I hate Vimeo

Youtube = showing my work to the masses no matter if its a funny comedy sketch I made in a night with a bunch of friends or something I spent weeks on professionally making.

Vimeo = Only for the best of the best of my work to show clients and get constructive criticism from viewers.

That's at least how I use it.
 
Gay porn as art???? LMAO porn is porn!

I thought Vimeo upheld a higher standard than youtube. Goodbye Vomiteo. What happened to exposure room? Youtube has come A LONG way in the past couple of years. I'm ok with using that from here on out.

I'm glad DVX user doesn't feel the need to drop standards to appear PC.
 
Ya, just look at those quality Youtube standards...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Voowov0VyWU

And of course, that is one of hundreds of thousands of similar videos. All in crappy SD too, which is the real offense.
You guys saw a couple pornographic videos on Vimeo you didn't appreciate? Oh no! I guess you better stop using the entire internet then. :badputer:

The fact remains that Vimeo has consistently higher quality content, a better player, and a far better community that caters to the filmmakers rather than the masses. It is the only serious competitor to Youtube as well.
 
Gary Huff said:
That means nothing actually, unless you think all nudity is porn. And if you do, you have problems.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this thing lead to the same thread that got locked awhile back?

I would choose Vimeo over Youtube any day, since my clip with a 'nonsexual naked female breast' has not been pulled from Vimeo as it was from Youtube, because of the nitwits that seem to 'manage' the site, and the nitwits who demand that the site be sanitized to their level of comfort.

I'm not talking about 'porn', or even mildly erotic... in fact I think I could make a case that Youtube, while taking down every single 'naked female boob' on the site, has far more 'objectionable' clips that contain women in lingerie, if one is worried about The Kiddies running into 'sexually charged content'... than I've ever seen on the 'feeds' section of my Vimeo page... and since that Other Thread, I've actually looked.

If I were creating content to 'sell', probably Youtube would be a better choice, since it has far higher hits than Vimeo, which only proves in my mind Viewers (for some value of that term) are probably far more interested in crappy content than quality anyway, so long as it doesn't contain a 'naked human being'...

And yes, I'll use the term nitwit because I'm pretty tired of people using the term 'gay porn' as something objectionable, when in my mind there's no difference between a naked woman, or a 'lingerie' clothed woman prancing about, relative to the morality that strongly associates 'sexual display' with 'objectionable', and these displays of women are overlooked, and the 'gay porn' used as some sort of tallywhacker to beat others into some sort of agreement.
 
So what if someone does think all nudity is porn. Its their right to believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Pointing out that they have a problem is absurd.
 
Mark Williams said:
So what if someone does think all nudity is porn. Its their right to believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Pointing out that they have a problem is absurd.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between expressing an opinion, and demanding that all conform to one's one particular narrow standard.

If Vimeo is 'unaccepted' the response should be Site X has those controls which limit or eliminate the unacceptable content. (In the case of Vimeo, there have been several suggestions on how someone can limit content from their 'home' page if they so desire.).

Back in the olden days Prodigy was a pre-internet 'service' that had quite a bit of content control. I cancelled the Daughter's subscription because not only did they 'eliminate certain types of content' they also eliminated far more than that. I then 'taught' the Daughter how to respond to inappropriate content and advances while 'surfing'.

I don't know why that is such a novel concept for some people to hold onto...
 
Mark Williams said:
Its their right to believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Click to expand...

Of course it's their right to believe that, just as it's my right to point out that if they believe all nudity is pornography that perhaps they'd best be served by seeking out a good therapist to work through their emotional issues regarding sex.

I'm just trying to be helpful.
 
a lot of times you see short horror films with gore for the sake of gore, and not that many people complain. most people have a lot of prejudice to many subjects or unbalanced views. i don't think you should lump everything to a strict set of rules, but you can judge on a case by case basis. if a big percentage of vimeo members saw exploitation of any kind that they think is not appropriate, a simple system of warning, hiding from public search, or related videos, open minded reviews/moderation of reported videos could be a way to solve the problem.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
a lot of times you see short horror films with gore for the sake of gore, and not that many people complain. most people have a lot of prejudice to many subjects or unbalanced views. i don't think you should lump everything to a strict set of rules, but you can judge on a case by case basis. if a big percentage of vimeo members saw exploitation of any kind that they think is not appropriate, a simple system of warning, hiding from public search, or related videos, open minded reviews/moderation of reported videos could be a way to solve the problem.
Click to expand...

From the postings of others it would appear 1) a clip was uploaded to Vimeo some time ago, which was mentioned in another thread, which was reported to be a nude male in a sexually aroused state. Since I did not see this clip, I'm only reporting what I recall from the postings here. 2) Since then, based on a rather haphazard pattern, and totally anecdotal, I have not seen much if any 'nude males in a sexually aroused state' on my 'feeds' on my Vimeo home page. 3) It was reported in the other thread that the clip in question was in fact taken down.

What one can conclude is... Vimeo does have some set of posting standards. The enforcement may or may not be adequate, given that the site allows many users who pay nothing for the site, to enforce any standards. Further, that some set of 'reports' will result in action for material someone or some group of people find objectionable. I suspect in some cases it may take more than one viewer complaining.

One element of this thread is the claim that 'gay porn is not art'. Of course, some people have the idea that no sexually explicit material is 'art', so therefore, as a subset of 'sexually explicit', that is 'gay porn', it therefore can not be art.

I don't share that opinion, therefore I can accept that someone would class 'gay porn' as art, and their creation to be a work of art. Whether I find the work to be interesting to me, is a different question than the classification of 'art'. I don't happen to 'like' a lot of 'modern art'... but I would not class it as 'not art', just because I happen not to like or appreciate it.

A few decads ago now, a certain photographer whose pretty pictures of floral arrangements, as well as some portraiture of some famous people..., shocked the world by an exhibition of his photographs of the SM/BD side of the gay world. Maplethorpe's 1989 'tour' of the art world with his works, caused massive negative criticism from the moral right, however, The Art World accepted his works as ART.

23 years later we still have the same battles going on.
 
if the response time is the whole problem, a simple fine tuning to the system by adding a

if ( number_of_reports > 5 ) { hide_video(); }

until the video is reviewed by vimeo. a simple request to vimeo from more than one member can convince them. they seem open minded to reports, at least to a point. if only one person reported the video, and they did not react. it's understandable given that we did not watch the video to know how offensive and how much exploitation there was. and if they reacted after many complaints, that would indicate that they actually do listen.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
if the response time is the whole problem, a simple fine tuning to the system by adding a

if ( number_of_reports > 5 ) { hide_video(); }

until the video is reviewed by vimeo. a simple request to vimeo from more than one member can convince them. they seem open minded to reports, at least to a point. if only one person reported the video, and they did not react. it's understandable given that we did not watch the video to know how offensive and how much exploitation there was. and if they reacted after many complaints, that would indicate that they actually do listen.
Click to expand...

The 'problem' there, is a variation of the 'denial of service' attack... one person, who finds something offensive could maintain a series of 'objections' to keep some set of material out of view, indefinitely...

Since this site, that is dvxuser, as well as Vimeo, and Youtube are 'private' sites, they can set whatever standard they desire... and allocate whatever resources that they may acquire to supervise the material submitted... the moderators here I presume are working 'for free'... and so, given their time to 'moderate', the time between a posting and its determination, may be hours or 'days' depending on where the posting was made.

I have noticed in the past, on dvxuser, when a 'ad spammer' has made a number posts, it could be several hours even on 'popular' departments or the like, before a moderator will remove the spam. I would presume Vimeo and other sites have a similar response time, unless it is a 'paid' service of some sort... although there could be sites were the likelihood of 'pirate trading' or other 'contraband' could be very high, and whoever staffs these sites have to be hypervigilant... but otherwise... most sites have at least a several hour lag at some point during the day.

I think that has to be taken into consideration when evaluating a site and their 'response' to requests.
 
Given youtube can take hours to remove footage of actual deaths, I think this instance of 'gay porn' on vimeo is a moot point in reference to the OP. Which was essenitally that 'vimeo isn't as cool as youtube because more people watch youtube'. I always thought the select audience was the cool crowd. Not the unwashed masses. Cool people are cool by virtue of not being one of the herd. Incidently the OP has not returned to this thread, is it because it has been hijacked or realised it was a silly throwaway thread? It seems like a strange reason to 'hate' vimeo. Personally I prefer vimeo because of the low instance of cat videos and teenage insecurity on display. It also has a less distracting interface. If you're bored youtube can keep you clicking for hours, yet the videos rarely deliver what they promise.
 
if ( member.date.acount_created < 30 <days> || member.ip_address.contains( report.members.ipaddress, blacklist ) ) { //ignore the report, send members to blacklist }

that's a user/spammer/troll problem, it's not vimeo's.
 
Egg Born Son said:
Given youtube can take hours to remove footage of actual deaths, I think this instance of 'gay porn' on vimeo is a moot point in reference to the OP. Which was essenitally that 'vimeo isn't as cool as youtube because more people watch youtube'. I always thought the select audience was the cool crowd. Not the unwashed masses. Cool people are cool by virtue of not being one of the herd. Incidently the OP has not returned to this thread, is it because it has been hijacked or realised it was a silly throwaway thread? It seems like a strange reason to 'hate' vimeo. Personally I prefer vimeo because of the low instance of cat videos and teenage insecurity on display. It also has a less distracting interface. If you're bored youtube can keep you clicking for hours, yet the videos rarely deliver what they promise.
Click to expand...

When I first started using Vimeo, it was because of the 'checks' on licensed material... in so far as if it 'looked like a clip from a Hollywood Production, or TV'... questions would be asked. While that does stop it all... it sort of put up a barrier that Youtube didn't have much of...

Hence, the likelihood of actually seeing someone's creative works were much higher. I've not really 'surfed' Vimeo much of late, except for trying to find 'gay porn'... terrible stuff... got to search then entire web and find each and every instance... and then pester site administration until it's gone, which requires frequent checks, especially for repeat offenders... right...

Until I have something that 'needs' the zillion hits a day type situation... I'll probably not post to Youtube anything more that throwaway clips...

As it is... the two clips that have the highest hit count... well maybe 3... are my clip of my favorite passage from the film "Candy"(1968), which features Richard Burton as the 'cool poet laureate' type, wherein he entices the young Candy into is limo and ends up licking spilt wiskey off the limo floor, muttering 'I have needs' repeatedly, an ad for Alka seltzer from 1969 staring George Raft, organizing a prison protest... and Bob Seeger's "Yellow Beret"(1966), "Yellow Beret" gets the most commentary...

Needless to say, all those are copyrighted by 'others'... but I'm putting them up for academic commentary...
 
Last edited:
Enough of the nudity/porn vimeo talk. You want to discuss the merits of one video platform's technology as compared to another, fine.
But this topic was already driven into the ground recently... everyone had their say... it's done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top