What the DVD actually contains is totally irrelevant. The fact is, that is an extremely suggestive cover...that gives me the hot every time I see it.

Agreed. I don't care if it is a remake of bambi. The fact one has to click should not be relevant. In fact, I have no problem with porn links, if one has to click them to get there. By the same token, I don't want links to non-porn that look like porn. The link could go to a Disney film.

And I repeat, I recognize this as *my problem* and not your's and is up to Geoff. In my case, in the same room as I, are my two children...and often my wife. Not that they have never seen anything like that... but then I have to explain I am not surfing porn...

p.s. I had to take Numanoid off ignore to see what he said.

:)

Unless I missed it, I'm still waiting to see why hi_mom wants to change DVD Talk instead of just finding a more suitable site to spend time.


....[tapping toes and looking at watch]

When those of us wanting to get rid of or otherwise hide the porn hand over the money to pay for the costs of running this website, it'll happen. I'm not holding my aged breath though.

It's not about money. We're providing a service here. Helping people avoid bad porn. I understand some get offended by that, but I frankly don't see the big deal in a group of reviews of DVDs that have sex in them. It's not like we have huge hardcore picture galleries or promote titles that degrade women or men. We've got a great group of writers sorting through piles of shitty porn to help find the ones that are worth your time (if you're so inclined).

We need a "salute" smiley.

:drool:

-other-

Thanks a lo...I mean, hey! :grunt:

:confused:

http://www.************.com/lurch1.jpg

You rang?

Exactly my stance on it. I don't like it, but it's Geoff's site so I just try to scroll past the ads as quickly as possible if I'm at work or whatever.

Hopefully the premium site will get done sometime and we can pay and not have any ads or review covers period on the subscriber version of the forums and the problem will thus be solved.

I'd doubt the review covers would disappear on a subscription-based version of the forums. I'd hope they wouldn't disappear, at least.

I've also learned to look past all the porno while getting my DVD Talk "fix".

In that case I wouldn't pay for it as 95% of the objectionable images that pop up are the R-rated softcore covers. Racy ads are pretty rare, thankfully.

I've always wondered why that crap even gets reviewed. I mean you cover porn, so do many people who visit this site even read reviews and buy this softcore crap over the straight porn? And if so is there any reason that these particular reviews can simply not have the covers displayed in the rotation?

Just curious and I'm not going to argue the point as again it's Geoff's call. Just wondering the reasoning between displaying somewhat racy dvd covers for movies that, IMO, 99% of people probably would never buy and thus be unlikely to read a review of.

Considering the variety of far more explicit covers here (including mainstream titles), I suppose I found it odd that a few of you focused on a cover showing a cartoon girl with purple hair wearing a bathing suit, as supportive of your arguments (if the cover gives you the hots, you need to get out more; I mean that in the nicest of ways too). -confused-

On another topic, I wonder how different the "premium" version of DVDTalk would be if some of you were given free reign. I can understand some of you being willing to pay for a non-adult version of the website (ie: losing the adult content from the review section and adult forum) since there are a number of people that aren't going to buy any porn whether it's on the website or not (I doubt Empire would change their affiliate rates over it) but even such a move by G! wouldn't remove ALL the content some of you find problematic (there are probably hundreds of mainstream covers you'll find upsetting to your sensibilities, topics in various forums that either use words you don't like, have pictures you take issue with, or content you're not going to appreciate).

By all means, I think everyone's input is important (even "mom's") but there's no way to make everyone happy (and I'm not suggesting disagreement over what the standards are, or should be, forces us to disrespect other opinions on it). :grouphug:

I can't speak for G! or Adam but some of the most popular reviews are for those types of titles (hence the reluctance to segregate them into oblivion). I generally don't review them (the anime title discussed is akin to a PG title too) since I focus more on porn but stick the word "Playboy" in the title, as one example, and a review might get 5X as many hits or more (and a lot of people buy the softcore stuff over the porn). Explicit covers also draw more attention, as expected, so I don't see G! changing his stance any time soon (and rightfully so). But even if there were a ratings filter for such titles, a great many of them aren't rated so it would defeat the purpose pretty quickly. :horse:

If you can write an algorithm that can uniquely identify a cover as being "racy" without requiring someone to pore through each individual image, please send it to me and I'll add it to the software.

Loved the phrase. Cool idea to set it up as a mission statement:

DVDTALK, HELPING PEOPLE AVOID BAD PORN SINCE 1999. :D

I think the best solution to this was what the original solution was a number of years ago. Seperate the adult content with a different domain. Isn't that how adultdvdtalk.com was born? I thought I read somewhere that Geoff gave the adultdvdtalk domain away because he wasn't interested in it at the time or something like that.

And that didn't work out.

Closing this thread. I think all sides have expressed themselves to the fullest extent.