| |
In lugnet.publish, Jude Beaudin writes:
> I am unable to access anything related to the gallery on both Brickshelf and
> Geekshelf. I keep getting 404 errors.
The Gallery system is temporarally offline while we install
the full-moderation function. From now on all files will
be previewed by moderators before they can be viewed
on the website. In addition, all previously uploaded
files will be moderated before they are available
again. This will not affect existing deep-links which
continue to work at this time.
KL
|
|
| |
Wow, what was the motivation behind this? Has there been a problem with some
of the images being loaded? What are the moderators checking for in the images?
What will be the estimated "turn around" time when pictures are uploaded?
Thanks,
jt
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Jude Beaudin writes:
> > I am unable to access anything related to the gallery on both Brickshelf and
> > Geekshelf. I keep getting 404 errors.
>
>
> The Gallery system is temporarally offline while we install
> the full-moderation function. From now on all files will
> be previewed by moderators before they can be viewed
> on the website. In addition, all previously uploaded
> files will be moderated before they are available
> again. This will not affect existing deep-links which
> continue to work at this time.
>
> KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> The Gallery system is temporarally offline while we install
> the full-moderation function. From now on all files will
> be previewed by moderators before they can be viewed
> on the website. In addition, all previously uploaded
> files will be moderated before they are available
> again. This will not affect existing deep-links which
> continue to work at this time.
How long will all of this take?
I get the funny idea it is going to mess up the IP 2002 contest voting
process and schedule, big time!
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, James Trobaugh writes:
>
> What will be the estimated "turn around" time when pictures are uploaded?
Anywhere from 15 seconds to days. It all depends on when a moderator
gets to it. Brickshelf does not have the resources to have full-time
staff moderating the gallery.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, James Trobaugh writes:
> >
> > What will be the estimated "turn around" time when pictures are uploaded?
>
>
> Anywhere from 15 seconds to days. It all depends on when a moderator
> gets to it. Brickshelf does not have the resources to have full-time
> staff moderating the gallery.
>
> KL
Kevin,
Can you please post the how's and why's of this change?
Thanks,
Jude
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, James Trobaugh writes:
> >
> > What will be the estimated "turn around" time when pictures are uploaded?
>
>
> Anywhere from 15 seconds to days. It all depends on when a moderator
> gets to it. Brickshelf does not have the resources to have full-time
> staff moderating the gallery.
>
> KL
Does this mean you'd need volunteer moderators? Or does the logistics of
having a volunteer staff of moderators prevent you from having one? Or did I
miss a public call for help somewhere along the way? I'm sure there would be
plenty of volunteers if you needed them...
--Anthony
http://www.ozbricks.com/ikros
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> The Gallery system is temporarally offline while we install
> the full-moderation function. From now on all files will
> be previewed by moderators before they can be viewed
> on the website. In addition, all previously uploaded
> files will be moderated before they are available
> again. This will not affect existing deep-links which
> continue to work at this time.
Kevin,
I'm sure you've thought through all the issues, and you've provided a huge
service to all of us, so please don't take this as a complaint, but, is this
the best solution? I've been on mailing lists where you were unmoderated
unless there was a problem, and then you got put on probation of sorts where
all your posts were moderated for a time. Would this sort of thing be
possible with Brickshelf? Once gallery owners have shown themselves to be
okay, give them clearance to post on their own, but if there is any problems
then they get put back under moderated status? I'm asking for obviously
selfish reasons--it's nice to upload a picture and get immediate feedback.
Especially when in the middle of a conversation on a forum such as this.
But there is also an unselfish reason just in that there is so much volume
that I worry about the moderators. I can't imagine how much time it would
take to look through every picture or even folder on Brickshelf, not to
mention the new stuff added each day. Heck, it takes me a chunk of time
each day to scan through and see what's new, and I skip whole piles of
folders in themes that I'm not interested in.
Oh, I'd also really like to know what prompted all this. Also, with
moderation, is there going to be a change in the sorts of things that are
okay to post? E.g. personal photos, "spoilers" (like the recent Harry
Potter set pictures that have presumably not been officially released yet),
Bionicle (just kidding, really), etc.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> is this the best solution?
While it wasn't originally designed
for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
than full moderation.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > is this the best solution?
>
> While it wasn't originally designed
> for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
> day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
> than full moderation.
I can certainly agree to this ...
However, given the fact that up until yesterday, there were few (if any)
outstanding problems with inappropriate gallery content:
(1) Would it be reasonable to allow the galleries uploaded *prior* to
yesterday to remain fully active,
(2) to institute full moderation on all uploads beginning immediately, and
(3) to begin a process whereby all previously loaded content is reviewed, and
any further items that are deemed inappropriate are then removed?
It seems that disabling all of the older content is a far-reaching step.
Although I understand the rationale behind it, I don't believe that the
potential risk posed by some inappropriate content buried in a long-forgotten
folder is in proportion with the full disabling of all content. The additional
level of security provided by removing access to all old files would seem to be
exceedingly small.
There are nearly 16,000 folders on Brickshelf currently, and over 150,000 files
(including .mpg, .txt, .pdf, .doc, .xls, and more, in addition to image files).
The amount of time needed to review all of these folders and files is immense.
Kevin, is there any compromise that can be made to alleviate this roadblock?
I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that this is a crippling situation.
That being said, I want to convey my appreciation for your hard work in making
Brickshelf a tremendous resource. I am also very pleased with the clear
conscientiousness and responsibility that have prompted you to take these
steps. Regardless of how often is is said or implied, it is never enough to
convey the gratification that hundreds of us experience every day when we have
the opportunity to peruse Brickshelf. Thanks!
|
|
| |
Kevin & All,
> Anywhere from 15 seconds to days. It all depends on when a moderator
> gets to it. Brickshelf does not have the resources to have full-time
> staff moderating the gallery.
Well, if you ever need volunteers for moderating, I would like to help,
after providing such a great resource to me, and MichLUG, and the rest of
the LEGO community.
Scott S.
--
|
|
| |
I suspect there may be brickshelf regulars who have no interest in posting
improper material.
Since brickshelf knows who's logged in to upload, why not have trusted
accounts. New users only become trusted after "n" good moderated uploads. If
an account is ever complained about, they go from trusted to moderated and
stay there without being able to earn their trusted status back.
I suspect this may reduce the moderator load a huge amount while maintaining
the integrity of the site and the immediacy of uploads for people who
respect it.
JB
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, James Trobaugh writes:
> >
> > What will be the estimated "turn around" time when pictures are uploaded?
>
>
> Anywhere from 15 seconds to days. It all depends on when a moderator
> gets to it. Brickshelf does not have the resources to have full-time
> staff moderating the gallery.
>
> KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > is this the best solution?
>
> While it wasn't originally designed
> for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
> day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
> than full moderation.
>
> KL
What makes kids different from adults? Are some things that are good for
adults bad for children?
I am a child. I'm twelve. (and turning 13 soon!) I have never seen any bad
content in b-shelf. Some things have occured, but were quickly removed. I'm
a bit sad at this moderating. One of the good qualitys of brickshelf was
that you could upload something and immedietly post it. My parents won't
let me make a website. B-shelf is the only way to display my pictures. I
have a space creation that I've now rendered, but I'm not going to bother
putting it on brickshelf yet.
*sigh*
-JHK
(I'm trying a new signature!)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, John Henry Kruer writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > > is this the best solution?
> >
> > While it wasn't originally designed
> > for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
> > day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
> > than full moderation.
> >
> > KL
>
> What makes kids different from adults? Are some things that are good for
> adults bad for children?
>
> I am a child. I'm twelve. (and turning 13 soon!) I have never seen any bad
> content in b-shelf. Some things have occured, but were quickly removed. I'm
> a bit sad at this moderating. One of the good qualitys of brickshelf was
> that you could upload something and immedietly post it. My parents won't
> let me make a website. B-shelf is the only way to display my pictures. I
> have a space creation that I've now rendered, but I'm not going to bother
> putting it on brickshelf yet.
I think you hit the issue on the head...that is the problem. By not
having images moderated, bad content is always a possibility. I think the
majority of the posters on-line are abiding with not putting bad stuff
on there.
I also liked the relatively pain-free upload features of brickshelf. You
could upload it, and then see it in relatively quickly on the world wide
web.
The really bad part about this is it will put a serious cramp in my
posting of pictures of various things I put up.
Ben
|
|
| |
John & All,
> What makes kids different from adults? Are some things that are good for
> adults bad for children?
Legally, there is a good deal of difference. The age to vote, drink, serve
in the military, get certain media products, etc. For Brickshelf, if there
was a large percentage of "adult" material on the site, Kevin would have to
put up disclaimers, etc. on it about people under 18.
> I am a child. I'm twelve. (and turning 13 soon!) I have never seen any bad
> content in b-shelf.
I have. It has been taken care of in the past, but there has been times
where Kevin did not get to it. That includes questionable material, plus
other LEGO related items that were not supposed to be uploaded recently.
> Some things have occured, but were quickly removed. I'm
> a bit sad at this moderating. One of the good qualitys of brickshelf was
> that you could upload something and immedietly post it. My parents won't
> let me make a website. B-shelf is the only way to display my pictures. I
> have a space creation that I've now rendered, but I'm not going to bother
> putting it on brickshelf yet.
The only thing I can say here is to remember Kevin is running this website
by himself, and he makes the rules, much like LUGNET. I can fully understand
Kevin's response. If you decide not to use it, that is your decision.
Scott S.
--
MichLUG member - http://www.michlug.org
Website: http://www.scottesanburn.org
LEGO: http://www.scottesanburn.org/legoindex.html
|
|
| |
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > is this the best solution?
>
> While it wasn't originally designed
> for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
> day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
> than full moderation.
I hope that you will consider letting others help with the moderating.
The task will quickly bury you if you try to take it all on yourself.
Also, if you decide to charge for access to upload pictures, you might
be able to give moderators incentive to do their job by not charging
for them to do so.
And *please* change your window width so it fits on an 800x600 display!
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMAZING BUT TRUE: There is so much sand in northern Africa that if it were
spread out it would completely cover the Sahara Desert!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > is this the best solution?
>
> While it wasn't originally designed
> for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
> day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
> than full moderation.
Then could you *please* implement a facility to move pics / folders ASAP, as
I for one will find it a pain having to have stuff re-moderated just to move
it to a different folder.
Regards
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > > is this the best solution?
> >
> > While it wasn't originally designed
> > for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
> > day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
> > than full moderation.
>
> Then could you *please* implement a facility to move pics / folders ASAP, as
> I for one will find it a pain having to have stuff re-moderated just to move
> it to a different folder.
Maybe... BUT...
Right now I'd rather he put time into making the moderating facility a bit
more efficient for moderators, there is a terrific backlog of stuff to chew
through... I was just in there doing some and it's a lot of work. My fingers
are sore from all the mousing, some keyboard shortcuts might be nice.
Also...
Personally I'd like to be able to visit someone's folders while in moderator
mode and approve them, one by one as I look in each one, rather than being
presented them randomly.
There are some key contributors I'd go moderate first.. for instance right
now you cannot look at all of the work of James Mathis as not all of it has
come up randomly yet. So I would go visit his and get them cleared away (and
all of yours and all of Eric Sophies and and and, just to name a few heavy
hitters at random from many that we have)
Maybe for the older stuff the stuff that should be randomly presented should
be drawn from the folders that have the highest number of hits???
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > > > is this the best solution?
> > >
> > > While it wasn't originally designed
> > > for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
> > > day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
> > > than full moderation.
> >
> > Then could you *please* implement a facility to move pics / folders ASAP, as
> > I for one will find it a pain having to have stuff re-moderated just to move
> > it to a different folder.
>
> Maybe... BUT...
>
> Right now I'd rather he put time into making the moderating facility a bit
> more efficient for moderators, there is a terrific backlog of stuff to chew
> through... I was just in there doing some and it's a lot of work. My fingers
> are sore from all the mousing, some keyboard shortcuts might be nice.
>
> Also...
>
> Personally I'd like to be able to visit someone's folders while in moderator
> mode and approve them, one by one as I look in each one, rather than being
> presented them randomly.
>
> There are some key contributors I'd go moderate first.. for instance right
> now you cannot look at all of the work of James Mathis as not all of it has
> come up randomly yet. So I would go visit his and get them cleared away (and
> all of yours and all of Eric Sophies and and and, just to name a few heavy
> hitters at random from many that we have)
>
> Maybe for the older stuff the stuff that should be randomly presented should
> be drawn from the folders that have the highest number of hits???
Ok since you hit on the moderation process and the massive backlog, would it
be better if we didn't submit and new or updated images to Brickshelf at
this time? I had some updated instructions I was going to post, but if it's
going to cause someone else's older stuff to get delayed I would hold off.
Maybe if the process could be explained a bit more we would understand what
all you are up agaist.
jt
ps. if you need help with the moderation process I'd be glad to contribute
some time.
|
|
| |
> Ok since you hit on the moderation process and the massive backlog, would it
> be better if we didn't submit and new or updated images to Brickshelf at
> this time? I had some updated instructions I was going to post, but if it's
> going to cause someone else's older stuff to get delayed I would hold off.
I have 2 question/comments...
First I noticed that there seems to be newly uploaded files. Is this the
case? I would think/hope that the old 150 thousand pictures be given the
green light first before some new stuff gets added to the pile. How is this
working?
Second, do the moderators see what section the files have been put into? I
see one file that is not lego related and should be in off-topic....
( http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=20265 )
This picture appears to be in the MOC section(1), and it is misplaced and
IMHO should not have been given the 'OK' in the MOC folder. There are many
users that put pictures in the wrong folder and I am hoping the moderation
would fix this. Hopefully this will be addressed, I find it annoying to see
items in the wrong folders - there is a reason the folders were put into place.
Mark P
http://www.landofbricks.com
(1)I am assuming the MOC folder because when I clicked on the MOC recent
folder it was there.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, James Trobaugh wrote:
> Ok since you hit on the moderation process and the massive backlog,
> would it be better if we didn't submit and new or updated images to
> Brickshelf at this time? I had some updated instructions I was going
> to post, but if it's going to cause someone else's older stuff to get
> delayed I would hold off.
it doesn't matter if you submit new pictures up - the way the moderation
cgi works, it shows one of the (random) older folders first... so the
new folders will just get added to the queue, but probably not get
moderated until the older folders are done.
Dan
|
|
| |
Wouldn't it be just easier, quicker and better to have kids get permission
and have a gate? What exactly are we all worried about? Has someone posted a
snuff film or something?
I think this is nonsense but I don't know the how and why of it all yet.
I have to call hi-jinx until someone explains it. Jim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Jim Schifeling writes:
> Wouldn't it be just easier, quicker and better to have kids get permission
> and have a gate? What exactly are we all worried about? Has someone posted a
> snuff film or something?
> I think this is nonsense but I don't know the how and why of it all yet.
>
> I have to call hi-jinx until someone explains it.
While I have no idea what "call hi-jinx" means (Is it like a spell cast or
something?) I think it's *been* explained already. To my satisfaction,
anyway. Read the entire thread, it's not that big.
It's not clear to me that having "kids get permission" addresses the issue
of people uploading things that are kid inappropriate. Perhaps you could
elaborate on how it does, instead of casting aspersions.
The bottom line is that BrickShelf is a free resource that Kevin has
provided to us all, at no small cost in time and effort, and I support
whatever decisions he makes about how to provide it and what administrative
actions to take. It is, after all, his liability that is on the line, not
yours or mine.
Further, I have been moderating away like mad every chance I get (although I
suspect I'm only putting in a small fraction of the effort that others
have)... To Mark P's point, I have not been taking the time to adjust folder
placement, rightly or wrongly. I have just been approving or disapproving in
order to get as many folders back on line as fast as I could. If there are
particularly egregious examples, drop me (or any moderator) a note, and
perhaps they will be corrected. I will try to do better going forward.
I'm not sure who all the moderators are though, other than myself. Kevin
told me some of them but I forgot. There are a number of them though.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.publish, Jim Schifeling writes:
> > Wouldn't it be just easier, quicker and better to have kids get permission
> > and have a gate? What exactly are we all worried about? Has someone posted a
> > snuff film or something?
> > I think this is nonsense but I don't know the how and why of it all yet.
> >
> > I have to call hi-jinx until someone explains it.
>
> While I have no idea what "call hi-jinx" means (Is it like a spell cast or
> something?) I think it's *been* explained already. To my satisfaction,
> anyway. Read the entire thread, it's not that big.
Maybe I missed something, but the only statement of explanation I've
seen is:
> > While it wasn't originally designed
> > for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each
> > day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other
> > than full moderation.
By itself, I don't think this is an explanation. Other free web sites
don't have moderation.
Not that I'm saying Kevin shouldn't do it (though it would be nice if
folks who can be trusted could be fast pathed (perhaps with post
moderation in case they slip up)).
Frank
|
|
| |
Calling hi-jinx is. .... well I don't really know what it means. I think it
came from a South Park episode. My employees have been using it for a while
so I started using it.
I read the thread I didn't see anything that explained why he was taking
this measure. You are right, it is his baby and he can run as he sees fit. I
don't blame him for keeping his butt off the grill. If he wants he can make
us dance in his front-yard with hotdogs in our ears before we upload a pic.
Most websites make you be a member even if membership is free, that would
limit a lot of freeks right there and get rid of most people who aren't
serious about Brickshelf. As for uploading inappropriate material, isn't
this place pretty well self policed? Aren't there like 20-30 big-wigs like
yourself that are here daily.........ahem hourly.
I just want to know what the worries are and if there is anything I can do
as long as I don't have to put hot dogs in my ears.
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Jim Schifeling writes:
> > Wouldn't it be just easier, quicker and better to have kids get permission
> > and have a gate? What exactly are we all worried about? Has someone posted a
> > snuff film or something?
> > I think this is nonsense but I don't know the how and why of it all yet.
> >
> > I have to call hi-jinx until someone explains it.
>
> While I have no idea what "call hi-jinx" means (Is it like a spell cast or
> something?) I think it's *been* explained already. To my satisfaction,
> anyway. Read the entire thread, it's not that big.
>
> It's not clear to me that having "kids get permission" addresses the issue
> of people uploading things that are kid inappropriate. Perhaps you could
> elaborate on how it does, instead of casting aspersions.
>
> The bottom line is that BrickShelf is a free resource that Kevin has
> provided to us all, at no small cost in time and effort, and I support
> whatever decisions he makes about how to provide it and what administrative
> actions to take. It is, after all, his liability that is on the line, not
> yours or mine.
>
> Further, I have been moderating away like mad every chance I get (although I
> suspect I'm only putting in a small fraction of the effort that others
> have)... To Mark P's point, I have not been taking the time to adjust folder
> placement, rightly or wrongly. I have just been approving or disapproving in
> order to get as many folders back on line as fast as I could. If there are
> particularly egregious examples, drop me (or any moderator) a note, and
> perhaps they will be corrected. I will try to do better going forward.
>
> I'm not sure who all the moderators are though, other than myself. Kevin
> told me some of them but I forgot. There are a number of them though.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Jim Schifeling writes:
> I just want to know what the worries are and if there is anything I can do
> as long as I don't have to put hot dogs in my ears.
I don't have all the details and I'd rather Kevin himself answered if he has
time.
That said apparently someone uploaded porn. Again. (this isn't the first
incident)
Kevin had set up a system for post review so that anyone with moderator
login could mark a file as invisible and mark the ID for action by Kevin.
This incident must have been bad enough that he felt he needed to move to a
prereview scheme from post review.
Several people have suggested some ways to streamline the process and I
think they're good ideas:
- marking certain users as trusted so that their content does not need
moderation (suggested by at least John Barnes if not others as well)
- allowing moderators to visit certain users folders and review them all at
once one after another instead of getting random folders.
I like both those ideas. But maybe Kevin (and Dan??? I get hints that Dan
has some knowledge on what the moderation function does maybe because he
helped with it?? I dunno) is too busy moderating to implement those. His call.
As to what you can do to help, I dunno....
One thing I would ask people to do at least for now would be to NOT shuffle
folders around by deleting and reloading, and NOT add pics to existing
folders, as those both appear to cause the whole folder to get marked as
needing review.
At least for now, till the backlog is chewed through.
If the folder has 100 pics in it and you add one, that means that 101
thumbnails need to be downloaded to the moderator before they can clear it.
That just slows things down.
Again, Kevin is authoritative on this topic and I am not. I'm just
speculating on incomplete knowledge. But you know my view, speculation is
often useful.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> To Mark P's point, I have not been taking the time to adjust folder
> placement, rightly or wrongly. I have just been approving or disapproving in
> order to get as many folders back on line as fast as I could. If there are
> particularly egregious examples, drop me (or any moderator) a note, and
> perhaps they will be corrected. I will try to do better going forward.
Ok, so the moderators can see what folder a picture was uploaded to? That is
a good thing! And they can move it from one folder to another? If so - COOL!
I am happy about this! But I saw the picture I linked to in another part of
this thread is gone. Does that mean that a mod took away its ok? Or it got
moved to another folder? Or the user deleted it?
I guess what I am trying to figure out is what powers the mods have? And how
does the process work? And what happens if a mod chooses not to ok a
picture? Does the user get an email or something?
Sorry for all the questions, I just think it would be nice if we knew how
things worked, and what we could do to make the mod job easier.
Mark P
http://www.landofbricks.com
|
|
| |
"crunch-o-matic" <naughty.monkey@verizon.net> writes:
> Calling hi-jinx is. .... well I don't really know what it means. I think it
> came from a South Park episode. My employees have been using it for a while
> so I started using it.
I remember "calling shenanigans" from South Park, but not hijinx.
--Bill.
FUT: lugnet.off-topic.fun
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMAZING BUT TRUE: There is so much sand in northern Africa that if it were
spread out it would completely cover the Sahara Desert!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
> In lugnet.publish, James Trobaugh wrote:
> > Ok since you hit on the moderation process and the massive backlog,
> > would it be better if we didn't submit and new or updated images to
> > Brickshelf at this time? I had some updated instructions I was going
> > to post, but if it's going to cause someone else's older stuff to get
> > delayed I would hold off.
>
> it doesn't matter if you submit new pictures up - the way the moderation
> cgi works, it shows one of the (random) older folders first... so the
> new folders will just get added to the queue, but probably not get
> moderated until the older folders are done.
Actually, the randomness is only to reduce the change of multiple
moderators working on the same folder. The subset of folders that
are randomized is selected from the newest folders. That way
new stuff and old stuff get moderated.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > To Mark P's point, I have not been taking the time to adjust folder
> > placement, rightly or wrongly. I have just been approving or disapproving in
> > order to get as many folders back on line as fast as I could. If there are
> > particularly egregious examples, drop me (or any moderator) a note, and
> > perhaps they will be corrected. I will try to do better going forward.
>
> Ok, so the moderators can see what folder a picture was uploaded to?
Yes, moderation happens at the folder level. Add one or more pictures to a
new or existing folder and it seems to mark the folder as needing review.
> That is
> a good thing! And they can move it from one folder to another? If so - COOL!
I do not think we have the power to MOVE pictures from folder to folder. All
we can do is edit the folder attributes as to what sort of folder it is, and
review it as safe, maybe, or unsafe.
if it gets set to safe the folder now becomes publicly visible via the
normal BrickShelf interface. If it gets set to unsure/maybe I THINK it gets
thrown back for re-moderation (I have seen ones I set to maybe come back
again) If it gets set to unsafe I do not know what happens then.
> I am happy about this! But I saw the picture I linked to in another part of
> this thread is gone. Does that mean that a mod took away its ok? Or it got
> moved to another folder? Or the user deleted it?
>
> I guess what I am trying to figure out is what powers the mods have? And how
> does the process work? And what happens if a mod chooses not to ok a
> picture? Does the user get an email or something?
Good questions. I don't know the answers.
> Sorry for all the questions, I just think it would be nice if we knew how
> things worked, and what we could do to make the mod job easier.
I speculate the following things would help: Don't delete and recreate
folders to rename/reorg them and don't add just one picture to a folder that
has a lot in it already. Not sure if those actually do help or not.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Personally I'd like to be able to visit someone's folders while in moderator
> mode and approve them, one by one as I look in each one, rather than being
> presented them randomly.
You can now do that.
You will now also see empty folders, as those need to be moderated
too.
Current moderation stats: 2537 out of 15634 folders moderated.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> Actually, the randomness is only to reduce the change of multiple
> moderators working on the same folder. The subset of folders that
> are randomized is selected from the newest folders. That way
> new stuff and old stuff get moderated.
sorry, my mistake. I thought you set it up to select from the oldest first,
so that the backlog will eventually diminish...?
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> Current moderation stats: 2537 out of 15634 folders moderated.
Wow! I just wanted to send a big thank you to the people moderating. I'm
impressed that that many have already been processed.
I'd also be happy to volunteer to help moderate.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > Personally I'd like to be able to visit someone's folders while in moderator
> > mode and approve them, one by one as I look in each one, rather than being
> > presented them randomly.
>
> You can now do that.
Wow! Thanks!
I am busily clearing Eric Sophie's whole tree as we speak. (had to start
somewhere, why not there)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > Personally I'd like to be able to visit someone's folders while in moderator
> > > mode and approve them, one by one as I look in each one, rather than being
> > > presented them randomly.
> >
> > You can now do that.
>
> Wow! Thanks!
>
> I am busily clearing Eric Sophie's whole tree as we speak. (had to start
> somewhere, why not there)
It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder structure
it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found
myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was with
James Mathis, Eric I think is all done now)
If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared yet
that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder structure
> it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found
> myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was with
> James Mathis, Eric I think is all done now)
Try running two browsers - e.g. one Netscape and one IE. Since they
have separate cookie jars, you shouldn't need to log in and out.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMAZING BUT TRUE: There is so much sand in northern Africa that if it were
spread out it would completely cover the Sahara Desert!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, William R. Ward writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> > It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder structure
> > it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found
> > myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was with
> > James Mathis, Eric I think is all done now)
>
> Try running two browsers - e.g. one Netscape and one IE. Since they
> have separate cookie jars, you shouldn't need to log in and out.
OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS
then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version?
Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was
working (I just cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder structure
> it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found
> myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was with
> James Mathis, Eric I think is all done now)
>
> If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared yet
> that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
> replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
Boy, you guys are tough to please! You are right though,
everyone, not just moderators should be able to tell that
a subfolder is unmoderated. The right thing to do is have
an "unmoderated" icon, but as a quick hack, unmoderated
folders now have a border.
I also added "And On Topic" to the Safe link to clarify
it's purpose :) If it's Off Topic, use the "Off Topic"
link. If you aren't 100% sure it's safe *and* on topic,
select "Unsure".
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder structure
> > it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found
> > myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was with
> > James Mathis, Eric I think is all done now)
> >
> > If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared yet
> > that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
> > replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
>
> Boy, you guys are tough to please! You are right though,
> everyone, not just moderators should be able to tell that
> a subfolder is unmoderated. The right thing to do is have
> an "unmoderated" icon, but as a quick hack, unmoderated
> folders now have a border.
>
> I also added "And On Topic" to the Safe link to clarify
> it's purpose :) If it's Off Topic, use the "Off Topic"
> link. If you aren't 100% sure it's safe *and* on topic,
> select "Unsure".
Cool. Now what happens to the ones that are off topic? Previously the off
topic keyword seemed to just get added one more time each time you pressed
it but the folder would (randomly) keep reappearing until you said it was safe
Also what is "moderation level"?? That just appeared too.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder structure
> > > it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found
> > > myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was with
> > > James Mathis, Eric I think is all done now)
> > >
> > > If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared yet
> > > that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
> > > replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
> >
> > Boy, you guys are tough to please! You are right though,
> > everyone, not just moderators should be able to tell that
> > a subfolder is unmoderated. The right thing to do is have
> > an "unmoderated" icon, but as a quick hack, unmoderated
> > folders now have a border.
> >
> > I also added "And On Topic" to the Safe link to clarify
> > it's purpose :) If it's Off Topic, use the "Off Topic"
> > link. If you aren't 100% sure it's safe *and* on topic,
> > select "Unsure".
>
> Cool. Now what happens to the ones that are off topic? Previously the off
> topic keyword seemed to just get added one more time each time you pressed
> it but the folder would (randomly) keep reappearing until you said it was safe
It used to do that, but now the Off Topic link also sets moderation level -1
(the same as Unsure) so it will disappear from the regular moderator page.
> Also what is "moderation level"?? That just appeared too.
-5 is temporary while thumbnails are being generated
-2 is Unsafe
-1 is Unsure
0 is unmoderated
1 is moderated Safe and On Topic
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > Boy, you guys are tough to please! You are right though,
> > everyone, not just moderators should be able to tell that
> > a subfolder is unmoderated. The right thing to do is have
> > an "unmoderated" icon, but as a quick hack, unmoderated
> > folders now have a border.
That border line helps a LOT!!!! But is it recursive? That would be best, if
there is one unmoderated folder in there somewhere, it's still "unsure" and
you need to go drilling.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS
> then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version?
>
> Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was
> working (I just cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
Don't you wish all software development was this efficient? It's even written
in C. Kids, don't try this at home :)
BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior
browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it ignores
expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS
> > then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version?
> >
> > Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was
> > working (I just cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> > keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
>
> Don't you wish all software development was this efficient? It's even written
> in C. Kids, don't try this at home :)
>
> BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior
> browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it ignores
> expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
> in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
> and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
> folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
I'm actually using IE but I'll check out Mozilla...
|
|
| |
I'd just like to say again that if you (Kevin) need more free, good, help
you have four ready willing and able people here.
--
Thanx~
Nicole
http://www.geocities.com/duelarcane1/
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=drumm-family
http://www.geekshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=Drumm-Family
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message
news:GyECpE.9oM@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > >
> > > > It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder • structure
> > > > it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found
> > > > myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was • with
> > > > James Mathis, Eric I think is all done now)
> > > >
> > > > If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared • yet
> > > > that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
> > > > replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
> > >
> > > Boy, you guys are tough to please! You are right though,
> > > everyone, not just moderators should be able to tell that
> > > a subfolder is unmoderated. The right thing to do is have
> > > an "unmoderated" icon, but as a quick hack, unmoderated
> > > folders now have a border.
> > >
> > > I also added "And On Topic" to the Safe link to clarify
> > > it's purpose :) If it's Off Topic, use the "Off Topic"
> > > link. If you aren't 100% sure it's safe *and* on topic,
> > > select "Unsure".
> >
> > Cool. Now what happens to the ones that are off topic? Previously the off
> > topic keyword seemed to just get added one more time each time you • pressed
> > it but the folder would (randomly) keep reappearing until you said it was • safe
> >
> It used to do that, but now the Off Topic link also sets moderation • level -1
> (the same as Unsure) so it will disappear from the regular moderator page.
>
> > Also what is "moderation level"?? That just appeared too.
>
> -5 is temporary while thumbnails are being generated
> -2 is Unsafe
> -1 is Unsure
> 0 is unmoderated
> 1 is moderated Safe and On Topic
>
> KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch wrote:
> BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior
> browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it ignores expires
> headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps in the
> moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE and NS
> (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random folder.
> Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired (which i
didn't check), I say mozilla is doing the Right Thing, while IE and NS
don't. A GET CGI is supposed to give the same output when it's
parameters are the same, so browsers are supposed to cache it's output:
from rfc 2068:
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
HEAD methods should never have the significance of taking an action
other than retrieval. These methods should be considered "safe." This
allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and
DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact
that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
and
Methods may also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside
from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical
requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD,
PUT and DELETE share this property.
not saying that this is strictly followed, but this is how it's supposed
to work :)
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS
> > then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version?
> >
> > Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was
> > working (I just cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> > keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
>
> Don't you wish all software development was this efficient? It's even written
> in C. Kids, don't try this at home :)
>
> BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior
> browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it ignores
> expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
> in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
> and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
> folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
>
> KL
I use IE, and was quite surprised when that happened to me the first time
(checking a folder and going back, just to find that another random folder
appeared rather than the one I was exploring). Since then, I just open the
questionable file/folder in another window so I can view it. I know, it
could be considered to be an extra step, but I'm used to it.
Us moderators are doing our best to wade through all the files as soon as
possible. It's a good thing I'm on vacation, Kevin picked a really good time
to do this, otherwise I wouldn't be able to help out as much.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (My views do not necessarily express the
views of my employer...)
BRICKFEST 2002 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.geocities.com/legoman34.geo/
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
|
|
| |
Hi Kevin,
first I want to thank you for providing the LEGO fan community a central
place to exhibit their creations on unlimited free disk space. I don't want
to miss it.
BUT if you restrict it too hard, people are going to seek for alternatives
and spread all over the net. Let me tell you some things:
I loved the easy way of uploading an image and it was immediately available
to everybody on earth and everybody saw it in the "recent" gallery. And I
loved to see creations by others. I loved to see MOCs I never would have
searched for on the internet via Google.com or other search engines. (Well,
ok, I don't want to see all this Bionicle crap, but that's another thing...)
I could live with some annoying drawbacks, because the community spirit was
more important to me. I missed a feature to add descriptions to a single
picture, e.g.. You can only add a description and keywords to a folder. This
is really bad for organizing. When I upload some pictures of my LEGO
sculpture of (Calvin &) Hobbes, I give the folder the keywords -"Calvin and
Hobbes, Sculpture, MOC". Then I upload a drawing of the real comic character
scanned from a comic book (because I cannot place links in brickshelf) so
others, who don't know it can see if my work is done well. But now whenever
someone searches for "sculpture", he also get's the (off-topic) comic strip.
Of course, I could put each picture into another folder, but this is anoying
and fragments things, that have to be seen in context. But I could live with
this, as long as the rest of Brickshelf was ok.
Now I see, that you deleted a photo that I uploaded.
(http://www.neophilia.de/LEGO/yy_ich_und_mein_4105-Magnum.jpg) It's a
manipulated photo. I took a German ice cream advertising ("Ich & Mein
Magnum" = "Me & My Magnum" -- Magnum is the name of the ice cream) and
replaced the ice cream by a LEGO replica in my Picture Publisher software.
It's all in a folder tagged as a MOC. So why is this deleted without any
comment? Is it because a moderator didn't look at the picture but only at
the thumbnail?
Come on Kevin, I can understand that you are afraid of people uploading
photos inappropriate for children. But don't get paranoid. What's next?
Delete everything that's in an other language than English because it could
be a bomb-building instruction? (Or even worse: rude words! SCNR)
Another point: Why all this mystery-mongering? When the server was taken
offline, thousands of LEGO fans all over the world wondered what happened.
Even in this thread you never told us the reason. Ok, eventually Larry
answered the repeated question -- after two days. Why didn't you place a
short note on www.brickshelf.com? Why don't you write at the same place,
that now uploads are moderated? Why don't you give us the criteria for
removing a file?
Ok, someone uploaded a porno picture. Things happen! There's abuse
everywhere on the internet. Ban this guy and maybe moderate pictures by new
members to avoid abuse of newly created fake accounts. But always remember:
Verifying is good, but trust is better. Don't let thousands of honest
members suffer because of one incident that nearly no-one noticed. This is
not how democracy works! We are living in the western world and are proud of
freedom of will and speech.
Again, I want to say that I love Brickshelf -- the way it was before June
25th. And I hope it will return to this state. I don't want to lose the
center of the LEGO community. I don't want to see it split into hundreds of
private little homepages. I want Brickshelf back.
..oli
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/oli
|
|
| |
Briefly addressing a couple of things, Kevin is your authoritative source...
In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> Now I see, that you deleted a photo that I uploaded.
> (http://www.neophilia.de/LEGO/yy_ich_und_mein_4105-Magnum.jpg) It's a
> manipulated photo. I took a German ice cream advertising ("Ich & Mein
> Magnum" = "Me & My Magnum" -- Magnum is the name of the ice cream) and
> replaced the ice cream by a LEGO replica in my Picture Publisher software.
> It's all in a folder tagged as a MOC. So why is this deleted without any
> comment? Is it because a moderator didn't look at the picture but only at
> the thumbnail?
I did not delete this one. But I DID look at it pretty hard, several times
and marked it "unsure" each time. NOT beccause it's porn. An image of a very
pretty girl suggestively and lasciviously manipulating an upright round,
hard object with an expression of joy on her face just before she takes it
into her mouth is *not* porn. At least not these days it's not. It's just
commercial art. :-)
My issue with it was the trademarks and copyrights... Spoofing other
people's ads may not be legal in the US and Kevin has said to watch out for
stuff like that. So every time I looked at it, I ducked. I marked it unsure
and went back to moderating. By the way I walked your entire directory and
cleared everything else in it that hadn't yet been cleared.
If it was deleted, someone else deleted it but I don't know who.
There is no facility to cause a note to go to the submitter at this time. I
suppose that would be a good enhancement... would you prefer that BrickShelf
had been off the air till Kevin got the entire interface perfect?
> Another point: Why all this mystery-mongering? When the server was taken
> offline, thousands of LEGO fans all over the world wondered what happened.
> Even in this thread you never told us the reason. Ok, eventually Larry
> answered the repeated question -- after two days. Why didn't you place a
> short note on www.brickshelf.com? Why don't you write at the same place,
> that now uploads are moderated? Why don't you give us the criteria for
> removing a file?
I suspect he's pretty busy. I hesitated to answer at all. I'm scared that I
am talking out my butt based on incomplete knowledge and worse, that I might
say stuff that might jog Kevin's elbow and cause problems. That,
regrettably, has happened because of stuff I said in the past, for which I
apologise.
++Lar (who is glad that the hippocratic oath does not apply)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
>
> unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired
Yes.
A GET CGI is supposed to give the same output when it's
> parameters are the same, so browsers are supposed to cache it's output:
>
> from rfc 2068:
>
> In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
> HEAD methods should never have the significance of taking an action
> other than retrieval. These methods should be considered "safe." This
> allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and
> DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact
> that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
Where does it say that a GET request always returns the same content?
a GET for a dynamic page is no different than a GET for a "static" page
that might change at some point. Where the Expires header is set it should
always be obeyed. Now, I am setting "Expires: 0" instead of a properly
formatted date string, so Mozilla may be ignoring it, where IE and NS
know what that means.
> and
>
> Methods may also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside
> from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical
> requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD,
> PUT and DELETE share this property.
>
> not saying that this is strictly followed, but this is how it's supposed
> to work :)
>
> Dan
|
|
| |
Without knowing the details on how the moderating works, it does worry me a bit
that this image was visible on Brickshelf and accessible from the Recent folder
for some non-trivial length of time. In view of the massive unavailability of
folders long since uploaded, I was under the impression that that everything
was unsafe-until-moderated-otherwise, and it followed that new folders and
changed folders would also be non-public until moderated. Yet, in this
situation, an image is uploaded and is visible on Brickshelf, and only then
gets removed. Hmm.
I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image other
than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent that
I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream manufacturer
and LEGO.
Constantine
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Briefly addressing a couple of things, Kevin is your authoritative source...
>
> In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
>
> > Now I see, that you deleted a photo that I uploaded.
> > (http://www.neophilia.de/LEGO/yy_ich_und_mein_4105-Magnum.jpg) It's a
> > manipulated photo. I took a German ice cream advertising ("Ich & Mein
> > Magnum" = "Me & My Magnum" -- Magnum is the name of the ice cream) and
> > replaced the ice cream by a LEGO replica in my Picture Publisher software.
> > It's all in a folder tagged as a MOC. So why is this deleted without any
> > comment? Is it because a moderator didn't look at the picture but only at
> > the thumbnail?
>
> I did not delete this one. But I DID look at it pretty hard, several times
> and marked it "unsure" each time. NOT beccause it's porn. An image of a very
> pretty girl suggestively and lasciviously manipulating an upright round,
> hard object with an expression of joy on her face just before she takes it
> into her mouth is *not* porn. At least not these days it's not. It's just
> commercial art. :-)
>
> My issue with it was the trademarks and copyrights... Spoofing other
> people's ads may not be legal in the US and Kevin has said to watch out for
> stuff like that. So every time I looked at it, I ducked. I marked it unsure
> and went back to moderating. By the way I walked your entire directory and
> cleared everything else in it that hadn't yet been cleared.
>
> If it was deleted, someone else deleted it but I don't know who.
>
> There is no facility to cause a note to go to the submitter at this time. I
> suppose that would be a good enhancement... would you prefer that BrickShelf
> had been off the air till Kevin got the entire interface perfect?
>
> > Another point: Why all this mystery-mongering? When the server was taken
> > offline, thousands of LEGO fans all over the world wondered what happened.
> > Even in this thread you never told us the reason. Ok, eventually Larry
> > answered the repeated question -- after two days. Why didn't you place a
> > short note on www.brickshelf.com? Why don't you write at the same place,
> > that now uploads are moderated? Why don't you give us the criteria for
> > removing a file?
>
> I suspect he's pretty busy. I hesitated to answer at all. I'm scared that I
> am talking out my butt based on incomplete knowledge and worse, that I might
> say stuff that might jog Kevin's elbow and cause problems. That,
> regrettably, has happened because of stuff I said in the past, for which I
> apologise.
>
> ++Lar (who is glad that the hippocratic oath does not apply)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > To Mark P's point, I have not been taking the time to adjust folder
> > > placement, rightly or wrongly. I have just been approving or disapproving in
> > > order to get as many folders back on line as fast as I could. If there are
> > > particularly egregious examples, drop me (or any moderator) a note, and
> > > perhaps they will be corrected. I will try to do better going forward.
> >
> > Ok, so the moderators can see what folder a picture was uploaded to?
>
> Yes, moderation happens at the folder level. Add one or more pictures to a
> new or existing folder and it seems to mark the folder as needing review.
>
> > That is
> > a good thing! And they can move it from one folder to another? If so - COOL!
>
> I do not think we have the power to MOVE pictures from folder to folder. All
> we can do is edit the folder attributes as to what sort of folder it is, and
> review it as safe, maybe, or unsafe.
>
> if it gets set to safe the folder now becomes publicly visible via the
> normal BrickShelf interface. If it gets set to unsure/maybe I THINK it gets
> thrown back for re-moderation (I have seen ones I set to maybe come back
> again) If it gets set to unsafe I do not know what happens then.
>
> > I am happy about this! But I saw the picture I linked to in another part of
> > this thread is gone. Does that mean that a mod took away its ok? Or it got
> > moved to another folder? Or the user deleted it?
> >
> > I guess what I am trying to figure out is what powers the mods have? And how
> > does the process work? And what happens if a mod chooses not to ok a
> > picture? Does the user get an email or something?
>
> Good questions. I don't know the answers.
I DON'T think the user gets an email saying that the folder or conetnt of
the folder have been removed. I had 5 main folders in my top directory and
now only 4 are there. The 1st one was a bunch of .gsd files that when
merged together would give you a LEGO Invetory Application of mine. There
weher no images in this folder other than a tumbnail for the folder. I
guess these were deemed unsafe or un-somting because the entire folder has
been removed!
and I did not get any message in my email about it. I've been looking at my
other folders to see what else has gone bye-bye but need to look at my exlce
sheet to confirm that nothing else has been removed.
It would be nice to infor the user able deletions but I kow that this is on
the low end of things for now.
-AHui
> > Sorry for all the questions, I just think it would be nice if we knew how
> > things worked, and what we could do to make the mod job easier.
>
> I speculate the following things would help: Don't delete and recreate
> folders to rename/reorg them and don't add just one picture to a folder that
> has a lot in it already. Not sure if those actually do help or not.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in
news:GyF7IL.I35@lugnet.com...
> My issue with it was the trademarks and copyrights... Spoofing other
> people's ads may not be legal in the US and Kevin has said to watch out • for
> stuff like that.
Some of the best photos on brickshelf are (were?) spoofed ads or packages. I
wonder why someone can show splattered, blood covered bodies of minfigs in
his brickwars pages, but you may not show the LEGO logo together with
beatyful women. If I had omitted the logo, nobody would give it a close look
to search the bricks and the picture would have been removed because it was
supposed to be off-topic.
Whoever killed this file should have send a short message when he removed
it. Then I knew what the mistake was and maybe corrected it. And if it's too
much work to write a message for every killed file, because so many pictures
have to be removed, maybe the criteria are too hard. I am really afraid the
censorship is killing the community. I have to repeat this again and again.
Some of us are already thinking loudly about alternatives.
> There is no facility to cause a note to go to the submitter at this time. • I
> suppose that would be a good enhancement...
It would (s.a.).
> By the way I walked your entire directory and
> cleared everything else in it that hadn't yet been cleared.
Thanks for that. I hope Brickshelf will become a cozy place for me to store
newer pictures, again.
> would you prefer that BrickShelf
> had been off the air till Kevin got the entire interface perfect?
I would prefer to be treated in justice. "Everybody is unguilty until the
opposite is proofed." Make all old files available for public, verify them
and then deny access to those that are breaking your rules. And please: Make
those rules public.
Thanks for the feedback,
..oli
|
|
| |
"Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> Yet, in this
> situation, an image is uploaded and is visible on Brickshelf, and only • then
> gets removed. Hmm.
The image was visible only to me and not public.
> I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> and LEGO.
Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
give each picture a comment I would have written that..
..oli
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
> >
> > unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired
>
> Yes.
wait - am I completely confused here? I thought we wanted the cgi output to
NOT expire? so that "back" will show you the same page?
> Where does it say that a GET request always returns the same content?
> a GET for a dynamic page is no different than a GET for a "static" page
> that might change at some point. Where the Expires header is set it should
> always be obeyed. Now, I am setting "Expires: 0" instead of a properly
> formatted date string, so Mozilla may be ignoring it, where IE and NS
> know what that means.
hmmm... :
13.9 Side Effects of GET and HEAD
Unless the origin server explicitly prohibits the caching of their
responses, the application of GET and HEAD methods to any resources
SHOULD NOT have side effects that would lead to erroneous behavior if
these responses are taken from a cache. They may still have side
effects, but a cache is not required to consider such side effects in
its caching decisions. Caches are always expected to observe an
origin server's explicit restrictions on caching.
We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have
traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a
"?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side
effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URLs as fresh unless
the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically
means that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs should not
be taken from a cache. See section 9.1.1 for related information.
it does say that "GET" should be ok to be used from the cache, but gives the
exception that if it has a "?" in it, it will not be cached unless the
server specifically ask for caching.
so I guess you're right - in general, GET cgis should not be cached. in
this case, though, we do want it cahced, so you should set an expiration
header in the future - something like "+1d" or something. doesn't a "0"
mean the content has expired Jan 1, 1970?
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > Yet, in this
> > situation, an image is uploaded and is visible on Brickshelf, and only • then
> > gets removed. Hmm.
>
> The image was visible only to me and not public.
That is not true, and is the point of my posting at all. I did see this image
in the recent folder at Brickshelf yesterday. It was public. This has more to
do with Brickshelf than with you...
>
> > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> > and LEGO.
>
> Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> give each picture a comment I would have written that..
>
>
> ..oli
Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
Constantine
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> > "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> > news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> > > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> > > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> > > and LEGO.
> >
> > Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> > give each picture a comment I would have written that..
> >
> >
> > ..oli
>
> Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
> inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and download)
the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
was in any way hurt.
FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad. It was a nice surprise to
see the manipulation, very nice indeed. And I must confess it took me a while
to figure out the "brickalization" of the Ice cream... :-)
Would you give the proper value to this creation if you didn't know what was
behind it? Would you have clicked on a thumb depicting a quasi-rectangular
brown shape?
Pedro
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> > > "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> > > news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > > > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> > > > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> > > > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> > > > and LEGO.
> > >
> > > Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> > > give each picture a comment I would have written that..
> > >
> > >
> > > ..oli
> >
> > Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
> > inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
>
> I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and • download)
> the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> was in any way hurt.
> FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad. It was a nice surprise • to
> see the manipulation, very nice indeed. And I must confess it took me a while
> to figure out the "brickalization" of the Ice cream... :-)
> Would you give the proper value to this creation if you didn't know what was
> behind it? Would you have clicked on a thumb depicting a quasi-rectangular
> brown shape?
>
>
> Pedro
Let's try that again:
Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the _(_MOC by itself_)_, [instead
of] _in addition to its placement_ inside a derivative work (term of art in the
copyright field)...
On the other hand, in view of the tangled multinational web of laws on
copyright and trademark infringement and potential rights of parody and satire
and exposure of the host to contributory infringement, there are two companies'
reputations at risk in this manipulation, not just one. Would I have clicked on
a thumb depicting a girlfriend fondling an ice cream bar MOC? Probably. So it
is not fair to say that trademark and copyright infringement is needed to draw
interest to a rendition in LEGO of a real-world object now made possible
through the wider variety of brown pieces.
Constantine
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> > > In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> > > > "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> > > > news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > > > > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> > > > > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> > > > > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> > > > > and LEGO.
> > > >
> > > > Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> > > > give each picture a comment I would have written that..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ..oli
> > >
> > > Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
> > > inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
> >
> > I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> > interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and • download)
> > the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> > concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> > was in any way hurt.
> > FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> > puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad. It was a nice surprise • to
> > see the manipulation, very nice indeed. And I must confess it took me a while
> > to figure out the "brickalization" of the Ice cream... :-)
> > Would you give the proper value to this creation if you didn't know what was
> > behind it? Would you have clicked on a thumb depicting a quasi-rectangular
> > brown shape?
> >
> >
> > Pedro
>
> Let's try that again:
>
> Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the _(_MOC by itself_)_, [instead
> of] _in addition to its placement_ inside a derivative work (term of art in the
> copyright field)...
That I do understand, and agree. As an addition, it would definately make sense.
> On the other hand, in view of the tangled multinational web of laws on
> copyright and trademark infringement and potential rights of parody and satire
> and exposure of the host to contributory infringement, there are two companies'
> reputations at risk in this manipulation, not just one.
Yes, I realized that when I hit post - I keep forgetting LEGO is very
brand-aware... :-)
It might have been advisable to include a disclaimer, in tiny letters on the
bottom of the image (in such a way they would not be visible in the thumb,
perhaps?)
> Would I have clicked on
> a thumb depicting a girlfriend fondling an ice cream bar MOC? Probably.
But my point is, what if you *didn't* know it was an Ice-cream MOC? Would the
picture have called your attention? I would have bypassed it, as if it were the
original ad. After all, it was hard to tell that the Ice cream was LEGO...
> So it
> is not fair to say that trademark and copyright infringement is needed to draw
> interest to a rendition in LEGO of a real-world object now made possible
> through the wider variety of brown pieces.
Generically, I agree it is not *needed*. In this particular case, I'd say it
was *helpful* to call attention. In other words, it would be ill-advised to use
the logo in every single work, but given the specificities of this picture (1)
it might be excusable - I dunno, and quite frankly I'd LOVE to.
Pedro
(1) - the small relative size of the LEGO Ice-cream when it appears on the
thumb, that does not allow easy recognition of its true nature.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see
> (and download)
> the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> was in any way hurt.
You cannot say that for sure.
> FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad.
My main concern and why I kept voting "unsure" was that this parody has the
LEGO(r) logo on it.
I really don't want to see a huge debate break out about this. It's been
discussed in some depth before that LEGO does not like it when people apply
their logo to things that they did not approve the use of the logo in. Kevin
has in the past adhered fairly closely on that point as well as the rest of
the Fair Play policies (which are linked from the web front page of this
newsgroup by the way)
The Maxim ice cream company (or whoever they company is) may have similar
(and valid) concerns but they aren't quite as tightly "associated" with the
site.
I don't know who disapproved it. I don't care, really. It got resubmitted
and now it's approved, after a few more changes were made to the pictures in
the folder to elaborate. Kevin ought to make the final determination on this
one though... it's a case deserving of some concern.
All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
folders, by the way.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> Come on Kevin, I can understand that you are afraid of people uploading
> photos inappropriate for children. But don't get paranoid. What's next?
> Delete everything that's in an other language than English because it could
> be a bomb-building instruction? (Or even worse: rude words! SCNR)
Well, you have to figure this is Kevin's site and it is up to him to run his
free site as he wishes. I have had some things not ok'ed by the mods that
be. But its ok, I can live with it. The pictures of mine that were deleted
were in the off-topic folders and I was using it to store pictures of hot
whells and star wars figs that I was putting up on ebay. I put them up the
night beofre the auction and planed to take them down when the people who
won them got their winnings and had time to inspect their items. I had it
cleary labeled (and with no keywords) in off-topic. I was under the
impression that off-topic was ok for stuff like this, as it would not show
up on the recent page (and this was before geekshelf came along). But even
with it being in the off-topic folder it was still deleted. I am kinda
surprised, but I am not upset over it. Would I like an answer as to why?
Sure I would - but do I need an answer - no.
> Another point: Why all this mystery-mongering? When the server was taken
> offline, thousands of LEGO fans all over the world wondered what happened.
> Even in this thread you never told us the reason. Ok, eventually Larry
> answered the repeated question -- after two days. Why didn't you place a
> short note on www.brickshelf.com? Why don't you write at the same place,
> that now uploads are moderated? Why don't you give us the criteria for
> removing a file?
I agree with this. I would like to have seen a 'why' and 'this is what we
are doing' just to let us know whats going on and what we can expct from BS
in the future. I still do not understand what is going on, like how are all
these new folder being greenlighted before the old stuff? I was also under
the impression that if old stuff was up and nobody complained then it must
have been ok, so why do they need looking at again? And what happens if you
have a folder of say 50 pictures, and 3 or so of them are not 'ok' by these
new standards - do all 50 get the boot or just the 3? And why when you add a
picture into a folder you lose the entire folder for a period of time? Why
not just put that pic into the queue? There are many things I am curious
about that I have not seen it touched upon or given an answer. I think
answers to these questions would be good for the people that use BS.
I am more concerned with the pictures being put into the right folders. I
see (saw) pictures all the time that were in the wrong folder, hopefuly that
will change now. And I would also love to see a 'MISC' folder setup, I know
there were tons of these 'MISC' folders that had random pictures of alot of
things that would not fit as a whole into any one folder other than 'MISC'
Mark P.
http://www.landofbricks.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
<SNIP>
> My main concern and why I kept voting "unsure" was that this parody has the
> LEGO(r) logo on it.
<SNIP>
Sorry to nit-pick, and maybe I'm just badgering the point, and maybe the images
were changed before they were uploaded. But the enhanced image that I saw (as
I did not look at these images until after they were re-uploaded) makes me
think that they have not been changed, except for the image labled 'for
blinds.' It seems the creator wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that
the LEGO logo was in fact NOT in the picture, but a parody of the LEGO logo,
with the word LOGO written in.
--Anthony
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Anthony Sava writes:
> Sorry to nit-pick, and maybe I'm just badgering the point,
> and maybe the images
> were changed before they were uploaded.
Yes you are, and yes they were.
The original image had the LEGO logo in it not a parody. But even the parody
is a technical violation of the fairplay document... one that lots of people
do (similar parodies or distortions that is) but a violation nevertheless.
Stop nitpicking and stop badgering, that would be my request.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Anthony Sava writes:
>
> > Sorry to nit-pick, and maybe I'm just badgering the point,
> > and maybe the images
> > were changed before they were uploaded.
>
> Yes you are, and yes they were.
>
> The original image had the LEGO logo in it not a parody. But even the parody
> is a technical violation of the fairplay document... one that lots of people
> do (similar parodies or distortions that is) but a violation nevertheless.
>
> Stop nitpicking and stop badgering, that would be my request.
Lar,
Less typing, more clicking. I want everyone to be able to see my pics soon. ;-)
Jude
FUT .o-t.debate cause it ain't worth it even though you are right
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> > interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see
> > (and download)
> > the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> > concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> > was in any way hurt.
>
> You cannot say that for sure.
Why would a company feel upset about free advertising? I mean, it is not as if
the picture was in any way an insult to the ice-cream...
I agree I cannot tell for sure that they *won't* feel hurt, but what I said is
*it is unlikely* they'll feel hurt - I admit they may find a reason to protest,
I (and "I" means just that, me) just can't remember any.
> > FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> > puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad.
>
> My main concern and why I kept voting "unsure" was that this parody has the
> LEGO(r) logo on it.
>
> I really don't want to see a huge debate break out about this. It's been
> discussed in some depth before that LEGO does not like it when people apply
> their logo to things that they did not approve the use of the logo in. Kevin
> has in the past adhered fairly closely on that point as well as the rest of
> the Fair Play policies (which are linked from the web front page of this
> newsgroup by the way)
I agree to that; in fact, in a different post in this thread I admit I had
forgotten about LEGO and was just considering the implications concerning the
Ice cream company.
> The Maxim ice cream company (or whoever they company is) may have similar
> (and valid) concerns but they aren't quite as tightly "associated" with the
> site.
True.
> I don't know who disapproved it. I don't care, really. It got resubmitted
> and now it's approved, after a few more changes were made to the pictures in
> the folder to elaborate. Kevin ought to make the final determination on this
> one though... it's a case deserving of some concern.
It is, IMO, a case which might benefit with clarification from LEGO (for future
reference). In any case, given that the "offending" part of the picture has now
been cleverly changed, it doesn't matter any more... :-)
> All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
> folders, by the way.
Out of my curiosity alone, what is the rythm of analysis?
Pedro
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
<snip>
That's all plowed ground, I am not going to debate it here.
> > All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
> > folders, by the way.
> Out of my curiosity alone, what is the rythm of analysis?
If I understand your question the answer of late is:
Orbital - 2
Chemical Brothers - Exit Planet Dust
Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport
or stuff from www.purerave.com (which Iain turned me on to, thanks!),
especially: Didymos - Epic Trance CD
If not, please ask again...
Jude: your folders are cleared, I think.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> That's all plowed ground, I am not going to debate it here.
I did not know that - please apologize the persistence :-(
> > > All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
> > > folders, by the way.
>
> > Out of my curiosity alone, what is the rythm of analysis?
>
> If I understand your question the answer of late is:
>
> Orbital - 2
> Chemical Brothers - Exit Planet Dust
> Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport
>
> or stuff from www.purerave.com (which Iain turned me on to, thanks!),
> especially: Didymos - Epic Trance CD
>
> If not, please ask again...
Huh... rythm, as in "the average pace in which you (reviewer) review files".
I should have used "review" instead of "analysis", but the first does not
exist in my native language with the same meaning. Hence your answer, I
guess :-)
(Good musical taste, BTW)
Pedro
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> Huh... rythm, as in "the average pace in which you (reviewer) review files".
> I should have used "review" instead of "analysis", but the first does not
> exist in my native language with the same meaning. Hence your answer, I
> guess :-)
Ah. OK. The answer is it depends.
External factors: How fast does the page load? That's driven by the network
load. I have a cable modem connection to the internet and a 100 Mbps
internal network. During the day the network is loaded because my kids are
surfing and stuff, (that's noise though) and the cable modem connection is
slower since other people are placing a load. Best review time so far has
been about 2 AM when everything is fast
How many files are in the folder? Larger folders are slower.
Internal factors include:
Have I seen this folder before? If I remember seeing it (and I have a pretty
good memory and i hang out on Brickshelf a lot) I do not have to examine
each thumbnail closely, just look for pics I don't recognise.
Do I know the poster? If I know the poster well and trust them I don't have
to examine as closely either.
What is the subject matter? Some subject matter takes more careful review.
If there is text in a pic I have to look at the pic to see what it says. If
there are flesh tones I have to at least glance at the pic instead of just
scanning it.
If everything is going really fast on the network I have achieved folder
review rates in excess of 15 folders/minute when I am walking the folder
tree of someone I already know and really trust, and whose tree I really
know well already because I have seen it recently.
Average is more like 20 secs per folder though.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Do I know the poster? If I know the poster well and trust them I don't have
> to examine as closely either.
Careful... How do you know that the name at the top of the folder is the
person who uploaded each file?
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Do I know the poster? If I know the poster well and trust them I don't have
> > to examine as closely either.
>
> Careful... How do you know that the name at the top of the folder is the
> person who uploaded each file?
Um, I'm assuming that I found the right person by looking their name up, and
I'm walking their tree. If the folders I see there when I start don't match
up with what I expect to see (because I know who they are and what they put
there before... when I say I hang out on BrickShelf I REALLY mean it... I am
in there all the time and have a pretty good memory of who has posted what
sorts of pics and even how their folders are laid out, in the "know it when
I see it" sense, not that I can recite folder layouts for random users...)
then I would get suspicious.
For example I walked Jeff Stembel's tree a little while ago... I've seen it
before. If I had not seen the wamalug layout pics and brickwars stuff I
expected to see I would have been suspicious that I hadn't really found Jeff.
For another example I was chatting with Troy C. in BL. I know it's him based
on what he was telling me about stuff that only he and I know related to the
Guild. He gave me the link to the top of his tree. I walked the tree,
clearing it fairly quickly. I'm pretty confident in that case that it really
was Troy's folder tree... (plus I found pics of me where I expected to find
them!) but if he's uploading pr0n, we're hosed because I let the whole tree
through quickly.
Remember I was talking about going and finding a person's folder tree and
walking it, not about random folders presented to me when I click on
moderate to start the process. THOSE are not to be trusted. Those are 90%
bionicle it seems, too. :-)
So far when walking I have not yet seen any folder trees that aren't what I
expected to find but I do know there are a couple of ringers out there
namewise. (where the same name is in there twice or whatever... I've avoided
those for now).
However if this methodology isn't a good one please let me know and I'll
stop clearing people's folders and go back to random folders, where I do NOT
trust the name I see...
++Lar
|
|
| |
> gratuitous snip *
Since your doing some mammoth overhaul on Brickshelf right now, I was
wondering if you could implement a new browsing feature: by member number.
Is there some sort of privacy policy that would break if it was available? I
know I would be using that all the time, and have a half baked method of
doing so already. I edit the url path and tweak the numbers at the end which
sort of teleports me here or there through the gallery library. So just to
clarify, I'm NOT proposing teleportation ; some sort of method of browsing
the member list by their brickshelf number.
cheers, Joseph
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=silversmurfer (almost
unearthed too!)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, John Barnes writes:
> I suspect there may be brickshelf regulars who have no interest in posting
> improper material.
>
> Since brickshelf knows who's logged in to upload, why not have trusted
> accounts. New users only become trusted after "n" good moderated uploads. If
> an account is ever complained about, they go from trusted to moderated and
> stay there without being able to earn their trusted status back.
>
> I suspect this may reduce the moderator load a huge amount while maintaining
> the integrity of the site and the immediacy of uploads for people who
> respect it.
I think they are going a little farther then necessary...
I think simple "Report this content" buttons would be fine. Let everyone be
a moderator. If the button is pressed the account or picture is held until
it is checked.
Dean
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dean Husby writes:
> I think simple "Report this content" buttons would be fine. Let everyone be
> a moderator. If the button is pressed the account or picture is held until
> it is checked.
This is an outstanding idea! Kevin, is this easily programmed? At any
moment of the day, there are lots of responsible AFOLs checking out
Brickshelf. I'm sure nothing bad would remain up for more than a minute.
You could make it so that once a folder was cleared the button would go
away--so, for instance, once Oliver's add spoof was cleared it wouldn't keep
getting flagged as questionable by people who didn't look closely enough.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Dean Husby writes:
>
> > I think simple "Report this content" buttons would be fine. Let everyone be
> > a moderator. If the button is pressed the account or picture is held until
> > it is checked.
>
>
> This is an outstanding idea! Kevin, is this easily programmed? At any
> moment of the day, there are lots of responsible AFOLs checking out
> Brickshelf. I'm sure nothing bad would remain up for more than a minute.
> You could make it so that once a folder was cleared the button would go
> away--so, for instance, once Oliver's add spoof was cleared it wouldn't keep
> getting flagged as questionable by people who didn't look closely enough.
>
> Bruce
Yes, that would be great. The moderators wouldn't have to check every
image, and they would have plenty of time to look at the few questionable
images. This would mean that any harmful images would be quickly delt with.
Again, Kevin, is this possible?
-JHK
|
|
| |
> > In lugnet.publish, Dean Husby writes:
> >
> > > I think simple "Report this content" buttons would be fine. Let everyone be
> > > a moderator. If the button is pressed the account or picture is held until
> > > it is checked.
This might work for off-topic items, but I don't think this would work for
inappropriate images. In the most recent incident there was a fairly lengthy
discussion on BZ before I saw the pictures mentioned anywhere else, and the
pictures were apparently in a Bionicle folder (I didn't see them, that info
is from the discussion). If the actual images appeared on the recent updates
page, it might work, but there are a lot of folders that very few people look
at. Also, keep in mind that there are now thousands of kids who look at
Brickshelf. Even if the picture is reported in the first minute, kids will
probably see it.
John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, John Herre writes:
> In the most recent incident there was a fairly lengthy
> discussion on BZ before I saw the pictures mentioned anywhere else, and the
> pictures were apparently in a Bionicle folder (I didn't see them, that info
> is from the discussion).
<SNIP>
What is BZ? I woul dbe interested in reading that discussion.
Paul Sinasohn
LUGNET #115
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Paul Sinasohn writes:
> In lugnet.publish, John Herre writes:
>
> > In the most recent incident there was a fairly lengthy
> > discussion on BZ before I saw the pictures mentioned anywhere else, and the
> > pictures were apparently in a Bionicle folder (I didn't see them, that info
> > is from the discussion).
>
> <SNIP>
>
> What is BZ? I woul dbe interested in reading that discussion.
I think its the Bionicle Zone:
http://www.bzpower.com/
-Rob.
|
|
|
