|
|
|
|
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/15/2008 8:47:06 PM | Why should people be banned from using a picture of a butterfly or a tire iron or anything else that they feel expresses their personality.
No one wants to date a butterfly or a tire iron. | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/15/2008 9:23:45 PM | You imply that your preference for head shots is reliant on the degree of honour you place on those who would identify themselves in that manner.
Not a Preference, its a Rule, in that if you opt not to comply, your Pic upload Privileges get revoked.
Firstly, I wonder if people who show their faces in their profiles are any more likely to be honest about themselves than those who don't-
Just shows what they look like.
why can't someone fake a profile just as easily with a head shot?
Tougher to do, a good Chance that User will be busted at some Point, and Perma-Barred from Site. And once your first few Dates report your Fake Profile Status because you do not resemble your Profile Pic, Lights out.
If I was so inclined I could find some completely random face off the Internet to substitute for mine. It might take about two more seconds of effort, but if I were dead set on messing with people I'd probably invest the time.
Over 8 Million Users, better than 15% filing Reports, this Strategy is short-Lived. Besides, exactly how are false Pics going to facilitate your Dating Endeavours?
Why would you assume that those without profile pictures to be more villainous in general than those who provide them?
I cannot answer for incorrect Assumptions you make, since nothing villainous was implied. The Answer is rather simple and was answered previously.
Secondly, any user is free to ask any other user for a head shot at anytime, the person who refuses can be permanently eliminated, and probably even flagged, by the person who asked for it; what does it matter what the lead image is in that context?
None of the above. Setting Contact Restrictions is up to each User.
I think that by denying people the ability to use an image of their choice for their profile you limit a user's way to express their personality.
This is a Dating Site, not an Art Gallery, Pet Show, Car Lot or Sears Catalog. What is pertinent here, and what Matters in Respect to Dating is what you look like, not how you want to express yourself. That is the Criteria of the Mail Setting Item that deals with restricting Contact from those who do not have a Headshot on their Profile as a Main Image.
Use your Profile's About Me Text Field to express your Personality. I am sure a few Words go a lot further to describe yourself than a Pic of a Sunset.
In fact allowing such a liberty might provide a very powerful way for people to get a sense of one another. Maybe someone's interest is tweaked by an image of a pagoda or a photograph of a setting sun...
 | Yup, the Game of Fake Profiles.
But ... You in the same Pic with a Pagoda or setting Sun is OK. |
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/15/2008 9:25:58 PM | I personally don’t subscribe to the automatic assumption that no pic means someone is hiding something or that profiles without pictures could be any more or less likely to be fakes. However, there are many members wanting, asking or even demanding to see photos before contact is allowed or before they will respond so they should have an option available for them to screen.
If others were allowed to post photos of their rock collection it would circumvent the filters of the physically discriminate. It may seem shallow, ridiculous or aggravating to others but it is their right to assume that anyone that doesn’t post a photo must resemble some kind of ogre locked in a bell tower if that is their fear.
Look at it from a different perspective and just view it as them weeding themselves out of your criteria of not wanting to meet someone that is hung up on looks.
I always find it amusing when people fuss about no photos, as in my personal experience the only people that I have encountered that lied about their appearance or age had photos, as well as some that the only thing that was accurate about them was their photo. So far I have reported profiles that used as their main pic a photo of actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Nicole Ritchie, golfer Ernie Els and a male model taken directly from a Dolce & Gabbana ad. | |
|
hej_85
|
Joined: 6/10/2008
Msg: 29 | |
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/16/2008 12:38:35 PM |
No one wants to date a butterfly or a tire iron.
Still laughing over this one... I do have 3 points I would like clarified or touched on .
1.Ok so what I am getting out of this, all pictures now-including those which are not the main-must be of ourselves. No cars, dogs, houses, beaches, ect?
2. I was going through the rate new images where you can reject for nudity or cartoon ect... Perhaps an option of USER NOT PRESENT for a reason for deletion... Should we hit reject or delete if the person is not present in the picture?
3. Another question. What about pictures of somebody's tattoo? Like it it is on their foot, or another location. Is this acceptable?
I do agree with the rules to a point. I am going to be more likely to talk to a guy who has a picture of him and his dog as opposed to just his dog... I think if you want to show off all your pictures, wait until somebody initiates contact and then point them towards Myspace or something... | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/16/2008 12:49:54 PM | 1.Ok so what I am getting out of this, all pictures now-including those which are not the main-must be of ourselves. No cars, dogs, houses, beaches, ect?
From Image Uploads Page ...
ALL pictures MUST contain you in it with a visible
head shot at minimum
2. I was going through the rate new images where you can reject for nudity or cartoon ect... Perhaps an option of USER NOT PRESENT for a reason for deletion... Should we hit reject or delete if the person is not present in the picture?
3. Another question. What about pictures of somebody's tattoo? Like it it is on their foot, or another location. Is this acceptable?
| As long as they can place their Foot beside their Head and incl. it with a Head Shot Picture. |
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/17/2008 8:37:38 AM | The whole idea that if you have no picture up then you must be hiding something just fasinates me for some reason. I have met people who look nothing like the photo they have up and so have many other people. There are threads all over the place about that happening.
I think the main reason people put up a picutre of a mountain or other such stuff are doing it becasue it is a simple way around the whole "You Must Have A Picture To Contact This User" filter. I can really see no ther reason for it.
I put my pictures up for a bit but got the weirdest emails I ever could get. So they are off and if someone has that filter well no biggie, I jsut don't send them. I do wish that as long as you had private pics they would allow you to send an email and just attach the pics to send but the filter is as it is and I am not going to go sneak around adding my picture to my profile to send an email and then take it down right away to avoide it being seen. I as well thing that is just as bad as adding the mountain shot to get around it. | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/17/2008 10:33:18 AM | I think the main reason people put up a picutre of a mountain or other such stuff are doing it becasue it is a simple way around the whole "You Must Have A Picture To Contact This User" filter. I can really see no ther reason for it.
Ok, lets break this down a little for better Comprehension.
Once upon a Time, there were some Users' (Actually an awful lot of them, in Fact the Majority of them), whether, good, bad, ugly, evil, insane or whatever ... who got sick and tired of meeting Big Bad Wolves with Sunset Profile Pics on a first Date who looked nothing like Grandma in their written Descriptions.
Further, many 'Fake Wolves' after E-Mail Contact refused to provide Pics and would only reveal "Their True Fake Selves" on a Date, causing undue haggling, fighting and Tons of Reports flying on each other from both Sides.
All was not well in POFland, and again and again many requested the Admin implement a System to stave off these Type of Abuses, and allow Users to chose for themselves if they would like to be contacted by those who do have Pictures of themselves or those who do not.
In order to make this work, Users have to post Profile Pics which clearly reflect what they look like in the Form of a current Head Shot. It is in this Manner that 'Red Riding Hoods' can make informed Decisions if 'Physical Characteristics' (shallow or not) are acceptable. Posting other Types of Images would obviously defeat an informed Choice and make it unworkable, and so it became a Requirement to upload Images which show Users with clearly recognizable Head Shots ....
Thus, should you have Images that are not compliant, you may have them removed by the Admin along with a Warning, and beyond that, lose your Privilege to upload any more.
| Should you upload obscene or nude Material, your Account will be deleted. |
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/17/2008 11:52:26 AM |
Thus, should you have Images that are not compliant, you may have them removed by the Admin along with a Warning, and beyond that, lose your Privilege to upload any more.
And it would be wonderful if in fact all these filters really did what they ware intended to do, however as most members learn in a very short time, these filters only work if people respect the then and use it as it was intended to be used.
Yes Admin can and I am sure has on many occations disallowed people to upload, however being just one man many slip by for a long time before Admin knows about it.
I myself do respect the filters poeple put on their profile. I also know there are simple ways around almost all of the filters. The whole online dating thing comes down to being real and being respectful to all other members. | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/17/2008 11:58:46 AM | Yes Admin can and I am sure has on many occations disallowed people to upload, however being just one man many slip by for a long time before Admin knows about it.
Most are done by Moderators.
The whole online dating thing comes down to being real and being respectful to all other members.
I think you just got the popular Fake Profile Vote.
I myself do respect the filters poeple put on their profile. I also know there are simple ways around almost all of the filters.
| If you want to meet People who want to see a Profile Pic and date them, there isn't. And that's the whole Point of it. Suffice to say there are Means you will never know about. |
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/17/2008 12:31:03 PM | I agree with what your saying and there are many reasons I do not post my picture on here anymore. Suffice to say, finding out someone did the wonderful right click and save picture as, and then set up and AFF acount and is using your face shot in private emails is not a good thing. Yep I got an email from a fellow POF member when my pic used to be on this site. The pic used I know came from here becasue it is the only place in the net that pic was put. So now there are no pics of me on the net and I am selective who I send then to.
So there is my reason and I think it is a good one, if someone thinks I am being paranoid well that is there thinking and I am allowed to think my way. The only thing is there is one guy on here that I would love to send an email to but alas he has the filter and so I have never emailed him. | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/17/2008 4:02:28 PM | So there is my reason and I think it is a good one, if someone thinks I am being paranoid well that is there thinking and I am allowed to think my way.
And that is why there is no Requirement to have a Pic in order to have a Profile, and many Users also do not make it a Requirement to have one.
| But those more physically discerning, for whatever personal Reasons they may have, can restrict Contact from those who do not have one, and its the #1 Eliminator for Site Complaints of Fake Profiles, bar none. |
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/18/2008 4:21:57 PM | Hi ya' Ticket! :O)
I know you are prolly groaning with all these photo questions...but then lo' and behold! I received the Admin notice that my pic had been deleted for not showing my face.
WHAT?!?
Mine obviously DOES show my face, has no nudity or obscenity, is not a celebrity photo (though I may beg to differ!), etc....
I guess my main question is...when these are reported, are they actually reviewed, or are they automatically deleted after 1 or xx-amount of reports?
In other words...could someone report just to be a vindictive, mean, nasty, troll person and actually have their goal accomplished?
I also seem to have lost my uploading priviledges...when I only recently put photos back up...and they all meet the guidelines. :O)
Mucho Gracias in Advance for your help! | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/18/2008 4:29:59 PM | I guess my main question is...when these are reported, are they actually reviewed, I've read in this forum in the past, that the admin reviews these reports.
However, I personally doubt it.
Does 1 guy, who admittedly only spends a few hours a week on this site, actually manage to review every single report from a user-base of millions?
I suspect that the images are removed automatically after enough reports are recieved, without the reports being reviewed. | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/18/2008 4:31:05 PM | I guess my main question is...when these are reported, are they actually reviewed, or are they automatically deleted after 1 or xx-amount of reports?
Supposedly a vetting Process, but likely still some other freaky ASP.Net Flavour of Code Stew the Admin has cooked up to get around Groups of disgruntled Users ganging up on someone. To the best of my knowledge its a Combination of both, as Images are still manually reviewed by the Admin/Staff.
In other words...could someone report just to be a vindictive, mean, nasty, troll person and actually have their goal accomplished?
That was possible Years ago, but checks have been put into place that either nearly eliminate this Type of Abuse, or other proprietary Checks not mentioned.
I also seem to have lost my uploading priviledges...when I only recently put photos back up...and they all meet the guidelines. :O)
| That's all OK, no Restrictions here. |
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/19/2008 6:40:54 AM | Thanks for 'splainin, Ticket...
I still cannot upload any pics...so unless the limit has been changed recently, I have no clue! All worked fine until the one photo was deleted, and I...put it back! (Figured it was some sort of error, as it meets all guidelines)
<---ME, no celebrity, no nudity, face shot, etc....
It just seemed odd...and I received news that several on a thread were deleted at the same time...but I guess it could be a fluke (?!?) that all of us happened to take the same stance on the thread? ;O)
Personally, I don't think anyone but Mods and Admin should be able to "police" the photos...but if you have it where vindictive and just plain nasty people cannot really cause a pic to be deleted for unjust reasons...then I can see how it would be helpful to you guys! LOL | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/19/2008 7:23:49 AM | Personally, I don't think anyone but Mods and Admin should be able to "police" the photos Agreed.
I'm pretty certain that this site generates enough revenue for it's owner that he could pay employees to undertake the task of policing profile pictures, or to timely review any reports of abuse.
Does anyone really believe that you won't have some amount of abuse of "policing" features, on a free site with a user-base of millions, that allows the user-base to "police" itself?
Is it fair for any member to lose their photo upload privileges, based on reports that were reviewed by nobody?
checks have been put into place that either nearly eliminate this Type of Abuse Nearly eliminate the abuse???
So, by your admission, some amount of abuse of that feature still exists? | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:01:06 AM | So, by your admission, some amount of abuse of that feature still exists?
Not any Admission, since judging Pics will always be a Gray-liner, whether by the System or the Reviewer. I just can't vouch for its Perfection, but its pretty well bang on, and have yet to see an Instance where it has clearly erred. Its about as much as I can comment, since I have nothing to do with the Process and suspect, at least based on a few Cases, that Anomalies may exist. I have a good Idea how it works, but I don't want anyone to try to bypass any Mechanisms to abuse the Feature.
Personally, I don't think anyone but Mods and Admin should be able to "police" the photos.
I prefer not to get involved in such a Process, my Efforts here are much better directed helping Users debugging specific Problems. At one Time Moderators could delete offensive Pics on the Spot, whereas now its all up to reporting and keeping your fingers crossed some Action will occur by Month's End.
| Its become a System of Automation that is much slower and impersonal to respond to User Queries if at all. We live in a World of faceless Corporations. |
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:35:36 AM | have yet to see an Instance where it has clearly erred the lady, who had posted above me, had her clear face shot removed.
That would either be a clear error, or a deliberate mis-use of the feature.
I will concede that my own pic, which was also removed yesterday, may have been a "gray-liner". In my opinion it showed a faceshot, but it was taken from a distance, and someone may have determined it was not clearly visible enough for their liking.
But I notice that I also lost my upload privileges as a reult.
I read the explaination that continually uploading pics in violation would cause the lose of upload privileges. It appears to have happened to me as a result of only one image being removed.
Is there now some sort of zero tolerance policy in effect, that the removal of one "gray-liner" pic will cause a lose of upload priveleges? Is this lose of privileges permenant?
| It shouldn't. Only the Admin could comment on that. / Ticketoride |
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:48:23 AM | have yet to see an Instance where it has clearly erred the lady, who had posted above me, had her clear face shot removed. That would either be a clear error, or a deliberate mis-use of the feature.
My previous Post had nothing to do with that User's Pics specifically.
The uploaded Image may have been too small, is showing as blurry on some Computer Monitors because its blocky, and may have been reported. In Fact it appears to be the only undersized Pic on her Profile.
I am not going to jump to false Conclusions and assume there is an Error or Feature Misuse when other Possibilities have not been exhausted and rather obvious Reasons for Deletions exists.
There are many other Reasons too. Not in all Cases are Images refused upload, but sometimes Days later Images which were never technically compatible have been known to disappear. This is nothing new, old Hat. The same can be witnessed at Imeem. I uploaded an unauthorized Audio Format, it played fine for a while, then ... Boom ... all Music with that Extension not acceptable for upload disappeared.
You see the Link above? Most/all of the Upload Problems were discovered as the Result of continuous long-term Testing under any Number of Circumstances and Environments. Any Images that were not 24 Bits and not in the RGB Color Model had a nasty habit of disappearing, sometimes wouldn't upload at all, sometimes gone an Hour later, sometimes still up there by Weeks's End. Add to that People editing their own Photos using Trial Version Photo Editors with Proprietary JPG Compressions who don't have the first clue what they are doing, often trying to upload 8 Bit JPEG, etc. ... what can I tell you? Its obviously a User Issue too. Too many technical Variables causing too much odd Phenomena.
As of recent, some People have successfully managed to upload the TIF & PNG Image Formats, when the Instructions clearly state to "only" upload BMP, JPG and GIF. In my Tests, half of the TIF Images I uploaded disappeared within 72 Hours.
This Forum/Site Software was re-written by the Admin based on a previous Model and many Things still function the same old Way, old Image upload Software, etc.
Therefore Images disappearing is not wholly a Voting/Review Matter. In many Cases Technical Issues are at play, and after the Pic is gone, I can't comment on it.
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 12/9/2008 6:27:56 PM | I just had a pic deleted, and it was a clear face shot, but I had "colored" glasses on. I don't get the "no sunglasses" allowed rule. I don't think men realize, that sometimes, we women cover our eyes in dating ad profiles for safety reasons. So, since I can't cover my eyes in pics anymore, I don't see the point of having a picture at all. I'm not "hiding" anything. I just don't want potential stalkers or sex offenders (many of whom are on dating sites) to be able to see my eyes right away.
For me personally, its always been a safety issue. The internet dating world is a heck of a lot more dangerous for women, then it is for men.
I see plenty of other profiles on here with people with sunglasses on (mostly men) and yet their pictures haven't been deleted yet.
I really have nothing to complain about this site and like the site overall, but I thought I remembered sunglasses used to be allowed. | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 12/9/2008 6:49:03 PM | I googled your profile to get a cache of your photos. The “colored” glasses wasn’t the issue, the photo is extremely blurred the second photo cut your face off from above the nose.
On the image upload page in big bold red letters it states.
ALL pictures MUST contain you in it with a visible head shot at minimum
Not half your head, blurred or part of your face covered but visible.
I see plenty of other profiles on here with people with sunglasses on (mostly men) and yet their pictures haven't been deleted yet.
Maybe because they either haven’t been reported or they have but Admin hasn’t gotten to the report yet. | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 12/9/2008 6:51:40 PM | I just had a pic deleted, and it was a clear face shot
- Pic 1 was ultra blurry, half the face in shaddows
Suggest a flash or take it outdoors and have the camera focused, probably nothing to do with the sunglasses as much as the other two points.
- Pic 2 was cut off at just above your mouth, all that could be seen was your mouth and part of your nose.
Suggest aiming it properly
|
| |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 12/17/2008 5:37:00 AM |
We are sorry but your image(s) have been deleted. The rules clearly state that your main picture MUST have your face in it. Please ensure that all images submitted follow the plentyoffish guidelines. ie. Your head must be in the picture, no indecent images, no profanity, no copyrighted images, no celebrities, no landscapes or jokes. This is an automated message, and your only warning. If you continue to upload images that do not follow the rules your uploading abilities will be disabled
I'm confused, the picture I used as my main picture was a clear shot,
I will describe this picture, and up load it one more time, only I will not use it as my main picture, if some one would take a look and let me know what is wrong with it..
I'm not asking anyone to say I look good or not, just is this picture, meeting all the guide lines of posting a picture, I believe it does, matter of fact I have had pictures deleted of my son and me in the past, and I have no clue why. I'm know I'm using the right picture format etc.. and same camera for all our pictures,,
I'm standing there, at a work site, with a tool belt on, no shirt, eyeglasses (not sun glasses) with a hat on.
thank you for your input... | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 12/17/2008 6:37:00 AM | | I would like to add to my above post,,my picture was no better or worse than Trapp or Tricker.. so whats the deal guys,,, Thanks.. | |
|
| Photos that are not headshots/users face
Posted: 12/17/2008 7:28:27 AM | Are you talking about the one with the khaki kind of pants???? If so, it is might be because most of the top of your face is shadowed by the hat, would never recognize it as the same person in your main photo. Actually, I am surprised the photo of your back side wasn’t zapped.
I would like to add to my above post,,my picture was no better or worse than Trapp or Tricker
You could always make an attempt to report their profiles, which is probably how your photo got “viewed’ and deleted . I can’t say what the result might be though.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
