Making the SFW category actually safe for work?

First of all, I don't mind seeing girls wallpaper in sfw, but in my understanding a lot of them aren't sfw. Just a few examples of wallpapers that appear in the sfw toplist.

1364 x 2048221

2202 x 3303129

1601 x 240077

1125 x 2000142

I wouldn't want these to appear on my screen when I'm giving a presentation and forgot to close the tab. Maybe I'm alone with this opinion and sfw is not meant literally but in fact supposed to be just a filtering option because nobody browses this site in a work enviroment anyway. I'm active in another image based community and they recently (like 1 year ago) enforced a stricter sfw filtering because there had been issues with advertising partners, who want their ads to appear only in the sfw area. And it turned out to be really enjoyable to have a reliable sfw filtering that gets rid of all the sketchy stuff.

So let me know if anyone cares about this or if you are fine with the current system.

I fully agree. I would have marked at least 2, 3 and 4 as Sketchy.

On a side note I think the site needs a new category for porn. There is a huge difference between

@acezy: I agree and in my opinion these are classified poorly, I'd put each one into Sketchy without a second thought. I thought massive cleavages is instant Sketchy category.

shadomare: YES, my feelings exactly.

Sketchy Images with a subject in underwear, swimwear, lingerie, latex, etc. but no genitals or (female) nipples showing. Images containing profanity, drugs/drug references, war and death. Non-graphic violence such as blood spatter, and images of guns in use. Controversial political/religious symbols such as Nazism.

Personally I find that most pictures of people are of the quality you posted OP. To me they aren't really sketchy or NSFW as I've seen worse under those categories. When it comes down to it though since the VAST majority of SFW female people I see are just like what you posted, I recommend you just filter out people.

Shadowmare I agree. I also think adding more than one additional category might be a good idea - If people are trying to use SFW for Sketchy then maybe people want more categories - though it's entirely possible it's just bad tagging.

1. I agree that wallpapers in @acezy's post should be flagged sketchy but it is difficult to justify that with our current rules. That latter two are actually no different from how thousands of girls walk around outside every summer. It's really just the angle and focus that gives these pictures their "suggestive" nature. It's difficult to put that in a rule. In fact the primary reason why I flagged the last one sketchy is the bangbros watermark.

2. There will never be a porn category. That would be completely counter productive to all our efforts. We want to discourage low grade fap material, not invite it. If anything, it'd be worth to forbid it altogether but here arises the ancient question: How do we draw the line? Once again the problem is that it's very difficult to put the difference between those wallpapers in shadomare's post into words fit for a rule definition. Things like "classy" or "style" are highly subjective (assuming they apply here at all). Until someone can come up with an objective rule that clearly defines what belongs and what doesn't this debate is going nowhere.

I have to disagree with Gandalf that all 4 are sketchy. By our current rules 3 from those walls are SFW except Jo Evans picture which is sketchy. But on the other hand I completely agree with a point 2. My explanation: 1st pic (my upload): short dress, whole legs visible, little cleavage, yes, but otherwise completely dressed - SFW 2nd pic: big boobs but almost completely covered by t-shirt with a very little cleavage - SFW 3rd pic: her shorts are too short on bottom and a part of her ass is visible - Sketchy 4th pic: she's a pornstar but her whole ass is covered with shorts, Bangbros watermark has nothing to do with content - SFW

@acezy:

...I'm active in another image based community and they recently (like 1 year ago) enforced a stricter sfw filtering because there had been issues with advertising partners, who want their ads to appear only in the sfw area. And it turned out to be really enjoyable to have a reliable sfw filtering that gets rid of all the sketchy stuff.

This is complete invalid argument for our website and IMHO it's irrelevant for us because we have our own rules.

Alright my gut is telling me they're all sketchy.

1 is due to the low cut of her top and the odd pose she's got going on with her legs.

2 shouldn't really need an explanation, those things are big enough to suffocate someone (not to mention how she's "presenting" them, sorry for pulling a tumblr with that word).

3 and 4 are kinda making me want to use that 'presenting' word again, but mainly the high cut of those shorts is leading to a good amount of under ass (is that a thing?)

I 100% agree that SFW should lead to the least 'offensive' content. I'd say just the fact that we had to debate the purity of these images is sufficient enough to make them sketchy.

Our rules will be getting tweaked here. Along with some other feedback I've gotten, I do think we're going to start cutting back on the porn here - that's not the type of content I want driving our traffic.

Gandalf I agree that it's hard to distinguish between sexually suggestive images and just "revealing" outfits with written rules. But I have experienced that it's possible to get pretty good results, by giving the mods few guidelines and leaving the rest at their discretion. Additionally I don't really see advantages of a loose SFW filtering, because people that are looking for wallpapers like those, will most likely have sketchy filter turned on.

kejsirajbek The intent of this post was not to discuss any rule violations or criticize mod's work. I know that currently every wallpaper I posted in the thread can fit into the SFW category.

My problem was that with the current rules SFW is more of a "less sketchy", as even the correctly marked SFW wallpapers can be sexually suggestive. Just ask yourself: "Would I want these images to pop up on my screen in school, university or at work?". If the answer is No, then they aren't SFW in the literal sense. If it's Yes, then you either have a very laid-back boss/teacher or you are working in the porn industry.

This is complete invalid argument for our website and IMHO it's irrelevant for us because we have our own rules.

While the rules of other websites are obviously irrelevant here, this "story" is relevant for the topic. That is because it showed (me), how beneficial a clear cut between the SFW area and any sketchy content was for a website and its image, by making it safely accessible from puclic/work.

If the owners/devs have other goals than fine-tuning the filtering rules, I'm totally fine with it. I just wanted to bring this up once and make the suggestion.

AksumkA maybe I should refresh the page before writing a wall of text :)

Gandalf said:

Things like "classy" or "style" are highly subjective (assuming they apply here at all). Until someone can come up with an objective rule that clearly defines what belongs and what doesn't this debate is going nowhere.

I think a few things that are obviously the worst offenders and I see a lot are easy to specify - nude pictures with spread legs/bent over towards the camera specifically. That would probably cut down 2/3 or more of the obvious porn uploads and be a bottleneck enough that those looking for just porn would lose interest quickly.

Well, if all 4 pics belong to sketchy then I see it as a precedent and we will have to change hundreds, if not thousands of walls from sfw to sketchy then...

kejsirajbek said:

Well, if all 4 pics belong to sketchy then I see it as a precedent and we will have to change hundreds, if not thousands of walls from sfw to sketchy then...

I don't think it matters. Existing content should not affect new rules if new rules are needed. Whereas the new rules can be applied retroactively is another subject (in this case it could be a good approach to flag Sketchy any SFW wallpaper with sketchy tags, or any metric that would avoid a tremendous amount of manual work.)

shadomare said:

kejsirajbek said: I don't think it matters. Existing content should not affect new rules if new rules are needed. Whereas the new rules can be applied retroactively is another subject (in this case it could be a good approach to flag Sketchy any SFW wallpaper with sketchy tags, or any metric that would avoid a tremendous amount of manual work.)

I think the problem arises that these are grey area topics because "sketchy" for these types of images can be quite subjective as mentioned previously. The fact is if these rules were to be implemented, there would be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of wallpapers that would need to be categorized as sketchy. There also arises the issue with your proposed idea of flagging sfw wallpapers with a sketchy tag as a sketchy wallpaper. There are various times when I see a sfw wallpaper with a blood (sketchy) tag. ex.

1920 x 1128121

4482 x 2837283

404011xz I don't think that's a big problem, though. It's natural that significant rule changes will have to be implemented gradually and that if applied retroactively, it will be a looooooong-lasting process that no one will expect to happen outright. If this was always considered a big barrier, you couldn't ever really update any rules. And I do not exactly shy away from NSFW wallpapers as my uploads clearly demonstrate, but I do think the proportions have become really off and it's time to adapt the rules a little.

And the main issue I see here is that people who do not filter strictly by SFW simply do not care whether an image is sketchy or SFW and can just pick the results according to taste. On the other hand, people who use the website in only SFW mode really do care.

Conclusion? If it feels like it's hard to tell, just put it as sketchy and no harm will be done, I think.

VincentTL said:

And the main issue I see here is that people who do not filter strictly by SFW simply do not care whether an image is sketchy or SFW and can just pick the results according to taste. On the other hand, people who use the website in only SFW mode really do care. Conclusion? If it feels like it's hard to tell, just put it as sketchy and no harm will be done, I think.

That's the point why these rule adjustments wouldn't really hurt anyone. I doubt there are people who are looking for these semi-sketchy shots but browse in sfw exclusively.

even in artistic photography, different artists have differing notions of what's an artistic nude & what's going too far & bleeding into pornography

even me I'm completely biased, I'm one of those guyz with relaxed views on everything, e.g. nude beaches are common & no big deal so simple nudity for me is not offensive in nature, it's all in the attitude and it is my belief that a girl in swimsuit without any suggestive pose is not sketchy at all (though I respect that it's considered sketchy on this website so that is no problem)

whereas enforcing too strict rules is offensive to me because yes we're getting more & more refugees people with strict views on everything (due to their culture & religion) & instead of blending with our society they want to impose their rules, their culture & their religion to us who are born in this country ...

whismerhill said:

even in artistic photography, different artists have differing notions of what's an artistic nude & what's going too far & bleeding into pornography even me I'm completely biased, I'm one of those guyz with relaxed views on everything, e.g. nude beaches are common & no big deal so simple nudity for me is not offensive in nature, it's all in the attitude and it is my belief that a girl in swimsuit without any suggestive pose is not sketchy at all (though I respect that it's considered sketchy on this website so that is no problem) whereas enforcing too strict rules is offensive to me because yes we're getting more & more refugees people with strict views on everything (due to their culture & religion) & instead of blending with our society they want to impose their rules, their culture & their religion to us who are born in this country ...

wtf lol

I'm the furthest from conservative imaginable and I support this change, and the ones with a Freudian fixation on controlling everything related to sex and nudity are always "Christians".

Anyway, everyone who doesn't care and just browses the website at home just enables all categories. Still, it gets annoying when I have quite a few nudity-related tags subscribed hoping for quality pictures, and sometimes my subscription inbox is flooded with pretty obvious poor quality porn. I know it's very hard to draw a line, but it seems a bit clear it needs to be moved a bit further than it is now.

yeah no VincentTL I may have badly expressed myself here I don't mind if SFW is more SFW I was reacting on the porn vs NSFW debate imbedded in this thread

sidenote: I'm not actually sure what "this change" refers to in your post

and actually christians where I live aren't the issue, muslims are unfortunately I don't mind muslims living with us, but that's not what they want, they want us to adapt our country to them

Let's get this debate back on track, please. How much porn we tolerate on wallhaven has nothing to do with anyone's religious views. The trouble with porn is that it always grows faster than everything else. There is a reason why so much porn is on the Internet. The Internet is great for that. It's just not what this site is for. What we are trying prevent is that the sketchy and NSFW category outweigh the rest. Wallhaven is for wallpapers and, despite everything else, it is still unlikely that the average user looking for a high quality wallpaper will end up putting anything on their desktop that will embarrass them when their mom/girlfriend/wife walks in.

Gandalf Yep, that's pretty much my point all along. Well, the last point is probably kind of hard to avoid with any NSFW wallpapers, but like 1-2 extra points (no spread legs/ass towards the camera) would help a lot in cutting down the blatant porn a bit without harming the quality NSFW stuff.

I know drawing any lines on this is a pain in the ass, but I think it's fairly easy to pick out and ban a few stereotypically porn type of pictures like that.

Gandalf sorry for the religious slip VincentTL and my point is that the line is not so well defined as to be "easy" as you said

And even though there's some NSFW pictures out here in wallhaven that I really am like : "ugh wtf is this photographer doing ? is he for real ? he has a pretty subject and he did nothing with it ? the sharpness is not good, picture is unclear, colors are obviously messed up not on purpose ...." but I see a challenge in your words so here's a few pictures I deem artistic after a lil bit of research from my collection and that would fall in your "rule" and get deleted : it's always from my own window/point of view, which is indeed limited to my own [4yj5g7] why ? => the white saturation is carefully studied here to make the woman almost eerie or fairy looking the resolution is unfortunately a bit low for my taste, but there's still a good sharpness, with the subject being in focus and she's near the rule of thirds too (placement). some would say the whites are too burned out, but I think it's exactly the intent of the photographer here. for me this picture is a perfect example of not being porn despite having almost everything on display

[491gr8] => this one has nice greens, with apples carefully placed, note that the photo is signed, I believe the photographer himself doesn't think of this as porn but rather art, otherwise why would sign your own work ????

I think I'll stop here, I should have made my point, and I'm tired anyways

EDIT: I want to add as a counterpoint that I agree the image shadomere posted from twistys is blatant porn AFAIK most content from twistys is porn anyways

EDIT2: just found this :

edit3: again my opinion, in no way do I pretend to hold the unique truth for everyone