I just got a chuckle from the way it was stated, its a dry sense of humor.
And I support the idea.....Thanx

Quote - ... 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.

It's been a little over a month since I made this suggestion.  The idea is that you could flag a thumbnail violation and only keep the thumbnail from being displayed rather than restricting access to the image itself.  IMO, it's the image-block that seems to generate the most ire.

Has this been discussed any of of the relevant staff meetings?  Is it feasible?  Is it being planned? 

Its not being planned at this time as there is a lot on the programmers list that take priority over this issue. 

Your suggestion is good but I don't think its really the answer because then we could be left with alot of "thumbnail under review" icons that would make the gallery look ,in my opinion, unprofessional. The the image could still be viewed, commented on, etc which wouldn't give much incentive to send an appropriate thumbnail.  The way the holding area works, the images are automatically deleted after so many days of no new thumbnail being sent so its much easier to keep up with it than it would be if they were scattered throughout the main galleries.

Stacey,

I take your point on the prioritization.  I know how that goes, and I don't know enough to comment on the right balance for your business.

However, I do believe that my suggestion is much closer to the answer than the current situation.  As it is, the "temporary" pulling of an image may as well be deletion since by the time time the situation is resolved, the comment window has largely passed.  That is, if the image is offline for 6-24 hours, it generally receives far fewer comments from our peers, which is probably the main reason we're here.

Perhaps having "thumbnail under review" icons would make the galleries look unprofessional, but you should balance that against what many artists have complained is an extreme punishment in the enforcement of a policy that is by demonstration nebulous.  (I say that because despite your protestations that it's quite clear, there continue to be cases of enforcement when the artists felt they were in compliance.)  It seems that every month, one of my favorite artists packs up and leaves over such policies as this.  Perhaps that's a result you can live with, but it doesn't send a good message about this being a good artist community.

We thank you for the suggestion and will keep it in mind going forward.

Can you tell me if this thumbnail would be acceptable, or if it would violate the "no nudity in thumbnails" policy, and if it does violate it, what is the logic for such a policy?

Dan among Den

p.s. Congratulations -- so far this week, two of my favorite artists have headed off for other pastures.

No that would fall under the "censored" wording on thumbnails. The flag alerts to the nudtiy so why would you need or want to make your thumbnail look like that by putting the word "nudity" in it in the first place? 

We have a generic "Content Advisory" for members to use that don't want to create a thumbnail for their image.  Its on the guidelines page that is linked on the upload page. The policy is stated there about thumbs such as this.

I always thought that the policy on the word "Nudity" or "Censored" in the thumbnails was to state that you couldn't just obscure the nudity with the word, something that was a somewhat common practice prior to this policy.  It seems illogical to make the words themselves forbidden.

As to why I might want to make such a thumbnail rather than use the generic "Content Advisory" icon, perhaps I want to have an identifiable "content advisory" icon, which I believe is what the artist in question was trying to do.  Much like many artists sign their names or add a logo to their icons to make them more identifiable as their particular art, I might want to do that for a thumbnail.  That way, if I cannot make a meaningful thumbnail without including any of the nudity from an image, I could at least brand it with my own personalized "content advisory" thumbnail.  If I had made a similar icon that merely stated "Content Advisory" rather than "Nudity" or "Censored", would that be allowed under this logic?  Or is any such text disallowed? 

For that matter, if I uploaded an image that was nothing but the word "Nudity" and allowed the site to generate an automatic thumbnail, (i.e. it would just scale the word down to the 200x200 box), would such an image be pulled for a thumbnail violation?

Dan among Den

You can't use any censored wording in the thumbnail such as "Warning, Nudity Inside, Nudity" etc. Please read the policy, it is stated in there.

The Content Advisory icon you can use is the one listed on the Upload page. 

We have explained this policy, its written, please read that.

If you are unsure about a thumbnail, please email to admin@renderosity.com and we can review it for you prior to upload.

Stacey,

I have read the policy.  I am questioning its logic, or what IMO is a lack thereof. 

You spoke in an earlier message of trying to keep things looking professional, but I believe that the staff's application of this policy leaves much to be desired.  It makes the admins look capricious and petty, especially when the only feedback mechanism is the heavy-handed suspension of the image.

However, it's your site and therefore your rules.  I will abide by them.  Still, the way the admins have handled this leaves me very disatisfied with the staff performance of Renderosity.  Since the departure of artists seems to make little impact on things, I will not threaten it.  

But... I do spend a decent chunk of money here, and I will have to review that practice.  I can buy many of the same products elsewhere, and until the staff can find a better way to handle this situation, I will be making the effort to do just that.  When I can, I will urge others to do the same.

Stacey, you have been polite, but by and large, I get the feeling that the admins here have made up their minds on this issue and its heavy-handed application and just don't care what the artists think about it.  Only real change on your end will sway that feeling.

Perplexed and annoyed,

Dan among Den

We do care what the members think which is one of the reasons behind the policy change. As we had a large majority of request over and over again for this over the past several years.  

When you look at the number of images uploaded a day vs the number of images that have violating thumbs its less than 1%. And at the same turn when you look at the number of members that have expressed an opinion against the policy its also less than 1% of the active membership. I'm by no means making light of those that don't agree, just trying to put it in perspective.  I wish everyone agreed with everything that is policy on the site but that just isnt' a reasonable or realistic expectation.  We did a lot of research and a lot of discussion before making this change and we do feel its a move in a good direction. The creative thumbnails I see now in the gallery make me want to see the full image so much more than previously.  In running the statistics since we made this change, new membership is up, site traffic is up, gallery uploads per day is up, comments and views are also up by a good percentage.

The generic Content Advisory thumbnail is to maintain consistency in the galleries as well as with the Marketplace (as they use this for promo images that contain nudity). 

We (admins) do take into account how the members feel and we hate to see any artist leave but as I stated previously, with a member base this large there will always be some that feel the need to move on when a change is made that they can't live with. I personally hurt when this happens but I also respect those opinions and understand that each person has to make up their own mind about how they feel and where they feel is the best place for them.

Thank you.

Stacey,

While I am in that minority, my main complaint is NOT with the policy itself.  It is your site, and you would be within your collective rights to make whatever policy you wanted, even over the objections of a majority of the users.  

Rather, my main complaint is with the heavy-handed action you take in response to a thumbnail violation, i.e. pulling the image itself.  I have made the suggestion that you pursue another approach, one that addressed just the thumbnail, not the image that was actually in compliance.  

One suggestion was merely to replace the violating thumbnail with the generic Content Advisory one.   JumpStartMe2 replied that, "...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."  So, that seemed to be acceptable, except that it was work, and had to be done by hand.  And yet, the violations are still currently handled by hand, while causing much more ire than I believe this solution would.

I then suggested a more automated approach, one where the thumbnail itself could be flagged as being in violation, allowing the gallery code to show the Content Advisory thumbnail automatically when appropriate.  However, you shot that down as being too low of a priority for the programmers compared to other ongoing projects.  When I reiterated my perception of its importance, your polite dismissal translated to: We've already decided, so please be quiet now.

Thus, I am left with the perception that you have already made up your minds not to address this issue of how you deal with thumbnail violations, and that you don't particularly care if the artists are upset.

Nor am I swayed by your statistics of sitewide happiness as justification that we're all happy with this policy.  Around the same time you did this, the gallery performance picked up significantly.  Ditto with forum performance.  All in all, you and your team have made excellent progress on improving the usability of the site, and you have been properly rewarded by a swelling of traffic and site use.  However, to point to that success as a sign of approval for the handling of thumbnail violations is inappropriate.  I could just as easily say that the site success is a sign that my art has improved.  Correlation is not the same as causation.  

You also say that it's such a small, trivial percentage of thumbnails that run into violations.  If it is such a small number, then doing the work of replacing the offending thumbnails with the Content Advisory one (rather that hitting the "Suspend Image") button should be a small enough workload to handle though existing mechanisms.  Or, if there are indeed too many to do that feasibly, then this really SHOULD be a priority to address in an automated fashion. 

In the meantime, I know artists who continue to think that you do not take their position into account.  You can say you do, but your actions indicate otherwise.  You eventually responded with a good solution to the whole image-resizing uproar, but you're not giving me any hope that you will do so here.  So, let me ask you straight out.  Is it your ongoing desire to always treat thumbnail violations by suspending the image itself, or do you desire to find a solution that allows the image to go on uninterrupted while the thumbnail is suspended separately?  If the former, then I would be interested in how you justify that sanction with your statement of taking the artists' feelings into account.  If the latter, when might we see some progress?

Dan among Den

Well if you want my honest opinion to this quite bluntly, if everyone uploaded a thumb that was within the guidelines this would be a moot point:(    The responsibility for a compliant thumb should be on the person uploading the thumbnail so at this time I feel the way we are handling the violations is the best way.  The guidelines have been in place since January and should be clear as to what is allowed and what isn't.  If a member pushes the line of the policy and are not clear about whether a thumb is compliant or not then they always have been told they have the option of having us take a look before its uploaded to be 100% sure there will be no issue with their image/thumb.  

If 99% of uploads are complaint then to me that says the majority of artists understand what is accepted and whats not.

Thank you for being honest.

And I note that nowhere in your reply do you mention the artists' concerns about having their image suspended and missing out on the time window for receiving comments.  Rather, you make it quite clear that you prefer to use the heavy club to enforce this.  Thus, I continue to feel that you and the staff are not very concerned with the artists' feelings as you implement this policy. 

Danamongden,

You aren't really trying to open up and understand that we (the staff) don't pick the thumb an artist CHOOSES to upload with their image..so if anyone is concerned about views/comments they might miss then they need to be sure and upload a thumb that is compliant with the policy. Or ask us beforehand if they aren't sure. That is what I was saying in my previous posts. 
 You are asking why staff doesn't "care" about the views/comments they miss? But you aren't asking why the person uploading a non complaint thumb doesn't care about the views/comments they miss?  We do care that is why  we have the policy listed clearly and say we can be asked beforehand so they won't miss any potential views/comments. Some of the responsibility for this falls on the artist themself, you don't agree that the actual artist uploading has a resonsibility to care?

I agree that the artist bears the responsibility for the thumbnail they upload, but I contend that most thumbnail violations are not willful violations but innocent misundertandings of the policy.  My experience was such.  I still believe that my original thumbnail (see earlier in the thread) was in compliance.  

So, instead of focusing your enforcement technique on the thumbnail itself, you seem to prefer an enforcement policy that is more akin to punishment.  I have made suggestions on ways to enforce without such punishment, but you do not seem interested in pursuing them.  Instead, you point to the 99% compliance as support for your technique.

Note, as always, I do not question your comittment to the smooth operations of the site and to the implicit support of artists that results.  I just feel that in this case you are choosing heavy-handed enforcement when it is not necessary, and it is engendering ill-will needlessly.  

At this point in the discussion, I feel we're rehashing the same issues, so I intend to take a break from it for a week or two.  I only ask that in the meantime you do give my suggestions some thought.

Dan among Den

I agree that at this point we will have to agree to disagree:)

I do want to address clearly one thing in your last post. 

You said 

but I contend that most thumbnail violations are not willful violations but innocent misundertandings of the policy.  

That isn't the case at all, say there are 5 violating thumbs (I'm just picking a number to make my point) that have to be dealt with in one day, 4 of those are blantent nudity very clearly and one might be something that might have been unintentional.  My point is that the majority of violations are clearly nudity and the low minority are not as clear..not the other way around:)

Quote - ... say there are 5 violating thumbs (I'm just picking a number to make my point) that have to be dealt with in one day, 4 of those are blantent nudity very clearly and one might be something that might have been unintentional.  My point is that the majority of violations are clearly nudity and the low minority are not as clear..not the other way around:)

For my own information, are these typically first-time offenders, or are these more typically repeat offenders? 

Which ones? The intentional or seemingly non intentional violations?

Both, for that matter.

Well I would say its pretty split  between repeat offenders and first time violaters. It also just depends on the day.  I would say out of 5 a day 3 would be first timers and 2 would be repeats. But that isn't always the case sometimes all 5 are first timers and occasionally we have had where all 5 were repeat offenders (again I'm using the number 5 just to make the point)..

So unfortunately its so split that I really can't say that is typically one type or another:)

Since this issue seems to have been discused to death, and this thread has now attracted random drive-by trolls (posts deleted...) we'll be locking this thread.

If anyone has any questions or queries please contact admin@renderosity.com or any of the mods and we'll be happy to help.

Karen :-)