Gallery images are archived after 45 days so someone browsing the galleries won't see nude thumbnails, they would have to go into the archives and pull up older images in order to be seeing nude thumbnails.  There were several reasons for the change, did you read the entire Front Page article or just bits and pieces of posts made in this thread?

I did not know that galleries archived after 45 days! So if I clean out my gallery every 45 days the only ones who would be the wiser is if someone made an image a favorite? Hmmm, what does Ren do with all those old images after say a year or two? What if someone never returns to Ren to claim/clean them up themselves? Just asking because it is the first I had heard of this. Makes sense tho.
Ariana

They are still in the database you just have to Click the archive button in the galleries to search for the older images.

Quote - Gallery images are archived after 45 days so someone browsing the galleries won't see nude thumbnails, they would have to go into the archives and pull up older images in order to be seeing nude thumbnails.  There were several reasons for the change, did you read the entire Front Page article or just bits and pieces of posts made in this thread?

Oh no, I read the whole damm blurb...

You are imposing pointless censorship, so you can use gallery thumbs of your pet artists in your ad-spam-mailings without worrying if some kiddies might see a female nipple...

Personally I'd prefer no pointless censorship, and no gallery spam in my mailbox.

I don't particullarly want to have my inbox cluttered with thumbs for landscapes, or robots, or whatever...

Gallery preferences, there is a reason for them, if you don't want to see naked people, don't tick that 'see nudity' box...

ANY increase in censorship is BAD.  All censorship leads to repression. Take that stupid 'The following adult figures are now considered child figures' rubbish. Bunch of Official Ego's started deciding which of their rivals works were 'under age' and deleting... the Fairy Pic posters got riled, yet another split in the membership.

Then there was that store censorship policy that cost you a number of vendors...

We can go back to previous debacles that lead to many members splitting away and forming rival sites with rival stores...

What this place seems to be forgetting is that it is a parasite site. It exists not to serve the 'public' but to serve the artists. No artists, no galleries to ad-spam people with, no artists, no content sales in the store, no artists, no renderosity.

To paraphrase from a line in 'Ben Hur'

"You exist to serve these artists, serve well and exist..."

Censoring your artists does not serve them, it annoys them and drives them elsewhere, to sites not governed by US Bible-Belt Nipple-o-Phobia.

You are welcome to your point of view:)

Have a great day!!

I agree whole heartedly with AestheticDemon, as I think and hope alot of other people do to.

FWIW I agree with Renderosity's policy.

Quote - FWIW I agree with Renderosity's policy.

There were people who agreed with Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam and many many more!

There were people who agreed with Mother Teresa, Ghandhi, Saint Francis of Assisi and many many more!

Whatever that may be...

Tom yawns

Gettin' my angry icon on...

Complaint:

I had an image pulled this evening because of its icon.  I believe it was in compliance with thumbnail policy since no nudity was visible.  The moderator said it was because the nudity was merely blurred, when it was actually completely obscured.  Perhaps the confusion was because I had a soft edge to the obscuration and it was a similar color the image background.  See the original thumbnail here:

http://www.twosidesimaging.com/images/YABP37_thumb.jpg

Now, it's your site, and you have the right to whatever policies you want (to the limit of the artists' patience), so I'm not telling you not to have your policy.  I'm just pointing out that I believe I was in compliance with the thumbnail policy.

In response, however, I used the Edit feature to upload a new icon, and I was even able to see that icon briefly on my artist page, so I know it got up there correctly.  The new icon is a different cropping that shows no nudity.  I sent a message that I had done so.

Five hours later, the image is still blocked.  You could block it w/in 20 minutes, but I'm supposed to allow 24 hours for you to unblock it?  If it were a matter of me sticking to my position and asking for further review, that's one thing, but since I complied with the request, I would have expected it to be resolved in a more timely manner.

In the meantime, my regular viewers are being presented with "This image is under review."  Chances are, they won't go back after it has been cleared up, and many of them may never see it.  This may seem minor, but the whole point of posting the image is for it to be seen.

Suggestion:

So, instead of pulling the image because of perceived thumbnail violation, why can't you just replace it with the "Content Advisory" thumbnail until the matter is resolved?  That way the image itself can continue to be viewed while the thumbnail manner is sorted out.

I confess I didn't read the entire 12 screens of the thread, so perhaps this has already been suggested.  In that case, consider this a vehement "ME TOO!!"

I know you're running a business, but over the years, your policies have been growing increasingly heavy-handed.  While I'm not threatening to leave, these policies have made me prepare alternate galleries elsewhere, and that also makes me shop elsewhere.  Sooner or later, this hits your bottom line.

Dan among Den

Dan, you were asked to send an email with a proper thumbnail attached. If you would've liked a default content advisory on that image, all you needed to do was request one.

Ok, I have now done so.

However, I did send an email earlier saying that I had already uploaded the new icon, and since I saw it on the Renderosity site (briefly before the image was pulled), it should be up there already.

My point on the default content advisory is that IMO your default policy on thumbnail violations should be to pull the thumbnail, NOT the image itself.

We cant just pull the thumbnail Dan, because then the gallery would have a bunch of images with no thumbs..and thumbs are required in the gallery except in the writers and freestuff area I believe.

Quote - We cant just pull the thumbnail Dan, because then the gallery would have a bunch of images with no thumbs..and thumbs are required in the gallery except in the writers and freestuff area I believe.

When I say "pull the thumbnail", I mean replace it with the standard content advisory one, or some new one that is "Thumbnail under review".  Presumably it would just be temporary.

As for having a "bunch of images with no thumbs", how often does this happen anyway? 

Well, the default content advisory still goes up automatically when the nudity tag is ticked on an image....but only for those who have nudity filtered in their profiles..everyone else will see a full image thumbnail....we have no problem placing a standard content advisory for violating thumbs, but because we have to do this manually, we have allowed members to grab a copy of this thumb and use it if they want...but you have to upload it..it wont be done automatically by the generator.

And altho we dont see the missing thumbnails often, we do see them and we do request the thumb be sent via email ;)

I understand what you're saying about the current limits of the software.  I'm just saying how it should work IMO.  You shouldn't be doing it manually.  You should have a couple of flags to set on each gallery posting: thumb-violation and image-violation.  If the image-violation is checked, then it works as the "image under review" does now.  If the thumb-violation is checked, then the gallery index page should be generated with the IMG tag pointing to the Content Advisory or some Thubnail-Under-Review icon.

But I bet you can't get the software to do that right now.  So, just file it away under the "Gallery Wishlist" heading.

Dan

Hmmm..actually a pretty good idea, that I will bring up to staff

Dang this is pull the thumbnail thread ...anyone seen the pull the finger thread ?  :P

Ewww..its over there ------------------------->>>

I don't see any nudity in the original thumbnail, unless you want to count shoulders and necks. wow such profanity!!! You should be so ashamed.

I was labouring under the misconception that they instituted the anti-nudie rule because non-members could browse the galleries and would therefore be unable to block nudie pix. however, yesterday one of their employees said that non-members can't browse the galleries here, so something is snafu again. at this point I haven't the foggiest why they would do it, unless it pertains to orders they received from paypal or credit-card companies. that would make much more sense. but that would also require them to ban bondage and violence thumbnails, unless the credit-card companies are into bondage :lol: which wouldn't be too hard to believe, since many folks are in effect slaves of the credit-card companies, working day-to-day just to pay off the usurious interest rates they charge.

question.

how many of you are smokers?

Quote - question.

how many of you are smokers?

?

simple enough question.

there is a point to it ;)

simply this :

I am a non smoker. you come into my house, I ask you not to smoke. do you light up?

unless you are really out to offend and piss ppl off, you don't. right?

same thing here. the owners have asked us to comply to their rules since it is their house.

I know that ppl will disagree with my point. but you know something? I class them with the smokers that would come in and light up when asked not to.

Quote - I am a non smoker. you come into my house, I ask you not to smoke. do you light up?

unless you are really out to offend and piss ppl off, you don't. right?

same thing here. the owners have asked us to comply to their rules since it is their house.

Nice analogy, but I believe the ongoing controversy centers less around whether or not R'osity has the right to restrict smoking in their house and more about what qualifies as smoking.  The thumbnail that I used (which seems to have reignited this thread) was IMO in compliance with the policy.  My complaint is not with the policy, but with its implementation.

So, to use your analogy, I showed up at your house wearing cologne, and you objected because you had a bad reaction to it.  I responded with, "But I'm not smoking!  Why are you aiming that fire extinguisher at me?"

I made a couple of suggestions about how to improve the handling of the thumbnail violations so that the response would not seem as heavy-handed.  The software might or might not support it. In the meantime, I'll be doing the equivalent of going through decontamination procedures with my thumbnails before entering the "no nude smokers" zone.

Dan among Den

actually if you came into my house wearing so much cologne I reacted, then yes. the same rules apply.. since you'd be toxic to anyone with Asthma...

Quote - actually if you came into my house wearing so much cologne I reacted, then yes. the same rules apply.. since you'd be toxic to anyone with Asthma...

Personally, I'd agree with you.  I'm a big "don't insert non-standard chemicals into my local atmosphere" kind of guy.

But keeping this in the realm of analogy, you could understand how I might be annoyed since you're policy said "no smoking", not "no cologne".  In my thumbnail case here (and I supect in others' as well), I felt I was in compliance with the policy, so I felt that the response was both incorrect and unnecessarily heavy-handed.

So, this is not a black-and-white case of whiners telling R'osity they can't do what they want on their own site.  Rather, I've seen a number of shades-of-gray cases where artists felt they were in compliance and instead got hit with the minimum-response hammer that R'osity has at its disposal.

Dan among Den

I have an example not yet explored.
I recently uploaded an image with zero nudity.
The thumbnail had zero nudity.
BUT- the shadow generated by ambient occlusion gave some people the idea of a butt crack. as if the material were shear. But there is no transparency.
So- I uploaded another thumbnail, and directly emailed the forum coordinator a 200x200 revised thumbnail under 15KB.

That forum coordinator then uploaded a BADLY butchered 120x120 version of that very thumbnail to the gallery - with horrible JPEG artifacting.

Interesting...  Passive agressive behavior because I dared disagree? Hmmm...  
Here is the image in question:  http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1436691&member

If you look at my gallery, I have replaced the butchered thumbnail with the proper resolution and JPEG compression level.

So- how do these black and white analogies (smoking vs not smoking) apply when you wrongfully assign blame?  It isnt exactly possible in Poser to have transparencies without increasing the transparent level of the material to something above 0 now is it...

Just my personal experience yesterday/today...   

Is supporting PayPal really worth this hassle?

Jdehaven,

Quote - Passive agressive behavior because I dared disagree? Hmmm... 

Mods and Coords do not butcher thumbs because of disagreements, or any other reason. Its possible that the preview thumb we viewed in the review thread in the staff forum got used by mistake upon reactivating your image to the gallery.

If you disagree with the removal of your thumb image, you may contact an administrator at admin@renderosity.com.

Heheh.. what happened happened- regardless of your interpretation as an outsider to the situation.

If I were to send you a thumb at 200x200, JPEG at 9.54KB - and a NEW one at that with a different view and angle than the original. Then suddenly that very thumb becomes 150x150 with some of the worst JPEG artifacting possible, then what do you call that?  

We are not talking about a review thumb. We are talking about a pristine new thumb that I sent. The person even admitted that there are problems with images expanding in KB size on their "platform" larger than the original...

The problem with that statement, is that I am by no means an idiot. Being in I.T. as a profession affords me exposure to Linux, Macintosh and PC- to put it bluntly, I have 11 machines at HOME even. so whatever this "platform" statement was- it was merely backpedaling because I caught the act. 

Maybe this forum coordinator is still using an Atari ST or something? That would be the only viable explination.

As stated, this did occur. Whether or not you make blanket statements about proper conduct for Forum admins- it does not alter the reality of the event occuring or the fact that I have evidence to prove it. 

Even looking at the best case scenario where it could potentially be an honest mistake; putting newbies unfamiliar with image size and compression levels in charge of replacing them is hardly a good choice now is it?

Regardless, I dont really care. After being on here for almost 6 years I can see the writing on the wall.

Well, maybe it was a compression difference? What ever happened to your thumb between your email and the editing procedure was not done on purpose I can assure you. Thumbs are saved from the emails and reloaded in the holding area, so my belief is this is where the bad artifacting occured.

Well, "maybe" that explains it. 

So you are telling me that when a member sends an email with an attachment as a replacement thumbnail to one of the forum admins, that very image is then reduced in size by almost half and re-compressed using the worst possible JPEG compression?  

I would like to know from other members that have had to resubmit their thumbnails if this is a similar experience? 

We are talkiing about a 200x200 9.54KB image fully within the site limitations, and the very same image that I replaced my thumbnail with, once the image was re-enabled for viewing and editing by me.

I replaced the thumbnail MYSELF after the image was re-enabled and I saw that horrible butchering. Do you not have the same ability? Or does this "holding tank" modify the image in the manner that I described? 

Maybe doesn't cut it- software either performs a certain way or not- there is no mystical unknowns here.

So perhaps one of the site programmers could further elucidate on this subject? I am very curious.

Jd,

A mistake on a thumbnail image was made according to you..I do not know the specifics of the mistake as I did not see the thumbnail in question, however I will apologize for the mistake myself.

Did you, by any chance, ask the coord. about the thumbnail prior to this thread?

If you have further complaints about the thumbnail you may contact the admin at admin@renderosity.com

Yes I did ask, 
The response was what I listed in my 2nd message. 

I should not have to repeat this or quote the site mail- I am trying to take the high ground here by not naming names or directly quoting the site mail exchange. Not to mention, quoting site mail is against the TOS.

The point here is this: The image has no nudity, the thumb has no nudity, my replacement thumb was HORRIBLY butchered. 

If there were a problem with the SMTP transmission from my end to the POP3 receiving end at Renderosity, the message would be garbled and the JPEG unreadable. The FACT is, that a deliberate or grandiose "rookie error" occured in the reposting of that very thumbnail to the gallery.  

So, if Rendo needs a thinktank to debate whether or not shadowing in the butt crack area from ambient occlusion constitutues nudity even though the figure is obviously covered by DAZ3D's V4 Bikini, then there is certainly a problem with the thumbnail rules.

My previous render to the one we are discussing here DID have a sheer bikini, and it is OBVIOUS; I tagged the image appropriately and uploaded a thumb that was accepted.
 
In an attempt to expand my audience to demonstrate my HDRI lighting that I was planning on selling here in the MarketPlace, I rendered a NON-SHEER version and it was put into holding. 

So- do you think I will sell this HDRI Lightprobe set in this marketplace now? Hell no. 

Are you beginning to understand why I am irritated?  A non-nude that can easily be compared with a sheer version was ripped from viewing, then to add insult to injury, the thumb once resubmitted to the admin was then butchered.  

I have followed policy to a "T" and dotted all the "I"s... and still was penalized.

Great way to treat customers that buy stuff from the marketplace and a potential source of additional revenue if I were to consider becoming a merchant.

That decision has now been made for me, much to my regret.

While I appreciate your apology for another's actions, it does little to mitigate the ill will this behavior instills. I hope in the future that Renderosity will take a better look at the individuals allowed to "police" the policies here.

Jd, I understand you are upset. Please see your IM's.

The 'smoker' analogy is incorrect...

It's more like... You employ an agent to sell your art...

The agent doesnt sell your art as you made it, they cut it up, repaint over bits, and generally mess with it.

When you complain, the agent tells you they have a TOS that allows them to treat your stuff as if it was theirs, and to hell with you.

This site exists because we upload to it... They are not 'kind hosts' doing us a favour, they make money of our work, they at least owe us an honest explanation...

hey stacey....
the image that is in the holding area.... will it ebots be resent out when its placed back in the gallery?
I did PM you on this too but i didnt ask this question....

if you dont answre here but in my PM thats great!!

but i just think this whole thumbnail thing is silly.. the system should keep generating one for you ... it certainly helps the artist not have to think about a nudity thumb at the time....

ta

Quote - simple enough question.

there is a point to it ;)

simply this :

I am a non smoker. you come into my house, I ask you not to smoke. do you light up?

unless you are really out to offend and piss ppl off, you don't. right?

same thing here. the owners have asked us to comply to their rules since it is their house.

I know that ppl will disagree with my point. but you know something? I class them with the smokers that would come in and light up when asked not to.

Khai I'd agree with your anology, except that, at certain times, in certain circumstances, certain of the ptb here, have gotten their noses really twisted, and insisted this is a community each and every time someone has dared to even suggest that rosity is not a community but rather a business. 

So the analogy of someone who smokes coming to your house doesn't really apply. Since in a community the minority doesn't dictate to the majority what the rules are. The majority decides what the rules will be. However when it comes to this "change" I'm thoroughly convinced given the responses and reasoning given by the ptb, that this "change" is a clear example of the minority in this community dictating to the majority in this community.

Unless of course, this"community" just happens to be in reality a dictatorship.

Wich I've long said it is.

LOL

Quote - Jdehaven,

Quote - Passive agressive behavior because I dared disagree? Hmmm... 

Mods and Coords do not butcher thumbs because of disagreements, or any other reason. Its possible that the preview thumb we viewed in the review thread in the staff forum got used by mistake upon reactivating your image to the gallery.

Proof please!

Can you prove that?

Or am I just to take your word for it? 

Muahahaha Muahahah Muahahaha

on my image that was under review but thanks to Jumpstartme... is back in my gallery... - i lost alot of comments because all of the members that had the ebot got the "image under review" notice....
I might just end up pulling that image from my gallery....

i'm not comment orientated.... but i like people giving comments to further improve on my work and what not...

i agree that this whole thumbnail thing review should be revised........

Oooo Darth...Im gonna get out my Jelly Pelter :tt2:

Teeeheeheehee

Just for the record, I was just having some fun with her dark majesty, I am sure that the mods do not alter our images or our thumbs in any way.

Unless specifically asked to do so by a member, and even then I'm not sure they would.

Jumps,

Artemis does bring up a good point. 

For those of us in the critique group, it sort of makes being in that group a moot point, if an image we have put up for critique, is pulled over a thumbnail misunderstanding and we then lose all the comments that were left by other members of the group.

Is there not someway that any comments left on an image that is pulled for review due to thumbnail questions can retain those comments? 

Or if not, barring that, is there perhaps some way that rosity could provide a "generic" thumb for the critique group members to use? Thus eliminating any "mistakes" or "misunderstandings".

Well, first off, comments that are already on an image that gets put into holding stay with the image, so those are not lost.

However, I believe what .Artemis. is speaking about is the comments she wasn't able to get while the image was in holding. {correct me if wrong?}

We cant do anything about that to my knowledge, but I can bring up the subject of a special thumbnail the critique group can use,  to the team..making no promises there tho..will see what they say ;)

If the thumbnail is the problem, but the image isn't, why not switch the thumbnail for an official one that says "Thumbnail under review".
That way an acceptable image stays in the gallery until the thumbnail gets replaced.

Quote - If the thumbnail is the problem, but the image isn't, why not switch the thumbnail for an official one that says "Thumbnail under review".
That way an acceptable image stays in the gallery until the thumbnail gets replaced.

Yep, that was my suggestion too.

Wouldn't be a bad idea if say maybe it was some type of automatic process..I can't see it happening tho if its not automatic. I'll throw it into the suggestions and see what we get ;)

Sorry to ask a question so late but I noticed this in "da rules". Maybe its a guy thing....

"more exposure than a standard bikini bottom would constitute nudity" 

OK, I give, what are the specs on, and what is, a standard bikini bottom???
No, I dont get out much, skin problems keep me outta the sun. No swimming and the like.
Haven't seen to many bikinis in person lately. Can I get that spec in pixels also?
(Keep your sense of humor folks) Thought I'd ask. hehe....Rules can be amusing eh?
Almost a "great idea, why didn't we think of that sooner" thing. My two cents.

"Everyone in this room is wearing a uniform and don't kid yourself." Frank Zappa, 1969

There were examples given in the Front Page article announcement which is linked in the first post of this thread.