Explanation of why photos were rejected

Who do I contact for an further detailed explanation as to why certain images submitted for upload were rejected? One was rejected for being photoshopped and I can tell you...not only was it not photoshopped but I have seen MANY images that were uploaded that were CLEARLY photoshopped. The other was just rejected for "Other"...what does that even mean?!

Quote:

Originally posted by mason82

Who do I contact for an further detailed explanation as to why certain images submitted for upload were rejected? One was rejected for being photoshopped and I can tell you...not only was it not photoshopped but I have seen MANY images that were uploaded that were CLEARLY photoshopped. The other was just rejected for "Other"...what does that even mean?!

If it’s in the queue log and says “other” does that mean rejected?

As far as I can tell acceptance or rejection of an image is entirely up to the opinion of the individual moderator concerned. I've had many pictures rejected over the years for no good reason that I could see.

Quote:

Originally posted by mason82

Who do I contact for an further detailed explanation as to why certain images submitted for upload were rejected? One was rejected for being photoshopped and I can tell you...not only was it not photoshopped but I have seen MANY images that were uploaded that were CLEARLY photoshopped. The other was just rejected for "Other"...what does that even mean?!

You can speak to me about it if you like. Send me a message with a detailed description of the images you are querying and I’ll look into it for you.

One thing I will say is that just because you didn’t photoshop/crop an image prior to uploading, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t already edited before you saved it (unless you took the image yourself of course).

Either way, I’m happy to look into it and if a mistake has been made (mods are only human) then I can rectify it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anonimuss

If it’s in the queue log and says “other” does that mean rejected?

Yes - I think what you’re looking at is your log of rejected images and “other” is the reason selected by the moderator.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruceface282

As far as I can tell acceptance or rejection of an image is entirely up to the opinion of the individual moderator concerned. I've had many pictures rejected over the years for no good reason that I could see.

Mods follow guidelines as best as possible but of course in some instances it will be solely down to their discretion. For example if I think a girl is underage, I’ll reject it. If another mod had seen that image, perhaps they would’ve thought she was old enough and accepted it. There’s no easy way of getting around that but ultimately we’re talking about uploading images to a porn site, not life or death, and it’s not a personal attack on you.

As always, I’m happy to look into any rejections you feel are wrong. You just need to send me a message with some detail.

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Sentinel

You can speak to me about it if you like. Send me a message with a detailed description of the images you are querying and I’ll look into it for you.

One thing I will say is that just because you didn’t photoshop/crop an image prior to uploading, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t already edited before you saved it (unless you took the image yourself of course).

Either way, I’m happy to look into it and if a mistake has been made (mods are only human) then I can rectify it.

I always want to preface my comments on image moderation that I respect the time commitment and effort the moderators make to ensure that the quality and relevance of images we find here remain high. This is not an easy job and it does require discretion and judgement. My comments are made in the spirit of helping the moderators refine their processes and are not meant to attack or criticize individual decisions:

I recall reading that one reason an image is rejected as "Photo-shopped" is based on the rationale that any image with odd pixel dimensions could not have been natively generated by a camera sensor and thus has been clearly modified (e.g. photo-shopped) somewhere along its path to being submitted. Regardless of how one wishes to debate the veracity of this statement, elsewhere it has been also stated that a modifications to a photo to protect a person's privacy are in fact acceptable and recommended.

One of these rules is absolute and the other requires discretion yet both are often applied inconsistently. Although it may be generally true that odd image dimensions indicate some cropping of an image has taken place, even image dimensions (divisible by 2) do not at all guarantee that no such cropping has occurred. And cropping itself is perfectly legitimate --- the original photographer may have chosen to do so for many reasons, including privacy, but also his/her own artistic framing desires or simply to remove content that was never intended or would be inappropriate to include.

So much original content is generated now where cropping has taken place on phones by the photographer that to reject every single image simply because the image dimensions are not even and/or the person's head has been cropped out seems quite arbitrary, and especially since both of these rules are not strictly enforced.

yeah, mods on this site have double standards and they are incompetent or blind. I have so many rejected pics in queue log but where aproved for other uploaders