"Why was this pic deleted?"

It should be the oppsite. If the model has a lot of pics, a pic not showing muscle does not add value to her presence here

But in this photo, a muscle group is clearly visible. And the clothes cover a lot but focus on and enhance the part they show, where what you see is not simply the abdomen of a thin but untoned woman.

My general guideline for judging pics for this site is that if abs are the only visibly muscular body part, they should at least have a fair amount of visible horizontal separation, not just vertical. You could make an argument for that one, but it's pretty borderline.

My general guideline for judging pics for this site is that if abs are the only visibly muscular body part, they should at least have a fair amount of visible horizontal separation, not just vertical. You could make an argument for that one, but it's pretty borderline.

Good grief, I had no idea you guys were this picky here.

Kestler was clearly an early 2000s baddie. Friends with Amy Peters. I just can't see the reason for rejecting that pic, so I won't be uploading any others.

chipperpip★:

My general guideline for judging pics for this site is that if abs are the only visibly muscular body part, they should at least have a fair amount of visible horizontal separation, not just vertical. You could make an argument for that one, but it's pretty borderline.

I rarely comment in this thread and only recall asking about rejections of my own uploads twice... Mostly I just occasionally read out of curiosity. I've seen you state this "general guideline" you follow before, and you word it clearly as not merely horizontal separation, but that it should be a "fair amount".

I'd think extending this same general guideline to the entire physique would inadvertently rule out a ton of off-season and strongfat images... Maybe it already does for all I know since I'm not privy to such behind the curtain mod actions.

I don't have a "dog in this fight", but I found it odd that everyone fixated on her abdomen instead of her upper pecs. Although it's only a thin sliver of exposure, her upper pecs have deep horizontal and vertical separation with depth. (And no, that's not her collarbones, her collarbones are just above.)

Since it's such a thin sliver of exposure, that might still disqualify it, but I think that's what should've been the deciding factor over her abdomen area (which does have minor horizontal separation, but it's hardly a "fair amount".

All right, fine, I restored it; partically because she doesn't have that many other existing pics.

Whats the logic behind removing these uploads given that the models posted them on their own public instagram?

We don’t know (we aren’t all knowing) that and you’re playing with fire every time you upload a photo related to a pay site. We delete them by default, to avoid any potential risk of upsetting a site that monetises photos it owns.

In the future add a link to where you got it from, in the first comment. It will give us better information when we make our judgement call (not all public photos were intended to be public by copyright owner).

Okay thank you will do that in the future.

Good grief, I had no idea you guys were this picky here.

Yes, we're somewhat picky about not having the site flooded with generic bikini/lingerie models with little muscularity, who would still be broadly popular because they're hot. Same with women who just have big butts.

I'd think extending this same general guideline to the entire physique would inadvertently rule out a ton of off-season and strongfat images

It's not inadvertent, yes it very much might depending on the woman's appearance in a particular upload. Looking more muscular in other uploads is irrelevant.

Since it's such a thin sliver of exposure, that might still disqualify it, but I think that's what should've been the deciding factor over her abdomen area (which does have minor horizontal separation, but it's hardly a "fair amount".

You're literally repeating what I already said in more words:

You could make an argument for that one, but it's pretty borderline.

I posted this vide yesterday as soon as I posted was deleted no apparent reason. Today someone else posted and it's ok. Also I lost my publication for the day at least if you don't accept my image give me back my publication slot for the day.

What is happening here?

https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2716021/

Looks like you had deleted, after having uploaded it, it per the log. I have restored it, in case it was a mistake on your part.

Thanks you are very kind

chipperpip★:

You're literally repeating what I already said in more words

Literally saying things in more words™ - phenoms

I assume we're supposed to report certain pictures (as duplicates) that are pretty much the same but only have slight differences between each one?

I assume we're supposed to report certain pictures (as duplicates) that are pretty much the same but only have slight differences between each one?

Yes

Yes, but try to outline those differences for the mods' benefit so they understand the reason(s) for the report.

It doesn't give you a choice to say anything, except for the URL when reporting a duplicate.

It doesn't give you a choice to say anything, except for the URL when reporting a duplicate.

Should be obvious in the pics, totally unnecessary to point differences out, I do it all the time. just report the virtual dup url they'll decide which one to keep.

Reasons aren't necessary or helpful when reporting a (near) duplicate.

Reasons are VERY helpful when reporting a morph in telling us what to look for, which is often not immediately obvious. I often get reports of a morph with no reason given, and after spending 5 seconds not seeing anything, I reject the report.

Why was one of these photos deleted? The pose is obviously pretty much equal. But... She's not in the same dress and photos are like months apart.

The pictures aren't even "mine" anymore. Turned out they were uploaded without her full name, so it's really not about me. But this did surprise me.

The model is named Daniela Cardoso, in case any of the mods wants to check her profile here.

It doesn't help my case that the very first two pictures I uploaded (before both being merged into Faith's) are really similar, I guess. But I thought the dress being different would be enough since they are not two very similar pictures from the same photoshoot or anything like that, just her hitting the same pose twice

same pose, same visible muscle. Not surprised one was deleted. you said it:

The pose is obviously pretty much equal.

this is not a fashion site if the muscle is basically identical.

this is not a fashion site if the muscle is basically identical.

I don't care about fashion. I just mean it's been some months between those photos. Would a photo ten years later be deleted because the pose is Sort of similar? I don't think so.

There's a limit to how you can pose, in the end. Some models repeat more than others. In fact, I think I could name a few Who post even videos that could be very easily confused with previous ones, but that doesn't mean their posts get deleted.

I don't intend to critisize mods. Maybe they would do It, but there are just too many images that could be repetitive and they don't want to lose much time (rightfully so). I just got a bit surprised, honestly.