Poll for a SFW version of Purpleport

Isn't that called Instagram?

TugTog said

Isn't that called Instagram?

Not the way some of the users on here use it!

Somersetman said

YorVikIng said

Yes!  When browsing NSFW there should be no visual clues (other than the relevant setting) to the existence of stuff that has been filtered out. 

This ^.  Flickr used to do that exact thing... when browsing in safe mode you wouldn't know that NSFW images (or entirely NSFW albums) even existed.

I like this idea, I'm not sure why NSFW has to be replaced by a logo in default SFW mode.

Someone very kindly sent me a link, possibly things are being miscategorised, below is the NSFW, ADULT breakdown:-

Image Upload Guidelines (purpleport.com)

Either way, people have been good humoured enough to debate something we/they are all passionate about, either one way or another.

Making everything outside the image filter totally vanish may be neater but it does create a misrepresentation that could be unsafe or unwelcome.

Someone who puts up say 6 rather nice very safe images and 50 very nude will appear identical to someone who only has up 6 images fully clothed but dull images, except the quality would attract someone to the first profile unless they told you in the text they mainly shot nude.

For the photographer it could also be annoying that you keep getting approached for shoots way below your normal levels just because you had 6 very low level images up.

I'd prefer placeholders to stay if possible the site could always soften their design and just leave blank grey boxes or even a note clearly stating how many images had been hidden and a link to allow you to toggle them visible.

I'd personally wish the site would drop this requirement for the avatar to be sfw and allow us the option to make all images vanish to sfw viewers if we want.

I cannot think of a reason why I want anyone who only views the site in sfw setting to see a single image of mine. If they want to see any, remove the filter

Gerry99111 said

Making everything outside the image filter totally vanish may be neater but it does create a misrepresentation that could be unsafe or unwelcome.

Someone who puts up say 6 rather nice very safe images and 50 very nude will appear identical to someone who only has up 6 images fully clothed but dull images, except the quality would attract someone to the first profile unless they told you in the text they mainly shot nude.

For the photographer it could also be annoying that you keep getting approached for shoots way below your normal levels just because you had 6 very low level images up.

I'd prefer placeholders to stay if possible the site could always soften their design and just leave blank grey boxes or even a note clearly stating how many images had been hidden and a link to allow you to toggle them visible.

I'd personally wish the site would drop this requirement for the avatar to be sfw and allow us the option to make all images vanish to sfw viewers if we want.

I cannot think of a reason why I want anyone who only views the site in sfw setting to see a single image of mine. If they want to see any, remove the filter

I can see the Fox in SFW default mode, I love the fox photo.

I have asked my friend because it appears people think, as did I that she may have clicked on the "Show NSFW" or "Show Adult". It appears she did not there is NSFW displayed in the sites SFW default mode within the blog, that may have been overlooked if the site with to remain SFW for visitors/members as default.

https://purpleport.com/blog/

Pix Photography same here

tandi I guess there is two different issues here, what the various members see and what the outside world sees.

My port is members only, so the outside world cannot see it.

If the site goes to the trouble of filtering threads and images then If the blog is showing NSFW images, it must have a bug that needs reporting.

However, if people think that blog is porn, then there is little hope of them being persuaded of anything else. That is when it becomes a personal responsibility of members on who they choose to show or link the site to.

There are people I know who I wouldn't link the site to even if they only have the filters applied but who are on my ig page that shows NSFW images even if nipples are not shown.

Facebook is full of misinformation and posts trying to defraud but it is seen as a place foe everyone.

Sorry but a model site where models are posing beyond fully clothed even if it is just to ig no nipples will be seen as a port site by people who do not have the capacity to see it for what it is.

The only thing that seems to escape that stigma is life modelling which is very neutral and has some history to it

tandi I think the real factor though is how many people permanently only ever view the site in sfw mode and are over 18 so may do so for longer than 2 years and pay for membership for at least several years.

The site is a business, not a charity. The site will probably know all those answers and know if it is intrinsically viable to create another site.

My suspicions are the sfw Community is a bit like the forums. Small, not representative, opinionated and not willing to make such a thing economically profitable for the owner!

tandi said

Somersetman said

YorVikIng said

Yes!  When browsing NSFW there should be no visual clues (other than the relevant setting) to the existence of stuff that has been filtered out. 

This ^.  Flickr used to do that exact thing... when browsing in safe mode you wouldn't know that NSFW images (or entirely NSFW albums) even existed.

I like this idea, I'm not sure why NSFW has to be replaced by a logo in default SFW mode.

Someone very kindly sent me a link, possibly things are being miscategorised, below is the NSFW, ADULT breakdown:-

Image Upload Guidelines (purpleport.com)

Either way, people have been good humoured enough to debate something we/they are all passionate about, either one way or another.

Like most of us, when viewing thumbnails of recent images, you will eventually get poked in the eye by a penis belonging to a male model who has incorrectly marked it SFW.   ;)

I don’t really care for female genitalia appearing on the SFW feed if I am viewing PP in public either, but at least they don’t poke one.

;)

Gerry99111 said

My suspicions are the sfw Community is a bit like the forums. Small, not representative, opinionated and not willing to make such a thing economically profitable for the owner!

I am sure there are also plenty of opinionated and dispassionate people around who are probably happy to have a free membership or come on as a guest, but still get the benefits of being on the site, still view all the NSFW and Adult material and contribute nothing? Surely only paid members should be able to view NSFW and ADULT, the free accounts should be limited to SFW and not be able to create castings etc :-) 

I'm so confused over what NSFW and what Adult is in the photography world when compared to the legal definition of Adult content in UK/EU Law. Surely ADULT content should be only available to those who prove their age (not by clicking a button I am over 18).

tandi said

Gerry99111 said

My suspicions are the sfw Community is a bit like the forums. Small, not representative, opinionated and not willing to make such a thing economically profitable for the owner!

I am sure there are also plenty of opinionated and dispassionate people around who are probably happy to have a free membership or come on as a guest, but still get the benefits of being on the site, still view all the NSFW and Adult material and contribute nothing? Surely only paid members should be able to view NSFW and ADULT, the free accounts should be limited to SFW and not be able to create castings etc :-) 

I'm so confused over what NSFW and what Adult is in the photography world when compared to the legal definition of Adult content in UK/EU Law. Surely ADULT content should be only available to those who prove their age (not by clicking a button I am over 18).

I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that applies to selling access to or images of a sexual nature, not to images freely shared as personal artistic expression. That would likely fall under freedom of speech in a designated private space.

Although porn and art lines sometimes merge theres no clear definition of the difference between art and porn in law

Huw said

Like most of us, when viewing thumbnails of recent images, you will eventually get poked in the eye by a penis belonging to a male model who has incorrectly marked it SFW.   ;)

I don’t really care for female genitalia appearing on the SFW feed if I am viewing PP in public either, but at least they don’t poke one.

;)

I saw someone I follow showing a little more undercarriage than I would like to see under NSFW this morning, I was pretty sure undercarriage is supposed to come under adult, which I didn't tick. It's not just a male thing :-)

It wouldn't be hard for a picture file formats to have age rating coded into it, along with copyright information locked into it, and even licensing information which could be checked by webservers before publication to verify legal use, that would stop copyright theft, but no ones interested :-)

tandi said

Huw said

Like most of us, when viewing thumbnails of recent images, you will eventually get poked in the eye by a penis belonging to a male model who has incorrectly marked it SFW.   ;)

I don’t really care for female genitalia appearing on the SFW feed if I am viewing PP in public either, but at least they don’t poke one.

;)

I saw someone I follow showing a little more undercarriage than I would like to see under NSFW this morning, I was pretty sure undercarriage is supposed to come under adult, which I didn't tick. It's not just a male thing :-)

It wouldn't be hard for a picture file formats to have age rating coded into it, along with copyright information locked into it, and even licensing information which could be checked by webservers before publication to verify legal use, that would stop copyright theft, but no ones interested :-)

Eh, we cant get people to tag the creative in the image, no way they're filling all that out :-D and most people dont want exif data as it is, many strip it before uploading 

ANDY00 said

Eh, we cant get people to tag the creative in the image, no way they're filling all that out :-D and most people dont want exif data as it is, many strip it before uploading 

I'm off topic as usual, forgive me.

tandi adult on this site is based on purely its own definition and is used as a badge to warn or attract.

The site chooses to limit our ability to restrict who can see our images because it cares more about signing up new members than respecting our privacy wishes.

Ig and Facebook both have private mode which means people who you have not personally approved cannot see any of your posts or portfolio. I can't see the site adopting that system as all the 1000s of image collectors and some of the paying members would be shut out of the very stuff they want most to look at.

You have to remember the site has chosen to make it very easy for countless 1000s to join who have limited interest in ever arranging a shoot that is safe for someone to attend. They could be more selective on who they let join but they see no benefit.

The site has been like it is for it's whole duration and is a bit like an oil tanker on a fixed course. If you want to see a change in philosophy, offer it's captain enough money to retire and find a new one who would turn it into a speedboat!