diberry - 3:19 pm on Aug 28, 2013 (gmt 0)
DXL, that's frustrating. They're almost as vague as the spam team, but at least with the spam team you can understand why they don't want to tell you (and all the spammers) precisely how to get right with them. I don't think they're deliberately being vague in this case, I think they just don't have uniform standards and/or this is all really subjective and if you talk to three Google employees you're likely to get three different answers. (Like the IRS, lol.)
I wonder if the "offending" material could be something other than photos? Did the appeal rejection specify "adult" material? Netmeg could be right about copyright issues. Heck, it could even be words they consider foul language. Take a look at the types of content that "violate" Adsense guidelines. Could anything on your site be seen as promoting alcohol, for example?