It seems to me that a lot of sites are put into the Adult Themes category erroneously. I suspect this is due to the fact that it is at the top of the list. When people are tagging "adult" sites, they simply go to the first category they feel fits.

I'd like to point out that the Adult Themes category is not for pornography or nudity. As the description states, it is for "[s]ites that are adult in nature and are not defined in other rating categories". To me this means that if a site contains nudity or pornography, then it doesn't need to go into the adult themes category. These situations are already covered by other categories. Putting pornography sites into the adult themes category is redundant and unnecessary.

Come to think of it, are there any sites that really fit under the description of "adult themes"? How many sites out there are going to have mature content and that do not fit under another category? Even if you consider sites like YouTube that have disclaimers that some of their content may not be suitable for younger audiences, you can't put them exclusively in an adult themes category. Perhaps the description of the category needs to be reviewed and/or revised.

>> I'd like to point out that the Adult Themes category is not for pornography or nudity.

I agree. Adult sites should be evaluated by the nature of their content, from the worst first. Only ONE category should be tagged. I would suggest:
Explicit sex shown?
Yes - tag as Pornography
No - Nudity shown?
Yes - tag as Nudity
No - Adult Theme? This is questionable category, but should NOT contain any nudity or pornography as previously indicated.

It looks like at least some people share my confusion. I don't think there are any sites that truly fit into the Adult Themes category, as has been previously stated. Perhaps it would be best to cut losses and abolish the category altogether. Let's focus on creating categories that aren't catch-all, creating frustration and confusion.

I still have my fingers crossed, hoping to see added functionality which allows us to vote on a submitted domain using a "belongs in another category" selectbox, rather than only having y/n/IDUNNO options.

@filly

I don't understand what you are talking about. I believe all blocking at OpenDNS is optional and is totally under your control. You should not have to whitelist anything if nothing is blacklisted. Can you give an example or two of what you are talking about... then maybe we can make you a happy camper.

Honestly, domain tagging seems like something that sounded like a good idea, but in practice, isn't being handled effectively. So at this point I'm pretty much just sticking with using the original categories. --The network I run doesn't need a lot of blocking anyway.

" isn't being handled effectively"

why so?

it's already been expressed. the more conservative "voters" will always be of a diff. mindset than the more liberal "voters" and w/out easy control over saying, umm no please don't block "the kinsey report" (hypothetically), or let me override that using my opendns acct. my teenagers won't be able to do honest mature research on questions they'd rather not ask mom or dad. yet there'll be thousands of hardcore porn site that slip thru the cracks as that's a never ending battle.

i was once "websensed" at work looking for software for mobile devices to connect to a mainframe...because the page had a blackjack application for sale as well as the venerable 3270 emulator. well, 3 months later i was officially "assigned" the task of find the software that I had already had the gumption to look for but was disallowed. and yes it took corporate america many many many manhours to whitelist me through. it was a waste of effort based upon other humans and/or mathematical algorithms...knowing better than i.