You’d be forgiven for thinking that ensuring users aren’t subjected to bad content on dating sites and online marketplaces means waging war on trolling, nudity, and unsavoury content.
Sure, that’s a large part of it, but the fact is bad content has a broader meaning – it’s anything designed to harm or deceive users; images that can negatively impact their user experience, break their trust, or even – worst-case scenario – put them at risk of theft or abuse.
As a result, marketplaces and dating site owners need to ensure they’re aware of the potential outcomes bad images pose. Let’s take a look at the most common types of bad images and consider the impact on both dating app and marketplace users.
The trouble with watermarks is that they often look bad. Sure, they can be positioned more subtly on an image, but the overall impact is that they detract from the image focus. However, they’re still used by many vendors – often to avoid paying sellers’ fee to use an online marketplace.
For example, someone selling a high-priced item (or numerous items of the same price, like a TV, computer, tablet, or phone) may try to circumvent site policies by including their email address, website URL, or phone/WhatsApp number in the watermark itself.
The likelihood is, however, that those who try to lure users away are scammers – compromising user safety (and user trust too) as they’re directed away from legitimate marketplaces.
On marketplaces, watermarks on profile pics are mainly used in the same way as product photos. However, on dating sites, their use is much more frequent and more-often-than-not, used to promote escort services and prostitution. Watermarks are used similarly in 1-to-1 chats – to send contact information in a way that can’t be detected by text filters.
eBay banned watermarks a couple of years ago, initially stating they would monitor pictures – before quickly reneging on this to simply condemn and discourage watermarks rather than police the site itself.
Presumably, this change of heart was prompted by the seller community – or more specifically, the image creators. From a photographer or designer’s point of view, the argument for watermarks is to prevent the misuse of their work and to preserve copyright over them. Also, while watermarks don’t stop images from being copied, but creators can use services like Google Image Search and TinEye to monitor misuse.
Instead of watermarks, an alternative is only to provide low-resolution images – particularly where product photography’s concerned. Another way is to put copyright information in image metadata.
Ultimately watermarks can make images look clumsy and inauthentic – even though they’re designed to make them look more ‘official’. From a user experience perspective, they disrupt the overall image; masking the complete picture. However, for the marketplaces and dating sites themselves, by luring users away from the platform (using embedded contact information) they eliminate associated fees – and if everyone did that, there’d be a major problem.
An ongoing problem for many marketplaces, duplicate listings are something of a grey area in terms of their legitimacy. Essentially while many vendors mean no malice – other than to double their chances of a decent sale – the wider impact is that duplicate ads and images denigrate the browsing and search user experience.
But their troublesome nature doesn’t end there, unfortunately. The use of duplicate images is a tactic long practised by scammers on – as product images on online marketplaces and profile pictures on dating sites.
Duplicate images are commonly used by those selling counterfeit items – often featuring ‘real’ product images taken from genuine sources and repurposed on public marketplaces. Similarly, dating sites are all too aware of ‘catfishing’ and of profiles using images taken from stock photo libraries or even modelling agencies. It’s not just false advertising that users need to be aware of – but romance scammers too.
While duplicate listing scanners exist, most of these are text-based. More sophisticated image detectors do exist, and big marketplaces offer their own detection algorithms too. But many of these are still relatively rudimentary and open to misuse (case in point: Facebook Marketplace which is notoriously easy to ‘hack’).
As a result, many marketplaces are offering greater clarity in terms of how they define duplicates and won’t allow vendors to list the same item in different categories. eBay sternly warns that offenders will see a loss of visibility for their listings. After all, their site’s trust is at stake – which ultimately leads to fewer conversions.
Also, in a similar way to watermarks, duplicate images can also ruin the user experience – confusing customers as to which is the ‘real’ or original example of the product they’re considering buying. And on dating sites, well, there can’t be more than one person with the same profile picture can there? Honesty accounts for a great deal – and people can look very different from one picture to the next – so including a variety of different images is essential for this reason too.
Love or hate the idea, facial recognition technology is increasing in sophistication. It’s already being used in security tech – to do everything from unlocking phones to crossing borders. However, while Facebook might be making leaps and strides in facial recognition, on marketplaces and dating sites, they remain problematic from a content perspective.
As we’ve discussed already, where images of people – especially faces – are concerned, honesty is always the best policy. On dating sites, in particular, users often use images that make them look more attractive – often using different filters to enhance their appearance.
However, when there’s a lot of people in a photograph, it’s often hard to tell who the profile owner is. This has obvious complications on dating sites – where users could be easily misled. They could begin contact with one person thinking they’re another – something that could be disastrous for the user and the dating site – again, because misconceptions can break the trust bond.
Coupled with the proliferation of deep fakes and face/profile image searches and the problem gains another more complex layer – meaning there’s not just a threat to a user’s experience; their safety is at risk too.
In online marketplaces, this isn’t as big a problem, except that the use of people – or more specifically their faces – distracts from the product itself, so vendors should use as few as possible in photography, or not at all if they can help it.
Wherever users can upload their own content, there can be no denying that pornography, nudity, and sex-related images will appear – in both online marketplaces and dating sites.
Where affairs of the heart (or libido) are concerned, while consenting adults are free to share pictures of whatever body parts they like best; for the most part – on public forums and in private chats – it’s unwanted. And when that’s the case; it’s user harassment.
Harassment (of the pictorial and verbal variety) has become entrenched in dating app culture. Largely as a result of male behaviour toward women (check the Instagram account ‘ByeFelipe’ for some prime examples). So, efforts to get rid of it have spawned a whole new wave of female-initiated dating services; such as Bumble.
However, even this doesn’t prevent lewd images from being shared; which is why additional services are needed. Bumble’s Privacy Detector, for instance, which detects nudity, blurs it, and warn users that a picture or video message may be pornographic when it lands in their chat feed.
Anything nudity related is naturally more common on dating sites than marketplaces, but that doesn’t preclude them. Profile photos can often be revealing (which may or may not be ok depending on the site) and of course, as mentioned above, ‘escort’ services may advertise using images that push the boundaries.
The effect? Not keeping users safe from overtly sexual images is a big problem. As mentioned before, it breaks the trust established between user and site. While on dating sites unsolicited nudity is now frequent, that doesn’t make it acceptable. And where online marketplaces are concerned, user-generated content that contains nudity denigrates the site’s reputation.
However, it’s also essential to maintain a balanced view and offer a specific definition of what constitutes nudity on your own site – which might vary depending on the nature of your website.
Picture Of Success
All in all, you’re not going to be able to stop your users from seeing awful content. When users innocently browse a marketplace or look at dating profiles, there’s no guarantee that the images they’ll see will be legitimate, tasteful, or even legal.
What you can do, though, as a site owner is to ensure your site offers the right policies, definitions, and appropriate courses of action. Moderation is crucial to avoid the proliferation of bad images on your site. But it’s no easy task when it relies on user-generated content.
That’s why online content moderation tools are critical to helping online marketplaces and dating sites detect unwanted images and remove them instantly. At Besedo, we combine AI image moderation with human moderation to efficiently tackle the propagation of inappropriate or undesirable images you don’t want on your site.