Babe, Hunk and Similar Threads

[Valka D'Ur]

... how does Google advertise on any forum at all then?

I've been on snag forums where most of the content would have followed the current guidelines (cute animated animals). Some of it wouldn't, if you consider glitter images and blinkies using fantasy themes to be in violation of the rules. I'm referring to images of fairies, angels, mermaids, dollz, and various combinations of those where some of the people depicted weren't wearing very much. Of course most of them weren't realistic like a photo would be, but some people (and Google) might disapprove of them.

But those forums were horribly boring as far as actual discussion went, so I left. There's only so much animated "cuteness" I can take at a time.


I wonder how this is affecting people who monetized their Blogger sites. I didn't do that with mine, so I'm not concerned about that - not that there's anything there that isn't family-friendly anyway.

 

[Light Cleric]

I also have to imagine there are a lot of people who are just rolling the dice and hoping Google never catches onto them or digs too deep into their content.

I dunno I honestly found the babe thread kinda weird but it's also kinda silly for Google to be dictating that kind of thing. Of course, this is pretty near the bottom of the list of "ridiculously hypocritical" stuff that Google has done and doesn't touch the actually destructive things.

 

[SamSniped]

This is weird. Google is the number one smut-locator-peddler in the world. If I want cartoons of things getting F'ed, I don't know what website to go to, I type in Google for that. If I want hot nekkid teens, preggos, elders or whatever, I don't know what website to go to for that, I type in Google. Foot fetishes, bondage fetishes, strangulation fetishes, murder fetishes, actual crime scene photos of raped and murdered people fetishes, there's Google for that.

That's a list of some oddly specific items, FB

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, there's more. Sky's the limit, really.

 

[Rashiminos]

Too lewd for Google? Hilarious.

 

[Traitorfish]

If the policy prevents

Strategically covered nudity
Sheer or see-through clothing
Lewd or provocative poses
Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

That doesn't seem like it would rule out the "babe/hunk" threads entirely, just place more stringent restrictions on them. Half of the stuff in the last few "babe threads was barely if at all sexual, just pretty girls in sun-dresses. I understand that it's probably a lot easier to scrap all the existing threads than waste time picking through them, but is there are any idea if a new, more Google-friendly version would be permissible? (It would probably be a good excuse to dump the "babe thread" title, too, which I think even thread regulars can agree was a little adolescent and embarrassing.)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Okay, here is my suggestion (which should not be taken to indicate that I approve of threads containing pictures of scantily-clad people in sexually provocative poses):

Make a social group with a non-provocative name. I've just done a Google search for a couple of the groups I'm most active in. Neither of them show up in a Google search, even when including some form of "Civilization Fanatics" among the keywords. It's like they don't exist.

Keep in mind that I do not know what ads, if any, are visible on social group pages. If Google ad-sense ads are there, obviously this idea wouldn't work. But if those ads are not there, then it's a possible workaround that would allow the people who enjoy these pictures to still post them, and they would be gone from OT (and wouldn't show up in any Google search that brings people here). Oh, and I would recommend regular monitoring by a moderator to make sure that nothing that violates the normal rules ends up there.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think it needs to be hidden away, though, just so long as it remains "family friendly", which I'm going to interpret" as "no racier than what you' find at toddler eye-level in a supermarket". I mean, like Mise and that said, you can get sexy pictures anywhere on the internet, so the point of the thread was never the material so much as the sociability of it.

We could even make it a unisex thread, if that would help set a less adolescent tone, just a general focus on pretty people and their pretty outfits rather than "babes" and "hunks".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The thing is, we as an online community can negotiate an agreement on what we find acceptable - that's how we arrived at the rules for the Arts & Entertainment forum when the issue of nude paintings and sculpture was brought up. But Google may not agree, and they get the final say.

Unless, of course, we're all prepared to start paying monthly subscription fees to access and post here.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion, which the staff is welcome to take or leave as they wish.

 

[Rashiminos]

(It would probably be a good excuse to dump the "babe thread" title, too, which I think even thread regulars can agree was a little adolescent and embarrassing.)

It didn't seem that the thread was all that removed from the adolescent premise offered by the title.

 

[MacAttack]

Looks to me like it was the really old babe/hunk threads were the one's that got us in trouble, and not the more recent ones. Why not hide just the old ones and let us keep the newer, reformed threads with the family friendly rules? Why this knee jerk reaction without community input debate? I'm puzzled over that. I would also be in favor of renaming them if need be.

I am also part of another forum who recently went through a similar ban, but the site admins are more brutal and gestapo like than CFC's but just handing out bans summarily rather than the way our mods here do it...

 

[Takhisis]

just for everyone who is interested, here is a complete list of disallowed content by google - its quite expensive. Don't mention pregnancy.

FTFY, man.

 

[Sonereal]

Looks to me like it was the really old babe/hunk threads were the one's that got us in trouble, and not the more recent ones. Why not hide just the old ones and let us keep the newer, reformed threads with the family friendly rules?

>babe/hulk threads
>family friendly
>pick one

Make a social group with a non-provocative name. I've just done a Google search for a couple of the groups I'm most active in. Neither of them show up in a Google search, even when including some form of "Civilization Fanatics" among the keywords. It's like they don't exist.

Google spiders can't access SGs or hidden forums.

Unfortunately.

 

[Traitorfish]

>babe/hulk threads
>family friendly
>pick one

I don't think that's true. Have you actually kept up with the recent babe threads, or are you just guessing based on what the title "babe thread" suggests? Most of the pictures posted were pretty mild, and it wouldn't be hard to filter out the (very barely) problematic stuff.

I understand removing all of the old threads, but prohibiting any "pretty ladies/dudes" threads outright seems like overkill.

 

[Kyriakos]

>babe/hulk threads
>family friendly
>pick one



Google spiders can't access SGs or hidden forums.

Unfortunately.

Besides, i don't want to see a HULK thread.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think that's true. Have you actually kept up with the recent babe threads, or are you just guessing based on what the title "babe thread" suggests? Most of the pictures posted were pretty mild, and it wouldn't be hard to filter out the (very barely) problematic stuff.

I understand removing all of the old threads, but prohibiting any "pretty ladies/dudes" threads outright seems like overkill.

CFC doesn't need any such thing as babe threads. But as you and I are the most prolific of the posters in those threads, clearly we found tossing up those pics an entertaining passtime. For all the pics I posted, I spent not very much time at it. It was just a small way of contributing something that I thought others might find entertaining.

I find google's terms of service both ridiculous and hypocritical in the extreme. And CFC's response... Well, actually kinda pathetic. But screw it, done is done. It's not like I'm going to see less of these pics. I'm just not going to be sharing them any longer.

 

[Cutlass]

Besides, i don't want to see a HULK thread.

 

[classical_hero]

The problem is that what one person considers to be seductive another person wouldn't think so. It is just too vague that it is not well defined. I can understand the first 3 of the sexually gratifying content, but the 4th one is over the top and far too subjective to be useful.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why did Google sell my search terms to Farm Boy?

 

[madviking]

i demand a new babe thread