Because the other thread was such a great success, I wanted to start a new one in which people can offer ideas and suggestions regarding the sensitive content filter. This is not a thread for political or philosophical debates regarding what warrants being marked as sensitive. Start another thread for that.

Now, with an aim towards user-friendliness in mind, I like the idea of sensitive films/releases being visible to all users, but presented with a generic placeholder image of some sort for users with sensitive content filtered. It could be an image with text explaining that images for the release are blocked according to their settings.

I think it's also important for users with sensitive content visible to have some kind of unobtrusive visual note/indicator ("This film has been marked as sensitive" or something) on main film/release pages, instead of requiring them to check submission history to find out in every case. Even a red dot or something could suffice, especially when it comes to browsing through search results.

It also seems like general good practice for users to give clear notes in their own submissions as to why they deem something potentially sensitive, particularly if it's in what they consider a grey area.

As long as the majority of users don't abuse or manipulate the system to their own ends, this level of transparency might help users gauge what is/should be considered de facto "sensitive material" within the grey areas surrounding obvious/deliberate cases of porn, real-world gore/violence exploitation and hate propaganda. Ideally, it would enable the community to set the standards for itself, without the need for endless moral/technical/philosophical debates and whining.

It might also be nice if users were able to toggle specific entries sensitive/non-sensitive on their own profiles, but I can already think of some reasons why that's not worth the trouble of implementing. Namely, I don't consider that degree of user-end customization essential, or even particularly productive. It basically boils down to a feature aimed at appeasing people who don't want blood in their orgies and vice versa.

Any thoughts? Are these all reasonable suggestions (I'm not counting the last one)? How could they be improved?

Agree with all of this I did add a title on Bookogs which was difficult for me to find as I realised I had the filter turned on. I like the idea of a red dot or something similar.

Hi morgue_sludge,
These are good points and definitely reasonable suggestions. I agree that the sensitive/offensive content filter could be more nuanced, however for us as a small team it's an issue of time and prioritisation

It also seems like general good practice for users to give clear notes in their own submissions as to why they deem something potentially sensitive, particularly if it's in what they consider a grey area.

Absolutely agree. I thought the guidelines covered this, but just expanded on that point. I think we could clarify this next to the checkbox in the submission form too.

Thanks for the suggestions and getting this conversation started. I can't make any promises about when and if these will be implemented but we'll definitely discuss these ideas and take them into consideration.

On this topic.

I found all these actresses profiles classed sensitive content because it says pornographic in the information sector why is this?.

The user was banned though.

For example

I can understand if it was nudity of somesort but am confushed just because it says either bondage or pornographic.

This is something I've thought about as well. What should even be considered for marking as sensitive? To me, credits are purely informative, even though they may link to sensitive materials associated with credited entities/individuals.

It should go without saying that there's no reason to upload pornographic images for actor/company credits, where non-copyright-protected head shots, public photos or tasteful cropping would suffice in most cases.

It's important to know that the user you mention was (at least from my perspective) being intentionally disruptive and trying to stir the pot by marking obvious exceptions like generic, R-rated slasher movies as sensitive. They gave some very disingenuous, coy justifications for marking things like that as sensitive, presumably to "make a point" that everyone here is a prude or something.

Also, thanks for your response, falsepriest. I don't expect things to be implemented or perfected over night. I'm glad people are contemplating it for the future, though.

I think some credits from adult movies were marked as sensitive because the images they used were explicit in nature.

But I'd agree that there is no need for this, surely those people have images available that aren't explicit and those are the ones that should be used for the profiles. I don't think there is need to mark anything as sensitive just because their profile contains specific words.

I agree no need to upload pornographic images it is plain silly.

But is there anything abut canaborisim in the rules?

I would like too see the red dot introduced for these releases, or whatever the staff decide is nesacery.

I don't want to edit these ones and turn it around into a battle on the ogs websities.

I agree having a placeholder image would be fine.

I also dont want my ogs account banned so i have a few greyish films but am scarred i will get banned for adding 1 film that is pornographic, i don't wanna risk the account so i will pass on adding the film.

Though i find it funny the site says we accept all film styles and they ban users for adding those type of films.

While discogs says we want the correct image used i have seen tons worse on discogs then any film release in my life / on filmogs.

Though i find it funny the site says we accept all film styles and they ban users for adding those type of films.

Nobody has been banned for adding specific types of films. If you are referring to the instances I think you are referring to the ban was for impersonating other users and indiscriminately adding the sensitive flag to submissions as a way of"concern trolling".

Oh that explains it, sorry if i was argh too mean before Kalli.

If ya say it's fine after i finish adding pictures too all these credits i just made i will make a few new films and add the tickbix to them ones.

But will not vandalise the site.

I figure a general rule of thumb should be, if you're legitimately concerned an upload might be considered "sensitive material" (read: LEGAL sensitive material), check it as such, and give reasoning in your submission notes. Easy-peasy.

PS: If you're legitimately concerned something in a grey area shouldn't be considered as such, it's helpful to add notes justifying that as well.


I understand the rules of sensitive material though I am still concerned if a add an inappropriate image i will lose access to the website (baned).

but if staff members are saying it is fine to add inappropriate images with correct judgment it should be fine right?.

For example if i had a snuff film (Which i don't), and it contained lots of violence / gore on the cover i would click sensitive content and my reason would be "this release contains lots of violence / gore in the dvd / vhs / blue ray cover photo" that would be fine?

Same goes for pornographic material and racist items.

With racist items would that be stuff like cult videos and such like satanism videos or something?

And would we have to click sensitive content for Venom related DVD's due to them being a Black Metal / Thrash band with Satanism content?

I am referring to this band on discogs

Release artwork, as long as it's broadly considered legal (specifically if it's legal in the host website's country), shouldn't be an issue IMO, regardless of the contents of the release. That rule applies on Discogs as well, for loads of releases which use explicitly gory/pornographic/racist imagery. A lot of "problematic" (read: racist) materials are banned from sale there, but adding the media itself is not.

If I had "snuff" films or kiddie porn or necrophilia-related items, I wouldn't be stupid enough to add them here anyway.

Content of the film matters more than content of the release. If a film is considered "sensitive", mark it as such. If a release associated with a film is considered "sensitive", mark it as such. If the artwork is just "dodgy" on something non-pornographic, like a Venom DVD/VHS because of "boobs or something", don't. There's nothing in the rules about marking Satanic/occult topics as sensitive.

I feel like I'm stating a lot of obvious stuff here, so don't expect my "good faith" to last beyond this post.

PS: Clarification, "Content of the release packaging".

Thanks for clearing it up.

I will add only what is of the artwork of the release it came from and i should be fine haha.

Argh please dont be mean or anything but i found this pornographic film added to the database just looking through the pages on the website.

Now two things i found which is a bit dodgy.

Why is it not ticked sensitive?

And why is the back cover complety different to the actual release?

Is the back cover so we don't have to add sensitive content? Or editing back covers to blank the pornographic out is fine?

That release looks like it would warrant a sensitive content setting to me. You already got a discussion on it in the history section there already, seems like a good approach.

Thank you, yeah i just wanted to make sure.

I also just added one which i will link here just to make sure kalli.

This is the one i submitted i can easily remove sensitive coontent if staff says so

And i am sorry for vandalisim if i did vandalise the website by mistake

@Kalli i got a reply on pm and user says since the image is alterd it does not require sensitive content.

I am still a bit curios due too the 2nd image beening alterd heaps like blanking out the whole back page just about of release.

Mostly the genitali area but i completly understand but i think it conflicts the rules

@Kalli The user said he wouls change it but no changes as yet.

Should i remove the alted images?

Or should i add sensetive?

I've marked that release as offensive content as although the image is somewhat censored, it's still pornographic. You're still going to get sideways looks if you open this page in the office (trust me, I just did)


Yeah the images are alted he said he would rescan them but it's been a week

I think altering images is silly and totally counter-productive/not really true to the spirit of correct data (altered images with parts blacked out are no different from watermarks in that sense). If a user considers a release sensitive, they ought to just mark it, and add uncensored images, or none at all. The content of the release is as relevant as anything on the packaging, if not more so. Particularly when it comes to items being sold in the marketplace. So, things should be marked for in-film/release content above all, IMO, particularly if it's legitimately considered "porn in its proper context" (meaning it is marketed and sold as porn).

Plenty of non-porn films/releases feature sex/nudity, where scenes focusing on the sex/nudity aren't the crux of the whole thing, even as major conceptual/plot elements. Sex/nudity escapes "porno" categorization when the actual content surrounding it serves as something more than mere window dressing for sex scenes, which should be obvious enough for individuals to figure out for themselves on a case-by-case basis.

I've seen the upload mentioned before. I specifically choose not to comment on uploads outside of this thread, partly because I haven't viewed it to claim absolute authority regarding content (not porn until proven as such, it should be the responsibility/obligation of uploaders to confirm), but also because I think people should be able to gauge this sort of thing on their own, without people taking such pains to suggest what seems obvious on a site like this through direct messages. That example seems obvious to me, though, according to site rules. People can walk around clear-cut rules all they want, but no one's going to know what they're on about if they're unwilling to simply discuss their point of view. The uploader has good enough sense/reading comprehension. I can't help but feel they're just displeased about being obligated to mark anything as sensitive.

Maybe that upload was an attempt to test the waters. Maybe how they went about doing adding it is related to concerns about there being a "slippery slope", which was my whole point in users setting the standards themselves for grey area films ("Porn" isn't a grey area, according to site rules. In an effort to play nice, I'll reiterate the point I've already beat into the ground: What most people consider porn is not really debatable. If it's marketed/sold as porn, it is porn*. If something isn't porn to you, make the case for it).

It makes sense to me to think of Filmogs as a rental store: Anything beyond the beaded curtain should likely be marked sensitive. If nothing else, that admittedly imperfect analogy covers all "real" pornography, however "hardcore" it may or may not be. *They wouldn't keep late-night Cinemax softcore out front in a rental place either. They certainly wouldn't scribble out the naughty parts on the boxes in any case.

Yeah the alted images is in the rules here and discogs.

And yes i remember the curtain and i 100% accept that this should be referenced as like a dvd rental store.

At my local ones if a dvd cover got scribbled on they would print off a new cover and replace them charging the custemer same with damage to the case i mean really bad damage.

We had a small area which had softcore and like bikini type films as well which was not behind the black curtain known as the top shelf dvds so kids would not pick them up by accident. They normally were behind the counter or at the top shelf where kids would not go anyway.

But also while i am here i found a new user is marking portuguese kids films sensitive like robots and barnyard.
I edited them saying its a kids film and should not be marked sensitive however the user reverts my edits and just says rui in notes.

He even removed them from the base film i just editef robots again here ia the links. robots / robos barnyard.

I stopped on the flushed away one he edited and reverted so much

But i just wanted to warn you all about this user

For clarification, as bnoi's posts do not accurately represent the correspondence we had:

@Kalli i got a reply on pm and user says since the image is alterd it does not require sensitive content.

Untrue. I asked

"What do you mean about content box being ticked? I think there may be a couple nipples visible on front cover image; back cover image has been edited (black ovals placed over genitalia), for your protection."

@Kalli The user said he wouls change it but no changes as yet.

Also untrue. I wrote

"I suppose I could scan and upload the uncensored image. However it is very explicit!"

SO...I did contact Jess (staff member) regarding this situation:

" A user contacted me and asked if that is against rules - all images should be unedited. Good question! The back cover is quite explicit!"

followed by

"I can upload the unedited image, if required!"

Jess responded:

"I know uploading unedited images is a point in our guidelines but that's one that's been borrowed from Discogs, but obviously this is another point where music and film releases differ quite a bit. I would say this edited image as an exception is fine."

I was talking about the contejt box being ticked / changes.

I understand it can be rescanned etc.

I am not here for fights.

Also when i wrote no changes that was 1 week.

1 week is long enough to add a sensitive tick box, but i still belive the scribbled back cover needs changing.


New users might start adding images to non nsfw releases with scribbled out bits.

For example softcore of just nipples on the dvd cover.

Hi, Jess here.
I did say that image could be considered an exception. None of the data about the release is compromised, so I don’t have a problem with some of the more hardcore content being omitted.
This is not a blanket rule and if it comes up again we can use our discretion. If you see a new user adding images with alterations, please let me know.
While we’re trying to build a comprehensive database of film releases, hosting pornographic images is a bit more complicated. We’re taking that into consideration and taking a closer look at how best to handle it.
Hope this helps clear things up.


That clears the air

Hello all.

Once again i found some more films, but this time i am confused to why they are marked nsfw.

That is one of the films noting about it to me makes it nsfw it's jet li film martial arts.

I also saw another film on his/hers profile marked nsfw.

I fixed one of that users bulk films a few days ago and the new user is making countless errors should i go right ahead and fix these errors or leave it to the staff / admin.

Hi bnoi,
It looks like that may have been done in the error by the contributor. I've unchecked that on the films I've come across now. Feel free to do so on others you come across that have been incorrectly marked NSFW, just make your reasons clear in the submission notes.
We're working on making that wording clearer so there's less margin for error, hopefully that will help.

Hello falsepriest,

I am happy to fix errors made by users if i find anything that is marked incorrectly i will say in the notes why.

If i don't know the film international films i'll do some research before changing anything just to be sure and f i find any which i am confused on i will ask here.

Thanks for changing that one false.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.