This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1timspalding
I'm working on some improvement to the talk pages (eg., super-touchstones). Anyway, I'm revisiting group images, to bring them into the "new" system, which gives us:
1. Different sizes easily (eg., showing the group image on topic pages, small on the right)
2. Multiple images for a group.
Here's my question: Who should control group images?
Who should be able to upload extra group photos?
1. The group creator
2. Any group member
Who should decide on the primary image?
1. The group creator
2. Any group member
3. A vote of group members
What do you think?
1. Different sizes easily (eg., showing the group image on topic pages, small on the right)
2. Multiple images for a group.
Here's my question: Who should control group images?
Who should be able to upload extra group photos?
1. The group creator
2. Any group member
Who should decide on the primary image?
1. The group creator
2. Any group member
3. A vote of group members
What do you think?
2rbott
Questions 1 & 2; The group creator.
If I were a group creator, I would be very angry if someone were to upload silly pictures to my group.
3lorax
The group creator. For most groups, anyone can join, and the potential for mischief or spam is high if anyone can change the image.
4jjmcgaffey
I know some group creators disappear, but you guys can transfer ownership if necessary. I would definitely limit to the group creator/current group owner.
5paradoxosalpha
I'd say that the group creator/owner should be able to select the primary image, and to delete images. Other group members could upload images, I suppose.
6staffordcastle
Agreed - group creator/owner or current administrator.
Such a person is certainly entitled to take feedback from group members.
Such a person is certainly entitled to take feedback from group members.
7paradoxosalpha
A group owner could always start a thread to poll the group on selecting the primary image, but she shouldn't be required to.
8timspalding
You guys are cooking up a recipe for stagnation.
9jseger9000
#8 - You guys are cooking up a recipe for stagnation.
I think it's just that anything else seems either too complicated (proposing an image and having a vote), or too much of an invite for spam/flame wars (any user can replace the group image).
I think it's just that anything else seems either too complicated (proposing an image and having a vote), or too much of an invite for spam/flame wars (any user can replace the group image).
10brightcopy
8> You guys are cooking up a recipe for stagnation.
Regardless, I wonder if it isn't mostly a moot point. How many people actually read Talk by going to individual groups? I know it's a tired old argument ("why are you working on this instead of _____?!"), but compared to other stuff like contained in/by, auto-capitalizing titles from Overcat (what's the holdup on that, anyway?), or Lists, it's hard to get all worked up over the parliamentary procedure for changing group images. This is one area where I'm totally fine with using your powers as benevolent dictator to the hilt. Don't spend more than five minutes over it and move on to a cool feature that we can (and have!) already spend thousands of keystrokes gabbing about.
Regardless, I wonder if it isn't mostly a moot point. How many people actually read Talk by going to individual groups? I know it's a tired old argument ("why are you working on this instead of _____?!"), but compared to other stuff like contained in/by, auto-capitalizing titles from Overcat (what's the holdup on that, anyway?), or Lists, it's hard to get all worked up over the parliamentary procedure for changing group images. This is one area where I'm totally fine with using your powers as benevolent dictator to the hilt. Don't spend more than five minutes over it and move on to a cool feature that we can (and have!) already spend thousands of keystrokes gabbing about.
11timspalding
How many people actually read Talk by going to individual groups?
Group images are going to be shown on the upper right of talk posts. (And no, I'm not changing my mind on that. We need to bind the site together, and having posts in group X have the group X image somewhere small isn't going to kill anyone.)
I'm redesigning the Talk pages. The old image structure was a glaring thing to change.
Group images are going to be shown on the upper right of talk posts. (And no, I'm not changing my mind on that. We need to bind the site together, and having posts in group X have the group X image somewhere small isn't going to kill anyone.)
I'm redesigning the Talk pages. The old image structure was a glaring thing to change.
12brightcopy
11> Well, like I said, dictate away. ;)
13Aerrin99
Absolutely group members should be able to upload extra images! Think how helpful this would be for group meet-ups, or even just playing around.
I know people feel this ownership of groups here, but I have always been a bit baffled by it. Groups are for interacting. Let people interact!
For the primary image - either way, really. Let people vote, keep it to the group creator. I am less fussed about that one.
But what on earth is the rationale for not letting others upload images? That's a bit like creating a group and saying 'but no one else can start a thread'.
I know people feel this ownership of groups here, but I have always been a bit baffled by it. Groups are for interacting. Let people interact!
For the primary image - either way, really. Let people vote, keep it to the group creator. I am less fussed about that one.
But what on earth is the rationale for not letting others upload images? That's a bit like creating a group and saying 'but no one else can start a thread'.
14jseger9000
But what on earth is the rationale for not letting others upload images? That's a bit like creating a group and saying 'but no one else can start a thread'.
Until some spammer posts his own image as the primary image on The Green Dragon or something.
Suppose each group had an image gallery that any user could upload to. Then each user could chose his/her own image of choice as their primary image?
Or, suppose each group has that image gallery and LT could randomize the group image each time a user visited/refreshed the group page?
Even though I may not sound like it, I would like there to be some easy way to change group images. How about group descriptions as well?
Until some spammer posts his own image as the primary image on The Green Dragon or something.
Suppose each group had an image gallery that any user could upload to. Then each user could chose his/her own image of choice as their primary image?
Or, suppose each group has that image gallery and LT could randomize the group image each time a user visited/refreshed the group page?
Even though I may not sound like it, I would like there to be some easy way to change group images. How about group descriptions as well?
15_Zoe_
I think the group creator should choose the primary image, but other group members should be able to upload other images to an image gallery. (As someone said, this would be very nice for photos from group meet-ups.)
Then there should be spam flagging for the member-uploaded image gallery, just like there's spam flagging for everything else.
Then there should be spam flagging for the member-uploaded image gallery, just like there's spam flagging for everything else.
17lilithcat
> 1
1. Any group member, but there should be the ability to flag an image as spam or inappropriate for the group.
2. The group creator.
Hmm, just saw #15. I'm agreeing with _Zoe_. Excuse me while I go check to make sure the sky is still there. ;-)
> 11
Group images are going to be shown on the upper right of talk posts.
All posts? I can see having every thread in the group having the group image, but wouldn't having the image in every post get rather intense?
1. Any group member, but there should be the ability to flag an image as spam or inappropriate for the group.
2. The group creator.
Hmm, just saw #15. I'm agreeing with _Zoe_. Excuse me while I go check to make sure the sky is still there. ;-)
> 11
Group images are going to be shown on the upper right of talk posts.
All posts? I can see having every thread in the group having the group image, but wouldn't having the image in every post get rather intense?
18jseger9000
The thing about #13 is what about groups like this one where you don't actually join? Who would be authorized to change this group image?
19_Zoe_
I'm agreeing with _Zoe_. Excuse me while I go check to make sure the sky is still there. ;-)
Hehe.
Hehe.
20timspalding
It's there. But it's full of pigs!
21jjwilson61
How about if anyone can upload photos but only the owner can set the primary one. And the owner can remove them at will.
17> I think Tim meant at the top of each thread page (I think that's what he actually did say in an earlier post).
17> I think Tim meant at the top of each thread page (I think that's what he actually did say in an earlier post).
22timspalding
Ha. Yes, I don't mean within each message. Each threat/post/whatever-you-call-it.
The new image system is live. Right now only creator can upload an image. I think I'll add a setting in, but that, by default any member can upload an image. There is already a way for people to mark images as spam.
Here's a group with multiple images:
http://www.librarything.com/groups/mainers
The new image system is live. Right now only creator can upload an image. I think I'll add a setting in, but that, by default any member can upload an image. There is already a way for people to mark images as spam.
Here's a group with multiple images:
http://www.librarything.com/groups/mainers
23_Zoe_
I think I'll add a setting in, but that, by default any member can upload an image.
That sounds fair.
I do think it's reasonable for the creator to choose the primary image, though.
Now if you really wanted to be brave you'd let us thumb group images, so that we could see the most popular first....
That sounds fair.
I do think it's reasonable for the creator to choose the primary image, though.
Now if you really wanted to be brave you'd let us thumb group images, so that we could see the most popular first....
24SqueakyChu
Is there the possibility that the creator of the group could have the option of choosing whether or not to allow members to upload and control photos? I would like that. Were I a group leader, I would always allow this, but not all group leaders would choose to do so.
The group creator should be the one to decide on the primary image.
The group creator should be the one to decide on the primary image.
25auntSteelbreaker
When a group attracts a certain amount of members it would seem reasonable to let the members vote on pictures. I can see that the creator of a new group wants the right to control, but the right to control should always stand in relation to responsibility and/or contribution. If I started a group that in one year becomes extremely active with a lot of different members, is that really "my" group anymore?
26paradoxosalpha
See, I think #24 sounds just about right, and I don't think it would be stagnant.
28urania1 
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
Okay but what happens in the following instance. Let's pretend for a moment that Tim is a 50-something white female reader who wears sensible shoes and thinks Nora Roberts' books are perhaps a little too daring. Let's go further. Timosina Spaldina belongs to a polite and genial group on the LT called "Virago Modern Classics." Now although the Viragoes are mostly women (and some men) of unimpeachable decorum, a few of the Viragoes are shall we say viragoes (and they know who they are). So one morning Timosina Spaldina opens up her favorite forum on LT and finds some lusty young Virago has posted the following picture, one in the public domain and one of which I highly approve. How do we protect Timosina Spaldina's virgin virago eyes? Do we care? After ll, she sees something quite similar everytime she goe to the bathroom.
I am fond of the aforementioned picture. I hang it in my dining room whenever I am contemplating getting a divorce from my current husband. For some reasons husbands like to hide such pictures (less well rendered of course) in their sock drawers but would prefer not to see such pictures while dining. And this is just the gentlemen. In the meantime, dear Timosina Spaldina needs her smelling salts. I am not arguing for censorship, but I don't think just anyone should be allowed to alter the pictures.
Now one might respond that Timosina Spaldina and other like-minded Viragoes can, of course, flag the picture, but the Virago Freedom Alliance - a splinter group within this otherwise polite and truly decent group of human beings just keep at it. Do we sent them to the Virago Naughty Room or to Principal's Spaldings office for a word of prayer? Just curious.
I am fond of the aforementioned picture. I hang it in my dining room whenever I am contemplating getting a divorce from my current husband. For some reasons husbands like to hide such pictures (less well rendered of course) in their sock drawers but would prefer not to see such pictures while dining. And this is just the gentlemen. In the meantime, dear Timosina Spaldina needs her smelling salts. I am not arguing for censorship, but I don't think just anyone should be allowed to alter the pictures.
Now one might respond that Timosina Spaldina and other like-minded Viragoes can, of course, flag the picture, but the Virago Freedom Alliance - a splinter group within this otherwise polite and truly decent group of human beings just keep at it. Do we sent them to the Virago Naughty Room or to Principal's Spaldings office for a word of prayer? Just curious.
29brightcopy
28> So, how does the scenario you spin differ from your posting this message with the image in Talk? I'm pretty sure Talk itself is already as "vulnerable" as any of this proposed group images stuff is. And it turns out not to be much of a problem, does it?
30TineOliver
28: I understand the point you are trying to make but could you not have made it with a link to that picture and an appropriate warning in your post?
Whether or not you or I think that's acceptable I and a number of other people view LT at work and I can guarantee you that my boss (and any other firm with a HR department) does not think that's OK.
Whether or not you or I think that's acceptable I and a number of other people view LT at work and I can guarantee you that my boss (and any other firm with a HR department) does not think that's OK.
31timspalding
My theory would be that admins (see http://www.librarything.com/topic/104110) would be able to delete the image.
I've never heard Timosina. At one point I was referred to as Timothea.
I've never heard Timosina. At one point I was referred to as Timothea.
33Lman
I agree with _Zoe_ and lilithcat...
*ducks flying pigs as they spiral backwards*
If you create a group you should have some say on the picture the group shows 'the world', which ultimately advertises the space and attracts members to join. It would then be nice to be able to add a cool image if a member wanted to; but the creator should also be able to remove an image not representative of the group ethos.
*ducks flying pigs as they spiral backwards*
If you create a group you should have some say on the picture the group shows 'the world', which ultimately advertises the space and attracts members to join. It would then be nice to be able to add a cool image if a member wanted to; but the creator should also be able to remove an image not representative of the group ethos.
34urania1
>30 TineOliver: I thought carefully before posting the image rather than a link with the warning. I deliberately chose to post the image to make a point. The fact that you reacted demonstrates the point. Group diplomacy (not policing) is often a delicate issue. To add additional outlets for areas that will have to be "policed" as opposed to being handled diplomatically (I hesitate to use the word "diplomatic" given the current status of the word) seems pointless to me. Sometimes "more" isn't better. I have left some groups on LT because they have gotten too big - in terms of the regular participants - for anything resembling ordinary conversation to continue.
35urania1
And an additional thought to >30 TineOliver:, does your boss approve of your hanging out at LT on company time and on company computers?
>29 brightcopy: It is easier to flag and remove a post than to flag multiple posts of pictures by multiple people within a group.
>29 brightcopy: It is easier to flag and remove a post than to flag multiple posts of pictures by multiple people within a group.
36keristars
35> And an additional thought to >30 TineOliver:, does your boss approve of your hanging out at LT on company time and on company computers?
Honestly. Plenty of people are allowed to use the internet as they please, within reason, during breaks. Others are allowed to surf the internet as long as it doesn't interfere with job duties. That doesn't mean that pictures of ladies' crotches are something that we want to have displayed on our screens, unexpectedly.
This is an old argument and is why "NSFW" warnings were invented.
Honestly. Plenty of people are allowed to use the internet as they please, within reason, during breaks. Others are allowed to surf the internet as long as it doesn't interfere with job duties. That doesn't mean that pictures of ladies' crotches are something that we want to have displayed on our screens, unexpectedly.
This is an old argument and is why "NSFW" warnings were invented.
37brightcopy
36> Exactly. Some of us actually have employment where we're not treated as serfs.
39AnnaClaire
>36 keristars:-37
Agreed. Surfing the net at least looks like productive work to someone on the wrong side of the monitor, so that's why it's tolerated as filler for slow periods at the office. The same really can't be said of reading a book (or knitting).
Agreed. Surfing the net at least looks like productive work to someone on the wrong side of the monitor, so that's why it's tolerated as filler for slow periods at the office. The same really can't be said of reading a book (or knitting).
40keristars
38> I recently found a way to use LT for work (pricing books in our shop using "Get This Book" to find the going rates), and was pleased as punch. ;)
41TineOliver
35 > my boss has absolutely no problem with it. I can be logged into facebook all day if I wish (I don't, but I can).
But that's a side issue. You missed what I was trying to say to you - instead of reading my reaction, you seem to have just noticed the fact I reacted. I opened this thread at work and am lucky I'm not sitting in the HR office today.
You have an interesting point, and one I would have liked to consider more thoroughly but the way in which you posted it prohibited that. In fact, I'm having to seriously consider whether I can continue to look at LT anywhere other than in the privacy of my home because while I don't find that picture necessarily offensive, some of my collegues did.
But that's a side issue. You missed what I was trying to say to you - instead of reading my reaction, you seem to have just noticed the fact I reacted. I opened this thread at work and am lucky I'm not sitting in the HR office today.
You have an interesting point, and one I would have liked to consider more thoroughly but the way in which you posted it prohibited that. In fact, I'm having to seriously consider whether I can continue to look at LT anywhere other than in the privacy of my home because while I don't find that picture necessarily offensive, some of my collegues did.
42jjwilson61
Is that post flaggable. I don't think it violates TOS, but there ought to be a way to hide it. Maybe we need a new flag for Not Appropriate For Workplace (then we need an option to be able to put LT into Workplace mode while at work).
43TheoClarke
I think it violates "Do not upload X-rated pictures."
44brightcopy
42> I think it violates "Do not upload X-rated pictures."
The nude female form is "X-rated?"
ETA: And I see you're British (UKish?). I thought it was WE who were supposed be the puritanical ones. :D
The nude female form is "X-rated?"
ETA: And I see you're British (UKish?). I thought it was WE who were supposed be the puritanical ones. :D
45TheoClarke
I was using the broad criteria of what might be depicted in a national newspaper or before the watershed on TV. In all my time in the US I have never seen beaver shots on network TV or in newspapers. YMMV.
And, whilst I smile at your 'puritanical' joke, I could have lost my contract had I looked at this thread at today's client library. In practice, I do not use Talk for client work but I spent about three hours using LT for a customer enquiry and I sometimes read Talk on client computers during a break so I would not want to see LT blocked as NSFW.
And, whilst I smile at your 'puritanical' joke, I could have lost my contract had I looked at this thread at today's client library. In practice, I do not use Talk for client work but I spent about three hours using LT for a customer enquiry and I sometimes read Talk on client computers during a break so I would not want to see LT blocked as NSFW.
46brightcopy
45> I'd say it's R-rated. R-rated doesn't mean innocuous. I'd say playboy magazine is R-rated. You won't find its content depicted in a national newspaper or on network TV (at least, in the US). But R-rated means something quite different than X-rated. Granted, both terms are pretty hard to apply to LT, since they're mainly about movie ratings and X-rated can also just mean "extreme violence". But I think there's an obvious giant gap between the picture above (a well known work of art) and a close-up photo of two people engaged in sexual congress. I suppose you could say "well, that would be XXX-rated", but that gets even harder to apply, since there really IS no such thing as XXX-rated when it comes to movie ratings (it's a marketing term).
ETA: Interesting note: Plan 9 from Outer Space was original given an X rating in the UK.
ETA: Interesting note: Plan 9 from Outer Space was original given an X rating in the UK.
47Heather19
44: X-rated doesn't always mean a sex act. Yes, in certain contexts the "nude female form" is x-rated.
Like right here at home, where I just happened to open this thread when my mom was in the room. If I had had any warning at all that that post was going to contain such a graphic image I would not have scrolled down.
Maybe it's not against the TOS, but it's rude and insensitive to post graphic pictures in a public thread with no warning, especially when the picture is not related to the thread at all except as a way to "prove a point".
Like right here at home, where I just happened to open this thread when my mom was in the room. If I had had any warning at all that that post was going to contain such a graphic image I would not have scrolled down.
Maybe it's not against the TOS, but it's rude and insensitive to post graphic pictures in a public thread with no warning, especially when the picture is not related to the thread at all except as a way to "prove a point".
48TheoClarke
>46 brightcopy: I agree with you. However, just last year the Portugese police determined that this well known work of art was 'public pornography' and the French police behaved similarly about 15 years ago. By his own statements it is clear that Courbet intended his works to be challenging. Although I consider the painting to be a masterpiece, it seems to be erotically charged and, therefore, its public display breaks a well-established taboo.
I now see that "Do not upload X-rated pictures" is not the most appropriate clause of ToS to apply to this case. It does, however, seem to violate "Use common sense. Be polite. Think before you post." and "Consider the context before posting."
urania1 states that she sought to provoke a reaction knowing that some members might find the image offensive. It seems to me that a reasonable member might expect Recommend Site Improvements to be safe for work. To post knowingly a controversial image in this context seems to me to be impolite at best.
I now see that "Do not upload X-rated pictures" is not the most appropriate clause of ToS to apply to this case. It does, however, seem to violate "Use common sense. Be polite. Think before you post." and "Consider the context before posting."
urania1 states that she sought to provoke a reaction knowing that some members might find the image offensive. It seems to me that a reasonable member might expect Recommend Site Improvements to be safe for work. To post knowingly a controversial image in this context seems to me to be impolite at best.
49jjwilson61
Then I'll flag it after all. Thanks.
50lilithcat
I would also point out that while LT is barred to those under 13, minors above that age can use the site, and, in fact, often do so for classes.
It would be sad indeed if a teacher felt that he could no longer use LT for class projects because of the risk that their students might be exposed to such images, thus endangering the teacher's job.
It would be sad indeed if a teacher felt that he could no longer use LT for class projects because of the risk that their students might be exposed to such images, thus endangering the teacher's job.
51brightcopy
48> However, just last year the Portugese police determined that this well known work of art was 'public pornography' and the French police behaved similarly about 15 years ago.
I'm pretty sure Playboy is pornography... :D
My whole point is that there's a big gap between R-rated and X-rated. In my opinion, this image is not X-rated. So I'd have a hard time thinking flagging based on that part of the TOS applied, and would counter-flag.
50> I would also like to point out that that image is actually hotlinked to wikipedia.
So, well, there's that.
I'm pretty sure Playboy is pornography... :D
My whole point is that there's a big gap between R-rated and X-rated. In my opinion, this image is not X-rated. So I'd have a hard time thinking flagging based on that part of the TOS applied, and would counter-flag.
50> I would also like to point out that that image is actually hotlinked to wikipedia.
So, well, there's that.
52TineOliver
51: I agree with you that I don't think it currently constitutes a breach of the TOS, so I wouldn't (and didn't) flag it, however, I can see that some people might view that differently, so I wouldn't counter-flag.
That said, I think Joan (50) makes a very valid point. There are a number of minors on this website for various reasons (a big thumbs up to those teachers who are thinking outside the square) and it would be a shame if that had to be discountinued because teachers were afraid of getting sued/fired/etc.
I note that the image is hotlinked to wikipedia, but I'm guessing that on wikipedia, at the very least it's shown with a link to some meaningful context, not used (a) completely without warning or (b) simply to prove a point. I actually think the use of the image, rather than the image itself, is more offensive in this situation.
I'd like for there to be a way for an author of a post to automatically set their post to hidden - this would work for both 'non-work safe' material and spoilers (seeing as Tim's hinting supertouchstones are 'coming soon'). E.g. somewhere on the edit/post a message frame, there is a check box for 'default to hidden' and a little box that says 'reason for hiding' and the message would show by default as:
This message has been defaulted to hidden by the author due to non-work safe material (show)
This message has been defaulted to hidden by the author due to spoiler about the end of Shutter Island (show)
That said, I think Joan (50) makes a very valid point. There are a number of minors on this website for various reasons (a big thumbs up to those teachers who are thinking outside the square) and it would be a shame if that had to be discountinued because teachers were afraid of getting sued/fired/etc.
I note that the image is hotlinked to wikipedia, but I'm guessing that on wikipedia, at the very least it's shown with a link to some meaningful context, not used (a) completely without warning or (b) simply to prove a point. I actually think the use of the image, rather than the image itself, is more offensive in this situation.
I'd like for there to be a way for an author of a post to automatically set their post to hidden - this would work for both 'non-work safe' material and spoilers (seeing as Tim's hinting supertouchstones are 'coming soon'). E.g. somewhere on the edit/post a message frame, there is a check box for 'default to hidden' and a little box that says 'reason for hiding' and the message would show by default as:
This message has been defaulted to hidden by the author due to non-work safe material (show)
This message has been defaulted to hidden by the author due to spoiler about the end of Shutter Island (show)
53justjim
I would also like to point out that that image is actually hotlinked to wikipedia.
It doesn't appear to be, to me. Here is the link if anyone wants Wikipedia information on L'Origine du monde.
My USD0.02 is that the image is not offensive but posting it here was inappropriate and inconsiderate.
It doesn't appear to be, to me. Here is the link if anyone wants Wikipedia information on L'Origine du monde.
My USD0.02 is that the image is not offensive but posting it here was inappropriate and inconsiderate.
54TheoClarke
>51 brightcopy: My whole point is that there's a big gap between R-rated and X-rated. In my opinion, this image is not X-rated. So I'd have a hard time thinking flagging based on that part of the TOS applied, and would counter-flag.
Err... was I unclear when I said "I agree with you. ... I now see that "Do not upload X-rated pictures" is not the most appropriate clause of ToS to apply to this case."?
I would also like to point out that that image is actually hotlinked to wikipedia.
Wikipedia warns that it contains content that may be objectionable. Context trumps all.
ETA >53 justjim: The image is linked to Wikimedia Commons.
Err... was I unclear when I said "I agree with you. ... I now see that "Do not upload X-rated pictures" is not the most appropriate clause of ToS to apply to this case."?
I would also like to point out that that image is actually hotlinked to wikipedia.
Wikipedia warns that it contains content that may be objectionable. Context trumps all.
ETA >53 justjim: The image is linked to Wikimedia Commons.
55jjwilson61
52> The author of that post could have posted just a link but he chose to display the image, to make a point. So I don't think voluntarily hiding the post would have made a difference in this case.
56timspalding
I'd say it's R-rated.
It's an interesting case insofar as if I were to carefully set up an equivalent image--differing only slightly so as not to make the allusion clear--take a photograph of it and post it people would scream bloody murder.
There is something a bit weird about the idea that a full-on shot of female genitalia changes status because it's probably somewhere in the The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.
That doesn't mean I'm against it on LT. I haven't really made up my mind, and would rather others did. I think it's an interesting case.
But I don't agree with the notion that LT's standard should be either the NSFW standard or the nervous public high-school teacher standard. This is a book site for pete's sake.
It's an interesting case insofar as if I were to carefully set up an equivalent image--differing only slightly so as not to make the allusion clear--take a photograph of it and post it people would scream bloody murder.
There is something a bit weird about the idea that a full-on shot of female genitalia changes status because it's probably somewhere in the The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.
That doesn't mean I'm against it on LT. I haven't really made up my mind, and would rather others did. I think it's an interesting case.
But I don't agree with the notion that LT's standard should be either the NSFW standard or the nervous public high-school teacher standard. This is a book site for pete's sake.
57TineOliver
56: I agree with you that neither of those should be LT's standard, which is why I suggested there should be a way to hide things like that by default or to at least warn the user, I didn't say they shouldn't be here at all. As Theo (54) said, context trumps all. (Although, Jeff (52) I completely get your point that the user in question would not have chosen to do so voluntarily).
This is a book site for pete's sake
Completely agree, which is why I think this issue hasn't come up recently (I've only been a member since March) and to be honest, had the poster of the image done as Jeff (52) said and just posted a link with an appropriate caveat (or even without, but at least other members could post a warning somewhere else in the thread), or posted the image in a group where that sort of thing is expected, I have no problem with it.
My issue is this: I don't think the image itself (in an appropriate context) is offensive or X rated (maybe R rated, but YMMV), so it doesn't clearly violate the terms of service. However, I view this site predominately from work (where I work in a corporate environment) and I'm aware of a number of younger ones on this site. The image was posted sans warning and not in context and accordingly, in my view, is not appropriate. At the moment, there's nothing I can do about that under the current LT system, other than either leave the site or access solely from home.
This is a book site for pete's sake
Completely agree, which is why I think this issue hasn't come up recently (I've only been a member since March) and to be honest, had the poster of the image done as Jeff (52) said and just posted a link with an appropriate caveat (or even without, but at least other members could post a warning somewhere else in the thread), or posted the image in a group where that sort of thing is expected, I have no problem with it.
My issue is this: I don't think the image itself (in an appropriate context) is offensive or X rated (maybe R rated, but YMMV), so it doesn't clearly violate the terms of service. However, I view this site predominately from work (where I work in a corporate environment) and I'm aware of a number of younger ones on this site. The image was posted sans warning and not in context and accordingly, in my view, is not appropriate. At the moment, there's nothing I can do about that under the current LT system, other than either leave the site or access solely from home.
58lorax
56>
This is a book site for pete's sake.
I've been telling you that for years, and yet the perfumes are still here. ;-)
I think it's reasonable to have a SFW standard for the Standing groups, but allow those pictures on other groups.
This is a book site for pete's sake.
I've been telling you that for years, and yet the perfumes are still here. ;-)
I think it's reasonable to have a SFW standard for the Standing groups, but allow those pictures on other groups.
59jjwilson61
But I don't agree with the notion that LT's standard should be either the NSFW standard or the nervous public high-school teacher standard. This is a book site for pete's sake.
Could the standard should be dependent on context, and the RSI thread is one that it should be safe to read at work.
Could the standard should be dependent on context, and the RSI thread is one that it should be safe to read at work.
60TrippB
The group creator is the safest choice to ensure that some graphic-happy vandal doesn't sully the image of whatever the group represents. For example, the Vegetarians and Vegans group would not appreciate someone changing the group image to a Big Mac--an image arguably more offensive than Courbet's nude (basic anatomy is pornography? Really? Looks PG-13 to me, at most). Opening the control to everyone would spark endless image wars.
I couldn't tell you the meaning of NSFW or YMMV if I had to, and that's ok with me. However, I have to thank urania1 for an amusing and very well stated post, even without the image. I hope she isn't serious, or something tells me that by the time that picture makes it to the dining room wall, the current Mr. Urania1 is already on his way out.
And to you people on LT at your place of employment (and not for your employer), please get back to work...unless you're selling Big Macs.
I couldn't tell you the meaning of NSFW or YMMV if I had to, and that's ok with me. However, I have to thank urania1 for an amusing and very well stated post, even without the image. I hope she isn't serious, or something tells me that by the time that picture makes it to the dining room wall, the current Mr. Urania1 is already on his way out.
And to you people on LT at your place of employment (and not for your employer), please get back to work...unless you're selling Big Macs.
61_Zoe_
>60 TrippB: I don't think "safety" should be the only concern, though. The safest thing would be not to have groups at all, and then no one could get hurt, right?
I think it would be plenty "safe" just to allow member flagging of photos that are inappropriate for the group. I do agree with having the creator set the primary image, though.
I think it would be plenty "safe" just to allow member flagging of photos that are inappropriate for the group. I do agree with having the creator set the primary image, though.
62brightcopy
56 (and others)> But I don't agree with the notion that LT's standard should be either the NSFW standard or the nervous public high-school teacher standard. This is a book site for pete's sake.
My main point of contention was that it is "X-rated". I have no problem if you changed to TOS to "No nude pictures in Talk" (other areas like book covers would be more tricky).
If you really wanted to bed over backwards, you could allow a separate flag category of "possibly objectionable imagery" that hides all the embedded IMG tags in a post until a user clicks a "show" button. But only if that user has a flag turn on in their profile for "hide possibly objectionable imagery by default."
My main point of contention was that it is "X-rated". I have no problem if you changed to TOS to "No nude pictures in Talk" (other areas like book covers would be more tricky).
If you really wanted to bed over backwards, you could allow a separate flag category of "possibly objectionable imagery" that hides all the embedded IMG tags in a post until a user clicks a "show" button. But only if that user has a flag turn on in their profile for "hide possibly objectionable imagery by default."
63TineOliver
60: Agree with your post entirely except for three things:
1 - Basic anatomy does not equal pornography, however, while I'm not exactly familiar with US classification guidelines, Australian guidelines look at the context of nudity, not just the 'level' or 'subject' of the nudity. Other than the TOS say 'not X-rated', I'm not sure that classification is an appropriate guideline either.
2 - I agree Urania1's post was very well stated - however, I actually think the image within the post rather than a link to it weakened its effectiveness (because we've spent most of the past few posts talking about her actions, rather than her point)
3 - As has been pointed out by others earlier, just because I'm accessing LT at work doesn't mean it's when I'm supposed to be working.
And just for your information (FYI):
NSFW = Not Safe For Work
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary
1 - Basic anatomy does not equal pornography, however, while I'm not exactly familiar with US classification guidelines, Australian guidelines look at the context of nudity, not just the 'level' or 'subject' of the nudity. Other than the TOS say 'not X-rated', I'm not sure that classification is an appropriate guideline either.
2 - I agree Urania1's post was very well stated - however, I actually think the image within the post rather than a link to it weakened its effectiveness (because we've spent most of the past few posts talking about her actions, rather than her point)
3 - As has been pointed out by others earlier, just because I'm accessing LT at work doesn't mean it's when I'm supposed to be working.
And just for your information (FYI):
NSFW = Not Safe For Work
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary
64timspalding
Can't write. Parent over shoulder.
65brightcopy
Give 'em a cracker.
66TheoClarke
>62 brightcopy: If you really wanted to bed over backwards
And what might Sigmund have said about that typo? OMPOS (=Oh My Poor Old Sides)
And what might Sigmund have said about that typo? OMPOS (=Oh My Poor Old Sides)
67jseger9000
So... when can we start uploading images?
68timspalding
1. It's now an option whether a group can get images from members or just the creator/admins
2. All existing groups have been set to flip to "members" if people don't choose by next week
2. All existing groups have been set to flip to "members" if people don't choose by next week
70jseger9000
Sorry. I read the "New Features" thread right after posting #67...
71jjwilson61
But apparently it doesn't work, see the thread lilithcat links to.
72janeajones
How about?
