Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
I stand corrected,then. I certainly accept they are really similar. Just wasn't sure to What extent that meant merging images or not.Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, it happens all the time. When a photo is uploaded has nothing to do with whether it is a duplicate or substantially similar.
When a model has several photos that clearly demonstrate her well-defined physique, and in one photo her clothing only reveals a specific area, and that area shows, as in this case, a toned abdomen even if not overly defined, the photo should be considered valid. This photo is very beautiful and belongs on GWM.
1000000%
Sorry, just having a basic picture of a person who is known to be fit and muscular just doesn’t cut it in most cases, the picture needs to show this, and if it only shows it a little bit, then it is an edge case. The uploader needs to apply a bit of judgment. I say “most cases”, because it’s easy to make blanket “rules“ that sound good, but this is all about edge cases. Some of these cases depend on the available pictures of the model. There are model names that go back to the beginning of this site, when the volume of available images was much smaller than it is today, and there are only a handful of pictures. Forget video. We take all of this into consideration. When a model has 20 pages of images, the standards go up. Uploaders need to be selective and exercise some judgment.
People who post a sequence of eight pictures that are very similar can expect to have those merged or deleted. People who post a picture showing a little bit of ab definition or bare skin when there is a body of better images of that model are taking a long shot.
If a video is a highlight reel, a still image with music that is a Trojan video, or has cuts/scene changes every half second, it will probably get deleted for poor quality.
Wow! 2 images of Dylan Crenshaw I just uploaded were deleted, calling them AI morphs and I just confirmed that they are not. Seriously, you guys need to do a thorough background check of these images. Dylan Crenshaw's muscles are 100% natural, I checked the source before uploading. Why why why. What do you mean by no artificial content?! They aren't. Now 450 likes and 25 comments gone in 24 hours. So painful
Wow! 2 images of Dylan Crenshaw I just uploaded were deleted, calling them AI morphs and I just confirmed that they are not. Seriously, you guys need to do a thorough background check of these images. Dylan Crenshaw's muscles are 100% natural, I checked the source before uploading. Why why why. What do you mean by no artificial content?! They aren't. Now 450 likes and 25 comments gone in 24 hours. So painful
Oh! I see now. You don't have a problem deleting uploads but you have a problem justifying your actions. Issorai
Wow! 2 images of Dylan Crenshaw I just uploaded were deleted, calling them AI morphs and I just confirmed that they are not. Seriously, you guys need to do a thorough background check of these images. Dylan Crenshaw's muscles are 100% natural, I checked the source before uploading. Why why why. What do you mean by no artificial content?! They aren't. Now 450 likes and 25 comments gone in 24 hours. So painful
Some of you guys will literally believe anything.
God, we're so screwed.
They aren't. Now 450 likes and 25 comments gone in 24 hours. So painful
That isn’t a free pass for a photo to stay on the site. If we did then it would mean leaving a lot of stuff on the site that may be appealing but inappropriate for the site, such as boob focus, butt focus and AI.
If you upload an image challenging the rules, then sometimes you may get lucky, but be ready for disappointment.
Well, see, you could have put it into an AI image detector yourself and saved yourself the trouble of having to whine about it, but instead you made me do it for you.
It's back up here, this time from FMGStory_Frank. I compared them first. It's the exact same AI image.
Some of you guys will literally believe anything.
God, we're so screwed.
We seriously are. Gooning too hard can make someone forget what is real and what isn't lol
AI generated imagery is getting that good unfortunately. Its only get harder and its going to be hard to tell them apart, so sometimes there will be some false positives, but also expect people to not know the difference or defend AI even when the hallmarks are there. There will also be those looking to pretend something is AI, even when they know the opposite.
Its going to be frustrating for a whole bunch of people, including the mods.
AI generated imagery is getting that good unfortunately. Its only get harder and its going to be hard to tell them apart, so sometimes there will be some false positives, but also expect people to not know the difference or defend AI even when the hallmarks are there. There will also be those looking to pretend something is AI, even when they know the opposite.
Its going to be frustrating for a whole bunch of people, including the mods.
The thing is in this case, people KNOW what Dylan looks like and what her physique looks like. People upload her pictures frequently enough where anybody who has a modicum of common sense will look at these two pictures and ask themselves "How did she increase her bulk and her vascularity that quickly?" Even someone who has no experience with lifting or with hypertrophy in women's musculature should know that something is off with those pictures lol.
The thing is in this case, people KNOW what Dylan looks like and what her physique looks like. People upload her pictures frequently enough where anybody who has a modicum of common sense will look at these two pictures and ask themselves "How did she increase her bulk and her vascularity that quickly?" Even someone who has no experience with lifting or with hypertrophy in women's musculature should know that something is off with those pictures lol.
That's a good point, especially when you compare it with other photos, of the same person, where it becomes an outlier.
The thing is in this case, people KNOW what Dylan looks like and what her physique looks like. People upload her pictures frequently enough where anybody who has a modicum of common sense will look at these two pictures and ask themselves "How did she increase her bulk and her vascularity that quickly?" Even someone who has no experience with lifting or with hypertrophy in women's musculature should know that something is off with those pictures lol.
That's a good point, especially when you compare it with other photos, of the same person, where it becomes an outlier.
And not just photos, but videos carry greater credibility to see what's real (at least for the time being until they discover that latest tool from China).
The flip side of this is that we're currently in the peak of an AI bubble that will eventually burst and deflate to much lower prominence. NIMBY is revolting hard against new AI data centers getting built. The lion's share of funding is speculative investments that will eventually snap back like a rubber band demanding returns on those investments. In other words: "This too shall pass."
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2723745/
I uploaded the above image when she first posted it on IG but it got removed, I assume for being AI enhanced. Probably because a lot of the comments came in fast and called it AI because she looked bigger than usual. But she doesn’t look so crazy different in it that I would chalk it up to anything beyond good lighting and posing. Plus, running it through the same detector Chainer just used comes back with 1%. Can the original be restored?
This is not lower quality than the others! My upload contained the highest possible quality source files (1440pix) that I'd merged together in order to avoid posting too many images of the same model, whereas the other two uploads are screenshots with odd resolutions. Deleting my upload makes zero sense. I hope this was just due to moderator error, because otherwise this is just incredibly stupid.
Additionally, this upload had over 200 points before it was deleted, so evidently people preferred it over the others...
It’s a collage and the other photos were single frames. Collages will tend to lose out, when a suitable single framed variant image exists
I'm aware, but during the several occasions where I've opted to do as instructed, I've had at least one of the images deleted due to the "don't post too many similar images of the same model" rule.
I understand that moderators act differently and results will vary, but my triptych is the higher quality version. Not to mention that it features one additional frame; I essentially replaced the empty spaces in the individual images with an actual subject.
Shouldn't content and popularity (again, the collage was much more popular after all) carry some weight? It was one of my most popular posts which is why this stings. Otherwise I wouldn't care.
I'm aware, but during the several occasions where I've opted to do as instructed, I've had at least one of the images deleted due to the "don't post too many similar images of the same model" rule.
Creating a collage to get around that guideline isn't the answer. By your reasoning it's materially the same. Either the collage gets deleted, or some of of the duplicate images get deleted/merged. I suggest directing your effort to choosing the best of the three images and posting that image at the highest quality you can find.
Creating a collage to get around that guideline isn't the answer. By your reasoning it's materially the same. Either the collage gets deleted, or some of of the duplicate images get deleted/merged. I suggest directing your effort to choosing the best of the three images and posting that image at the highest quality you can find.
I get you. I'm just trying to find creative solutions that would benefit the site (like keeping image clutter down without having to make sacrifices and omit good photos that people would like to see). I haven't exactly broken any rules, and collages, if done well and for a good reason, are genuinely a good alternative, such as in this case; it's the highest possible quality, contains no wasted space, and the subject is the entire focus. Nothing of value is lost. If you don't want to see more of these then fine. I just think this policy/guideline is rather silly, and that deleting this one and keeping inferior quality versions up was a mistake.
I don’t disagree with the idea in principle, but in practice, I think we’re talking past each other on what “higher quality” means in this situation.
Your point seems to rely on pixel count as the deciding factor. But with a collage that number will almost always be higher simply because multiple frames are combined into one image. Pixel count alone doesn’t really say anything about whether the result is better.
The underlying images are already substantially similar. Whether they are posted separately or placed into a single triptych doesn’t change that.
I appreciate your focus on maintaining high-quality uploads, which is why I’m trying to explain why pixel count by itself isn’t necessarily the value-add it appears to be in this case. Again, it's almost always better to choose what you think is the best out of a group of images and post the best quality one you can find, rather than to author a mosaic or collage.
I don’t disagree with the idea in principle, but in practice, I think we’re talking past each other on what “higher quality” means in this situation.
Your point seems to rely on pixel count as the deciding factor. But with a collage that number will almost always be higher simply because multiple frames are combined into one image. Pixel count alone doesn’t really say anything about whether the result is better.
It still feels like you misunderstand me and my reasons. The source files were taken from the source using a tool that rips the highest quality available from Instagram, whereas the images you mods opted to leave uploaded are screencaps. The resolutions don't even match. The individual files that I used to make the collage were all in 1440x1440, and the finished product was 1710x1440; basically three images in roughly the same size as one of the originals. All I care about is making sure the best quality files are the ones that ultimately make their way onto GWN, whether I'm the uploader or not.
Again, I merged three shots together in order to combat image clutter while simultaneously replacing dead image space in the collage with actual content. I doubt anyone would be interested in seeing each square inch of those wardrobes in the background. I would've happily uploaded the images individually, but due to previously aforementioned reasons I chose to do something more creative, which I assumed people would appreciate, and evidently they did given the high point count. Wouldn't it be wise to take the users' voices into consideration when choosing which file to keep and which file to remove?
Well, by merging the images you just worked against yourself. We are less interested in collages than single frame images. We also don't want a lot of subtle variants of the same image. This just feels like a poor workaround.
Since these photos are screenshots, you could always upload a non-screenshot variant that you indicate you have.
This is a common occurence, since photoshoots tend to be very repetitve, with the same poses and only outfits changing, or a series of slight movement changes. Those 2 pics above are exceptionally similar. I wold have merged them as well if they came up on my radar.
Yes, it happens all the time. When a photo is uploaded has nothing to do with whether it is a duplicate or substantially similar.