quote:

Strange but least explains why pics went.

Hi Oumae,

Well, no, it doesn't quite explain why Your pics went. You had TWO pics ... presumably in the first two photo slots - the main slot (which must meet the criteria chris described) and the second slot. Even if someone at CM later decided that the photo in the main slot failed to meet the criteria after all (and removed it) that should NOT have affected Your #2 photo. OTOH, it may not be possible to have additional photos (upto 14) without first having an approved main one ... and so, if this is true, the second photo may have been pulled because You now no longer had an approved main photo!

If Your photo is refused as part of the initial photo approval process, You will receive an email (containing the rejected photo - so You know which one CM is rejecting if You uploaded multiple photos) informing You of that fact, just as You do for the photos that are initially accepted by CM. But if a photo that You have successfully uploaded and had accepted is later reviewed by CM (sissy has no idea why or how frequently CM does this) and found to have been accepted in error, it will be pulled, but you will NOT be notified via email that CM has done this ... at least that it is how it has worked in sissy's experience. Why CM doesn't notify the user in this situation is unclear to sissy.

Finally, when a photo is initially rejected, You are only informed in the rejecting email via one of a number of possible canned messages that it violated one or more of the acceptable photo criteria ... but NOT exactly which one(s) of those criteria that it violated. For instance, you will be informed if your photo was rejected for format violation reasons or for content violation reasons. But usually the exact format violation(s) or the exact content violation(s) will not be specifically spelt out, but rather all of the most frequent reasons for format or content violations will be listed, and it is left to the user to determine which one(s) apply(ies) to their own situation. In many cases the reason(s) for rejection is (are) obvious, but there are still lots of other situations where it is far from clear which of the listed criteria actually apply.

sissy Assumes the rejection process works that way in order to simplify matters for the reviewers. If a photo is a blurry badly-cropped sideways-oriented picture of someone's genitalia then the reviewers need only check a box that identifies either content and/or format as the reason for rejection, and it is left to the user to read all the reasons listed in the canned rejection message to determine for himself exactly how many criteria their photo has violated. In the preceding exaggerated hypothetical example, the user could decide that his/her photo was simply incorrectly oriented, and resubmit a blurry badly-cropped picture of genitalia.

OTOH, if there is only one thing wrong with the photo (e.g., it is considered badly-cropped by the reviewer because the head has been lopped off) while the user has no inkling that they have violated this particular criterion (because they have seen dozens of other CM member photos where not only the head has been cropped off, but everything above the knees as well) then the user is going to be totally baffled by the generic rejection message, and will frequently assume that there is something wrong with the picture that is perfectly satisfactory (e.g., maybe the photo is too blurry?).

sissy Also suspects that many CM members might simply resubmit a rejected photo on the basis that it was unfairly rejected by a particularly uptight reviewer the first time, but that it might be approved by a more lenient reviewer the next time around. And that strategy definitely does work! IsHO, CM could possibly save itself a lot of such redundant photo submittals (all of which require human approval) if it did a better job of clearly identifying why a photo was rejected in the first place!

Respectfrilly Yours,

sissy maid lola




< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 5/14/2005 3:39:25 PM >

_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to Oumae)

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

I believe the rules are that your primary picture must show a significant portion of your body, (and not be a genital shot).

The secondary photos can show closeups of (non-genital) parts such as an arm or a leg.

quote:

my last pic before the one that is up got rejected because the face was too fuzzy (exactly as I wanted for slight anonymity), oh well; I opted for the head cut off pose, lol, they seemed to like that fine. M

Just curious, Madame M, but how do You know CM rejected the photo because it was too fuzzy? That is not a criterion for rejection as far as sissy understands the TOS. Did CM specifically state that in the rejection email, Madame? The frustrating thing here is that sissy always deletes those kind of emails as soon as he has read them and so can only rely on his memory of what those messages contain ... and his memory is not very reliable (or, at least, not as reliable as being able to pull up an old rejection email and actually verifying what it does and does not say). As far as sissy can remember, CM doesn't get into the specifics of why they are rejecting a photo but instead leaves that for the user to work out (but he may be wrong on that and hopefully someone will post a correction here).

Could it be that CM rejected the first photo (for whatever reason) and that You simply assumed that it was because it was fuzzy? The photo acceptance criteria (as stated on the actual profile editing screen) are as follows:

- No commercial photos or artwork - Only pictures you took yourself
- No extreme or vulgar pictures
- No objects or places for your primary photo
- Persons who appear underage will be asked to furnish proof of age

As can be seen, although somewhat vague, CM's policy on photos is pretty much driven by good taste and legal criteria ... and fuzzy doesn't seem to fit either of those. The only criterion that is additional to the taste and legal protection criteria listed above is the one that states that Your main photo must be at least a full face or full bodied shot of you (and not, for example, a close up of your elbow or a picture of your graduation class from high school) and not just a photo without someone in it (e.g., a picture of the apple tree in your backyard). This is because everyone on CM realizes that you get a lot more search hits on your profile from others if it is identified as containing a photo, and all those types of photos permit people to meet that criterion without giving any real visual clues to their actual physical appearance. If sissy honed his search for a Domme to only those that had photos in Their profiles, he would feel pretty miffed when he started to go through his search results to only find pictures of the Mona Lisa, Popeye, the Statue of Liberty, somebody's kneecap, or a close-up of a cactus in someone's backyard.

IsHO, a fuzzy picture falls into the same category as pictures of CM members with their eyes blacked out, or their faces made fuzzy using a photo editing tool, or a happy face hiding their real face, or (as You Yourself finally opted to do instead) with their head or facial features chopped off the photo. All those are legitimate main photos. The standards for additional photos are somewhat lower than they are for that main photo ... they only have to meet the legal criteria. sissy Believes that You are permitted to include a picture of just your red Corvette, or the bromeliad on your patio windowsill, or your favorite cat-o-nine tails, etc. as a subsequent photo. But there is still a big grey area as to whether something is of You or about You versus being a proprietary rip off. Is that artwork photo something that You or Your slave created, or is it something that You downloaded from the Tate Gallery's web site that the reviewer is unfamiliar with. If the latter, it may still be in the public domain rather than proprietary. Some CM reviewers (sissy isn't sure if they are the same people as the moderators) will nix the photo to be on the safe side, while another reviewer might simply say "what the heck" and allow it.

However, as chris pointed out, there are some CM members that have artwork or cartoons for their main photos. It is not clear what is going on here other than human error ... presumably after reviewing thousands of photos someone is prone to hit "accept" rather than "reject." In Your own case, Madame M, they might have hit "reject" when they meant to hit "accept."

Respectfrilly Yours,

sissy maid lola




< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 5/13/2005 11:29:26 AM >

_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to BlkTallFullfig)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
Just curious, Madame M, but how do You know CM rejected the photo because it was too fuzzy? That is not a criterion for rejection as far as sissy understands the TOS. Did CM specifically state that in the rejection email, Madame?

quote:

I did mail them three days ago and still waiting on a reply but know they are busy and its hardly an emergency, tho' have had a few lament over missing the pics

sissy Hates to tell You this, Oumae, but You may never get a reply to Your email. Why don't You simply re-submit the photos again? ... they sound like they don't violate the TOS. The acceptance of photos is very subjective. It depends on who reviews them and what state of mind they in are in when they do it. If the reviewer had approved a bunch of photos prior to seeing Yours they might have felt it was time that they now rejected something. The inverse logic could lead to the same photos being accepted ... if the reviewer has just rejected a bunch of photos prior to seeing Yours they might think: "well these don't look too bad after what I've just been nixing" and approve them. It also depends on how each reviewer interprets the TOS guidelines regardless of their state of mind. What one reviewer might consider to be vulgar and in bad taste, or even pornographic, another may not.

A year ago there was no front-end review process for photos at CM ... it accepted whatever the user initially uploaded. But those photos were then reviewed in the background, and days - or sometimes even weeks - later, if someone subsequently decided a photo failed to meet the acceptance criteria, it would be pulled like Your photos were, without any notification to the user via email. This kind of background review process still seems to be in place at CM. About six months ago, possibly longer, an additional front-end review process was also added. Photos that are now newly uploaded or replaced are invisible to other CM members for up to 72 hours until they are approved or rejected (with email notification).

Even though Your photos have been rejected by both types of review process it still doesn't necessarily mean they fail the TOS guidelines - although, obviously, they are borderline. LA's main photo is very borderline based on chris' posted criterion that the primary picture must show a significant portion of Your body which sissy concurs with ... he has also seen that stated somewhere on CM, but it is NOT stated in the four bullets currently posted on the profile update screen (see sissy's post to BlkTallFullFig below). Many Dommes seem to get away with just pictures of Their legs and feet for Their main photo. At first glance this may seem reasonable, yet not every submissive is into foot worship, and sissy wouldn't similarly expect an enlarged picture of his calf or the back of his hand to be accepted as his main photo. OTOH, if it is OK to crop off Your head and feet (see BlkTallFullFig's main photo), where does one draw the line in this process? If it is OK to crop off everything above the neck, how about also everything above the stomach? ... and now everything above the groin? ... and now everything above the knees? If all that is OK, one is left with a photo that is only of the legs and feet.

But why should that be acceptable when a cartoon of Bugs Bunny isn't? It could be anybody's feet! Then again, Your own submitted full-bodied picture could be of Your sister-in-law and not You, so why bother with all these rules anyway? It is all very arbitrary. Unless Your pictures clearly violate copyright or are anything close to being vulgar or pornographic, sissy suggests that You simply re-submit them a couple of more times. What have You got to lose? Good luck.

Respectfrilly Yours,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to Oumae)

quote:

Gosh LadyAngelika...you are getting away with naked legs... mine are dressed! lol

quote:

Reason: The submitted photo has been rejected as invalid. This can be
due to the photo being improperly cropped, oriented sideways or upside
down, being too blurry, or being blank. Fundamentally, this photo has
been rejected because of formatting issues, not because of it's
content.

quote:

wouldn't you know it ... Today my fuzzy faced picture was acceptable, go figure.
EDITTED: Deleted same pic and placed it on profile again, Not approved this evening.

Sheesh, Madame M, You should learn to quit while You're ahead!

So, Madame, what are You really saying here ? That sissy might actually know what he's talking about ? <giggles> Sacre bleu!

Respectfrilly Yours,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to BlkTallFullfig)