What's wrong?
 

I just uploaded a photograph of some pink coloured fungi with the following description:

"[I]Walking past, I thought there was a wet, pink tissue lying at the root of a tree. On closer inspection, there were several. When I stopped to have an even closer look, they turned out to be candy coloured fungi!"[/I]

This was refused because I had to use a 'clean, clear' description or something like that. I should have copied the message, but I was too busy to work out what went wrong.

What is the offensive bit? Is it the combination of wet and pink and tissue? Or was it just a glitch?

Maybe I should explain, that I actually described what happened. It was wet, and I really did think there was a sodden tissue lying under the tree. It was the colour that made me look again.

I would guess the wet pink tissue or just the wet pink.

You might want to rephrase it, perhaps something like this:

[I]"At the base of the tree, what seemed to be a discarded pink tissue, on closer examination, turned out to be candy coloured fungi".[/I]

It says the same thing with half the amount of words.

It has nothing to do with offensive language, but possibly more to do with grammar and brevity. What I think is wanted is a concise description of what is seen in the image rather than how you came to spot it, so even my version could be cut down quite a bit. Give it another try.

PS. It might be a good idea to research the fungi so you can give it its correct name. For instance it might have been Pink Waxcap (Hygrocybe calyptriformis). I just googled pink fungi and got that one up, so it's not difficult to do.

[url]http://www.first-nature.com/fungi/id_guide/hygrophoraceae/hygrocybe_calyptriformis.php[/url]

Or here: [url]http://www.rspbliverpool.org.uk/Fungi.htm[/url]

I did re-write it and it was accepted.

Don't think the software bars descriptions on grounds of grammar though! Long narrative desriptions are also acepted.

I don't like the idea the software can apparently think for itself, and decided I was writing something inappropriate!

I feel slightly tarnished by a computer with a dirty mind. (Only joking.)

I had a similar message when I tried to upload some images some time ago. :confused:

Steve

Hi Reinardina,

The system does sometimes include some odd things that most people wouldn't find offensive, so apologies if any of your words got caught out by it - looking at what you posted I can't see anything obvious, but then you wouldn't be asking the question if it was...

I'll take a quick look at the full list later and see if I can spot anything...

Thanks,

Amy

I would have thought 'pink' and 'wet' in the same sentence would have trigger some virtual alarms :)

There are a few unassuming towns who get caught up in these kind of filters - I'd post a good example but the explanation would make you blush ;)

cheers
Andy

Got to give the website credit for trying to protect the prude though :p

I can confirm neither pink or wet are on the banned list... the search continues.

Ah, we've found the offending word. It was "lying", which appears on the list in error, and has now been taken off.

A fun game for a Monday at least... :)