February 17, 2005

12:02 PM

Are there, or should there be, rules governing the materials (specifically photos) on user pages? I ask because at least one user page I stumbled upon today would be considered NSFW at my place of employment, and I was at work at the time. If not rules, perhaps a way for users to mark their own user pages as NSFW?
posted by terrapin to etiquette/policy at 12:02 PM (39 comments total)

Paging mkultra...
posted by mcgraw at 12:05 PM on February 17, 2005

I remember when there were Suicide Girls on that page!
posted by jessamyn at 12:06 PM on February 17, 2005

would be considered NSFW at my place of employment
Huh, which one?
posted by thomcatspike at 12:10 PM on February 17, 2005

Yep. Me too, jessamyn. It was about 5 minutes ago when I opened it at work.

BTW, I would have contacted mcgraw off-site in email if there had been a way to do so.
posted by terrapin at 12:10 PM on February 17, 2005

I remember girly photos just from this morning!
posted by idest at 12:11 PM on February 17, 2005

That's not safe for work? Those are religious icons. If I got fired for viewing that, I'd sue the pants off my employer for restricting my religous freedom.
posted by loquacious at 12:11 PM on February 17, 2005

oh, i'm a bad chimp. i removed them.

here, i'll put them back so you can ban me.

<3 br> m
posted by mcgraw at 12:11 PM on February 17, 2005

thomcatspike: They were conveniently removed right after I posted.

My original question still stands. Dispite, mcgraw's childish responses, this was not a call-out. I seriously would like some clarification. I was reading mcgraw's most-recent FPP and clicked on the username, and was greeted with Suicide Girls dropping their panties. I can very easily decide not to click on questionable links OFF the site, but I don't believe I should have to worry about links ON the site.
posted by terrapin at 12:14 PM on February 17, 2005

DO NOT CLICK: It's a picture of an old naked man eating dead babies!

...and "freedom of expression" and all that whiny crap, but I think mcgraw's images are posted irresponsibly. It's common netiquette to label NSFW images, and s/he flaunts that prime consideration.
posted by naxosaxur at 12:16 PM on February 17, 2005

terrapin, i didn't mean any harm. i just jokingly goaded mk (who is a personal friend, btw) here.

you are right that those images shouldn't be there.

i'll remove them whenever it's best to do so. for the purpose of this discussion, i guess they should remain for a few hours.
posted by mcgraw at 12:20 PM on February 17, 2005

Metafilter: Get greeted with Suicide Girls dropping their panties.
posted by jefbla at 12:22 PM on February 17, 2005

mcgraw, would you like me to fix that FPP typo for you?
posted by jessamyn at 12:24 PM on February 17, 2005

saucy!

That's very big of you mcgraw. Now who are we gonna burn? Hmm? *looks at pitchfork and sighs*
posted by dabitch at 12:25 PM on February 17, 2005

Sure, jessamyn! You are exceptional!

Also, is there any way you could allow me to link to more than 100 contacts? I'd like to add some new friends.

Thanks!
posted by mcgraw at 12:27 PM on February 17, 2005

for the purpose of this discussion, i guess they should remain for a few hours.

Deleted comments go into the ether, regardless of how the removal may confuse the discussion. Why should this be different? (Yes, I want a pony.)
posted by danOstuporStar at 12:27 PM on February 17, 2005

From mcgraw's user page, 14 MetaFilter user(s) link to this user. Up from 10 about 20 minutes ago.
posted by geekyguy at 12:28 PM on February 17, 2005

Please take them down now, attention whore. Why get more people in trouble at work than already possible? Seriously, this is really lame.
posted by naxosaxur at 12:31 PM on February 17, 2005

well...she *is* very pretty....

(getting my coat and leaving....)
posted by TeamBilly at 12:31 PM on February 17, 2005

you had me at "attention whore" naxosaxur.

you had me at "attention whore".

they're down.
posted by mcgraw at 12:33 PM on February 17, 2005

FPP fixed.

allow me to link to more than 100 contacts?

That's a mathowie pony-request there. I think the reason the limit exists is because someone linked to, what was it, everyone all at once? I can't recall, but maybe as we all become friendlier we can up the limit.
posted by jessamyn at 12:34 PM on February 17, 2005

We're personal friends? And here I thought it was just about the sex...
posted by mkultra at 12:35 PM on February 17, 2005

The offending images may be indiscreetly viewed here and here.
posted by mcgraw at 12:39 PM on February 17, 2005

OK, new rule. No naked pictures allowed on user pages.

Unless of course, they are naked pictures of the user in question.
posted by jonmc at 12:39 PM on February 17, 2005

Note to self: Never check jonmc's user page. Never.
posted by graventy at 12:54 PM on February 17, 2005

*gasp!*
posted by me3dia at 1:20 PM on February 17, 2005

Boobies!

*scuttles away*
posted by deborah at 1:33 PM on February 17, 2005

Obligatory I'd hit it.
posted by tr33hggr at 2:00 PM on February 17, 2005

I think the original question should be addressed. personally I take a different view then terrapin, and belive if I click around any site there is a chance of unexpected nsfw content therefore I make sure my clicking is not public and blame only myself if the unexpected happens. But I understand the need of this basic question and it would be nice to have it settled one way or another.
posted by edgeways at 2:19 PM on February 17, 2005

NSFW? You really must be kidding me. Where do you work, bible camp?

Just so you know you're looking at White Tara, goddess of compassion; a divine bodhisattva whose origins are probably Himalayan.
posted by punkbitch at 2:35 PM on February 17, 2005

punkbitch, if you actually read the thread before posting, you'd not that there used to be some soft-porny SuicideGirls shots there, which was what the problem was.
posted by SoftRain at 3:00 PM on February 17, 2005

Man, McGraw is kicking all kinds of humility ass lately. Misposted a chatfilter question in MetaTalk? Apologized right away when the problem was pointed out, and not in the pseudo-apologetic style that seems to be in vogue. Linked NSFW pics in profile? Took them down when called out. People confused? Put them back in, just for the duration of the MeTa thread. Told that they should probably stay down, even if MeTa is discussing them, because others might look at profile before seeing this thread? Took them down again, and linked them separately in MeTa for anyone wanting to understand the hubbub.

This McGraw seems to be a very good thing.
posted by bugbread at 3:09 PM on February 17, 2005

This McGraw seems to be a very good thing.

Thumbs up -McGraw.
posted by Quartermass at 3:22 PM on February 17, 2005

He's quick on the draw.
posted by euphorb at 3:54 PM on February 17, 2005

Hey, fuckers, maybe you should be working at work, instead of browsing the internet. Totally your own fault for clicking on secret pornography. Jesus Christ.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 8:13 PM on February 17, 2005

Okay, someone needs to take a deep breath.
posted by Vidiot at 8:38 PM on February 17, 2005

I'm running out of extral strength advils.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 8:40 PM on February 17, 2005

I want to meet, fall mutually in love with, and have the babies of the first woman mcgraw links to. You know, in case she's reading metafilter.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:58 PM on February 17, 2005

and was greeted with Suicide Girls dropping their panties.

she's not taking 'em off. she's putting them on.
posted by juv3nal at 12:03 AM on February 18, 2005

EB, despite my deep-seated fear of you, I will glady battle for the acquaintance of any of these extraordinary ladies, to whom I already connect, because I cherish each and every one, sir.

*drops glove*

Thinkpiece
Jessamyn (til yesterday due to 100 contact limit. I assume jess knows I admire her anyway)
squirrel (?)
orange swan
taz
cunninglinguist
dejah420
anastasiav
raedyn
missbossy
selfmedicating
LunaticFringe

and agregoli –linked to until recently: I secretly adore her, but don’t tell!
posted by mcgraw at 8:39 AM on February 18, 2005