Abusing the content rating systemin photoSIG News
Photos & Photographers
8,939 discussions, 2 new
63,314 replies, 19 new
7,239 discussions, 1 new
80,586 replies, 6 new
5,478 replies, 1 new
1,351 discussions, 2 new
17,112 replies, 125 new
From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0)
on July 21, 2011 10:18:12 AM CDT
photoSIG members have made me aware that there is an increasing number of photos submitted with an incorrect content rating. Photographers who repeatedly submit photos as G rated when they should be R or X rated will find their photos removed. So critics beware, if you are critiquing an R or X rated photo in the G category you could lose your critique when the incorrectly rated photo is removed.
All pages served by photosSIG carry a PICS content rating label. A PICS label simply specifies the content rating system that is being used and the content rating within that system that applies to the current page. The content rating system used by photoSIG was created by Internet Content Rating Association and rates pages based on specific types of potentionally objectionable content that may be found on the pages.
When the user sets the content filter to either X (may be inappropriate for children) or R (parental supervision suggested), photoSIG changes the PICS labels sent to the user to reflect the potentionally objectionable content that may be seen. Therefore, users must always select a content advisory category for each of their submissions that matches the content of that submission.
If a photo contains any of the following, then it must be categorized as X (may be inappropriate for children):
If a photo contains none of the above, but does contain any of the following, then it must be categorized as R (parental supervision suggested):
If a photo contains none of the above, then it should be categorized as G (general audiences).
Of course, any photo that can be categorized as G may be categorized as R or X if the photographer so desires. Similarly, any photo that can be categorized as R may be categorized as X.
Read 961 times