AdSense Update

• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1258746 wrote:Lol they aren't meant to be. So, no you don't.

  So you're not trying to be funny. Got it. Good thing.
  
  Glad we cleared that up. So what ARE you trying to accomplish? Being a pest? Getting everyone to think you're a little kid? Nobody liking you? Mission accomplished.
• gut

  justincredible;1257862 wrote:Yeah, I think pics and possibly suggestive text. Like talking about explicit sexual stuff but not necessarily using the f-word. I have most curse words filtered for bots, anyway.

  I'd be impressed is their engine is able to determine "sexually gratifying content" from a pic or gif. I would think it has more to do with thread titles and posts.
  
  So maybe come up with a code word or sub-forum, like "Door Sock"?
• Fly4Fun

  

  gut;1258754 wrote:I'd be impressed is their engine is able to determine "sexually gratifying content" from a pic or gif. I would think it has more to do with thread titles and posts.
  
  So maybe come up with a code word or sub-forum, like "Door Sock"?

  We've actually been discussing something along the lines that the NSFW tag in thread titles might be part of the problem.
• ts1227

  

  gut;1258754 wrote:I'd be impressed is their engine is able to determine "sexually gratifying content" from a pic or gif. I would think it has more to do with thread titles and posts.
  
  So maybe come up with a code word or sub-forum, like "Door Sock"?

  
  If there are words in the image link it will see those
• queencitybuckeye

  gut;1258754 wrote:I'd be impressed is their engine is able to determine "sexually gratifying content" from a pic or gif. I would think it has more to do with thread titles and posts.
  
  So maybe come up with a code word or sub-forum, like "Door Sock"?

  There is software that can take a pretty good guess than an image is porn based on certain concentrations of colors in the image.
• gut

  ts1227;1258756 wrote:If there are words in the image link it will see those

  good point, didn't think of that. So to get around it you'd have to upload the image to photobucket and link to that.
• Fly4Fun

  

  ts1227;1258756 wrote:If there are words in the image link it will see those

  Ya, if you look at some of the image url that some of these pictures are taken from there is language in those that could raise red flags.
  

  queencitybuckeye;1258759 wrote:There is software that can take a pretty good guess than an image is porn based in certain concentrations of colors in the image.

  Now that's interesting.
• gut

  Fly4Fun;1258755 wrote:We've actually been discussing something along the lines that the NSFW tag in thread titles might be part of the problem.

  Possibly, but I have my doubts as that's pretty broad, but they likely could have the same feelings about that type of content.
  
  I hate to suggest it, but a wipe might be the only route to go. Then the mods would have to approve and slowly allow back stuff so you'd know if something triggered it.
  
  As far as some of the pics/content in question, I'd agree people can go google that if they want. Although I do appreciate when someone finds a hidden gem because most people don't actually bother to waste time searching google.
• gut

  queencitybuckeye;1258759 wrote:There is software that can take a pretty good guess than an image is **** based on certain concentrations of colors in the image.

  I guess that makes sense. But the question is whether they use such software. At the end of the day, they don't really NOT want to not do business with a given site and so I'd expect their technology to meet only a minimal standard to satisfy their buyers.
  
  And even if they did use such software, my guess is they would have to have a % or hurdle of overall content to allow not only for mistakes in the software logic, but also the occasional rogue post. So perhaps relegating such content to a sub-forum that wipes anything older than a few weeks would keep you below that hurdle.
• FatHobbit

  

  I would also think they can see the url of the pics that are linked. Lots of times when I open pic threads at work there are a ton of red x's because our firewall filters based on urls.
• gut

  FatHobbit;1258772 wrote:I would also think they can see the url of the pics that are linked. Lots of times when I open pic threads at work there are a ton of red x's because our firewall filters based on urls.

  I think that's far more likely than a heuristics engine on the image itself. Cheaper and easier to maintain, with little worry of false positives. Not to mention the sort of bandwidth and processing power needed to do that across all the sites they advertise on. But just slap a word and site filter that goes thru the url and it's manageable.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1258770 wrote:I guess that makes sense. But the question is whether they use such software. At the end of the day, they don't really NOT want to not do business with a given site and so I'd expect their technology to meet only a minimal standard to satisfy their buyers.

  I know for a fact that they do use this for flagging, but the pixel color concentrations are checked against images elsewhere on the web. It's similar to what TinEye does. If an image's color saturation and pattern matches something that they've already either blacklisted or at least raises questions, it gets flagged.
  
  As for their technology, we're dealing with the biggest company on the web, whose resources are borderline laughable.
  

  gut;1258770 wrote:And even if they did use such software, my guess is they would have to have a % or hurdle of overall content to allow not only for mistakes in the software logic, but also the occasional rogue post. So perhaps relegating such content to a sub-forum that wipes anything older than a few weeks would keep you below that hurdle.

  Yeah, it's not automated. It just flags the instance.
• Pick6

  

  Fly4Fun;1257923 wrote:To run any website costs money. And this gets enough traffic that justin has to pay for certain features/space that it runs appropriately. This costs money, and Justin doesn't feel like paying out of pocket.

  You dont say? Plz tell me more.

  justincredible;1257932 wrote:This. We have one sponsor.

  Got you. I just thought I remember you saying (probably mistaken) something like the site costs ~$60 a month to keep it up. And with your sponsorship prices you posted, I figured even 1 sponsor would be plenty to run the site on.
  
  I think it would be best for the site to get rid of adsense once/if you get more sponsors. All of this censorship that has shown to come along with it turns off members that were attracted to the site in the first place, IMO.
  
  Just my worthless 2 cents
• O-Trap

  

  Pick6;1258888 wrote:You dont say? Plz tell me more.

  You sound like the Filipinos and Indonesians and Indians who are always asking me to teach them what I do on other message boards.
  
  "hello kind sir plz can you help me for to make the monies on the internet plz i will be much thanks of you plz plz"
  
  It makes me want to smash a bag of kittens against a brick wall.
• Pick6

  

  O-Trap;1258902 wrote:You sound like the Filipinos and Indonesians and Indians who are always asking me to teach them what I do on other message boards.
  
  "hello kind sir plz can you help me for to make the monies on the internet plz i will be much thanks of you plz plz"
  
  It makes me want to smash a bag of kittens against a brick wall.

  Que?
• O-Trap

  

  It was the "plz tell me more." Wasn't an insult. Just awakened memories of wanting to punch a baby.
• Heretic

  

  Pick6;1258954 wrote:Que?

  NOW YOU SOUND LIKE A SPANISH PERSON!!!
• Rotinaj

  

  Heretic;1258956 wrote:NOW YOU SOUND LIKE A SPANISH PERSON!!!

  I fucking hate the español!!!!
• Commander of Awesome

  

  justincredible;1257932 wrote:This. We have one sponsor.

  So the sponsor didn't leave?
• DeadliestWarrior34

  

  Is the basement viewable by all the bots and spiders?
• Trueblue23

  

  Couldn't you make it so you have to login to view threads?
• queencitybuckeye

  Trueblue23;1259619 wrote:Couldn't you make it so you have to login to view threads?

  So you want to make someone join to see if the site is worth joining?
• Glory Days

  

  queencitybuckeye;1259652 wrote:So you want to make someone join to see if the site is worth joining?

  A. Its free and takes about 30 second to join.
  B. You can have certain forums blocked until they join so they can still get a feel for the site without joining.
• sportchampps

  I think it's better to let someone lurk awhile then they will join. It will promote visitors to the site not exclude them
• password

  

  like_that;1257859 wrote:I assume the posts would consists of pics, correct? I can't see how saying the "F" word or something like that would be considered sexually gratifying. Anyway, if you need a starting point, just look at every single post done by Devils advocate or Password.

  Narc, I never figured you for the type of guy that would rat people out because they post sexually gratifying material on here. I am really devastated that you have chosen August 30th, the 29th anniversary of Guion S. Bluford Jr becoming the first black astronaut to be sent in to space, have you no respect for the brother? It is a good thing that they didn't say anything about gay porn, then you would be ratting out SnotBubbles.