Author Topic: Quality and Content Rating System - Simple Implementation (Read 7832 times)

Leo Blanchette · « **on:** June 30, 2013, 18:44 »

In the stock photography and illustration business there are lots of different types of "contributors" of varying skill and content.

Symbiostock seeks to maximize everyone's freedom. Also trying to exert control over everyone's own site is not only impossible but will not be well accepted. The whole point of Symbiostock is to allow you to do things your way

I'm going to put in a quick and efficient rating system that allows you to mark quality and rating according to reasonable opinion. Lets talk about the easy one first:

Quality

There will be 3 levels of quality you can assign to your images:

Premium - It simply states that you have reason to believe this is your best or most sellable work. Maybe you put your best into it and want to spotlight it. Maybe you know its a good seller, and thus give it premium status. Its your choice.
Typical - Generally useful and well targeted stuff. Its good useable work but takes second to your "premium" images.
Everything else - Its so easy to upload...why not upload it??? Someone will use it! But you certainly feel its not your best or even second best work.

Your search results will order things by these 3 tiers both in your own search results and the network search results. This will help your sales since the best stuff will jump in front of people's eyes soon. Its really just a way to maintain quality according to your own opinion, ranking search results accordingly, making sales easier. And of course someone else isn't judging your work in a way you may not agree with.

Rating

Again it would be silly to try to enforce any sort of rules over what people do with their own site. But you can control what comes onto your own site. For any number of reasons you may have an image to uphold, and so there should be some sort of rating system to help people to do that. Also, with all personal opinions aside - Google is going to rate your site based on whats leaking through as well.

What is the modern "rating" system applied to images? Is it the typical g, pg, pg13, r... etc? In any case, we might need one.

Unrated - Means there is no rating. It does not imply anything other than it simply hasn't been rated yet.
G, PG, PG13 ... need we explain?
R - You know what that implies better than I do I'm sure.

Your network members will be able to apply filters on what gets through to their search results. Simply stated, the results will be provided by your site, but every image will be conditionally included or excluded based on rating.

Your welcome to comment. Especially you people who are familiar and perhaps involved with this.

Symbiostock's Quality And Reputation

As of next release I'm going to be removing my name from the Theme. The "Symbiostock network" implies a shared reputation among many different types of people. So you won't see Leo Blanchette or necessarily even Symbiostock branding coming into your site except in network specific areas. I think its important to allow people to make and control their own reputation and branding on their site. Let me know if you feel the same.

We are getting close to 2.5 which by amazing cooincidence happens to be where things are becoming quite stable. From here it can only get easier.

I feel this system of self-regulation has potential to cause people to compare quality against their own work, and not that of others, possibly making a naturally quality controlled atmosphere where your personal best floats straight to the top. Giving you control over your site's content as far as how things are ranked and what comes in will help in many ways.

steheap · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2013, 18:52 »

Hi Leo

I understand the rating (the PG type), but it all seems to be an area that is not worth bothering with, at this stage, in my view. I think most incoming buyers will come via Google. It could be different for illustrators where someone may like your style and book mark you, but for photographs, a buyer has a specific need in mind, and my site (if he finds it for that need) is not likely to have an image for the next search. Hence the buyer will come in, see my shot, either like it or not, and then move on. Why would I worry them with "premium, basic etc.?" If they like it, they buy it assuming the price is OK.

So, I think there are better things to spend your time on.

Steve

grsphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2013, 18:56 »

I would be much happier if the editing of images, keywording, releases etc was working better before we started adding another layer on top of the images.

Having to go back through and setting each image with the present system will be such a PITA

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2013, 19:18 »

Feel free to express your opinions. This thread will be here when there are 100 sites making up the network. It will be nice to collect thoughts here.

In the meantime I have to get my name off the footer

And regarding how to spend my time - yes, there are at least 10 other things I'd rather be coding, half of which involve actual profit

steheap · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2013, 19:31 »

Another thought - I 100% agree about the issue of adding things retrospectively - I'm struggling to get all my images online and I know I have to go back and change those settings for model and property releases and possibly an editorial marking. Lots of work, but I can see the value. I don't see value in restricting the choice that a buyer has of our relatively small library of images (compared to any of the main agencies. Any restrictions on what they see based on a quality or rating level is not a good idea and I can't believe that a buyer of images will be put off by the sort of nude images likely to appear on our sites. I'm sure they have seen far worse!!

Steve

quailrunphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2013, 19:58 »

Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 19:18

In the meantime I have to get my name off the footer

I respectfully disagree. I believe you are the Creator/author and should remain so named. If you want to spread the praise, add the major code contributors to Symbiostock or link to that information. You started out with a vision and have accomplished amazing results.

I would agree with others that a rating system would not be a wise use of your time right now. Maybe as a paid plugin for the future.

Bug fixes should be your coding goal and preparing to cut Symbiostock loose. I have the impression you have several irons in the fire, including the need to increase your own income. So it is time to let go.

David

djpadavona · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2013, 20:14 »

I like the idea Leo. Steve is right - the vast majority of people will land directly on an image from some sort of organic search. However for those who perform a search on our site, or take a look at the "similar images", it is useful if we can show them our best stuff at the forefront.

When Warmpicture first formed, I went through everyone's portfolios at the major agencies and logged which images had a strong history of sales. I gave those a hidden "rating" to allow them to show up at the forefront of searches. It made the site look a lot better.

It's totally optional. If someone doesn't want to bother with it, they don't have to. But I will definitely highlight my top 5%-10% and ensure they are always near the top of searches.

steheap · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2013, 20:17 »

Quote

However for those who perform a search on our site

You've highlighted one of the areas that I think is a much better area to focus on - the internal search. It is pretty primitive right now, and so my money would go on a much better "best match" search that takes compound keywords into account.

I can see the logic of putting your best images forward in a search on the site - it currently puts newest ones there, and I've tended to put my best images on the site first - hence they get lost. REversing the search display would be a nice option for me.

Steve

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2013, 20:52 »

Hey guys, these features will be optional. So we don't have to be fearful of any more complexities.

In case anyone was confused, the QUALITY rating system is an internal ranking system, which is relative to your own work. It puts your best at the front in a relevant search.

RATING is also internal. Lets say I'm fully aware children can, do, and will visit my site because they like robots. AND MY ROBOTS ARE CUTE.

It just so happens a big breasted sexy model with a sensuous look on her face posed and ready ... is also CUTE by another person's definition. And by cooincidence they've listed CUTE in their promoted keywords.

So, now my robots share search results with images meant to excite the males of the species.

See the necessity?

I need to block your your "sexy" "nude" women if we must share a network and mind my audience's eyes. So if you can do me and many others the favor of setting the rating:

GREEN
YELLOW
RED

Ahead of time on a batch of images, and take that extra moment to be mindful of the children...everyone wins no?

I use myself as an example because I'm one of the few guys here that might be concerned about the issues. Knowing my dad, for instance, if he were a photographer or illustrator in the network he'd probably network with all you nude sexy girl guys and put your network results right at the top and be his own best search customer.

as perhaps many of you manly men would be.

Of course I'm having a little fun with this, but I'm sure you can see the necessity for my youngsters looking for mascot imagery for their school projects.

Also I've put the system in already

it only took a few minutes and to be honest its really not that hard to include for future use.

grsphoto · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2013, 21:53 »

Instead of a morality rating system ( which will be bypassed by some irresponsible people ) why not add a "safe search" into the search system. With safe search on images with specific keyword will be left out.

This way I have much more control over what gets seen on my site.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:05 »

Quote from: grsphoto on June 30, 2013, 21:53

Instead of a morality rating system ( which will be bypassed by some irresponsible people ) why not add a "safe search" into the search system. With safe search on images with specific keyword will be left out.

This way I have much more control over what gets seen on my site.

I'll add a field into the network panel which will provide some default values which you can override.

Also please understand that I'm very aware we all come from different backgrounds and am not trying to enforce morality. This is simply a system to show consideration for the others, and a way to control what comes onto your own site, since we all have different values.

grsphoto · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:29 »

Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 22:05

Quote from: grsphoto on June 30, 2013, 21:53
Instead of a morality rating system ( which will be bypassed by some irresponsible people ) why not add a "safe search" into the search system. With safe search on images with specific keyword will be left out.

This way I have much more control over what gets seen on my site.

I'll add a field into the network panel which will provide some default values which you can override.

Also please understand that I'm very aware we all come from different backgrounds and am not trying to enforce morality. This is simply a system to show consideration for the others, and a way to control what comes onto your own site, since we all have different values.

We should assume that we are mostly adults on the network. We can also assume that most of the buyers will be adults as well. I think that it would be better if the system was set as open, and we could close it as we go instead of closed ( default values) which have to be over written.

cascoly · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:34 »

I'm strongly against any rating system - quality or morality -- it will only hurt those who try to play along, unless there is some form of enforcement.

google will be sending most traffic to most sites, and it wont care what rating a picture has -- it's like those silly 5 star ratings for recipes -- few real people bother to rate anything. you'll end up like sites like panther and the other bottom level sites that show images based on ratings which in turn are just popularity, no real quality control

it's a system crying to be abused

in addition, those of us with 1000 or more images are not about to go back and rate all those images for no possible gain. and forward, we upload in batches -- who's going to waste time assigning a rating to individual images?

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:35 »

Sounds like a good plan. We'll keep things open by default and leave filtering to the webmasters, and simply ask people to mark images maturity level as they upload. I'll streamline it for future uploads to encourage it.

The nice thing is it allows people to work an honor system, and honor / trust systems are proven to work in most areas.

cascoly · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:40 »

Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 20:52

RATING is also internal. Lets say I'm fully aware children can, do, and will visit my site because they like robots. AND MY ROBOTS ARE CUTE.

.....So, now my robots share search results with images meant to excite the males of the species.

.....I need to block your your "sexy" "nude" women if we must share a network and mind my audience's eyes. So if you can do me and many others the favor of setting the rating:

.....
I use myself as an example because I'm one of the few guys here that might be concerned about the issues. Knowing my dad, for instance, if he were a photographer or illustrator in the network he'd probably network with all you nude sexy girl guys and put your network results right at the top and be his own best search customer. as perhaps many of you manly men would be.

Of course I'm having a little fun with this, but I'm sure you can see the necessity for my youngsters looking for mascot imagery for their school projects.

sorry, but I don't see the problem -- i'm not selling to children, and I don't control what other people have on their sites. i'm selling my images to adults who are looking for specific content. any reasonable buyer will realize that their keywords may bring up some surprising results.

children's use of the internet is their parent's responsibility. no reason we should self censor when the purpose of the sites does not include children in the first place. there are some people who would object to any image of an unveiled woman -- should we mark those as potentially objectionable?

cascoly · « **Reply #15 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:43 »

Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 22:05

Quote from: grsphoto on June 30, 2013, 21:53
Instead of a morality rating system ( which will be bypassed by some irresponsible people ) why not add a "safe search" into the search system. With safe search on images with specific keyword will be left out.

This way I have much more control over what gets seen on my site.

I'll add a field into the network panel which will provide some default values which you can override.

Also please understand that I'm very aware we all come from different backgrounds and am not trying to enforce morality. This is simply a system to show consideration for the others, and a way to control what comes onto your own site, since we all have different values.

ONLY if the default value is 'safe', otherwise anyone who uses the system is going to be automatically blocking out most of the images in the search since most will not be rated at all

grsphoto · « **Reply #16 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:43 »

As for your other comment about taking your name off the theme.... bad idea.

With the amount of effort you put into this you deserve as much traffic as the network can send to your site.

Thinking about the maturity level, don't we already have a way of disabling searches by sites? Won't that allow you to protect your child clients?

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #17 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:48 »

Quote from: cascoly on June 30, 2013, 22:34

I'm strongly against any rating system - quality or morality -- it will only hurt those who try to play along, unless there is some form of enforcement.

google will be sending most traffic to most sites, and it wont care what rating a picture has -- it's like those silly 5 star ratings for recipes -- few real people bother to rate anything. you'll end up like sites like panther and the other bottom level sites that show images based on ratings which in turn are just popularity, no real quality control

it's a system crying to be abused

in addition, those of us with 1000 or more images are not about to go back and rate all those images for no possible gain. and forward, we upload in batches -- who's going to waste time assigning a rating to individual images?

Generally its optional. A system with no filtering is beckoning even more to be abused.

You may be confused regarding the QUALITY rating:

Quality rating simply allows you to place your images as priority on your search results. It gives you control. Also, you don't have to use it. Its completely optional and harmless since it only pertains to you. Left alone your images will rank according to when they were uploaded. Its a 3 level quality system to put your best in front, everything else in the middle, and your random-no-effort-third-rate-stuff in the back.

RATING (having to do with nudity)

When Symbiostock starts getting BIG your going to have the issues of BIG operations. And your going to have to filter something. AJT for instance will come to a point when someone uploads a detailed X rated picture(s) onto their site and it ends up in his search engine. He has no choice but to make a moral judgement. So really the question of filtering is almost as complex as the question of no filtering.

And here's little me with my robots trying to keep innocent eyes protected

The funny thing is I knew this question was coming before I even wrote my first line of code.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #18 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:50 »

Quote from: cascoly on June 30, 2013, 22:43

ONLY if the default value is 'safe', otherwise anyone who uses the system is going to be automatically blocking out most of the images in the search since most will not be rated at all

Yeah, also I can block out "orange" from my search so nobody competes with my orange men, so thats where trust and respect for the network comes in. Right now its easy because we all know eachother and are growing together.

I think really if we are masters of our own domains first, and ask for consideration second, we should do well. The problem, of course, is more human than programing. A system to regulate humans perfectly will never come out of human creation

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #19 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:52 »

Quote from: grsphoto on June 30, 2013, 22:43

As for your other comment about taking your name off the theme.... bad idea.

With the amount of effort you put into this you deserve as much traffic as the network can send to your site.

Thinking about the maturity level, don't we already have a way of disabling searches by sites? Won't that allow you to protect your child clients?

Wow, this thread took off.

Yeah, I can block entire sites like anyone. But this makes things a little less all-or-nothing.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #20 on:** June 30, 2013, 22:58 »

Leo I think you are right to get these systems in. Although I agree that most of our buyers will come in through Google, I don't want explicit images to come up on our site when for instance I put in the keyword beautiful. I don't want to see them myself, and I'd rather they weren't pushed onto potential customers who may just happen to browse. I haven't seen anything yet that bothers me, but the day will come.
As for the quality rating, I quite like that idea. I don't think it's a biggie, but quite nice to have it there, just for the potential browsers.

Pilens · « **Reply #21 on:** June 30, 2013, 23:33 »

I like the idea of having some control where my images show up in a search. I wouldn't call it "quality rating", though.

I am not sure a PG rating/filter system is a good idea at this point. Is there enough offending images among the app 50,000 on the network now that it would make a difference? Would we really go through the hassle of PG-rating every single images? And even if everyone of us would, what advantages would exactly justify the additional effort? I mean if kids find Leo's cute robots, are able enough to dig deeper and find other "cute" images, chances are they would do anyway somewhere else on the internet.

I don't see crediting Leo for making the theme on my SY site breaking my branding at all. It would actually feel bad asking buyers to credit my images to me wherever possible and not mentioning Leo for making this great WP theme.

I agree that uploading/processing images is still a PITA if you want to do it right. There's much streamlining to do that would a big time saver for everyone. And if doing it right really helps SEO it'll be an advantage for everyone.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #22 on:** June 30, 2013, 23:47 »

With a night of coding almost complete - here's what we got:

A quality system that orders your images by priority 1, 2, 3. Maybe its a good idea not to call it quality. Call it priority?

klsbear · « **Reply #23 on:** July 01, 2013, 00:09 »

Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 23:47

With a night of coding almost complete - here's what we got:

A quality system that orders your images by priority 1, 2, 3. Maybe its a good idea not to call it quality. Call it priority?

"Priority" rating is exactly what came to mind for me instead of "quality" rating. I'd vote for using that term.

The content rating would rely on everyone actually using the ratings when uploading so I can see that being a challenge to actually make it work.

Pilens · « **Reply #24 on:** July 01, 2013, 00:10 »

Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 23:47

With a night of coding almost complete - here's what we got:

A quality system that orders your images by priority 1, 2, 3. Maybe its a good idea not to call it quality. Call it priority?

"Priority" sounds definitely less offending

. - Why not more than 3 priorities? - I am going to use this for sure!

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #25 on:** July 01, 2013, 00:16 »

Before I got back to this thread I had already called it Rank in like 4 different places / files.

Still works the same - it takes those three levels and puts them in order.

When I'm done the mass-editor, this will be much easier to use. For now you might just want to take a hand-full of your best pics and give them a 1st level rank. You'll smile when you do a search

Kerioak~Christine · « **Reply #26 on:** July 01, 2013, 00:53 »

I would support a rating system both types and if it can be bulk edited so much the better. Most sites involving photography have a filter of some kind or at least a warning

I do not support Leo removing his name. With prlang's help I removed wordpress . The only change I might like to see is mention of symbiostock going to symbiostock.com and Leo going to clipartillustration.com

sc · « **Reply #27 on:** July 01, 2013, 00:54 »

Quote from: Leo on July 01, 2013, 00:16

Before I got back to this thread I had already called it Rank in like 4 different places / files.

Still works the same - it takes those three levels and puts them in order.

When I'm done the mass-editor, this will be much easier to use. For now you might just want to take a hand-full of your best pics and give them a 1st level rank. You'll smile when you do a search

Where does one do this?

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #28 on:** July 01, 2013, 01:07 »

Right now (as of this release coming tonight or tomorrow) you can set it in author options or in the image editing area.

Experimenting:

All images start with a 2 rating level.

I gave one a 1 rank, and sure enough it was first in its relevant search.

I gave another one a 3 rank, and it was last.

So it works!

Ron · « **Reply #29 on:** July 01, 2013, 04:20 »

I definitely agree with the search needing to able to read compound keyword phrases

cathyslife · « **Reply #30 on:** July 01, 2013, 05:28 »

Quote from: klsbear on July 01, 2013, 00:09

Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 23:47
With a night of coding almost complete - here's what we got:

A quality system that orders your images by priority 1, 2, 3. Maybe its a good idea not to call it quality. Call it priority?

"Priority" rating is exactly what came to mind for me instead of "quality" rating. I'd vote for using that term.

The content rating would rely on everyone actually using the ratings when uploading so I can see that being a challenge to actually make it work.

Agree. The people shooting nude women and beyond dont see their work as offensive, so i dont think they will want to be bothered. I dont care what others shoot and if they make money off of it, good for them. The only way i can be sure those images dont come up in a search on my site is to check the box you have already included. Unfortunately, that excludes all their images that might not be offensive. But that will have to be the way it is if they dont want to use the content rating.

cascoly · « **Reply #31 on:** July 01, 2013, 20:23 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 01, 2013, 05:28

Quote from: klsbear on July 01, 2013, 00:09
Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 23:47
With a night of coding almost complete - here's what we got:

A quality system that orders your images by priority 1, 2, 3. Maybe its a good idea not to call it quality. Call it priority?

"Priority" rating is exactly what came to mind for me instead of "quality" rating. I'd vote for using that term.

The content rating would rely on everyone actually using the ratings when uploading so I can see that being a challenge to actually make it work.

Agree. The people shooting nude women and beyond dont see their work as offensive, so i dont think they will want to be bothered. I dont care what others shoot and if they make money off of it, good for them. The only way i can be sure those images dont come up in a search on my site is to check the box you have already included. Unfortunately, that excludes all their images that might not be offensive. But that will have to be the way it is if they dont want to use the content rating.

realistically - why would nudes ever show up in a search for green, animal, travel or any of the other keywords people are promoting?

grsphoto · « **Reply #32 on:** July 02, 2013, 08:00 »

The initial setting of the safe search function and the wording has imposed censorship and USA morality on all sites!!

I know that some places in the states it is illegal for women to show their breast ( but it is ok for men) but that is not the case for a lot of the world. So this standard is what we now have for Symbiostock? A lot of European fashion picks will be rated as Red by this network?

Sorry for the rant but censorship " for the sake of the children " has always bothered me.

travelwitness · « **Reply #33 on:** July 02, 2013, 08:09 »

If people really want a simple adult filter on their personal site why not just have an option to exclude certain keywords from the local site search, nude, sexy etc.

I wouldn't to see network wide censorship though, that would make the network pointless.

Kerioak~Christine · « **Reply #34 on:** July 02, 2013, 08:21 »

Quote from: travelwitness on July 02, 2013, 08:09

If people really want a simple adult filter on their personal site why not just have an option to exclude certain keywords from the local site search, nude, sexy etc.

I wouldn't to see network wide censorship though, that would make the network pointless.

That looks to be what Leo has done.

As I understand it there are three levels of filters and you can include words to exclude.

For instance
I have a few lingerie images that I have marked as yellow/amber

If you did not want any results with the word "bra" to appear on your site you would just add that to the excluded words for the Amber level

Without the filter you would have to block my whole site rather than a few selected images to stop the bra's appearing

Kerioak~Christine · « **Reply #35 on:** July 02, 2013, 08:33 »

I see Leo has removed his name from the theme - but has included a compromise

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #36 on:** July 02, 2013, 13:57 »

Quote from: grsphoto on July 02, 2013, 08:00

The initial setting of the safe search function and the wording has imposed censorship and USA morality on all sites!!

I know that some places in the states it is illegal for women to show their breast ( but it is ok for men) but that is not the case for a lot of the world. So this standard is what we now have for Symbiostock? A lot of European fashion picks will be rated as Red by this network?

Sorry for the rant but censorship " for the sake of the children " has always bothered me.

Ok - the system is in as you know.

You will have to do an "update image info" in the admin area. If you don't, within 24 hours the system will automatically give your images a base 2 ranking, which will cause your 1's to go to the front if you want them to.

About the green, yellow, red system.

You mention culture. Some countries require cookie permission, some don't. We're all just trying to do things properly.

You may find this system befits you more than hurts you. AJT is joking about making a filter to search ONLY red if selected.

Meanwhile I sit here and say to everyone "It is what it is! Do whatever you want!" and I'm glad someone else takes care of central search.

The sandbox aspect of Symbiostock is just that. The tools are there. Use them or not - nobody will fault you. Its your sandbox.

Although its fun to go back and forth on matters of morality, this new system will:

A: The ranking system will help you put your best work at the front. Possibly even on symbistock.info.
B. The rating system is an honor system and probably will not get filtered by 90% of webmasters.
C. The keyword exclusion tool is also part of your sandbox to control your website. I know the network well enough to say that people so far will not be abusing it, and anyone who wants to network will probably not be filtering words "strategically" and if they do, who cares? Its your sandbox.

So really the basic point is this will not really change much and gives a little more control to everyone. Also this is the last thing to be implemented as a core part of the theme, besides the cookie no-sign-up cart which I am working on.

cathyslife · « **Reply #37 on:** July 02, 2013, 17:13 »

Quote from: cascoly on July 01, 2013, 20:23

Quote from: cclapper on July 01, 2013, 05:28
Quote from: klsbear on July 01, 2013, 00:09
Quote from: Leo on June 30, 2013, 23:47
With a night of coding almost complete - here's what we got:

A quality system that orders your images by priority 1, 2, 3. Maybe its a good idea not to call it quality. Call it priority?

"Priority" rating is exactly what came to mind for me instead of "quality" rating. I'd vote for using that term.

The content rating would rely on everyone actually using the ratings when uploading so I can see that being a challenge to actually make it work.

Agree. The people shooting nude women and beyond dont see their work as offensive, so i dont think they will want to be bothered. I dont care what others shoot and if they make money off of it, good for them. The only way i can be sure those images dont come up in a search on my site is to check the box you have already included. Unfortunately, that excludes all their images that might not be offensive. But that will have to be the way it is if they dont want to use the content rating.

realistically - why would nudes ever show up in a search for green, animal, travel or any of the other keywords people are promoting?

Keyword stuffing. I'm sure the keywords for a sexy woman aren't just going to include sexy and woman. Here's a list of keywords that were added for the attached image:

young, woman, wellness, vogue, vitality, vertical, thoughts, tenderness, temptation, tall, stylish, studio, slender, skin, she, sexy, sensuality, seduction, pretty, perfection, passion, nifty, lingerie, lady, isolated, human, healthy, grace, gorgeous, glamour, girl, gentle, fresh, figure, female, elegance, dream, dietary, desire, caucasian, bodies, blond, beauty, beautiful, attractive, affection

thoughts, studio, nifty, lingerie, girl, fresh, elegance, dream, dietary, caucasian, bodies, blond, affection? Sorry, I don't see those. Especially lingerie and dietary. So I'm searching for food and enter the word dietary and BOOM, I get that image. No, sorry. That's just annoying.

That was the first image I came to. There must be millions of others.

grsphoto · « **Reply #38 on:** July 02, 2013, 20:44 »

Leo, you have done great work and I applaud what you have done loudly and long many times and in many places. You have worked hard and I really appreciate what you have done, and I don't want to come across as a sever critic.

Quote from: Leo on July 02, 2013, 13:57

B. The rating system is an honor system and probably will not get filtered by 90% of webmasters.

Except that your have set it so that it is full on censorship when the theme is installed!

With all the other things a new user has to learn this is another, and how many are going to change a setting from green to red?

I understand what, and why you are doing this, but the wording on the labels, the instructions besides the buttons seem very deliberate.

I have, in the past, tried several times to have conversations about how best to deal with this so that something like this would not be imposed.

Instead of a colour designation how about calling it "safe search level" with open being the standard default, and the two more restrictive levels.

I would also like to see a rewording of the acceptable images for each classification... maybe open, sexy nudity, and erotic being the three levels.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #39 on:** July 02, 2013, 20:51 »

I can see where your coming from.

If things are working correctly, it should allow UNRATED by default. Meaning unrated stuff gets through.

Do you want me to make every input UNRATED by default? Edit: Meaning that instead of GREEN you have UNRATED, GREEN, YELLOW, ETC

I just started it at green - there was no deeper intention. Also regarding wording, feel free to suggest changes. There's nothing deliberate going on. Much like the default prices the theme installs with, they are meant to be changed. Not suggestions.

EDIT:

This is what I used to get a well-pioneered rating basis: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/146399?hl=en

Avoiding Bias, I simply used an existing system.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #40 on:** July 02, 2013, 22:04 »

So I took a little detour from my work and hopefully have covered all of the files where rating is addressed.

So what we have is the dropdown of options:

-
GREEN
YELLOW
RED

The dash is wonderfully neutral and unbiased. Its a dash, and like most dashes are devoid of any opinion and seek to merely fill a space

So technically these correspond to 4 levels.

ALL defaults should not point to allowing UNRATED.

Its also worth mentioning that pretty much every system out there has a rating system for sensitive content.

The only thing worth asking now is please post your verbage changes and agree on them.

We just need a system that is forthright and well balanced. I think we're getting there. Tell me if we're not.

grsphoto · « **Reply #41 on:** July 02, 2013, 23:02 »

About the censorship ratings.

In my opinion, All defaults Should point to unrated.

Images should be unrated until the action to rate them has happened. The site should be wide open until the webmaster takes steps to tighten their content.

4 settings

unrated..... as the name states this should be the default
general.... 90% of the images in the world
S or N..... Sexy or nude images ( including Art) There are a lot of sexy images which don't have "offensive" body parts and a lot of nude images which have no sexual content
Adult...... Images of adults, by adults for adults

If other people don't comment or have an opinion then I will stop

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #42 on:** July 02, 2013, 23:08 »

Don't worry, your opinion is valued - and yes, everyone concerned please join in and suggest verbage agreeable to the masses.

By an amazing cooincidence you were our first webmaster with content like yours, so really your blazing a trail here for others with content like yours. Thanks for your help in getting the issue worked out properly.

As of this point, I'm re-uploading 4.4.9 with all of the defaults set to unrated and the webmaster will have to specifically alter things to their wishes which is completely fair.

klsbear · « **Reply #43 on:** July 02, 2013, 23:40 »

Quote from: grsphoto on July 02, 2013, 23:02

About the censorship ratings.

In my opinion, All defaults Should point to unrated.

Images should be unrated until the action to rate them has happened. The site should be wide open until the webmaster takes steps to tighten their content.

4 settings

unrated..... as the name states this should be the default
general.... 90% of the images in the world
S or N..... Sexy or nude images ( including Art) There are a lot of sexy images which don't have "offensive" body parts and a lot of nude images which have no sexual content
Adult...... Images of adults, by adults for adults

If other people don't comment or have an opinion then I will stop

I'd suggest:

Unrated
General
Artistic Nudity
Adult Content

S or N for sexy or nude images is a bit vague and leaves you looking for a meaning.

Kerioak~Christine · « **Reply #44 on:** July 03, 2013, 01:20 »

I thought the current wording was very definitive

Words such as sexy and artistic nude are very much in the eye of the beholder, some may agree and others find them crude. I would imagine most people will leave it open but do wonder if there should be a "safe for work" option for customers to filter out red level

I know I have used the keyword bare, and may have used nude in describing a winter tree without leaves, so there can be overlap both way with keywords

Pilens · « **Reply #45 on:** July 03, 2013, 01:31 »

Hmm,

I was once asked by a FAA group master not to send any (ugly) pics of dead/decaying animals to her group because she felt offended by them (although I thought the group's topic, something like "wilderness scenes" or "found on the forest floor", I can't remember, seemed a good match to me).

How would I rate those images if this is all about nudity and adult content?

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #46 on:** July 03, 2013, 01:47 »

Quote from: Pilens on July 03, 2013, 01:31

Hmm,

I was one ask by a FAA group master not to send any (ugly) pics of dead/decaying animals to her group because she felt offended by them (although I thought the group's topic, something like "wilderness scences" or "found on the forest floor", I can't remember, seemed a good match to me).

How would I rate those images if this is all about nudity and adult content?

It depends. Are the dead animals wearing underwear?

Pilens · « **Reply #47 on:** July 03, 2013, 01:58 »

Quote from: Leo on July 03, 2013, 01:47

Quote from: Pilens on July 03, 2013, 01:31
Hmm,

I was one ask by a FAA group master not to send any (ugly) pics of dead/decaying animals to her group because she felt offended by them (although I thought the group's topic, something like "wilderness scences" or "found on the forest floor", I can't remember, seemed a good match to me).

How would I rate those images if this is all about nudity and adult content?
It depends. Are the dead animals wearing underwear?

No, beside mangled fur they are literally bloody naked

grsphoto · « **Reply #48 on:** July 03, 2013, 07:08 »

Quote from: Tinny on July 03, 2013, 01:20

I thought the current wording was very definitive

GREEN:    Viewable by all audiences.
YELLOW:    Content rated YELLOW may contain individuals who are minimally clothed (e.g., low cut tops, underwear or revealing bathing suits). Content rated YELLOW should not contain nudity, including exposed buttocks, genitalia, or areola.
RED:    Shows exposed areas including exposed buttocks, genitalia, or areola.

The problem is the wording is too definitive.

Most of my Artistic images on http://peopleimages.grsphoto.ca/ would fall into the RED
While the images that I have that would likely cause the most offense would, by these definition, be green ( lips and a popscycle and did it ever cause me a lot of grief... I was after colour and didn't see the sexual connotation until it was published)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Quality and Content Rating System - Simple Implementation (Read 7832 times)

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

quailrunphoto

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

sc

Leo Blanchette

Ron

travelwitness

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors