OpenDNS Forums
The official support and discussion site of OpenDNS
Support
K-12 Forums
Categories
- Administrative
- Adult site blocking
- DNS-O-Matic / dynamic IPs
- Domain blocking
- Domain Name System (DNS) troubles
- Mobile instructions
- OpenDNS services
- Proxies, accelerators, and more
- Router instructions
- Satellite
- Shortcuts
- Wishlists and feature requests
-
Feeds
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 30 days, and is thus closed.
-
Is it OK to submit all porn to the nudity category as well as the pornography category? It is according to http://www.opendns.com/community/domaintagging/categories
-
- CommentAuthormarcusburge
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2008
I think the Nudity category would best be described as
"This category refers to sites that provide images or representations of nudity. They may be in any artistic or non-artistic form like magazines, paintings, sculptures, etc. This category is assigned to those sites that display both partial and full nudity but the images are not pornographic in nature."
Which is from St. Bernard's website. I know this is a mouthful, and they were trying to keep the categories page short and sweet, so they just used the first sentence. -
I see. That makes a big difference.
-
But then all porn sites have some nudity of some sort. So I think that nudity and porn overlap.
On the other hand not all nudity is porn. -
Moreover - most nudity is not porn. Also vice versa porn is not necessarily nudity. Although there may be a small overlapping area, porn and nudity are much different things.
"Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." (Wikipedia)
"Nudity is the state of wearing no clothing." (Wikipedia)
As you can see, per definition these have not to do with each other at first instance. -
Surely there is no need to have it in both? If somebody blocks porn and not nudity, then the non-pornographic nudity will stay like they presumably wish. The only people I can think of who could be negatively effected by sites going into the porn category & not nudity category are those who block nudity but not porn, but why would somebody do that? Surely they'd expect to therefore be able to see porn anyway.
-
Surely there is no need to have it in both? If somebody blocks porn and not nudity, then the non-pornographic nudity will stay like they presumably wish. The only people I can think of who could be negatively effected by sites going into the porn category & not nudity category are those who block nudity but not porn, but why would somebody do that? Surely they'd expect to therefore be able to see porn anyway.
-
Of nudity:
"This category is assigned to those sites that display both partial and full nudity but the images are not pornographic in nature."
NOT pornographic in nature.
Apparently, if the nudity is not pornographic, then the "Nudity" tag should not be added to pornography sites.
I understand the feeling that you "May as well" add the "Nudity" tag to pornography sites, but I don't see why you would ever want or need to do that.Thankful People: rotblitz, Red Prince, petsku -
- CommentAuthorwolfgang512
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2008 edited
Unfortunately some people start to tag all porn sites with the nudity tag - BTW the same people who just tag sites without even having had a look at them. Example: mountedshooting.com was tagged as 'weapons', but it's clearly a site about hardware. This is annoying really, this is done by people with lots of points so I think they might try to gather as much points as possible without doing the job properly. So what's the point of OpenDNS when sites end up in wrong categories because of these buggers?
-
The big problem with the nudity and pornography categories is that it's down to those submitting or voting to decide where exactly the line falls between those categories. Some may consider an erotic art site to be pornographic in nature, while others might not. Likewise, a fetish site with everyone being clothed may still be considered pornographic. And then we fall into the debate over whether that is more about sexuality than pornography.
From my perspective, many sites contain both pornography and nudity. If I see a site which I consider to be pornographic in nature, but has nudity on it, then should I not tag it as nudity if it has not yet been given a status of pornographic in OpenDNS? I have both the Pornography and Nudity categories blocked, so if I see a site that looks pornographic and has nudity on it, and the community has failed to come to a decision on it in either category, or even list any tags against it, then I will list (or vote for) it as both and let the community decide. I won't, however, list all pornographic sites as having nudity, if I've not seen any on the site.
The community is here to vote on whether the tags are valid, so let them vote. If you don't agree with the tags that have been assigned to a site, then don't vote for them.Thankful People: gwq8ptlr -
@wheeles
Sorry, you didn't get it.
Definition of the nudity category:
"This category is assigned to those sites that display both partial and full nudity but the images are not pornographic in nature."
Again: NOT pornographic in nature.
So, why would one put nudity into the pornography category?
Whereas pornography:
"Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
Also, why would one put pornography into the (non-pornographic) nudity category?
Are you "explicitly depicting sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting a (potential) viewer", if taking a shower or bath?
Too many people seem to be unable to differentiate here.Thankful People: petsku -
@rotblitz
I got your point very clearly. I fully understand that the Nudity category is for those sites which are not pornographic in nature, but feature nudes or semi-nudity. I am so glad that you feel able to make the judgement on whether something is pornographic or artistic, and are able to make that decision for us all.
However, you didn't get my point at all.
If someone blocks nudity, but not pornography, should they still have sites chock full of pictures of people in the nude on their network? I think not.
Personally, I don't see this as a case of a site with nudity on it being either one or the other, but not both. That's the whole point of being able to assign more than one tag.
Yet again, what someone defines as pornographic and what is artistic is very subjective, so assign those tags that apply in your opinion, and let the voters decide.
Stepping aside from the Nudity or Pornography debate for a moment, how would you tag a site that has both a blog and a forum, and is political in nature? I would tag it as all three and not try to choose whether it was more a blog, or more a forum, or more political. -
@wheeles
First, it was not about pornographic or artistic, it was about pornographic or non-pornographic. Imagine you under the shower: this isn't artistic (isn't it?), but is certainly not pornographic. It is simply nude, not more, not less. The man in his natural state - under a shower.
You wrote: "If someone blocks nudity, but not pornography, should they still have sites chock full of pictures of people in the nude on their network? I think not."
Well, this is a stupid setup combination.
He will exactly get, what he defined.
If someone blocked nudity, they will NOT have non-pornographic pictures of people in the nude anymore (in case of correct categorization). However, they will get the full range of pornograpic pictures of people (no matter if in the nude or not), because the stupid guy did not block pornography in your scenario.
Anyway, I do not understand the purpose of your ongoing concerns. Nobody would set up a combination of blocking non-pornographic nudity, but allowing pornography. However, the other way around is rather reasonable, and this would not be possible with inproper categorization. Or do you believe there is in fact no non-pornographic nudity beside classical artistic statues and paintings, and any nudity being equivalent to pornography? And what is your understanding of pornography then? So are you pornographic standing under your shower?
You wrote: "how would you tag a site that has both a blog and a forum, and is political in nature?"
There is no meaningful categorization possible on a domain level, because if you put it into all, you would categorize far more than you should. You better had to use another tool, not DNS, which is able to categorize on a page level. On a domain level you only can categorize what is common to all pages of a site: politics in your example. -
There are, of course, pornographic sites which also sport nudity pictures.
-
Good insight! Did I say that pornographic sites do not contain nudity? No, I didn't. They do contain, to their majority! But I said that they rarely contain non-pornographic nudity. And this is what the "nudity" category is by definition.
Hm, I believe I have to repeat this definition: The nudity category is assigned to those sites that display both partial and full nudity but the images are not pornographic in nature.
And again, for deeper understanding: The nudity category is assigned to those sites that display both partial and full nudity but the images are not pornographic in nature.
Clear now???
No? Then again: The nudity category is assigned to those sites that display both partial and full nudity but the images are not pornographic in nature.
Still not clear? Ok, I give (you) up! You cannot be helped at all.Thankful People: wolfgang512 -
OK, rotblitz, it's hardly surprising you are so concerned about the mistagging of adult sites given the nature of your own site.
How would you feel if voters were allowed to assign a site to one adult category only, and to enforce that, radio buttons were employed so a Yes vote in the Pornography category would automatically create a No vote (or maybe a Not Sure vote) in the categories of Adult Themes, Sexuality and Nudity?
If that is the case, given the category definitions of Pornography and Sexuality, which is more likely to offend people, and is hence less child-friendly?
Or is the Sexuality category something else entirely and should not be considered as necessarily adult material despite it being described as "Sites that provide information, images or implications of bondage, sadism, masochism, fetish, beating, body piercing or self-mutilation."
The problem I have with trying to restrict domains to only one category is that often there is a grey area where an individual's decision could go either way, and depending on who is voting, you could get a situation where 15 people vote on a site and all think it is not appropriate for children, yet due to the split in votes across the adult categories it doesn't get assigned to any category. -
Hmm...looks like OpenDNS changed the definition of "Nudity" on you rotblitz! Or perhaps you were just going by St. Bernard's definition? It's a shame this is not St. Bernard's website. It is OpenDNS. Things are done a bit differently here. And by OpenDNS's definition of Nudity, it looks like Porn & Nude combo tags are quite acceptable, and I will moderate them accordingly.
I use to share your concerns rotblitz...and discussed the issue before. I can't access my Yahoo e-mail at the moment to pull the conversation with the moderators, but in the end it was determined that due to the way OpenDNS works, in that it only looks at the domain and not the lower layers of a site, etc, we should tag a site with all appropriate tags. There will be no such thing as too many categories per site... Perhaps when I get home I can grab that arguement, which was rather convincing and made me see the light of doing things like that.
"So are you pornographic standing under your shower?"
Haha, good one.
"why would one put pornography into the (non-pornographic) nudity category?"
Since the definition of OpenDNS for Nudity does NOT say it is NON-Porn nudity, ANY website that contains nudity will get tagged and moderated as such by me. Period. Why would I personally want a Porn site into Nude? Guess what, I DON'T want ALL porn sites into the Nude category. But if I see some naked people, it don't matter what the site is about, porn or not, it gets tagged as Nudity due to OpenDNS's definition. Not Wikipedia. Not St. Bernard. And certainly not by the majority's opinion. Case closed.
You want more direct tagging? Try Bluecoat K9. They go way beyond just the domain names, they can even force Google Safe Search, and more is on the way. And it is FREE too! I use it in conjunction with OpenDNS. It's a great setup!
http://www.k9webprotection.com/Thankful People: wheeles -
Well, in earlier times democratic states tried to establish free access to allmost every information. How sad that this is now opposed, and how many efforts and energies and money are put into blocking free access to information. I know of such countries: Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, I'm sure there are more...
And many of them even do it voluntarily! -
Welcome to the 21st century and the age of the Internet! Things change. If they didn't, we'd be spending more time with our families, sharing stories, and singing kumbaya by the candlelight instead of arguing with total strangers from across the globe...
BTW, this filtering is mainly used by concerned parents and employers who want their employees to stay on task and actually work for their pay, instead of STEALING 2 hours of pay everyday by wasting time surfing. There's no reason to expand this issue to countries restricting freedoms and whatnot...especially since this is not a political site. So...whatever. I repeat: it's the 21st century and things change.
Have a great weekend!!
-
@wolfgang512
I agree that there are a lot of miscatorgorizations by the top contributors, however it doesn't become part of the filter until enough members agree to the submission by voting it in right?
The main problem is weeding through the dross these contributors create. I suspect they are using bots to create this quantity of submissions.
I'm somewhat suprised that OpenDNS haven't prevented further submissions from these individuals. It does 'clog up the works'. -
- CommentAuthorxmaxbigme66
- CommentTimeSep 6th 2008
there a lots of member complaint about the system of webcams.com
a lot of them hacking their personal account. -
I find it amusing that many of the people that complain about the incorrect tagging of some domains have themselves made more posts on the forums than actual votes on domains. If left to those people OpenDNS would have, at best, a few hundred domains categorised.
These whingers complain about the top contributors having submitted and voted on huge numbers of domains, and the fact that a small percentage of those votes are incorrect. All I can say to that is get voting and correct the mistakes instead of bleating on about it in the forums, yet doing nothing about the problem.
Personally, I acknowledge that I have made the odd incorrect submission and have come back and voted down my own tag. It's just a shame you can't delete those added in error.Thankful People: King -
That's right. No matter what we do, NO system will ever be perfect. No matter how many people discuss it, come up with ideas, etc, we can NEVER make it perfect. Why? Because no one is perfect. We all make mistakes. Instead of spending time complaining about it, you could spend your time more wisely and help to fix it.
As for myself, probably 95% of the domains I submitted came from already created blacklists from a website. I sure wish I had the time to verify 1,000,000 sites before submitting them, but I don't. Divide that job by 1,000+ people, and now we got a good working force to filter out the junk and keep the legit stuff. That's the beauty of the community and the voting system!!
1 to 23 of 23
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 30 days, and is thus closed.
