Mobile App Pics

Thanks for the explanation Wayne.

~Allen

Wayne:

That seems reasonable as well as logical. The confusion for me is, if the new app is only an alternative for the browser we’re using, and if the only ones having access are the same group/members now using the site...why the need to revamp the default photos?

I understand that the photos do not currently meet the google (et.el.) guidelines, but again, if only members have access to the photos, then how would google know the difference has been achieved?

Not arguing at all, just confused.

Tramp

<p>"On a serious note, what if we want to opt out of the app. With these ridiculous restrictions we don&rsquo;t intend to ever get the app and would prefer not to have our profile and pics available on it."</p>

<p>There is nothing to opt out of. Right now, you use a piece of software to access our website. A browser such as Chrome, Safari, Firefox, IE, etc... Our app is simply a customized piece of software to access our site. You still must login to your profile. We are not going "mainstream". The app has nothing to do with who we market the site to. The people using the app will be the same people who have been accessing the site with a browser. The app is designed to make it easier to use the site from a mobile device. Many of our members now ONLY have cell phones. If you do not want to use that app, don't use the app. Continue to use a browser.</p>

SOTW - Thanks for the clarification. It's what we suspected but good to have confirmation.

Like Peanut Butter we spread ourselves around to a few other swinging sites. When some of the other sites started bending to big tech (as RonKathy stated), there was a massive influx of individuals who assumed wives were here to fuck anything with a dick. Good for the site owners ($$$) but a diminished experience for some.....but not all.

At this early blush it feels like we suspect FB actually is. We only suspect because we've never signed up for FB.

As long as there is no fire burning in the fire place

Wouldn't a Family portrait with Grandma, Grandpa, mom, dad the kids and their dog sitting by a fireplace adhere to the mobile app standards as described below?

On a serious note, what if we want to opt out of the app. With these ridiculous restrictions we don’t intend to ever get the app and would prefer not to have our profile and pics available on it.

Can you maybe make it possible to make our profile closed to app users like we can with Free members?

I know you don’t like to leave anyone out. After all you forced us to all accept annoying IMs now but maybe make an exception.

~rabbit~

What exactly is “excessive kissing”?

If someone takes a picture of us kissing we will be kissing forever in that picture. Would that be considered excessive kissing? What if there’s no tongue?

~rabbit~

RonKathy, I agree with you completely. I have been in law enforcement for over 30 years and was skeptical about joining a swinger site to begin with a while ago but a friend at a local club talked me into it. When I was a member previously I did have a picture up but now do not and as you said FB is not a safe place.

Free members can see your public photos and text. They can not be given access to any private pic folders and can not read, reply to, or send emails. They also can not read or participate in the forums so they most likely don't know what they can or can not do.

I'm sure it's out there somewhere, I looked but could not locate it. With SLS going mainstream and attracting potentially more lookers than swingers, exactly what can a free member see on individual profiles? I'd bet some of the forum experts could throw up a list.

Yes we all give up a degree of privacy when we post pictures. However from our perspective we have no problem sacrificing a degree of privacy for people who are truly in the lifestyle. On the other hand I prefer my horny neighbor NOT be able to connect a few dots and realize we sleep with other people.

Little help please.......

I’m curious as to how long it will be before we’re notified that our profiles need to be rewritten as well.

While we’re talking about percentages, I’m pretty sure that this whole move is somewhere around the number of 100% in terms of membership disagreement...but, I’m just guessing.

Tramp

Wayne,

Just read the criteria you listed below. With absolute seriousness, are you kidding? No headless pictures or pictures from behind? This is an adult site dealing with the lifestyle. You know, the lifestyle where virtually everyone with a remotely sensitive job or even slightly uptight family, and/or who lives outside of a huge metropolitan area is closeted? There is absolutely no way that I'm going to put my face in a public pic on here and I can pretty much assure you that I'm not alone. Why have photos at all? Why not emojis or avatars?

" If SLS already knows what is and what is not child safe, given the fact we are being scored on it they must, what is the point of this?"

You are scored based on being in a group of people rating the picture and whether you are odd man out.

FWIW: Mrs. 888 wants to go gumby and get rid of even our private photos. We don't have much time together on weekends each month and especially her bringing up privacy concerns with the app, so we will probably just do socials, house parties and events, not worrying about people seeing us for 2v2 outings or even having much literature content to our profile.

~Allen

Everything Wayne just said does not match what the rating system asked for originally. That was the first time I heard of the headless torso criteria.

<p>Context is key and it is the overall spirit of the picture. A woman on a beach in a bikini is probably child safe. The same woman in the same bikini laying on bed is probably not child safe. This is not an exact science.</p>

<p>A clothing app showing a headless man in a suit could be assumed to be promoting the suit. The same picture on a swinger app could be assumed to be promoting the person's body for sexual attraction. It's the context and spirit. And we are also going to err on the side of caution.</p>

For anyone keeping track

Yesterday Tec Support said that you could blur out your faces.

Wayne just said " No photos taken from behind where the person's Faces isn't Visible"

We never saw a percentage, we were just booted from rating pics.

And how absurd that "no cleavage" is a criteria when FB allows low cut dresses on their MUCH larger app.

Seems SLS is just making shit up as they go, as usual.

~Scamp

QUICK.... Someone write this shit down before they delete it like Tec Support did yesterday in the Website/profile pic thread.....

<p>We are in the process of re-classifying all public pictures for the app due to the restrictions placed on us by Google and Apple. If you want to upload a "G" rated picture and make it your default, you can. A "G" rated picture would be one that is totally non sexual. Here are the guidelines:</p>

<p>Picture cannot be Headless<br />
No Photo taken from behind, where the person's face isn't visible, only the back of their head is visible<br />
No excessive kissing<br />
No suggestive poses (either sexual and/or fetish)<br />
No Grabbing and/or touching any sexual area of the body by either self or someone else<br />
No closeup and/or &ldquo;cropped&rdquo; photos of the torso at all<br />
No suggestive poses either clothed, in underwear and/or bathing suits (i.e. spread eagle, straddling an object, etc.)<br />
For females: no excessive cleavage at all.<br />
For males, no exposure to the penis and/or visible area displaying the penis or an outline of the penis</p>

#1: In our experience.. 66% is not too low

#2: After we were alerted we were at 66%. We opted out of this program.

#3 please see thread under Website titled Profile pics for further comments

• What we THOUGHT we ranked correctly, that is. Typo

Anyone else struggling with this?

A few things we are curious about...
1 - Anyone else feel there really needs to be better examples of what is child safe and what is not child safe? Our percentage of what we ranked correctly keeps going down.
2 - If SLS already knows what is and what is not child safe, given the fact we are being scored on it they must, what is the point of this?
3 - "If this drops to low, your access to this feature will be removed" What is too low?
4 - Does selecting "unsure" affect the percentage? We select unsure quite a bit, but our percent keeps going down.