographers of all ages and nationalities. Shame on you Flickr. Shame!
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

manganite says:

"Because groups are more than their "image" content."
Does that mean that in near future also the discussion in the groups will be controlled or restricted by flickr staff? Or what else does other content than images mean? There's nothing else as images and discussions...
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn says:

Does that mean that in near future also the discussion in the groups will be controlled or restricted by flickr staff?

That already happens. If a group starts advocating illegal activities, or engages in hate speech, it will get deleted.

Or what else does other content than images mean? </i.

Presumably in video you have sound too. So the imagery could be safe/moderate but the sound track take it into a restricted category.

Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

I think one natural consequence of this new Flickr outlook is that the Help Forum should immediately be classified as 18+.
Anyone can post anything here and someone might get a surprise. We don't want that happening, do we?
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BigBean says:

hm, i have read the whole stream, and want to add my voice to the chorus, I'm afraid.

I admin several groups. Some of them quite large, friendly & fun award groups. In no way would an 18+ label 'fit' any of these groups.

As many other groups, we have a 'no porn, no tacky nudity' rule in our own rules page. We allow artistic nudity and all sorts of what members might consider 'moderate' content.
We're lucky- we have mature, responsible members who self-moderate and filter their images, and an awesome Admin team who keep an eye on the pool for anything too tacky or inappropriate.

Now flickr is telling me 'No Anna, your team's efforts and the intelligence of your members are not to be trusted. We will take over moderation for you, everything must be safe- or you can put a porn label on your group.' Well thanks a lot. We were doing just fine on our own.

I can see your dilemma heather. Groups are a problem for you. I've done many a group search and come up with all sorts of uglies I wasn't expecting.
But don't reset all the groups to sweep the floor. You could do something much cleverer and set up a 'flagging' system like you have in place with individuals' streams.
A group gets flagged by enough flickr members as 'inappropriately moderated', you review it and set the safety level of that group to 18+. They can ask to be reviewed to get their 'safe' level back, same as individuals can.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Rachel.::.K says:

I was really hoping when I woke up this morning there would a brilliant announcement the folks at flickr/yahoo had seen the errors in their ways and realized groups were much more than either/or +18. Or maybe wake up and realize it was all a bad dream. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

So, I am here to say pretty please and thank you. Those of us who are admins of more complex groups have been your biggest cheerleaders since flickr began. Whenever anyone had a complaint about any of the changes, I would say, "just wait and see." But this is not a wait and see. This is an urgent matter. I think the general consensus is a third "moderate" category not classified as 18+.

Please tell us something, anything to give us hope this is not going to be the permanent status quo.
Posted 73 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

← prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1 to 100 of 659 replies in [Official Topic] Group Administration Changes)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads