Sep 14, 2012

Why in the world would anyone want to purposely post a "blank"  comment on this forum???

I don't know why my thoughtful, intelligent and several paragraph long comment came out BLANK....   right after I posted the comment I got the "normal" box that said I have 10 minutes to update it then I came back about 15 minutes later and pooofff, it was GONE....

Based on what was said here, when posting a comment on the Forums, I am no longer going to use block quotes...  that seems to be the crux of the problem, well, at least in my one-off experience.

My comment, if I remember correctly, was regarding Trish's comment about the little gray heart being a "picture" when the profile has no pictures.    Back in late June... I was being hammered by the DRB Trolls on both my journals/comments and on my profile... getting nasty, disrespectful and insulting comments (even on non-controversial happy subjects not related to politics)  and being flagged for everything imaginable and also I had some romantic IRL issues that were not going well, so I deleted ALL of my pics and I photoshopped the gray heart into a pink heart, tilted it about 20 degrees or so and inserted a jagged crack vertically down the middle... essentially showing that I had a broken heart... well obviously that didn't stay up for long, it was flagged and deleted within a day...   as it should have been per the TOS and picture rules.


OK now, where do I sign up... someone put in a good word for me please.



Sep 14, 2012

^  Oh, and before I get the comment "Why didn't you BLOCK them"

I did block them and they kept coming back with new temporary profiles with very minor changes in the their screen name....   finally the OkCupid Robot was alert and some of those gawd-awful troll profiles were deleted for good....   thank you Mr. Robot  ....  or is it  Ms. Robot???


Sep 14, 2012

^^ There isn't a way to "apply" for Flagmod nor can you get flagmod access by others recommending you.

Basically, when the backlog of flags gets large enough, the OKC staff runs their "analytics" and gives flagmod access to those with the highest ratings. They haven't revealed what the criteria for those ratings is (nor do I think they will).

^ I'm pretty sure that the Staff Robot is androgynous ;)


Sep 14, 2012


My personal opinion on the matter is that it doesn't seem fair not to apply the same rules evenly across the board to everyone. If someone has five pictures of themselves and one picture of their dog, they have broken the same rule as the person who has one picture of their dog and none of themselves. I do get where you're coming from in that the person with the 5:1 ratio obviously is putting forth a better effort, but I don't personally agree that that "earns" you the privilege to break a rule as it is written. If they change the official Guidelines I'll change my stance, but for now that's my thought process on the matter.


Sep 14, 2012

@ spookeye

The pictures that I had on my profile that were flagged and deleted were not of a pet or of artwork but rather they were of me...  my legs and feet... and they were not ECU  .... I showed as much or more of my body in those pics than a head shot in most of the profiles.   I guess the issue there would be how do you define an ECU.  If it is just the face it is OK, but if it is of the legs and feet it is not?    The pictures not showing the user should be deleted per the TOS... that is a very clear rule.

When I become a FlagMod I will certainly enforce the rules but there sure seems to be a lot of ambguity and objective judgement that varies from FlagMod to FlagMod, hence the confusion that us poor users have to endure and me especially because I am not a FlagMod...   yet.

I am looking for my FlagMod message and FlaMod status very soon, thank you BecauseItOwns and others who are influential with the decision makers at OkCupid.  


Sep 14, 2012

I quit modding a few months ago, but I'd vote down legs/feet as often as not.  I didn't do it because it's an ECU violation, because it's not.  I consider them against the spirit of the "Not a photo of the user" guideline.


If you take a picture of your dinner plate, and sneak a finger in the bottom corner, are you in the picture?  Not in my opinion.

If you take a picture of a landscape, and your foot makes up 2% of the photo, are you in it?  Not in my opinion.

Really I just think those kinds of pictures are shitty and mostly useless.  I don't demand a face, especially because they've clearly stepped back from requiring faces.  But I don't consider your foot "you".  If you don't show me enough for me to be likely to distinguish you from any of my close friends that I see often in person, then I don't feel like I'm seeing "you".  That's why I voted against some of those.


Also, I don't think campaigning for flagmod is going to get you anywhere.  It's like trying to schmooze the guys at the 7-11 to increase your chances of winning the lotto.  If you get it, it's not cause you've asked for it.


Sep 14, 2012


Why does it matter if someone makes a pet their main photo? If they are allowed to have *no* photo, then what's the problem with *any* photo?


My personal take on that is this:

  1. Users are not obligated to upload photos, which is fine because some people have privacy issues.
  2. However if users DO upload photos (because, yanno, OkCupid is a dating site), others expect those photos to be representative of them since people want to know what a person who they might be interested in meeting looks like before deciding to pursue them.

In particular, this relates to the match search feature where users can choose to only view profiles that include pictures. I am about 99.99999% certain that that feature was designed for, and understood as, a way for people so inclined to eliminate from consideration (and wasting their time) profiles that they cannot ascertain what the person looks like. Not because some people really just want to spend their time here looking for pictures of hydrangeas or dogs.


SFG , what pics don't you let in if there are other pics in thier group? or do you let everything in?


Speaking only for myself: If a person has 2-3 clearly identifiable pics of themselves, I don't mind if they also include a pic of their artwork, their dog, their car, etc. I will always vote to delete blatant nudity/porn, fake/stolen/heavily-photoshopped pics of people (because of the high likelihood it is not representative of the user), and certain other highly offensive pics like something where the user appears to be threatening, like pointing a gun at the camera. (Because I really really really don't think people want to come here to view pictures of users threatening them with a gun, etc.)


Edit: I didn't read page 2 before posting this. My stance is extremely similiar to Ceij's - I vote in a way that I believe enhances the value and appeal of the site to most current or potential users.



Sep 14, 2012


If you take a picture of your dinner plate, and sneak a finger in the bottom corner, are you in the picture? Not in my opinion.

If you take a picture of a landscape, and your foot makes up 2% of the photo, are you in it? Not in my opinion.


Which pretty much dovetails with what one OkCupid staff member (MeghanBeres) has written in the past about the spirit of being "in the picture". Ceij may have quoted her words on that here earlier today.



Sep 14, 2012

Here's how I interpret the rules - the point of uploading photos on okc is to tell other people what you're like, as a person. First and foremost this means what you look like. But once people uploaded enough photos that you can clearly judge whether you'd be physically attracted to them, I don't see why they shouldn't also upload photos that show other aspects of their life. Like their pets. Or their artwork. Or this close up of this super awesome tattoo they just got yesterday. All of these photos actually reveal something about the person and in many cases are excellent conversation starters. Obviously if these are the only kind of photos on a profile, I'll vote delete every time, but if they already have like 5 other photos that clearly show their face/body, I really don't see what can be gained by deleting the other ones.


Sep 14, 2012

I agree with bl13m, many is too many 'others' and how many are of the user? Also, how many of the 'other' photos are cute little poems or pithy sayings? (Yeah, I r-click and save and put them on my facebook)

Here's a question that I've not seen discussed in this thread before. How do you feel about someone posting a photo giving 'the finger'? Personally, I don't see it as a big deal at all and don't understand why it was even flagged, but the 'reported comments' as well as other mod's make me wonder if I'm a bit too liberal about that.  Your thoughts?



Sep 14, 2012

/\ thats why i feel its better the vote the way i do, not based how many "other" pics how many clear face or body pics etc etc, I go by the guidelines , it makes it very simple


Regarding someone sticking their finger up, most of those i have seen ,the face and body are proudly there so la.


Did anyone see the pic with the back of a girls head, her hair was shaved saying "*unt" curious how some would vote on that one????????????


Sep 14, 2012

I took a lot away from MeghanBeres posts, and I fully agree with the concept of “being in the picture".  I have roughly 10 photos on my profile, which clearly show my face, body type, my hobbies, and how I am when I am out with friends.  I vote the way I do on a simple premise, if through their photos I would automatically recognize them if we were meeting for the first time, then they have clearly defined what they look like.  If the user wishes to add more to that, then I’m Okay with it.  I have no hard a fast rule about “oh they have 5 photos and 1 is of the mountains”, every time I see those reports, it is a judgment call.

However as a side note, I understand that some users need a bit more anonymity than the rest of us, so if I see 6 photos of a person with the eyes blocked out, that still show their face and/or standing body shot, I force myself to believe they have a good reason for it.

I fully agree with bl13m in that “once people uploaded enough photos that you can clearly judge whether you'd be physically attracted to them, I don't see why they shouldn't also upload photos that show other aspects of their life”; and yes, I do feel that photos and profile information is a great conversation topic of conversation. But yes, if all they have are bogus photos, then I vote to delete; nothing is better than crap.

In response to sandyvs,  I think shooting the bird is crude and tacky, but I work around a lot of younger people and several all enthralled by the “Thug Life”.  So, I see that daily in their mannerisms and the way they speak.  What I may consider derogatory by my standards is nothing to them, it’s just the way they talk; and it reflects in their photos and profiles.

In response to ussie0ne, I did see that photo and yes, I thought – wow what a poor lack in judgment.  But after reviewing her other social media profiles (quite a few) and noting the type (and age) of the person was interested in meeting, it became very clear to me that she was very eclectic, a bit of a hipster and eccentric in her own right.  So I didn’t let my standards or values influence my voting.  I respected her rights to be who she is and use this community site to her preferences.

The last time I looked OKC had over 7 million users all over the world, and while I may have my own basis standards, I refuse to let those infringe on others lives.  So, until I am removed from being a mod this is how I feel, and this is how I will vote – judgmental as it is.

Let the flaming begin.

Ps : CornFedBlonde : Keep posting.


Sep 14, 2012


That's basically my stance on the photo issue, and I do tend to downvote 'no face' pictures as well even if everyone else doesn't. The way I look at photos is basically... 'Based on this picture, would I recognize the user if I passed them on the sidewalk?' If the answer is no, then I vote delete.


Sep 14, 2012

spookye : that is my take as well, but safety is an issue for some and some leeway must be given, inho. But if they offer photos which protect themselves and still represent a clear understanding of who they are then I’m fine with it.


Sep 14, 2012

I'm getting really sick of mods who refuse to vote to delete pictures that clearly violate the guidelines on the grounds...

I do tend to downvote 'no face' pictures as well

I'm getting really sick of mods who refuse to vote LA on pictures that clearly do not violate the guidelines...(not)

Come on people. If an already insanely easy job is too hard for you, there's nobody forcing you to click that 'Moderation' link.

Basically it cuts both ways.

My ego would like to see affirmation of my opinion by everyone voting the way I do, but that's not how a consensus works.

In general, I do not comment in moderation about my opinions on dogs, trucks, feet or hair weaves, but I will comment when I see someone else comment that faces are required because it's misinformation.

My focus is on scammers, porn bots, email harvesters, etc., so I'll comment on the facts that lead me to conclude that the profile is one of those. Sometimes I'll add some sarcasm too.





Sep 14, 2012

Hmmm, I have been thinking over this problem of flagging and FlagMods...  

Hey, we are in the day and age of the computer...  why couldn't a computer model or algorithm be used to do a lot of the preliminary work of determining the validity of written word and picture violations?

Just  look at google image search and image reverse search as an example.  

This would lessen the load on the FlagMods and also lesses the variablility of the subjective FlagMod Delete or LA decisions. 

Or, is this not a good idea?


Sep 14, 2012

There is a lot of automation that goes on behind the scenes.  Every now and then you get bots trying to clog up the system with spam, and computers are fairly good at spotting what other computers do.  That is, creating a metric crapton of stuff based on a limited template.

What computers are less good at is interpretation.  Even something as simple as connecting it to a reverse image search would screw people who use the same picture of themselves for avatars over the internet.  That's why humans making judgement calls are an important part of the system.


Sep 15, 2012

But the "rule" is not that the main photo on your profile must be of the user. I get the quick match problem. I hadn't even thought about it since I don't use that feature. Why can't the problem simply be explained in TOSS and it simply state that if a user elects to post a photo, for the purposes of quick match, the first one needs to be of the user? Can't the rules be modified to allow for that problem and still permit profiles to contain various photos without making all 2-10 photos rigidly conform?  My gripe is with those who rigidly and blindly follow "the rules" without taking into account the reasoning behind them and using some common sense. I would still now vote for any but the first photo to be left alone, not on just anything, not to be combative about it, but because what I hope for with this site is that people be able to express themselves. That often tells me as much about a person as repeated photos of the user when I could learn other things based upon what they choose to share of themselves. I'm basically agreeing with bl13m.


Sep 15, 2012

Crap! OKC just dumped a reasonably sisized post -- third instance I'm aware of.


Not the most important, but if ALL Mods should be able to pass a Modding test (It should be a breeze for long timers users, or they've already done so with previous votes, OKC has the info and initiative..


OKC -- YOU check the pics. It's a simple script. If truly questionable; then, send if to Moderation. It will save hundreds of hours of time.


@outofsite: You sign-up, and agree to play by the rules (which takes some doing).  Lot's of us would like to see a decent profile pic and ignore a doggie shot at the end. But, it's a no-go for now. Please, keep contacting Admin as to admissibility.

You CAN post 'em if you subscribe to A-List, or in your journal. 


Sep 15, 2012

Have you ever been on a site that either didn't have image limitations, or that didn't enforce them?  I for one would want to gouge my eyes out if OKC became filled with memes and inspirational quotes.  Once users get the sense that anything goes, good taste is often the first thing that does.

Post a comment