Question

Why you related religious tracks with porn tracks?

  • 21 September 2016
  • 1 reply
  • 150 views

Hi,

I don't understand the criteria of Soundcloud for do the "related tracks". I have after 2013 one premium account with you, i have about 200 religious tracks in my account... when i play one of these songs, i can see AUDIO PORN!!! as related with my chansons.

Why and how you do that???

Is very, very disagreeable for me and for the people that listen my chansons. When my chanson finish, without permisssion you let play one track with porn content... there are minors too that listen these tracks.

If these practice continue i will cancel my account with you, i will require to be undamaged and i will write about this ugly practice of Soundcloud. Do you tell in the conditions that Soundcloud is "apparently" full of porn content, as i can see in my account? (see image).

I need urgently one explanation of that.

Thanks.

1 reply

Userlevel 3
Badge
Hi there,

Thank you for getting in touch and sorry to hear about this.

I've personally went and asked our development teams about this.

Their response was the following; unfortunately, your activity on SoundCloud is limited and your uploaded tracks seem to have little interaction. This means that the way you interact with other tracks and users on SoundCloud is minimal, which causes SoundCloud's recommendation algorithms to have a very large pool of tracks to play from after it has played one of your tracks, since it doesn't quite have all the necessary info to understand where it should be taking users after.

Our teams are aware of this and, unfortunately at the moment there's nothing that can be done directly.

All I can suggest is to increase your interactions on SoundCloud by liking, reposting and commenting on other tracks that you like. This way, SoundCloud's algorithms will better understand your musical sphere through your own tastes and deliver a better, more accurate experience to you and your followers.

We hope you understand.

All the best,
Jonathan.

Reply