Sponsors
Sponsors
Moderated by Deepika, EleanorSews
Posted on: 5/14/09 12:44 PM ET
Okay, I have heard it all!
I opened my email this morning and found a message from WEBSHOTS, my online photo storing service informing me that:
"Because people of all ages and backgrounds share photos and videos on Webshots, we remove material that is offensive to or inappropriate for our membership. We remove pornography, sexually explicit content and violent material. We also remove photos showing full or partial nudity, including those of children.
In accordance with our polic IES , we have removed 1 of your photos and/or videos. If we believe that you are engaged in illegal activities, we have the right to share your personal information with law enforcement, including your IP address.
Please do not reply to this email. We are unable to respond to individual replies.
Below is the list of photos and/or videos we removed:
back view"
The photo in question, !here is a picture of my back side, fully clothed in a pair of navy blue linen pants that go from my waist to the ground. The only skin showing is my elbows!
I have over 100 photos with WEBSHOTS, so redoing all of my reviews to change the photo URL is not a task I feel is necessary; however, I have promptly opened a new photo album on Picasa, uploaded the exact same photos and am hoping I will make it past the 'review committee' looking for obscene photos!
How is this possible? I have seen photos on this site of women in their bras, swim suits, and some very low cut tops! There is no way to contact WEBSHOTS because their link to contact them is conveniently broken!
Has this happend to anyone else? Am I the only person with potentially pornographic photos on PR? Is my behind really that sexually explicit?
I opened my email this morning and found a message from WEBSHOTS, my online photo storing service informing me that: "Because people of all ages and backgrounds share photos and videos on Webshots, we remove material that is offensive to or inappropriate for our membership. We remove pornography, sexually explicit content and violent material. We also remove photos showing full or partial nudity, including those of children.
In accordance with our polic IES , we have removed 1 of your photos and/or videos. If we believe that you are engaged in illegal activities, we have the right to share your personal information with law enforcement, including your IP address.
Please do not reply to this email. We are unable to respond to individual replies.
Below is the list of photos and/or videos we removed:
back view"
The photo in question, !here is a picture of my back side, fully clothed in a pair of navy blue linen pants that go from my waist to the ground. The only skin showing is my elbows!

I have over 100 photos with WEBSHOTS, so redoing all of my reviews to change the photo URL is not a task I feel is necessary; however, I have promptly opened a new photo album on Picasa, uploaded the exact same photos and am hoping I will make it past the 'review committee' looking for obscene photos!
How is this possible? I have seen photos on this site of women in their bras, swim suits, and some very low cut tops! There is no way to contact WEBSHOTS because their link to contact them is conveniently broken!

Has this happend to anyone else? Am I the only person with potentially pornographic photos on PR? Is my behind really that sexually explicit?
Posted on: 5/14/09 12:53 PM ET
In reply to Terri Smith
Wow, that photo is about as shocking and inappropriate as a photo of someone just walking down the street would be. Are they nuts? Someone obviously has a low "obscenity" threshold if they got upset about a picture showing the back of a person dressed in pretty linen pants. This makes me want to contact Webshots, too. I'm not sure I want to have anything to do with them anymore if they're this silly AND are impossible to contact. My sympathies on the humiliating and annoying message you received from them.
If it makes you feel better, I had a similar experience after submitting a comment in response to an online news story. I had used a word that was strong but definitely not profane or offensive (can't remember what it was); I got a note saying I had used a vulgar word... no explanation given about what word they were even referring to, so I tried rewriting the post several different ways until the sanitizing software was happy. The absurd thing was that in the other comments about the same story, some people had posted ACTUAL offensive language and had somehow gotten away with it. It makes me wonder if the world is being taken over by mindless whitewashing robots.
-- Edited on 5/14/09 1:02 PM --
------
If it makes you feel better, I had a similar experience after submitting a comment in response to an online news story. I had used a word that was strong but definitely not profane or offensive (can't remember what it was); I got a note saying I had used a vulgar word... no explanation given about what word they were even referring to, so I tried rewriting the post several different ways until the sanitizing software was happy. The absurd thing was that in the other comments about the same story, some people had posted ACTUAL offensive language and had somehow gotten away with it. It makes me wonder if the world is being taken over by mindless whitewashing robots.
-- Edited on 5/14/09 1:02 PM --
------
my shield and my very great reward ~ Gen. 15:1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. ~ Albert Einstein
People have a way of becoming what you encourage them to be, not what you nag them to be. ~ Scudder N. Parker
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. ~ Albert Einstein
People have a way of becoming what you encourage them to be, not what you nag them to be. ~ Scudder N. Parker
Posted on: 5/14/09 12:57 PM ET
In reply to Terri Smith
Did WEBSHOTS really remove this photo? Are you sure it wasn't a scam email? That's really odd.
Posted on: 5/14/09 12:58 PM ET
In reply to Terri Smith


Wow they must be one 'ell of a pair of pants. I think I'd better get that pattern, I could certainly do with the help. It's gone mad hasn't it. The amount of stuff that is shown and no one blinks an eye. I wonder if it's the words "backview" and the amount of views or clicks it's had might flag it as being potentially pornographic by AI software. I hope it's just a minor glitch. Do try and contact them or else the "frontview" might be next and you'll end up with alot of work on your hands.
Posted on: 5/14/09 1:04 PM ET
In reply to frame
Yes, it was really removed from my album! Here is the link to the webshots album, WEBSHOTS ALBUM and this link should take you to page 8, there are three pictures of the blue pants, the fourth one was the back side.
I am not really so much offended, as my photos are clearly not obscene, but I am extremely unhappy with the decision made that is obviously based on some criteria that alludes me. Was it the words "back view" that offended the 'reviewer'?
I am not really so much offended, as my photos are clearly not obscene, but I am extremely unhappy with the decision made that is obviously based on some criteria that alludes me. Was it the words "back view" that offended the 'reviewer'?
Posted on: 5/14/09 1:46 PM ET
I'm sure webshots uses some sort of automated crawler to find things that are inappropriate....I seriously doubt that a person is sitting there reviewing all the photos that are uploaded. With any automated process there is a risk of error and clearly an error was made on this decision. My guess is that if the photo was loaded to the site again, it wouldn't get kicked out.
Let's just accept that it was an error not a malicious act and thank them for their efforts to keep the site free of inappropriate matter. I am sure they have removed plenty of pictures that we didn't want to see.
------
Let's just accept that it was an error not a malicious act and thank them for their efforts to keep the site free of inappropriate matter. I am sure they have removed plenty of pictures that we didn't want to see.
------
2012 : starting stash 386, net additions 206, used 164, ending stash 428...I'm never going to get in front of this pile of fabric!
Posted on: 5/14/09 1:55 PM ET
In reply to Terri Smith
That must have been jealous of the great fit!
------
------
www.thereisjoyadventures.blogspot.com
Posted on: 5/14/09 2:12 PM ET
In reply to Peggy L
I second Peggy L. You can be very pleased that you achieved a great fit on those pants.
Posted on: 5/14/09 2:16 PM ET
I wonder if there was something automated that flagged it or if someone clicked the "flag this photo as inappropriate"? I think the admins sometimes get overwhelmed with those that they just delete anything that gets complained about without checking it.
It may even be that someone clicked it inadvertently (I know, that's my Polyanna side showing through...). I know that a few times I've almost clicked the "report objectionable post" button here on PR when I've meant to hit "post a response". But the Webshots report button is way down in the corner and seems unlikely to be hit accidentally.
For grins you might try uploading the pic again to see if it gets kicked off again...
------
It may even be that someone clicked it inadvertently (I know, that's my Polyanna side showing through...). I know that a few times I've almost clicked the "report objectionable post" button here on PR when I've meant to hit "post a response". But the Webshots report button is way down in the corner and seems unlikely to be hit accidentally.
For grins you might try uploading the pic again to see if it gets kicked off again...

------
Tess
"I am a degenerate art supply junkie" - Jane Davenport
“I base most of my fashion taste on what doesn't itch." - Gilda Radner
"I am a degenerate art supply junkie" - Jane Davenport
“I base most of my fashion taste on what doesn't itch." - Gilda Radner
Posted on: 5/14/09 2:54 PM ET
In reply to JTink
What is really ironic is I have only two comments on my review of this pair of pants 

. The audience I was trying to get attention from saw them as what they are: a plain pair of blue pants.
I really do realize this is an error of some sort and do not believe I will be contacted by Homeland Security or have my IP address targeted. I just found the situation to be quite bizarre.


. The audience I was trying to get attention from saw them as what they are: a plain pair of blue pants. I really do realize this is an error of some sort and do not believe I will be contacted by Homeland Security or have my IP address targeted. I just found the situation to be quite bizarre.
* Advertising and soliciting is strictly prohibited on PatternReview.com. If you find a post which is not in agreement with our Terms and Conditions, please click on the Report Post button to report it.
Selected Reviews, Classes & Patterns
Fancy Frocks Fabrics
Fine Designer Fabrics
Fine Designer Fabrics








