This would be nice. I am now getting multiple covers showing up at the top of the page that like like soft-core porn.

Yes yes, I know, they come from Amazon so they're considered fair game.

Regardless, I probably do 75% of my browsing here from work (I have a lot of time waiting for things to process). If IB and DVDTalk are cool with losing that traffic, then that's fine. But I'd rather be able to turn off all images and XCritic links.

Thanks for clearing that up. As a significant contributor of "adult" material, "porn" material, and even "family friendly" material I had been left with the impression that links to content ORIGINATING here would be here for the duration (contractually); not out of "desperation" (how laughable!) but out of respect for those of us that contributed.

I'm not exactly sure why a few people are using "work safe" and "family friendly" as meaning the same thing but even in my discussions looking for a compromise, I don't think anyone mentioned anything about dumbing down the content so much that it would be completely "safe" for everyone's family and work. All of this was predicted though, remember? ;)

PS: There really have been some great covers of late too. Yay covers!

Yep, I've noticed that.

Perhaps this whole question should be directed towards IB, as they're the ones who have the say in this decision.

I thought that was the purpose of this thread. Aren't they supposed to monitoring this forum and answering our questions?

So removing adult links would be dumbing down the site?

http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000XCK0OG.jpg

http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000WMFZNI.jpg



Family friendly. :lol:

:rolleyes:

Well, all we've really heard from is Geoff, who really doesn't make that sort of decision anymore.

IB doesn't seem to be too keen on being "user-friendly" and approachable, in terms of responding to concerns. Just what I've observed on other things they own.

I'm still waiting for one of you to jump in with:
a) the difference between "family friendly" and "work safe"
b) where the idea of "100% family friendly" was brought up
c) why the quoted announcements were being taken as an immediate thing (the term "going forward" means sometime in the future, obviously past some contracted date)
d) why some of you haven't picked up on the differentiation made by Beemish when she said "Edit: And when I say adult content, I specifically mean porn." since there is clearly a difference between the two terms

That said, in answer to your question, you can replace the term "dumbing down" with "watered down" if you like but as a movie loving adult, the primary audience for DVD Talk for the last 9+ years, moving to a "least common denominator" standard means essentially the same thing to me. The links are contractual but the content being discussed by most in this thread (covers included) is not hardcore porn. My suggestion was for a coded ability to toggle anything labeled "mature", "R-rated", or even "unrated" reviews off for those who had issues, perhaps even including an expansive list of words that might set off workplace filters but not to remove any hint of such content (ie: links to it or the aforementioned links to content originally produced here).

In essence, the sensitivity to having even the link to the adult reviews and forum material that started here on the website goes too far. DVD Talk is already sanitized enough for the majority of the world but as I have repeatedly held, it won't be enough to suit everyone. I'm not fussing at those of you in that select group, but it seems reasonable to point out that it IS a small, select group of dedicated folks that pop up in these discussions.

The reigns of the forums were handed over to Beemish who addressed your concerns just as G! did and I believe she is from IB but keep in mind that one of the things about corporate ownership is that policy matters have a tendency to be debated back & forth endlessly. I asked a few questions to help clarify matters for IB as much as some of the rest of you too; what does "safe for work" mean and is the standard of the term going to be "100% family friendly" (I wouldn't relish a small, unsupervised child checking out a lot of DVD review websites online)?

The two pics mopower posted are neither family friendly nor worksafe IMO.

If someone saw either of those on my monitor at work while they were walking by, they'd assume I was looking at a porn site. And conversely, I would think that too if I saw them on someone else's monitor.

Curious that I never see those covers when I visit Amazon, but see them quite regularly in the rotation here - more regularly than some A-list title review covers.

I personally don't care about the links, because they're just text. But this Amazon thing is a constant nuisance.

And BTW, I personally love love love nude women. :) I just can't afford to be seen looking at them at work.

The covers in question are for brand new reviews that people are reading heavily so they appear in the rotation more frequently. My proposal would fix their placement as would people turning off the pictures when they read the website (a solution offered a few times by people in these ongoing discussions about offensive covers). I've worked places where coworkers would have all gathered around were such covers on my computer screen just as I've worked at places where some would probably run around with their heads cut off so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with both concepts either.

When I check out Amazon, I likely get a different bunch of covers different than you though since the website gears their experience to what people look at in the first place. I appreciate that the "Amazon standard" is an imperfect solution for some of you and it has been brought up a number of times to IB but one of the problems that I've tried to clarify/outline is that there is absolutely no agreement among even those with issues (some in this thread want the website completely scrubbed clean, making it that mythically "100% family friendly" while others like yourself are more open regarding the text links).

Those that draw absolute lines in the sand about these topics tend to be dismissed, perhaps wrongly, when the discussions come up behind the scenes about accommodating changes which is why I'd ask for those repeatedly demanding changes provide a workable solution that everyone can live with. Ultimately, I still find the comments from long time members that suggest they'll stop visiting DVD Talk kind of weird though since the website had thousands of adult reviews when they were split off and a great many forum threads concerning definitely NSW posts. In the context of the situation, this site is tremendously more work/family "friendly" than it has been in years and contractual obligations for links aside, the unwillingness to appreciate that fact probably bugs me the most.

Sex is one of the most family friendly activities in existence.

No sex == no families.

More sex == more families.

DVD Talk is no longer blocked by my employer. So it seems that moving the adult forum to another site was sufficient for them.

There has certainly been an increase of softcore covers in rotation. They probably get more clicks, and IB is probably following the money. If done to excess, it will degrade the tone of the site.

I don't understand why it's unfriendly to have a mere text link to X Critic.

IB has nothing to do with the covers in rotation. The covers are randomly selected based on what people are reviewing, and there has not been any sort of mandate about more softcore reviews being added to the site. (Personally, I haven't noticed anything more out there than usual, though.)

Ditto.

The suggestive/crude covers....well, we've covered that already (no pun intended).

-p