Deletion of excessive unnecessary glamour images for women?

I have a question regarding the policy for requesting deletion of images, that whilst not against posting rules (i.e no p0rn), just seem excessively unnecessary in relation to the person/game?

This is only partically applying to well known females to who partake in Glamour photoshoots. Sure there is a reason to display images that help relate the person in question, if that is what they are known for. However Users are seemingly using it as a cheap excuse to put up their entire collections of photo shoots as gallery images.

http://www.giantbomb.com/keeley-hazell/72-90524/images/ 439 images
http://www.giantbomb.com/gemma-atkinson/72-90210/images/  301 images
http://www.giantbomb.com/jessica-alba/72-70112/images/  290 images
http://www.giantbomb.com/anna-kournikova/94-4193/images/ 287 images
http://www.giantbomb.com/maria-sharapova/94-4191/images/ 215 images
http://www.giantbomb.com/megan-fox/72-81913/images/ 121 images

I know its generates lots of visits for the peoples pages in question, since they are often most visited lists, but as Jeff once said, if you want that type of imagary there are other places for it.

Thanks

It's grey area, i am not to fond of it either but since it is not against our current rule set i will/"can" not delete it. Need some staff imput here.

Well I did upload quite a few pics to pages on that list and similar pages. I never uploaded whole sets of one shoot though, it'd be one or two at the most from one shoot. Eventually I got a PM from MB saying "be careful with the images.  You're really toeing the line as to what is acceptable and what isn't.". Since then I haven't bothered. I was only really doing it when I was bored.

Although, if it is, as you say, generating visits, then I don't see a problem. Anything that creates visits, and could generate ad revenue in the future, I don't see it as a bad thing. It's not like they're doing any real harm.

is this really a big deal? I find "sets of glamor shots" to be pointless and I almost never look at them, unless linked out like I just was..    Is anyone in the world more boring than Jessica Alba? People still care about that dummy even after she was so awful in F4 and she almost ruined Sin City? 

Anna Kournikova? Really?  maybe 7 years ago someone might have cared but today? she is just some footnote now.  A once famous hot tennis player who got married...over it!

I think it's lame people can totally upload a gang of pictures of half-naked chicks and make a killing in points for it. Also, I think it's kind of unnecessary. However, I'm all for keeping the Jessica Alba pictures. Not that I've looked at them on Giantbomb, and heck, over the years I've probably seen all of them elsewhere anyway, but hey, just knowing this site has 290 pictures of her makes Giantbomb a better place.

Those pictures are completely necessary.

Bible Black has some competition.

I think of Giant Bomb as a video game wiki, where anything that has any relation to do with video games gets its own page and everything. I think taking away the pictures would be too extreme. They show who the person is. Plus, I mean.....it's hot.

My personal opinion is that hundreds of revealing pictures of these women is unnecessary and inappropriate.  I'll try to get an official response on this.

Well I had some pics of mine deleted, the reason given was "not clean".  I don't know what the official stance is but it certainly seems like it's on an ad hoc basis.  Note my 'unclean' pic was 100% nudity/sex/drugs/rom/pirate free so I'm not really sure what the rules are exactly.   "Keep it clean" was the advice I got, looking at those hundreds of Glamour shots, I'm not really sure what is meant by "clean" if it is a pic that is not of sex/drugs/violence/nudity/roms/pirates how is it considered unclean?  especially if it is a pic taken directly from a PG-13 site that is non-nude only?

I won't repost the pic since the mod would probably take that as a challenge to his authority.  Clearly as a regular user I have no authority and the mod's word is final.  But are the GB rules basically left up to a mod's personal tastes?   IMO it's pretty clear what "dirty" pics are.  Nudity showing nipples or genitals uncovered.  Or a sex act, which I believe would have to show genitals or nudity for it to be sex right? 

Personally I disagree w/ the idea that nudity is "dirty" but at least that is an accepted standard that is possible to comply with.  It's easy to see if there are genitals or not in a pic. 

Basically if a mod sees a pic he doesn't like, it will be deleted.  But the thousands of other pics from other users won't. 

/confused in seattle

Basically if a mod sees a pic he doesn't like, it will be deleted.  But the thousands of other pics from other users won't. 

"Hexpane said:

Basically if a mod sees a pic he doesn't like, it will be deleted.  But the thousands of other pics from other users won't. 

Here is what Jeff said back in July about the types of pictures you were posting on the forums.  The policy about these types of pictures on the boards is clear - wiki images for people that appear in games is a separate matter which will be resolved shortly.

For future reference, a close-up picture of a girl's ass in a thong or a close up of a guy licking a girl's vagina through her shorts are prime examples of images that are inappropriate and subject to deletion.

Jeff Said:

Let's talk about the forums a bit. I want Giant Bomb to be a respectable site. Something that we--the people that run the site and the people that use it--can be proud of. When I see people posting threads full of nearly naked women "because they can," it sort of makes me sad. The Internet is a big place, and 95 percent of it is already devoted to women in various states of undress. Let's all try to keep that sort of stuff off of our boards and continue to make this a web site that no one feels embarrassed by or ashamed of.

"

Define "unnecessary".  I mean, I could argue that it's "unnecessary" for those females to even take pictures like that in the first place.  =  /

"Define "unnecessary".  I mean, I could argue that it's "unnecessary" for those females to even take pictures like that in the first place.  =  /"

Wasn't there something like this borught up a while ago where a game like F1 Challenge had hundreds of useless images? Whatever happened to that should surely be applied to this as well.

Figured I better mention this but I've just gone through the Keeley and Gemma galleries and removed a bunch of images, not so much because of the pose or level of clothing but because of watermarks and some "see through" clothing pics as well.

"Wasn't there something like this borught up a while ago where a game like F1 Challenge had hundreds of useless images? Whatever happened to that should surely be applied to this as well."

I agree 100%.  Even if they are all technically allowed, it's just gratuitous.  All of their connections to video games are tenuous at best, and it just ends up feeling like an excuse to post images of half-naked women and get wiki points.  

You'll find a similar amount of revealing photos of JRPG character pages, or even characters from fighting games, anime, etc. Considering how well endowed female characters are in most games, this doesn't surprise me. It could be worse though....at least there's no rule 34 stuff on here (at least, I hope not). :P

I agree with the removal of this stuff. It seems like nothing more than a way for somebody to get points by posting a dozen pictures of some lady with little to no connection to video games, and only have a page because they "did the voices for the game of the movie". 

"You'll find a similar amount of revealing photos of JRPG character pages, or even characters from fighting games, anime, etc. Considering how well endowed female characters are in most games, this doesn't surprise me. It could be worse though....at least there's no rule 34 stuff on here (at least, I hope not). :P"

Wow the general consensus here is to take them down but I disagree. I don't upload or look at those pictures, but they are well withing the rules and do not contain pornographic material. You may not personally like them or think them unnecessary, but the same could be said about entire pages in giantbomb (see grass) yet they are allowed to stand. This is obviously done to appease the 13 year olds and to farm points, but if we take this from the point farmers/12 year old boys they will just find another different way to get on our nerves and do risque things. At least with this they are well contained in an area of focuse. I think the problem is not that there are 500 gemma atkinson pictures, but rather that there are far fewer pictures of say Ryu, who is an actual important video game character. Don't put your efforts in screwing up things others love (and that might make them pitch in the site) but rather put that effort into updgrading the pages you like.

I'm one of the most guilty users for uploading half naked women, I have shifted my focus to proper game characters lately (like the Soul Calibur gals, no suprise there).

I definitely went overkill on a few pages, like the Keeley Hazell page, I guess we should probably just upload less of these images, I dunno. They are kept to their respective pages though so it's not like they are in the way or anything. They are within the Giant Bomb rules but at the same time there are more appropriate sites for these images.

Meh I dunno, I wanna know what the staff thinks, it's their site, if they want them deleted then they will be deleted.

Images of this type need to be limited to 200 or less, Because 439 on keeley hazel? not even 50 of them have to do with gaming or such.

How did I know Gemma Atkinson's page would be on that list?

"Hexpane said:

Basically if a mod sees a pic he doesn't like, it will be deleted.  But the thousands of other pics from other users won't. 

Here is what Jeff said back in July about the types of pictures you were posting on the forums.  The policy about these types of pictures on the boards is clear - wiki images for people that appear in games is a separate matter which will be resolved shortly.

For future reference, a close-up picture of a girl's ass in a thong or a close up of a guy licking a girl's vagina through her shorts are prime examples of images that are inappropriate and subject to deletion.

Jeff Said:

Let's talk about the forums a bit. I want Giant Bomb to be a respectable site. Something that we--the people that run the site and the people that use it--can be proud of. When I see people posting threads full of nearly naked women "because they can," it sort of makes me sad. The Internet is a big place, and 95 percent of it is already devoted to women in various states of undress. Let's all try to keep that sort of stuff off of our boards and continue to make this a web site that no one feels embarrassed by or ashamed of.

"

Why not have it so that images can only be uploaded that are directly related to the game that the person is affiliated with? I checked out the Gemma Atkinson (who I had never heard of before, weirdly) page, and the ones that were related to Command and Conquer and Need for Speed seem to have a legitimate claim to being on the site, regardless of how unsavory some believe them to be. However, when you get to the more random photo shoots and particularly the set where she's in a bar in Dublin... Well, those have nothing to do with the game.

That would be like taking pictures of David Hayter at the mall. And the beach. And in his kitchen.
Let's face it: nobody does that. Female game "celebrities" shouldn't be treated any differently than males.

I also agree to posting a limit on the number of photos of a single person uploaded, as it no doubt eats up bandwidth and who, other than maybe the horny 14-year-old who uploaded them, is going to look through all 400+ photos of what's-her-name?

"Images of this type need to be limited to 200 or less, Because 439 on keeley hazel? not even 50 of them have to do with gaming or such."