Is this the same as linking to the adult forum?
 

The review for Playboy's Girl Next Door keeps hitting in the rotation. Doesn't bother me. I'm a fan of boobies. But if you do click it, it go straight to boobie pics on the main review page. Seems appropriate givent he reasons one would buy the dvd, but also seems to be something you wouldn't want a link to from the other forums.

Again, doesn't bother me, but thought I would mention it in case you are not aware.

Numanoid starts hitting F5.

The seem out of place to me. I'm certainly no prude, but adult pics should stay in the adult forum and in adult reviews.

Yet you thought enough to bring it up as a complaint?

Thanks!

The content of the 3 disc set is represented perfectly by the relatively tame pictures contained in the review. Considering the "main review page" currently shows fully exposed genitalia on some of the adult covers (thanks to our friends at Adult DVD Empire), I guess I wonder why some tasteful pictures offend a few of you... Hmmmm.

The topic is being discussed in other forums where most members have no issue with the pictures (other than asking me to post more of them in the review) but to answer the question posed in the thread title; No, this is not the same as linking to the adult forum. Thanks for asking though.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=27830 (here's the review for the few of you that might have accidently missed it)

I'm confused. Is there nudity on the main reviews page? I don't want to ever check dvdtalk at work if this is the case.

What a blatant mischaracterization of the responses in that thread. Take off your porn loving glasses and read it again.

While many said they had no problems with the nudity (of course since you posted in the adult forum where all the pervs are :D) as many or more expressed issues with the review being in normal circulation rather than being in the adult review circulation. i.e. with the add showing up outside of the adult forum during day time hours, and people thus not expecting any nudity in the review given when and where the ad was showing up.

The following people all made similar such comments/agreed with other such suggestions of either not having nudity in reviews or at least keeping those ads in the adult circulation if nudity was to be allowed at least once in that thread:

whitetigress
Lunatikk
Maxflier
Groucho
Cultshock
Adam Tyner
X
Shannon Nutt
Ravyn
arsmith
Josh Hinkle

As for myself. I have no problem with nudity in playboy and other adult titles. I do have a problem with such ads being in the regular rotation. Playboy titles should be in the adult review rotation period and especially if the reviews are going to have nudity in them.

My main issue would be that the "DVD Reviews" link at the top of the forum has been touted as a link to a "Safe For Work" review page. Throwing a review in there with images of nudity seems to invalidate that.

Exactly. Just put the reviews in the adult rotations to avoid this problem and I have no problem with nudity in them.

Agreed. Keep the adult content in the adult forum. Pretty simple. :shrug:

Don, if you think those pics are tame, you've really been watching too much porn! :)

They're enough to get someone fired if they show up in someone's browsing history. Just a little common sense should tell you that pics of boobs and bush (or lack of bush in this case) is not something that should be in general worksafe rotation.

Well, "porn loving glasses" or not, the links to ALL the reviews, including the explicit covers of porn, can be found on the main review page that is accessed straight from the front page when you click the "DVD" button on the upper left hand side of the front page (ie: you don't need to click the "Adult" button to gain access to the far more explicit covers). The link is: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/index.php where the third section is the porn coverage. While not always the case, I have happened upon a number of covers there that included all the usual body parts one would expect of a porno, so there is no precedent for any separation of the adult coverage. (you can also gain access to the adult material by clicking on the generic "Reviews" button on the top of the front page)

Oh common; there are pervs in all the forums from what I've seen posted by a few of you. :p Besides, the ORIGINAL thread talking about the title, you remember, the one in the REVIEWS section where people talk about issues with REVIEWS, mentioned no issues with the nudity (just my run on sentence). This thread was titled in such a way to be misleading but was not getting much attention for the last week until I stepped up to the plate (I have no problem exploring both sides of an issue via discussion). I find it curious that you keep referring to the review as an "ad" but then I also find it curious that some make repeated claims about DVD Talk reviews being safe for work or for children too. (see my quote)

(clipped list)
Well, if we're going to start listing people that either have expressed a desire for such pics, have no problem with them, or merely expressed surprise at them and DID NOT say they were against them, we should probably be looking at all three threads relating to the topic rather than make sweeping statements about mischaracterizing discussions:
Dvsoman
darkside
Houstondon
McHawkson
Norml56401
Ravyn
Bigjim25
NCMojo
Michael Ballack
Wildo1966
TomOpus
Demontooth
Giantrobo
Chubacabra
Suprmallet
Beelinetoohive
Adam Tyner
Numanoid

Considering that the review is currently at the top of the mainstream list and has been for most of the week, I don't see the mass uprising some have suggested. My experience is that if people are offended or upset, they are MUCH more likely to speak up than when they are happy. Your personal mileage may vary but that is based on my observations.

Amazon sells the title so it is fair game for the mainstream section. The boxed set is for a reality TV show of three Playboy Playmates with some tasteful nudity. There was no explicit sexual activity and the review reflects what is in the three disc set.

So you'd be willing to agree that the adult covers plastered on the main review page would also appear in the browsing history would be just as work unsafe (ie: there is no claim that this website is going to be work safe)? I'm not taking a side over whether DVD Talk should be work safe or not but I find scant evidence to support the theory some of you are espousing about the concept of "work safe". :brickwl2:

Geoff posted this back in August:

The Playboy review shows up in that section, with images that are decidedly not work safe. Nobody is saying that DVD Talk should be entirely work safe, we're just saying that there is an area that has been deemed as being work-safe and the images in the review don't meet that standard.

Thank you. :up: I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Amazon doesn't have nude pictures on their page for the title though. That is the main issue here.

I'd prefer not to have these titles show up in the adult section period, but if they are going to then the pages they link should at least be work safe and not have nude pictures.

It's one or the other IMO. Ads for review in full rotations for these "amazon carries them" adult titles=no nude shots in the review. Or have nude shots in the reviews and keep the ads in the adult rotation.


Yes, those adult reviews should not come up in the main dvd review page. Their should be seperate portions of the site for DVD reviews and Adult DVD reviews IMO.

People should be able to go to the DVD reviews page and not have to worry about getting porn covers on their screen when they want to check a review at work, or while their kids are around etc.

Exactly.

Geoff needs to get in here and clarify this.

Either the playboy review is inappropriate to his desires as quoted above, or he's changed his view on this and needs to let us no so people who don't want that type of content popping up can just avoid the review section all together.

I suggest the three of you are reading more into the statement than was intended. G! was referring to the COVERS of the review titles, not the content of one of the 600+ "Mature" reviews that can be found with a cursory search.

Yes, we know what your opinion is considering your comments FOR YEARS about adult content and mature covers (in fairness, while we disagree, I'd be the first one to defend your ability to rant about anything potentially offensive even when you've repeatedly been told that this is how it is). At this writing, the latest issue of the porn-filled Blue Room column is front and center of the front page; the reviews button goes to a page NSFW, and some "mature" titles sold by Amazon have covers you find offensive. Time and again, G! has tried to placate the vocal minority that time and again prove to find fault with every decision. By all means, take Adam's advice (my new signature while I thoroughly researched related topics) and disable pictures on your browser to protect yourself.

Oh, and just in case you haven't paid attention in the past, if/when G! jumps in the thread; he'll put his final say on the matter up and lock the thread if the past is any indicator. I had planned to remove the pictures until someone started trying to mischaracterize my comments and list names in a virtual pissing match. I may still do so (if I can't get a "spoiler" button to accomodate folks) but considering your past comments, I find it unlikely that you'd have "standing" in the matter since the word "Playboy" appears in the title (as well as your past comments that you have little use for our reviews). Still, I'll be more cognizant that some of you, however few, will resist any adult content on the website and minimize the issues you raise by my own consideration of your feelings. :)

I have no problem at all with adult content on this site.

I just think it should be clearly seperated. We have an adult forum, and all adult posts go there.

I don't see why Geoff can't spend a little time reorganizing so that all the adult reviews and adult columns are in their own section.

Seems like a win-win for me. The adult content is all in one place and easy to find for those that want to peruse it. And those that don't want it popping up at work or whatever can freely read all the reviews etc. on the site with out worrying about it.

I'm not sure why you're so against having the content clearly seperated. What's the big deal about having one link to "DVD Reviews" and another to "Adult DVD reviews"???

Again, it's better organized and should kill all the bitching. :shrug:

No, I don't think they should be there either. Like Josh, I think it'd be fairly easy to create an "adult dvd reviews" button, so you didn't have to mix them in with the regular reviews.

I know Gman says those DVD covers will stay put, but I don't see that as a good enough reason too add MORE porn stuff to normally non-porn sections of the site. When does it stop? I know porn brings in big $$$ to the site, so why don't you just pornify the whole damn thing? switch it to pornotalk.com and rake in the dough!

Josh.. First and foremost, do not add me to your misconceptions about the Playboy title "The Girls Next Door". The opinion which I offered was a compromised nothing else. I had and currently still do not have any problems with the Playboy title and I did not find the pictures offensive in any way shape or form.As a Adult reviewer ( Proud Perv!! :banana: ), the screenshots that were shown are very tame and I myself even enjoyed the tribute to Marilyn Monroe .The Playboy title "The Girls Next Door" is a reality show which as Don has explained many times is not part of the Adult Films and sold by Amazon. Playboy has been around for 50 years and I seriously doubt that you and others did not have a clue that their might have been some nudity.Why all the fuss about any adult content when there are far worst covers with blood , gore and guts on some horror cover that I have seen. If you ever took the time to read some of the adult reviews as you have pointed out and looked at some of the screen shot, there wouldnt be any need for continuing the topic All this pious moral back talk is a waste of time since you do not frequent the adult reviews as many others that do and those same people that enjoy our reviews even said that there were not enough pictures. Now that I have said my peace.. this Proud Perv/Writer will enjoy the rest of her night reviewing some adult titles . -biggrin-

"all the bitching" ? :hscratch:

If you look there is a section made for Adult reviews. I dont see what the big deal is. None of the adult titles are mixed in with the mainstream titles.Again this goes back to the reality show The Girls Next Door.. (read previous thread I replied too). I really dont believe that the men are the ones making such a fuss over this.. and thats sad. You would honestly think it would be the ladies but its not.

Yes the pics are tame..

Question.. if you are at work why are you surfing the net? Work safe? Doesnt make any sense at all.. sorry but I know when I was at work full time they blocked access to the net so the temptation wouldnt be there and work would actually get done..

Threads like this? All the not safe for work bitching threads that come up over the years?

Again, I don't see why it's not a reasonable compromise to have the adult reviews in their own section (still linked too from everywhere on this site) and to keep any reviews with nudity out of the regular review cover rotation or at the least flag them with a warning that there will be nudity on the review.

It's not a moral issue for me, I'm in favor of seeing as many naked women as I can see. The issue is that that review section was said to be work safe and naked women are not.

Now Don thinks I'm misinterpreting that and maybe Geoff will step in and confirm that, but I always was under the impression that the "DVD Reviews" link up top was supposed to be a way to safeguard that I wouldn't run across any inappropriate content either at work or any time other people are around while I'm browsing.

Sucks that you had lame jobs and couldn't surf the net.

I have a research job and can pretty much do what ever I want as long as I get my work done (salaried position rather than hourly).

And as it's a college network, there is nothing blocked.

Just because you couldn't surf at work doesn't mean that many don't, and also doesn't get at those who don't want such content popping up around their kids, or people who are just offended by it in general.

Personally, I don't' like that either. All the non-adult area content and reviews should be basically PG. Like movie trailers that are "approved for all audiences."

And besides, this isn't so much about the covers, but about having nudity in a review for the first time (that I'm aware of anyway) and having the link to it pop up in the normal review rotation with no warning.

Especially in this instance as it was a TV show that aired with the nudity blurred, so I imagine even people who had seen it and wanted to read the review could easily click on it and be surprised to get a screen full of nudity and work/wherever they are that such content is no appropriate.

That was all I meant to offer. I agree it's a compromise, and should be fair for everyone except those like Don that apparently want to turn this in to a full on adult site.

Again, I have no problem with any and all adult content on the site, but it should be in its own areas so the non-adult areas are work/kid/whatever safe.

I surf the net at work when I have down time. Doesn't mean I'm on there 9 hours a day. I get my work done but still have time for some surfing throughout the day. I'm sure I'm not alone.

If you are offended by it dont look at it.. As for me having a lame job.. no I rather enjoyed it and saw no need to surf the net when I had better thing to do and a staff to over look as well. College research which basically means diddly.. and that you have way too much time on your hands that you continue to ramble on aimlessly for no apparent reason than to hear or shall I say "see" yourself talking..

I guess I don't see all the bitching as you say. Some discussion, yes.

2 users complaining in this thread that I can tell (oops, maybe 3 now).

Wow.

I'm not complaining. I'm just trying to find out what is worksafe. From what I can gather, the main reviews page is no longer worksafe, correct? I'm not really interested in the morality debate. I just want to know what to stay away from. Thanks.

Same here.

Again, morals shmorals. I have no issues with adult content on this site. I'd just prefer it be kept separate to keep people from stumbling upon it, and irrespective of that issue I'd like Geoff to weigh in and answer:

1) Will the main reviews page be safe for work or not?

2) Will reviews covers running outside of the adult forum during the daytime contain nudity and other stuff not safe for work?

Funny, no one has commented about the fact we review horror, and that there are many horror reviews with gory imagery. Or is that safe for work?

Look this is all much ado about nothing. We have a general policy that if Amazon sells it we're running it throughout the site as a mainstream review. We do not make any claim that our site is safe for work and it's certainly not a site for non-adults.

I saw the images in the playboy series (which aired on E!) and thought they were pretty tame so I let them run. It's my call as the editor of the site. Funny that it's now the #1 most read review on the site right now...

In any case, adult is very intermingled on this site, from blurbs on the front page to listing of adult product on our review page. It's here and if that's a problem for some people we understand. But I have no plans to change the way we do things, and I always cringe when I see people getting all uppity over nudity and sex and never say a peep about gore and violence. But we're all adults here, so we believe in each adults intelligence in selecting which they want to read and what they don't. If you aren't interested in adult oriented content.. don't click on adult reviews (or reviews for shows with sexual themes). If you hate gore, then don't read our horror reviews...

It's as easy as that.

Once more, this isn't a moral complaint from your members. Nobody here has said that they're offended by the images. They simply said that they'd like the adult content to remain in the adult forum...or to at least come with a little bit of a warning. So perhaps you'd be better served sharing this observation with their employers, as they, and not your members, seem to be the ones you're baffled by.

The title is, indeed, listed on Amazon...but they seem to have had the foresight to refrain from posting large images of tits and ass on their site. :shrug:

Will there be nude Christina Ricci screenshots in the Black Snake Moan review? Just curious.

It's not really funny, it's just the simple equation of:

tits = hits

If this isn't meant to be a worksafe site, why not add tits everywhere? It sure seems to be what the horndog masses want...

Exactly. Like I said, I'm all for adult content, I'd just rather see it better separated and less easy to stumble upon in inappropriate situations (work kids around etc.).

Same goes for the gore stuff.

Exactly. It doesn't add anything to the review IMO (other than adding some jerk off material to the site ;) :D) and obviously bothered a few members.


But anyway, thanks Geoff for taking the time to respond. I'm disappointed your stance changed from opposing a "mature" forum on the site many years ago in the aims of having a family friendly all the way to having the adult content "intermingled" on the site and stating "it's certainly not a site for non-adults."

But I guess that's the price you have to pay to make money on an internet site. Just seems like you could have the best of both worlds by just keeping the adult content a little more organized in its own areas that are less easy to stumble upon.

Seems like those interested would still view it just as much, read as many reviews, view and click as many adult ads etc. :shrug:

But again your site, your rules. I won't be using any affiliate links or clicking any ads if you chose to run it this way though.

Done! (and for the record, I did not ask him to jump into the thread)

Keep in mind that there are various levels of "adult content"; the "adult" reviews are generally considered the "porn" reviews whereas other titles containing mature or "adult" content might simply be an R rated movie. Should all R or unrated movies be tossed into the "porn" category? As far as suggesting G! add yet another task to his near endless list (ie: reorganizing the entire website to suit the limited few); there are so many higher priority projects in need of his attention that I'd be lying if I thought that was even in the top thousand.

I'm of the opinion that most of this is friendly discussion (yay Cow!). I'm also of the opinion that no matter what course of action is taken, some will find fault with it or consider it to not be enough to placate their version of what DVD Talk should look like. The call is G!'s to make and I will support whatever stance he takes; largely basing my comments and actions on what he has said in the past on related subjects (I spent a fair amount of time researching it the last several times the topic or related topics came up so I'm not exactly winging it here).

Should any review with a cover that might possibly offend a reader in say...The Middle East who works for a Muslim cleric be sent off to this porn section a few of you have worked out? Playboy is not porn except to a very tiny portion of the population (and I live in the Bible Belt so I'm quite familiar with the mindset even though many attacking porn these days are from the left wing these days) but the concept extends to other titles too. I'm not going to start preaching about the horrors of censorship (I've witnessed people trying to ban books like Catcher in the Rye, The Outsiders, and many other well regarded works based on the possibility that it might offend a limited subset of the population so I could defend from that angle very easily if need be) but there is no EASY line to define what might offend the most touchy person who happens upon the website so we'll just have to stick with G!'s stated opinion yet again... ;) Otherwise, one of the benefits of being what amounts to the largest, most comprehensive DVD review website is how adults can act like adults and skip material they should know might offend them.

Well, he has now stepped in to address your concern but I suggest that a few of you were selectively reading what he said last August and took what was discussed out of context. People were even complaining about an anime cover of a gal in a swimsuit being too much for their workplace. I suggest that if you may be in trouble for something like that, you work for people that don't value your services very much if they'd fire you for it. Otherwise, the adult covers on the main review page have been there for a very long time so simply accessing the page would cause your computer to have the covers on your hard drive.

As I stated before, other mainstream reviews have had nudity in them. You've been on record in the past as saying you didn't read the reviews here so I believe you when you claim that you haven't seen them but anything from Wild Things 2(?), Basic Instinct, some of the National Lampoon movies, and a number of others have had what amount to screen captures that might offend a sheltered nun or some of these oppressive work places a few of you appear to work in.

One of the biggest, most frequent questions I've had as a reviewer of TV on DVD shows is whether or not the show removed the mosaic/pixels covering the nudity; like on The Man Show titles I've reviewed. That someone familiar with the show knows the thematic subject matter and fact that the show has nudity (albeit blurred out a bit) should be enough for them to weigh reading a review of it at a time and place that might not be in their best long term interests (like in front of young children, at a NOW meeting, or at work).

I have no desire or intention of doing this and to say it like that looks more like a debating tactic to marginalize my position than add constructive criticism to the discussion. This IS an adult website though, run by adults, with adults in mind so a limited number of people wanting contributors to jump through an ever restrictive series of hoops to appease their personal taste or the taste they would impose on others strikes me as problematic.

Yeah but women are probably more comfortable with tasteful nudity and probably have a lot more experience seeing breasts than a few of these guys do. (ducking...) :p

For someone with "no issues", you sure seem to have spent a lot of time raising them. Again, I'm fine with you doing so but you'd probably come across better if you didn't keep saying you had no problems on one hand and then going into great detail about problems right afterward. One last time though, the main review page, when you scroll down past the fold has had porn covers for some time now. This is not new, as some of you have been suggesting against all evidence to the contrary, and a number of those covers are far more explicit than any screen captures used by the reviewers.

I might have to change my signature line to this one (I didn't know changing it to Adam's excellent quote would alter all my past post sig's...sniff). It sums up so much, so quickly, that I almost wish it was part of the registration process.

Ahhh, the poetry of this one works for me too. ;)

I'd think that the word "Playboy" would serve as a pretty strong warning that the review had a sexual theme to it. If you're suggesting DVD Talk adopts a coding system like TV shows (with the numerous acronyms that are as confusing as heck to some people), I think you're in for a lengthy wait.

I can pass on your request to whomever gets the DVD if you'd like me to do so. I haven't seen ANY screen captures on Amazon though, PG or otherwise so perhaps your faith in their foresight is just a bit misplaced. Can I make the observation that Joe, Josh, NBT, Gold, and others reading this thread are now on notice from the owner that such content is, to an admittedly limited extent and subject to editorial approval, addressed? As much as I like discussing the evolution of DVD Talk, it gets old when the same people make the same basic arguments repeatedly. Look, if a reviewer starts publishing hardcore screen shots, email G! and he'll take care of it. If you think one of us steps over the line, send an email or ask about the review but at least we have a written guideline to point to now. :)

PS: Some of the points raised in opposition to my stance were pretty decent and I appreciate them. If you ever think I went too far with something, email me and say so; I promise I'll consider what was said or displayed with an open mind. Fair?

You need to work on your reading comprehension Don.

I said I have no issues with adult content on DVD Talk.

However, what I do have issues with is the adult content not being well separated in some cases. (i.e. things like nudity in mainstream reviews, which you were right, I hadn't seen those few you listed both because I seldom read the reviews and those were all titles I had zero interest in besides that).

The two points aren't mutually exclusive, and my points were made very clearly IMO, especially since several people have made the exact same argument in this thread and the one in the Adult forum.

No one has expressed any objection to DVD Talk containing nudity. We've just expressed concern at where nudity is displayed.


But Geoff has spoke, so it's a moot point. Best I can do is show my disapproval by not doing anything that provides revenue to the site.

So, due to one review you're not going to support to keep the site free? Seems a little childish to me.

This issue wasn't an issue with me but I do have a few with the site. But I also like the fact that the site is here and it's free. I'll click a few extra ads each day just for you :)

Be sure to add some for me too. ;)

(ignoring personal attack)
Well, maybe the RIF program fell out of favor when you made it through school but your entire premise has been an "issue" with adult content; ie: where it is located. That IS an "issue" (and one worth discussing like an adult, not full of sour grapes) as they go hand in hand.

As one of the leading contributors (out of many by the way) here of adult and mature content, I have a vested interest in keeping up on the matter. A handful of names always seem to arise when discussing adult content and issues relating to it so I've paid particular attention to what these few people have said (finding the "new members" that magically register to complain in the same way, using similar grammar and giving the appearance of a shill registration to be extremely likely at times); much like salesmen for a company would become familiar with their competitor's product or a politician would become acquainted with their opponent's stances on various topics over time.

A few of you, you in particular Josh, have made it seem like a simple reorganization of content would solve all the problems and I disagree. There are 620+ "mature" titles that are NOT porn, 3500+ R rated titles, ~10,800 "Unrated" titles, and a couple dozen NC-17 that all could potentially have something to offend a reader on top of the ~6600 straight porn titles and 364 gay titles. I think the review in question (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=27830) lets the pictures "prove" that it is uncensored; the biggest question a fan of the series looking to buy the DVD set would have; adding value to the TV on DVD set (great extras too). Why should a reader interested in the title have to lose out simply because a few of you want to be able to read this FREE site at work and in front of children without disabling covers as Adam suggested?

Anyway, if you really want to show your disapproval, stop posting messages and deny us all the benefit of your wisdom in the future (Gold too). We'd eventually get over the tragic loss somehow but it'd be our cross to bear. ;) Happy Mother's Day!