Oh, Good. This Crap Again

Oh, Good. This Crap Again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

HandSolo -> Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 3:08:16 PM)
This may not be the appropriate venue for this, but here goes: I tried to put up an additional photo on my account, but accidentally replaced my main photo. So, I re-replaced the photo, and waithed the three days. Guess what? My photo is now deemed inappropriate. quote: The attached photo you recently submitted on collarme.com as your primary photo was not approved. Reason: The submitted photo has one or more formatting issues such as being improperly edited, cropped, or zoomed, containing an obtrusive logo, out of focus, or blank. The shot in question was a professional head and shoulders taken outside before a wedding. Look for yourself, and decide if the above paragraph is applicable. Wait, you can't. My profile has no photos now. Considering that about half the profile photos I've seen leave one with no idea what the subject actually looks like, I find this a bit much.

christine1 -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 5:01:50 PM)
hehe...welcome to the club, i did the same thing but eventually the accidental photo was accepted and that is what i have now as my avatar....shrugs. i don't know if i dare try to change it or not again though lol.

angelikaJ -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 5:05:26 PM)
re-submit it...

Raechard -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 5:09:14 PM)
There is a rule about not having places shown in your primary photo like for example I can't take a picture of myself outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. You might also want to check if anyone appears in the background. I'm thinking it's a location problem though.

kdsub -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 5:12:00 PM)
There truly does not seem to be rhyme or reason behind their screening process. It seems more like a whim then a rule. There are many main profile pictures with nudity or suggestive posing. But often no nudity at all and not even suggestive still gets turned down….. very puzzling and frustrating. It seems it is easier to submit a totally vanilla picture and get it approved then later switch with the one you want. Butch

PanthersMom -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 5:12:35 PM)
seems that some people are arbitrarily rejecting photos without actually looking at them, sort of " accept....accept....reject....accept" and so on. some of the photos i've seen are really something, you wonder how they got approved. PM

Aneirin -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 5:29:24 PM)
What was it, in the photo guidance rules, no reference to bondage? Now, how many pics have I seen with someone wearing handcuffs, and a friend was rejected because they had a riding crop in the photograph. Later resubmitted and it was accepted. I have had a perfectly good picture uploaded only to be rejected because it was blurred. The picture that was sent back was blurred, massively so, looked like it had been put behind a gaussian filter. It had no blur on the picture at all on sending. I resubmitted the same blurred picture and it was accepted and it came out clear- weird! I am a firm believer that if rules exist, then they are for all to follow.

bleusparkles -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 5:35:59 PM)
Probably its just that there are several people doing the photo approvals. Some of them are more strict than others. And its possible that some of them don't want "unattractive" people to have their pics up and some are just like ... Hey, everybody's beautiful ... In their own way. :)

Estring -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 5:39:14 PM)
It could just be that Collarme is run by sadists.[;)]

girlygurl -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 6:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HandSolo The shot in question was a professional head and shoulders taken outside before a wedding. Look for yourself, and decide if the above paragraph is applicable. Wait, you can't. My profile has no photos now. Considering that about half the profile photos I've seen leave one with no idea what the subject actually looks like, I find this a bit much. I'm not sure but.... maybe it didn't get the OK because it was professional? The photos we submit have to be ones that we've taken ourselves or in my case my Sir took. Just a thought. I understand the frustration, but don't give up [;)] just submit another photo. girly

HandSolo -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 6:46:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard There is a rule about not having places shown in your primary photo like for example I can't take a picture of myself outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. You might also want to check if anyone appears in the background. I'm thinking it's a location problem though. Nope, the background is far back, and out-of-focus. There is a stone/brick wall, and a smudge of something leafy. No people, animals, or even silouettes. Check it out. http://s252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/ermghoti/?action=view&current=me.jpg

HandSolo -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 6:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: girlygurl don't give up [;)] just submit another photo. girly Meh. I do appreciate the words of encouragement, but it's not like this place needs another msub. I've been teetering on wiping the profile clean and just using it to reply to the occasional forum thread.

kc692 -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/23/2008 9:00:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HandSolo quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard There is a rule about not having places shown in your primary photo like for example I can't take a picture of myself outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. You might also want to check if anyone appears in the background. I'm thinking it's a location problem though. Nope, the background is far back, and out-of-focus. There is a stone/brick wall, and a smudge of something leafy. No people, animals, or even silouettes. Check it out. http://s252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/ermghoti/?action=view&current=me.jpg No offense, I have a hard time believing that was the picture. Sorry, but that picture would not have been rejected on any planet on any site, for anything wrong with it.

Raechard -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/24/2008 6:43:56 AM)
It might be that the subject isn't looking directly into the camera so it questions the fact as to if the subject knows his picture is being taken. Obviously you know it's you but someone reviewing pictures has no idea what you look like. There is a rule about the picture having to have been taken by yourself. Unless you set the timer function ran off down the field and looked away from the camera it is unlikely you took that picture. If you had sent more than one photo for approval at the time it may have been approved, who knows. I think it is important that if you send one photo the photo clearly shows the subject is aware of the picture being taken. This opinion is only based on the fact when people have posted images of themselves here in the past and asked what is wrong with the image the subject nine times out of ten isn't looking into the camera. Having said all that I have also seen a naked woman laying on her back with her eyes closed used as a primary photo on a male profile, so who knows.[8\|]

HandSolo -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/24/2008 5:25:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kc692 quote: ORIGINAL: HandSolo quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard There is a rule about not having places shown in your primary photo like for example I can't take a picture of myself outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. You might also want to check if anyone appears in the background. I'm thinking it's a location problem though. Nope, the background is far back, and out-of-focus. There is a stone/brick wall, and a smudge of something leafy. No people, animals, or even silouettes. Check it out. http://s252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/ermghoti/?action=view&current=me.jpg No offense, I have a hard time believing that was the picture. Sorry, but that picture would not have been rejected on any planet on any site, for anything wrong with it. Screencap: http://s252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/ermghoti/?action=view&current=untitled.jpg I find it a bit difficult to grasp, myself.

kc692 -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/24/2008 7:40:42 PM)
You should resubmit, and I will admit standing corrected, there definitely was a hiccup on that photo. edited to add: humans do sometimes hit the wrong button by accident, and systems hiccup

YourhandMyAss -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/24/2008 7:46:48 PM)
I think they ment localtions only, not you at the location. either way picture approval is pretty wonly sometimes. quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard There is a rule about not having places shown in your primary photo like for example I can't take a picture of myself outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. You might also want to check if anyone appears in the background. I'm thinking it's a location problem though.

HandSolo -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/25/2008 2:35:25 PM)
I'm not sure, but I seem to have a valid photo now, can anybody confirm this?

kc692 -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/25/2008 2:38:39 PM)
I see photos on your profile.

Smith117 -> RE: Oh, Good. This Crap Again (2/25/2008 2:44:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HandSolo This may not be the appropriate venue for this, but here goes: I tried to put up an additional photo on my account, but accidentally replaced my main photo. So, I re-replaced the photo, and waithed the three days. Guess what? My photo is now deemed inappropriate. quote: The attached photo you recently submitted on collarme.com as your primary photo was not approved. Reason: The submitted photo has one or more formatting issues such as being improperly edited, cropped, or zoomed, containing an obtrusive logo, out of focus, or blank. The shot in question was a professional head and shoulders taken outside before a wedding. Look for yourself, and decide if the above paragraph is applicable. Wait, you can't. My profile has no photos now. Considering that about half the profile photos I've seen leave one with no idea what the subject actually looks like, I find this a bit much. Oh yes, they are quite arbitrary with the photo rules. I submitted some that was my face, with some photoshop work done to make it look like a painting -- denied. I knew someone who just wanted a pic of her eyes on there -- denied. Their reason "must show a complete face" or something like that. Funny, I've seen profile pics with someone wearnig a full face mask and those are "ok" but not just an eye pic? Weak. Really really weak. So....no pics on my profile. I refuse to be indiscreet to bow to photo 'rules.' Anyone wants my pic, they can ask. Cuts way down on troll e-mails anyway.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875