More arbitrary injustice at Xhamster
I recently uploaded a video featuring Charlie Laine and Sarah Blake. I discovered this morning that it was rejected "due to participation of too young looking persons on the screen".
Ms Laine was born in 1984 and made her screen debut in 2002, aged 18. Ms Blake was born in 1980 and made her screen debut in 2003, after working as a webcam model; she was 22/23 at that time.
All this information was available via IMDb in a matter of clicks, but Xhamster's moderators would rather rely upon their own subjective judgement than cold, hard facts. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
Update: There is now a sequel to this blog at http://xhamster.com/user/rodent1/posts/254813.html
Ms Laine was born in 1984 and made her screen debut in 2002, aged 18. Ms Blake was born in 1980 and made her screen debut in 2003, after working as a webcam model; she was 22/23 at that time.
All this information was available via IMDb in a matter of clicks, but Xhamster's moderators would rather rely upon their own subjective judgement than cold, hard facts. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
Update: There is now a sequel to this blog at http://xhamster.com/user/rodent1/posts/254813.html
10 years ago
they improved a tiny bit, but are still rules by US hypocricy!
The apparent age of the actresses is a rule made for you or for all the members of xham?
Because the unuseful rules of this site are making a real chaos, why?
The unique rule of a host site (it's the real role of the tubesites) it's to have
the right to erase what you are doing at their "home", enough.
Using a system of volunteers as reviewers, instead of workers, giving them a public role,
leaving anonymous the inappropriate function, the site is collecting an unbelievable number
of mistakes and misunderstandings and the first persons to pay the mistakes are the reviewers,
because they can't have a single measure to judge, it's impossible.
Everything is connected with the attempt to avoid problems with the copyrights, another
impossible goal and the site had a lot of issues even if the videos have not the watermarks.
So meanwhile the reviewers are distracted by the unuseful rules, xHamster is the unique
tubesite where you can see millions of stolen images of students during their common life :
no porn, no sex, no naked girls, just simple persons at school, at a party, at the beach.
All these images are regular for xham, meanwhile professional actresses are seen in a different
way by each reviewer.
At the same time you can see on Capo page a lot of comments with reports about under age avatars.
This is what I was meaning with my comment, forgive my bad english.
http://xhamster.com/movies/940792/pretty_skiny_teenage_lesbians.html
http://xhamster.com/movies/27338/perfect_teen_bodies_in_girl_on_girl_action.html
(with the title), perhaps it's not the same video but seems to me they are the same actresses,
or the search engine I used is completly mad, I pasted the names in the nudevista search bar,
it gave me about twenty results, one of them lead me on a very interesting site, thank you!
Will fill you in later if I'm still logged in
And what "choice" is it that you're claiming I didn't take advantage of?
Paranoia & delusion must abound in that 'posse' of yours, Chris.
Especially over the identity of the GP's "other mod"...
Anyhow, I did visit that page you suggested, and have left an enquiry, so some good may come of it.
The reason xHamster gives for the "no watermarks" policy is that "users don't like them". That may be true, but I seriously doubt it's the real reason. I suspect it's about weeding out copyrighted commercial porn, and preventing advertising for other web sites. Even with very uneven enforcement, the policy probably does limit the number of videos that xHamster deems undesirable.
After several rounds of EMAIL with xHamster support, they agreed to stop deleting my videos because of titles. In my case, the videos were personally created by me, and I own the copyright. If anybody else is having trouble with their original videos being deleted, they should contact support (and be persistent if the initial response is unhelpful).
Unfortunately rodent1, you probably won't get any relief for non-original videos.
> but Xhamster's moderators would rather rely upon their own subjective
> judgement than cold, hard facts.
Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules sucks.
Having said that, I can't blame xHamster reviewers for relying upon "their own subjective judgement". I don't think it's reasonable to expect volunteer reviewers to spend time doing independent research. Also, from what I've read (in P-L-P's blog), reviewers are shown 10 thumbnails from a video, and have to approve or reject based on that. If one thumbnail shows what seems like an underage person, the only safe decision is to reject.
P.S. Be careful what you wish for. If xHamster did research the video in IMDB, they would have "actual knowledge" that it's copyrighted commercial porn, and would have to reject your upload.
Go to http://xhamster.com/contact.php and open a support ticket. It may not help, but you won't know for sure unless you try.
I just ran a search using the word 'schoolgirl' and was offered 36 pages, each with 20 links. That's 720 videos involving actresses pretending to be underage. If you're going to have rules, they should be applied uniformly.
Actually, I had one video blocked - without explanation - in which a woman flogged herself, so it appears sadism's okay, but masochism is beyond the pale.