What the hell?!?!? (google message)

[gpphat]

I believe so.

And I think -- although I could be wrong -- the issue people have with the statement sent by Google is that they don't wish content to be posted that is readily available through their own image search service with all parental controls in place (safesearch on and such).

If "strategically covered nudity" is an issue then why is it accessible through their own parental controls? What constitutes "strategically covered nudity?" Wearing cloths? Pretty sure that's pretty much the definition of strategically covering nudity. Stuff like they do on the black tape project? Would that fall under this category? If so people in bathing suites must also. It's just incredibly vague and makes no sense under what they, themselves, deem "safe."

this

 

[HeHateMe]

You don't get it obviously.

Seriously though, where were theses nudes!?! Did I miss something on here??

Some asshat did have Jennifer Aniston in panties for their sig without a spoiler alert and then there was the smoking vag post that Cago made and some other idiot quoted saying he was gonna get banned. Nothing else recently though that I can think of...

 

[Run the ball]

Some asshat did have Jennifer Aniston in panties for their sig without a spoiler alert and then there was the smoking vag post that Cago made and some other idiot quoted saying he was gonna get banned. Nothing else recently though that I can think of...

That's all it took? And you wonder why many posters have a problem here? If pics are a problem, there is a nice feature for that.

 

[Run the ball]

I believe so.

And I think -- although I could be wrong -- the issue people have with the statement sent by Google is that they don't wish content to be posted that is readily available through their own image search service with all parental controls in place (safesearch on and such).

If "strategically covered nudity" is an issue then why is it accessible through their own parental controls? What constitutes "strategically covered nudity?" Wearing cloths? Pretty sure that's pretty much the definition of strategically covering nudity. Stuff like they do on the black tape project? Would that fall under this category? If so people in bathing suites must also. It's just incredibly vague and makes no sense under what they, themselves, deem "safe."

Bingo!

 

[WCL]

I'm guessing yes, which is why I asked if the ads are showing the content of the posts on the messageboard?

But my original point isn't about CCS and them abiding by Googles ad policy...more so that images that can be found and are displayed through Google are not allowed. If they wouldn't want those images being used through their advertisers than those shouldn't be available through their search engine

That has nothing to do with it. Google isn't saying, "We think titties are gross and shouldn't be shown ever!!!" It's not a moral issue.

In order for them to sell advertisement space, the people doing the advertising need to know what kind of content will appear next to their ads. They have to have a set of standards.

If you want to take their advertising money you have to agree to those standards. If the site didn't agree with it, they could find other advertising services.

It's not like Google is allowing tits on their site and then finding random pages on the Internet to shut down. These are sites which they have an agreement with. They'll simply pull their advertising from the sites that don't follow the rules that THEY agreed to.

If Google was running ads on Google Image right amongst some tits, that might be hypocrisy. They don't, so it's not.

 

[DaaBears]

So it should be pretty simple then. For those that feel that there are not problem pictures being posted, then nothing would need to changed. However, what picture is a problem or not of course is subjective. Therefore, as impossible as it may seem to some of you, you may want to refrain from posting borderline problem pictures in the future, unless of course you are seeking a ban.

 

[bearmick]

Ridiculous comparison, the doctor doesn't give you his scalpel to use freely.

You're not going to the right doctors.

 

[Run the ball]

So it should be pretty simple then. For those that feel that there are not problem pictures being posted, then nothing would need to changed. However, what picture is a problem or not of course is subjective. Therefore, as impossible as it may seem to some of you, you may want to refrain from posting borderline problem pictures in the future, unless of course you are seeking a ban.

I think we all got that, but I've never been banned so I feel pretty safe.

 

[gpphat]

That has nothing to do with it. Google isn't saying, "We think titties are gross and shouldn't be shown ever!!!" It's not a moral issue.

I'm not saying it's a moral issue...if they have a problem with advertisers showing provocative attire on their own websites than why do they allow it to be found on theirs?

In order for them to sell advertisement space, the people doing the advertising need to know what kind of content will appear next to their ads. They have to have a set of standards.

If you want to take their advertising money you have to agree to those standards. If the site didn't agree with it, they could find other advertising services.

It's not like Google is allowing tits on their site and then finding random pages on the Internet to shut down. These are sites which they have an agreement with. They'll simply pull their advertising from the sites that don't follow the rules that THEY agreed to.

If Google was running ads on Google Image right amongst some tits, that might be hypocrisy. They don't, so it's not.

I get what you are saying, trust me I do...but it is still hypocrisy to say images that are found using their search engine are not appropriate for an advertiser to use. Again, it's not a big deal to me...it changes nothing on how I post or what I post. It's just funny that images that posters previously used Google to find are no longer allowed to be posted on the site. I guess instead of posting the image I will just post the link to the image on Google.

Mods - would doing this be ok?

https://www.google.com/search?q=hyp...3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fgallery%2FL9QPd0O;580;580

 

[DaaBears]

I didn't see no jerking off material on this site. Maybe for a 12 year old there is, but a 12 year old has no business reading or posting CCS.

I don't think that there are that many 12 years olds interested in posting here, but I am sure there are plenty of them out there that are very knowledgeable on the Bears and football that could add good input. I think that a 12 year old has every business in the world reading or posting in here, and in many cases it would be an upgrade over what we currently have, including people posting silly pictures over and over again. However, with some of the sexually oriented things that people improperly post on the Bears forum, I agree it is no place for a 12 year old.

 

[Tjodalv]

I don't think that there are that many 12 years olds interested in posting here, but I am sure there are plenty of them out there that are very knowledgeable on the Bears and football that could add good input. I think that a 12 year old has every business in the world reading or posting in here, and in many cases it would be an upgrade over what we currently have, including people posting silly pictures over and over again. However, with some of the sexually oriented things that people improperly post on the Bears forum, I agree it is no place for a 12 year old.

 

[Run the ball]

I don't think that there are that many 12 years olds interested in posting here, but I am sure there are plenty of them out there that are very knowledgeable on the Bears and football that could add good input. I think that a 12 year old has every business in the world reading or posting in here, and in many cases it would be an upgrade over what we currently have, including people posting silly pictures over and over again. However, with some of the sexually oriented things that people improperly post on the Bears forum, I agree it is no place for a 12 year old.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about who should be posting here. In my opinion, this website is rated R and that means 18+ in movie terms.


The CBMB was good enough for teenagers, not this place.

 

[Novak]

I'm 12 and I post here :dunno:

 

[Run the ball]

I'm 12 and I post here :dunno:

Then your parents suck.

















Sorry.

 

[Novak]

Then your parents suck.

















Sorry.

You just told a 12 year old her parents suck. I hope that was on your bucket list..

 

[Run the ball]

You just told a 12 year old her parents suck. I hope that was on your bucket list..

If he actually is 12, then it's an unfortunate truth for him.














Sorry.

 

[Novak]

Her*

And I admit, I'm not 12.. I'm 13

 

[Run the ball]

Her*

And I admit, I'm not 12.. I'm 13

Then you should be busy learning about menstruation and shit.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Is Run the Ball still crying about the new rules? I had to put her on ignore because I don't want to be tempted to break any CCS rules.

 

[Run the ball]

Is Run the Ball still crying about the new rules? I had to put her on ignore because I don't want to be tempted to break any CCS rules.

Who's crying over here, it's a message board, no?! It's called conversation, you should try it.,