I've just had explicit porn ad on my blog!!!! WTF?!
I do not expect to see penises and vaginas here! What is going on?!
-
-
Usksider
Pro - http://www.usksider.co.uk
- Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 @ 20:05:52
-
-
pollygarter
- Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 @ 20:11:08
Any ideas? See below.
-
-
Usksider
Pro
- http://www.usksider.co.uk
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 04:53:22
I have to say I'm at a loss. As a Pro user I don't get the ads at all so have "missed out" on all this free porn. It might be worth going through your tags and removing anything with even the vaguest pornographic reference, but the question must be "where do you draw the line?" Have you tried contacting Rampage? He's the BCUK guru.
-
-
-
-
- Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 @ 20:07:31
I had one before too. Ugh.
-
-
pollygarter
- Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 @ 20:10:33
Horrid!
-
-
-
pollygarter
- Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 @ 20:10:10
Is there an official way of complaining? I seem to remember Menhir complaining about the sexy contact type ads, but this really is proper porn not sleaze.
-
-
menhir
- Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 @ 21:12:01
I did complain and it was about porn, not sleaze; a lot of us got unsolicited stuff which apparently was due to a hijacking 'accident' by google. (!?) A lot of people complained. I was told that other blogs that might be construed as in the sleaze department, picked up tags [by google?] that activated such material; sounds like your word 'mistress might have a tag too much, on that basis. I Wonder what would happen if the name was changed to King Kong!
Try Rampage and see what he says. He's contactable via the blog tab on new happenings or changes, or whatever it's called and there's a conversation about tags relating to our previous personal blogs that he's reassuring us about. You could try connecting up with him there.
One other possibility, do your blogging through Mozilla Firefox. It won't stop the nasty ads appearing on OE unfortunately, so we commentators will be offended by them, but you would have reduced impact.
It's all rather horrid.-
-
pollygarter
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 00:55:14
According to comments on helpblog it is now accepted that adult themes and tags get adult ads.
-
-
menhir
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 09:55:39
What has a mistress got to do with adult themes? For heavens sake! Even the BBC do features on mistresses past and present. They are not porn and would not be allowed to be broadcast if they were. I have been listening in prime time to discussons on modern relationships, infidelity and so on.
We aren't talking strip parlours here or commercial cheap sex, we are exchanging views and ideas about life, much of it sophisticated.
I wonder what all the major players in history and today, would make of this ridiculous labelling of a perfectly interesting and innocuous site.
People comment on their partner relationships all the time in blogs, some more explicit than others. Does that mean they are 'adult themed'? This is madness.
What is blog trying to do, take all educated and acceptable wide ranging comment of life, out of the daily zone of interactive blogging? What a totally vacuous, boring place this blog site would become.-
-
menhir
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 09:58:17
P.S You have poker room ads today - I shan't delve into that. It is blog who are being unreal and quite disgusting in allowing your site to be plagued with such ads. They need to get their act together and come clean.
-
-
pollygarter
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 20:02:06
it seems that they didn't intend the adult ads to be quite so adult... Apparently all adult ads being withdrawn while they sort it out.
-
-
menhir
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 23:49:38
That's interesting = Act 2. Act 1 was said to have similar lines.
-
-
-
-
pollygarter
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 20:02:54
Oh! And thanks for your lovely comments on my blog!
Polly
xxx -
-
-
la_spice
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 09:44:45
I've always enjoyed looking at random blogs and have made some lovely friends this way. If BCUK carry on allowing these ads on what they chose to class as "adult blogs" it will deter people from doing this. Shame really. As for cizzie's reply to Suzee it's more or less saying if you don't have a pro account you must put up or shut up!
-
-
menhir
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 11:13:16
I read what was Suzee M was told, it was a bargaining counter by the sounds of it -'we'll give you a sweet if you give us one'. A very juvenile response to a very disturbing problem.
I Don't know who cizzie is, there are so many names coming out of the woodwork.
BCUK has a responsibility under decency laws, which accidentally or otherwise are not being met in the current situation that Pollygarter and Suzee M have experienced.
None of us should have to tolerate downloading porn of any sort onto our computer systems, just because we belong to a blog community that many of us have joined for the joy of communicating, openly and decently with others of like mind.
Taking the point of legality further, in particular circumstances, any of us could be tracked and investigated under porn laws and hard disks etc examined. Not a nice prospect, I grant you, probably a worst case scenario, but nevertheless, one that could arise.-
-
la_spice
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 11:36:24
I don't think BCUK have seen the seriousness of the matter - cizzie is one of the BCUK team and her "official" line was worrying.
-
-
menhir
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 15:40:54
On the basis of your description of cizzie's communications, I would endorse your concerns.
-
-
-
-
-
pollygarter
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 14:38:51
Agreed la spice. I think cizzie's attitude is rather shocking. I wonder if s/he realises that some of us have been shown porn - not just a trailer for porn - and an act that until very recently (and may still be!) was officially illegal in the UK
-
-
la_spice
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 16:37:12
Exactly - if we want to post an image in our own blog we have to agree not to post anything of this nature but they can just do it carte blanche.
If trigger words are the key then we should all be told what words to avoid. I think this has to be thrashed out (I hope the word thrashed doesn't trigger rude images!)
-
-
pollygarter
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 23:55:11
lol Thrashed might give ME rude ideas, but I promise not to show graphic pics!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Prettyintelligentprincess
Pro - Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 @ 22:16:25
I am releved in a way as I really though it was all my fault by being too explicit..but then I tought...hang on a minute..I've been so much more graphic in the past and nothing ever has happened like this. It is offensive.
I adore watching porn when in the right mood, with the right person and the right place...but not here when I am hoping to express myself without offending people...and I am starting to worry now what else I may see....
I'm sick of getting GAYFRIENDFINDER! I am heartily hetro...I need no male gay friends for sex!
Bit of a shame really...they look bloody gorgeous !-
-
pollygarter
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 00:57:10
it's just so inappropriate. I assume such ads bring in more money. According to comment on helpblog if we post adult tags we can't have ordinary ads from Google if I understand correctly.
-
-
-
-
Rampage
team - Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 12:46:41
Hi pollygarter, here's a copy of my message in the HelpBlog in case you didn't see it:
OK, we have looked very hard at this issue and we have actually discovered an error within the ad server.
This error (which involved the filtering of which blogs get which ads) made the criteria for the display of sexually themed ads too strong, which resulted in these ads being displayed on blogs with no sexual content. To be more specific, this error resulted in text segments being searched with the result that words such as 'cocktail' or 'cockateel' were considered to be sexually themed.
We apologise most sincerely for this error. We have shut down the majority of the sexually themed ads while we are working on this.
However, once this problem is resolved, blogs with sexual content will have ads of a sexual nature. Since Google do not allow us to display their ads on these sites, and since ads are specifically selected for display depending on the content of the blog, there really is no alternative.
However, we have NEVER deliberately displayed sexual acts or genitalia or any sort, and we have not actually seen these ads to which many of you are referring, despite repeated attempts to locate them. We would be very grateful if someone who can see these sexually explicit ads could drop me a BM with a screenshot if possible, or indeed any information about them whatsoever.
Again, we can only offer our sincerest apologies for this error. We understand that we have alienated a number of users because of it, and that is something that affects us deeply. We will, of course, strive to ensure that this does not happen again.
In the meantime, we can only request your understanding and patience as we work to get to the bottom of this and to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Thank you,
Your BCUK team
-
-
pollygarter
- Friday, Jan. 18, 2008 @ 19:50:46
Thanks, Rampage.
-
-
-
-
menhir
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 11:34:02
Hi PG
I have taken time this morning to read all the comments on this matter, on this site. I have concerns with Paras 4 & 5 of the reply from Rampage.
I for one, would not like to be party to sending explicit porn to anyone. I find it surprising that we, the bloggers are the only people to have seen the offensive material. My blog as far as I am aware, is not sexually themed and even if it were, I guess I would try to emulate some of your style and aplomb. So, why did I get explicity material when the masses were affected?
I fully expect to see 'service resumed as normal', meaning how it was before the new style offensive stuff was permitted to enter our sites. If not, then we will need to know why not.
A programming feature has been identified by BCUK that has continued to allow infiltration of the disgusting muck that we were bombarded with. There is a strong suggestion that Google is a culprit in this too. I don't understand why there is only a one way ticket with advertising, that is for controlling the type and content.
I don't understand the comment about Google now allowing BCUK to advertise on their sites, what's that got to do with the matter in hand?
I really believe we will have to continue to be alert
-
-
pollygarter
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 23:56:24
hmmm.... Where there's muck,there's brass
-
-
menhir
- Sunday, Jan. 20, 2008 @ 00:08:43
What kind of brass? Neck, comes to mind.
The type and content of advertising has surely, got to be acceptable from many facets, particularly and including legal, also to people who receive it.-
-
pollygarter
- Sunday, Jan. 20, 2008 @ 16:26:36
"What kind of brass? Neck, comes to mind."
I was thinking more of the mundane money, but as so often, you are more of a lateral thinker!
Ummm.... Did you miss out an 'un' or something from above? if so I'll edit. I don't think you can edit on others' blogs can you?-
-
menhir
- Sunday, Jan. 20, 2008 @ 16:54:50
I think in the penultimate para about Rampage's reply to you, I put a 'now' in about google and allowing advertising, instead of a 'not allowing'. Where do you think and 'un' might go?
You're right about not being able to edit comments unless they are on ones own blog. Time and again I see the error of my typo ways and can't do anything much about them.
I wonder what tags might come of this response. I can see grunting as a possibility
-
-
pollygarter
- Sunday, Jan. 20, 2008 @ 23:56:05
My mistake! I misread "The type and content of advertising has surely, got to be acceptable from many facets, particularly and including legal, also to people who receive it." as comment on a statement on the ads here, not advertising in general...
-
-
menhir
- Monday, Jan. 21, 2008 @ 09:48:58
My comment PG, did take a more globalised perspective on the issue. It is entirely relevant to blog, because blog does have a global audience.
-
-
pollygarter
- Saturday, Jan. 26, 2008 @ 15:58:21
Good point!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
strangeways
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 11:38:27
Way out of line, I agree. Cheeky buggers.
Mind you, my last posts have attracted ads for houseplants. Wtf is that about? How boring must my life be?-
-
pollygarter
- Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008 @ 23:58:05
well I do write about mundane pleasures to give realistic pic of modern mistress-dom, but no ads for houseplants yet - I must be racier than I thought!
-
-
It's beyond a joke isn't it... there must be a way of stopping it.