RE: Objectionable Content

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

If anyone has ANY idea how to get this stupid "Objectionable Content" flag removed from my blog, I'd be deeply grateful to hear about it. Apparently posting one famous album cover is enough to get your blog flagged. Weird - no one simply emailed me and asked me to remove the picture.

Apparently, if you "flagged" the blog, you can "unflag" it, so though flaggers are likely long gone, if you "flagged" it, could you please "unflag" it now? I'd be very grateful.

RP

45 comments:

Parshutr 6:23 AM  

Welcome to the world as it is, circa 2009. It just takes one bluenose pointing at you.
I got BANNED from POSTING on huffingtonpost.com because...I dunno, said that Bill Clinton's ego had helped George Bush get elected, something like that.
They don't tell you what the charges are, just the guilty verdict.

mac 7:25 AM  

What a sad, sad day... It's incredible to me that this is 2009 and a fuss is made over an old nude photograph. Keep your own standards, Rex!

ArtLvr 8:20 AM  

Cripes -- I thought it was an error at first... Wish I had a clue as to how to help get rid of the flag!

spdinny 8:35 AM  

Rex
It apperas the "Objectional Content" is handled on a case by case basis. Here's a link that may help you get it removed.

http://groups.google.com/group/blogger-help-howdoi/browse_thread/thread/18ef520a43d3933b/b6d5fb750d65ad97?lnk=gst&q&pli=1

Hope this helps. In the interim, perhaps an E-mail to the Cru mailing list alerting members to click on thru.

Steve

joho 8:43 AM  

Anybody who's been on your site will click on through. The flag could stop the uninitiated, though, so I sure hope you are successful in removing the dreaded warning.

Jim in Chicago 9:20 AM  

I too thought it was a mistake when I hit the warning this morning. Unbelievable, it could be a prude, and it could just as well have been done by someone you angered for some reason, or just someone who get's his jollies by doing mean things to people. It is indeed a strange, strange world.

Orange 9:29 AM  

I dunno. Lewd photographs of the unholy marriage of beets and chocolate are pretty objectionable.

the redanman 9:45 AM  

*(Objectionable material)*Alert:
Rex

Had you posted bound bodies being dismembered with a chainsaw, the flagging might not have occurred. But full *male* frontal nudity, what were you thinking man? Good God, this is America.

I've participated in golf blogs where built in censor programs have changed the USGA Open Championship venue in Southampton, Long Island "Shinnec*ck Hills" named after the American Native tribe to "Shinnethingey Hills". Seriously.

Personally I think it must be the clue fromthe other day's puzzle yielding the answer "sex".

(sarcasm wholly intentional)

Just carry on

Anonymous 10:02 AM  

I concur...being a daily visitor, the warning didn't slow me down for a second. The shock of it being there at all is a puzzle in its self..(two puzzles to solve today?)

Can this be the result from a single flag? Maybe one vote does make a difference after all..sadly so in this case.

chefbea 10:12 AM  

I got through with no trouble. Earlier this morning the message was there, Thanks to who ever for removing it.

@orange you are probably right - must have been the marriage of beets and chocolate

Jim in Chicago 10:33 AM  

@chefbea,

The warning is very much still there. I think you're not getting it since it only appears the first time you access a page during a certain time period or browser session. When I closed IE and restarted my machine it was back.

I can find the blog on the google blog search, but I have safe search off, that might make a difference.

Two Ponies 10:40 AM  

Wow, I read the most obscene comments imaginable posted on AOL news and those don't get flagged? I was not offended by the album cover at all if that was the blame. Don't let it get to you Rex. It will pass and didn't slow me down a bit. In fact, I clicked thru at lightning speed just to see what was going on.
As for today's puzzle...maybe if it had been French tickler and Spanish fly ? Nevermind.
A very strange puzzle today. I want to cry foul at 51A and 48D. Crossing two obscure (to me) opera clues on a Tuesday?
What's a ninon? And -iana? If I lived in Indiana would I collect Indians? When I saw all of the country named clues I thought it was going to be fun. I was wrong. Haole? Cmon.

nuzzle put 10:42 AM  

When i checked in a half hour ago, the warning was still there!

Welcome to 1984, again. Maybe i and other 'tin hats' are not so dotty as one can now see budding KGB, Vatican Inquisition and Hitleresque techniques of intimidation come to fore. Your picture of 'W' is closer to porn than that of John and Yoko. Oh! For a return to the day when one soul(?) couldn't throw the monkey wrench.

Michael B 10:49 AM  

Ah, transpose the first to letters of HAOLE and you have the term for an outside objector.

Certainly more challenging than normal, but your title, National Blank,in light of the bank bailout was inspired. Over at Ryan and Brian's blog there is an explanation of the Opera clues.

obertb 10:50 AM  

Ours is an adolescent culture. Not long ago I saw a large exhibit of photographs by Nan Goldin. At the entrance to some of the galleries she had posted a sign: "Children, warn your parents! Some nude content."

Rex, maybe you should do the same.

Anonymous 10:57 AM  

John Lennon is somewhere having a good chuckle about the fact that a photo that was subversive decades ago can still raise the prudes' blood pressure.

Rob 11:06 AM  

(I initially posted this on the discussion about today's puzzle, but it more appropriately belongs here, I think.)

I am a daily reader of this blog, and love it, and it has really helped expand and enhance my appreciation of the NYT crossword.

I also think the objectionable flag is ridiculous, and should be removed, and that if people don't like what they see, then click away and move on.

THAT SAID - I must admit I was surprised (not offended, just surprised) to see full frontal nudity - of any gender, in any format - placed on this blog without warning. Rex - in the past, when you post YouTube links that contain objectionable language (like the Bernie Mac posting last week), you warn people about it. So clearly you understand that some people may wish to read the blog but not be exposed to (what some may consider) objectionable content.

So, while I completely disagree with the person flagging the blog (presumably for the John/Yoko picture), I also think that - a little bit - Rex could have predicted and easily avoided this whole issue. Just saying.

Anonymous 11:08 AM  

11:08 - block still there if you log out and log back in ....

drat

Brendan Emmett Quigley 11:09 AM  

If you're flagged, man...

PIX 11:14 AM  

REX,
Pure insanity...politically correct bullshit out of control...shows Google isnt really such a good guy after all; they have the power now and will use it...if we have to move each one of your readers should object to one political blog site (the war is a lot more obscene than John Lennon nude) as an act of protest

renee in tucson 11:16 AM  

I thought I'd totally missed the naughty posting but just picked up that it was John and Yoko. Could there *be* a less erotic photo? In the universe?

Joho is right. Anyone who's been here before will snort (briefly, derisively)and click right through. Your friends know and love you, Rex.

Campesite 11:26 AM  

The internet is chock full of extremely nasty violent crap and this blog gets flagged?!?! Whatever.
Keep up the good work, this will pass.
Mark

Anonymous 11:30 AM  

@Michael B

HAOLE with the first 2 letters transposed gives you yesterday's NY Post cover describing A-Rod's steroids admission as making him a giant -HOLE.

Unfortunately, full frontal nudity is an automatic for some internet filters.

RT

chefbea 11:50 AM  

When I come to the blog via safari.. the message is not there. When I come here via firefox it is there. Why is that?

jubjub 12:02 PM  

In the long shot that it helps, I posted a comment about this to the Blogger Help Group:
http://groups.google.com/group/blogger-help-howdoi/browse_thread/thread/b3857f961f2b85c4#
Squeaky wheel, you know.

@chefbea, it is all about cookies. When you okay the site, Blogger puts a cookie on your computer storing this information. Safari and Firefox have their own cookies. You may have set up Firefox to delete cookies at certain times (I have cookies deleted whenever I close Firefox), or the cookie may have expired.

PuzzleGirl 12:03 PM  

Mmmmmmm, cookies.

Doug 12:25 PM  

Mmmmmm, full frontal nudity.

Real joke, this situation. I would look at the positives--Censorship ALWAYS increases demand!

Anonymous 12:52 PM  

In case anyone wondered what "ninon" was..i believe it was and may still be used as semi-sheer, but sturdy curtain material.

Anonymous 1:12 PM  

Email the blogger.com people... I'm sure this lunacy can be solved.

dave 1:27 PM  

Rex,

This is one of my favorite blogs, and I often visit it after doing the puzzle.

Re Wordpress, it is the *best* blogging platform, and one of the best examples of open-source software. It is very easy to use and rock-solid.

thanks,
dave
http://daveshields.worpdress.com

PodSquadHQ 1:42 PM  

the Blogger folks love you. fixed!

allan 1:44 PM  

I'm sure the warning has been removed. I visited the site via my mac earlier this afternoon, and there was no warning. I just tried through Internet Explorer (I use firefox as my main browser), and again no problem.

And I don't think the album cover had anything to do with it anyway. I think it was Will Shortz. He didn't like his picture, and many of us were very harsh towards him because of the duplication of themes for Sunday & Monday.

Anonymous 1:46 PM  

It is a complete disgrace that one uptight prude can cause a legitimate blog to be labeled as having objectionable content. Personally, I cant think of anything less erotic (or objectionable) than a naked John and Yoko.

I think in order to flag a blog, one or more of the following should occur:

A single flag should be insufficient. It should require a set number (say 10, 20), or better yet a minimum % of daily traffic.

Once that threshhold is met, an individual- or better yet a group- should actually view the "objectionable material and make a dtermination of fact. A decades old album cover hardley seems to qualify.

The offended should be required to conatct the blogger and request the material be removed. Only if it is not should the flag even be taken seriously. (Rex has made it clear that he would have removed it if he had known someones hyper-active sensabilities were violated).

No anonymous flags. If you have the nerve to flag a blog, then have the balls to be public about it and accountable for it.

Im so sick of this PC crap. OK everyone, stick your head out of the proverbial windown and join in unison by shouting "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!".

miamichris 1:48 PM  

sorry, i didn't mean to publish as anonymous

crosswordp 2:03 PM  

Who's messing with my Rex?
What nonsense. whomever did it, grow up! CrosswordP

Shamik 2:09 PM  

Well, it's not often one gets a surprise and the blockage was a surprise. Couldn't wait to see what the hullabaloo was all about. And it was about John and Yoko?!?!?!? I agree with reneeintucson...a less erotic nude picture couldn't be found.

Since I had no internet yesterday, it was great to see the pics from the Westport event. Thanks!

Puzzle today, agree with the 48down with the 47across and 51across. Phooey. But I did get it without a google. Just didn't like it. Call this one a medium-challenging.

Other mis-starts:
GOOSE for BACON
APTER for ABLER

PuzzleGirl 2:33 PM  

Just received this message over on the Blogger Help Discussion Board.

Hey folks,

Just wanted to let y'all know that the blog is now back up and running
as usual.

We appreciate your patience as we tracked down and turned the robot
responsible for the mis-classification into a lead paperweight :P

-Gatsby
The Blogger Team

Doc John 3:06 PM  

Remember, too, that this country is just beginning to recover from an administration that gave us an attorney general who couldn't bear the sight of the breasts of an old statue.

Crosscan 3:56 PM  

I hear they got the guy who did it - the mayor of Natick.

Jim in Chicago 5:32 PM  

I agree with the very early poster who thought it was the picture of chocolate and beets that promted the warning. I can't imagine anything more gross. Certainly not safe for the breakfast table!

mac 10:13 PM  

@Jim in Chicago: believe me, I tasted these babies, and they were good, tasted healthy, moist, not too sweet and sort of almondy. Safe for any table!

I think complaining about the showing of this very old record cover was incredibly politically incorrect.

Anonymous 11:33 PM  

The other day I was writing a review on Newegg (online computer and electronics store), and my review was automatically rejected. I like to describe my speaking and writing style as casually profane, so I checked the review over for any unintended vulgarities. Turns out the review wasn't allowed through because it contained the word "screwed" (as in, "The drive is screwed in by..."). These internets censors can be frustrating.

acme 11:38 PM  

well, just for the record (just for the album?) even John himself described the unflattering photo as a picture of "two slightly overweight ex-junkies".
It's true! You can read about it in "Skywriting By Word of Mouth"

Ggg 12:08 AM  

I spent a year living in Australia, and it is my understanding that neither the emu nor the kangaroo can move backwards - they can only go forwards. Hence they are used as symbols for Australia...

Janet 6:21 PM  

I've got your page marked as a favourite - love it for helping me get through the tougher one (which for me are anything after Monday!).

For 61A: Collector's suffix (Answer - iana) I think that it is referring to the suffix for Canadiana. I'm sure there must be another 'iana' example but I can't think of it right now. What do you think?

From a Canadian crossworder

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP