Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I realise it must to some degree be automatic, but waking up to this was both amusing and depressing.

I am not saying that this image does not belong on Dakka or in the community. Jokes are jokes. Nudity is funny.
But some explanation as to how that ended up there in comparison to the Interesting topics, polls and photos would be cool.

And I think maybe useful to explain on the FB itself, considering that the feed represents the community. I do t believe in removing and deleting material, but an image titled with several words for breasts does bring to mind the worst stereotypes about all of us.

* Not NSFW to my own lax standard, but questions to explain out of context.

Could there be a "NSFW" filter installed? Tag appropriate pictures as NSFW then make sure the FB page can't showcase pictures with that tag?

Being that the image has voting disabled and no title, I doubt it was ever intended to be put out there.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/355060-.html
Edit: Okay yeah that entire album is like 30% mysogynistic humour. So anyone following through gets the works.

I was also rather surprised at the title, though I'm at work so diddn't want to risk clicking through to see how inappropriate it actuallly is.

I do think that some sort of NSFW filter might be an ideea though. Maybe request that people put it as a tag on rellevant images and filter out any with that tag?

Ugh. Embarrassing.

I don't think the real issue is whether or not it's NSFW (it kind of isn't), but that a female character was tagged "milk factories".

As Ashiraya says, embarassing.

This isn't anything new though, the feed shovels gak onto Facebook and Twitter all the time..

So it is, so it always shall be?
Seeing people upset by this (and being patronised by folk telling them not to be), plus the glorious sets of tags used, made my eyebrows raise.
This is how we are viewed by an outside lens.

 BrookM wrote:
This isn't anything new though, the feed shovels gak onto Facebook and Twitter all the time..

I don't think the issue is how the feed works, more that some things slip into it that shouldn't.

What makes it more difficult here is that whilst it straddles the line of NSFW, nothing prevents someone from using less-than-mature descriptors for what is in the image so long as it's not swearing, and the degree of acceptability for those descriptors can be very subjective so moderating them can be tricky. NSFW is relatively easy to detect and keep private, but if these tags were attached to a comparatively SFW image--a well-endowed but similarly well-covered model, for example--then it becomes trickier to keep off feeds like FB. There's no real universal way of tagging those sorts of images. NSFW is NSFW; it can--should--be tagged as such and filtered out. More subjective things which require more direct control could be incredibly difficult, if not impossible to prevent without manually vetting every image's tags. It's something that can likely only be dealt with on a reactionary basis--like this one has, as it appears to no longer have these tags visible on its Gallery page, although it's still on the FB feed.

As far as I know, images appear on FB because they were popular. It's an automated system that 99.9% of the time functions as intended. This one got there because lots of people who enjoy boob humour liked the image. I think that crass humour occasionally seeping out into the public eye is an unfortunate inevitability. To Dakka's credit this is, as far as I know, either the first incident of its type or one of incredibly few over its lifetime. It might be something that doesn't come around often, but we have to just grin and bear it and report it when it does.

That image has no rating enabled, so unless it was suddenly getting an extraordinary amount of views due to hotlinking, I am curious and doubtful of that being the reason.

You're right, it's tricky. If this had been racism rather than the "softer" crime of objectifying women, it'd be clear cut as to how acceptable it is to turn up representing a creative community.
But because everybody knows this happens, it gets a pass and a shrug.

If an image is in the gallery, and has been viewed a lot, or has a high score, it gets pushed to the homepage randomly.

If an image is the most clicked image on the homepage in X hours, it gets pushed to the facebook feed.

The facebook feed will then show it to more people if a lot of people click the image to view it.

Unfortunately, this means that controversial content, or sexual-ish content almost always floats to the surface because that is what casual browsers are interested in casually clicking on. The process is fully automated, so when you see something inappropriate like this (which 'milk factories' definitely is!) please send a PM to a moderator so we can delete or reshape it.

That's fair, Lego. Thank you for your reply.
Is a "previously unused tag must be approved by a moderator" option viable?
I very occasionally see tags and just think "I doubt the photographer put that here..."

Would not a simple admin tick box work?

Ie a mod can just get a quick preview, and just tick, and it's up.

Just give it a human filter?

 jhe90 wrote:
Would not a simple admin tick box work?

Ie a mod can just get a quick preview, and just tick, and it's up.

Just give it a human filter?

It's a good idea in principle, but with the quantity of images being uploaded I'm not sure it's feasible, especially considering all mods are volunteers and can't really be expected to give up the time required to do it.

Would it be an idea for viewers to add a tag like "Please Review" that could be occasionally swept for?

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Being that the image has voting disabled and no title, I doubt it was ever intended to be put out there.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/355060-.html
Edit: Okay yeah that entire album is like 30% mysogynistic humour. So anyone following through gets the works.

I saw the same thing and turned off voting and deleted the more obnoxious tags.

I'll let Lego talk about how it was selected, I don't touch that end, but I agree it should not have been pushed out via FB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can make it a habit to turn off voting on risque posts, would that stop them from being picked up?

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Would not a simple admin tick box work?

Ie a mod can just get a quick preview, and just tick, and it's up.

Just give it a human filter?

It's a good idea in principle, but with the quantity of images being uploaded I'm not sure it's feasible, especially considering all mods are volunteers and can't really be expected to give up the time required to do it.

Would it be an idea for viewers to add a tag like "Please Review" that could be occasionally swept for?

not for all, i ment for the ones going on to the facebook or the home page.
sorry should have clarified. a human layer to keep the ones that should not be brought onto dakkas public face.