OneFora banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Sax On The Web
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
A member recently complained about this ad which was showing on our forum.

Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18 Show Content
6892


And another version:

6893


There were very mixed reactions as you might imagine. Many people were surprised, but of course VS terms do mention the site is only for users 18+

I personally have no objection to some adult content that is not offensive, but I'm not happy when it involves objectification of women especially as we want to encourage inclusivity.

So is this an infringement of VS advertising policy I wonder, or is it to be expected now?

EDIT: intersting, first image automatically got the NSFW spoiler, second one didn't.
 

·
Registered
DieselPlace
Joined
·
787 Posts
There's no frontal nudity and members have the ability to turn NSFW content on or off.. I personally do not see an issue with those pics
 

·
Registered
Sax On The Web
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
I personally do not see an issue with those pics
I have more of an issue with the first one, seems to be a lot more sexualised, hence objectification. Second one you might see on any onflight magazine maybe?

members have the ability to turn NSFW content on or off..
Only if it's a post.

These are ads and there is no way (or is there) to hide them behind an NSFW spoiler.

In this case the member was at work, and the ad suddenly popped up. You could argue he should not have been browsing internet forums at work!

EDIT: intersting, first image automatically got the NSFW spoiler, second one didn't.
I suppose the first image is actually topless, the second one has a bikini.
 

·
Registered
Yamaha Stryker Forum
Joined
·
12 Posts
I have to disagree, this is an exploitation of women. Just because some parts are not visible it entices the eyes of men ( how we are programmed from birth) and breeds lust. I may be wrong in the worlds eye but it’s wrong and shouldn’t be allowed.
 

·
Registered
DieselPlace
Joined
·
787 Posts
I have to disagree, this is an exploitation of women. Just because some parts are not visible it entices the eyes of men ( how we are programmed from birth) and breeds lust. I may be wrong in the worlds eye but it’s wrong and shouldn’t be allowed.
That is the long-standing way advertisers sell things... aka nature of the beast..
Sex sells. In one form or another, a female in a sexy pose or clothing will sell you something..

from Cigarette ads in the 40 & 50's
Beer and food sales in the 70's & 80's

Today's cancel culture has slowed some of it down but there are still ads out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
And bikini girls not only in car ads but in the "older" days, at car shows. We haven't had any complaints (yet) although I did question ads on THIS site (before we were given "sunglasses" to block all ads) (y)

Yes those ads showed up on onefora 😉
 

·
Administrator
OneFora Sherpa
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
We are having an ongoing discussion with Ad team to work on blocking the current spammy pop-up redirects on mobile.

However, sometimes bad ads still get through and members should be able to click on them and report them. This looks to be a one-off issue at this time as not seeing widespread reports of anything like this.

Also could be related to the users browsing history. :sneaky:

Jeff
 

·
Registered
DieselPlace
Joined
·
787 Posts
And bikini girls not only in car ads but in the "older" days, at car shows. We haven't had any complaints (yet) although I did question ads on THIS site (before we were given "sunglasses" to block all ads) (y)

Yes those ads showed up on onefora 😉
A perfect example: Snap-On or Mac tool girl calendars from back in the day...o_O
 

·
Registered
Sax On The Web
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Whatever anyone thinks (and I know there will be mixed opinions) is it not ironic that when I paste the image into the post, it gets flagged as NSFW, and yet there it is right in your face when it's an ad?

Also could be related to the users browsing history.
They will deny it forever. And in our case they are denying it. This linked site though, in the example above, isn't really a porn site or anything adult seems like celebrity crap news and clickbait though.

I am doing a bit of testing, and visiting some sexy lingerie sites to see what happens. Purely in the interests of valid research you understand. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
I am doing a bit of testing, and visiting some sexy lingerie sites to see what happens. Purely in the interests of valid research you understand. :)
And I know a guy in Florida who has some land he might want to sell to you 🤣🤣
 

·
Staff
VerticalScope
Joined
·
562 Posts
Members do have the option to decide if they want to view questionable images within their preferences.
6894

That being said, if there are forum sections I prefer that those types of forum sections are behind the login.

- Cricket
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick Phillips

·
Staff
VerticalScope
Joined
·
562 Posts
Forgive me, I missed the fact it is an ad. My brain is a bit slow today. ;)

Most of the time ads are based on search history and the sites you are visiting. You can always report a problem ad to the team so that we can try to get it blocked.

- Cricket
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
My first impression when I see these is that the site apparently has no better ads to show than these bottom of the barrel ones, and that it is likely that the site's content is accordingly.
 

·
Registered
Sax On The Web
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
My first impression when I see these is that the site apparently has no better ads to show than these bottom of the barrel ones, and that it is likely that the site's content is accordingly.
In this case I don’t think it is appropriate to blame the site, it is very focussed on the topic. And the topic is not sexualised images of women.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
^ apologies for the misunderstanding, my remark was generally aimed at sites showing trash ads, not specifically your sax site. :)
 

·
Registered
DieselPlace
Joined
·
787 Posts
My first impression when I see these is that the site apparently has no better ads to show than these bottom of the barrel ones, and that it is likely that the site's content is accordingly.
As Jeff mentions...
Also could be related to the users browsing history. :sneaky:
^^ This has a lot to do with ads that show up..
Tracking cookies monitor what you view and what interests you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
I guess the official policy is to screw ad quality control, show ads that don't pass the post content filter, and just blame the wanker.
 

·
Administrator
GTR
Joined
·
320 Posts
It also depends on if you have allowed cookies/data sharing etc. If the site knows who you are and what you like, you'll be served relevant ads.

But if you are incognito or blocking access then you'll be served random, often much lower quality ads. If Google has approved the ad then you'll see it. Your best best is to get users to report the ads and encourage others to do the same as this will get them flagged at googles end and potentially blocked.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top