Log in | Register
« first < prev Page 1058 of 1,102 next > last »
Sep 18, 2010 - context
I'd be shocked if she could bench 100. Her squat would probably be more impressive. Dancers should not be underestimated. Trust me on that!
Sep 17, 2010 - context

holy moley!
Sep 17, 2010 - context
gina davis
Sep 15, 2010 - context
Small implants
Sep 15, 2010 - context
She is definitely in shape! Maybe 100 at most??
Sep 14, 2010 - context
Thanks so much for post man, i was thinking of joining but i already got most of their movies, but was hoping that if i joined the new site i would have access to their newer DVD selection, i was hoping it would be like Awefilms, lots of HD films to download, but its sounds like its just plain shit from your post, :( dam it looked so enticing from the front page too... 
Sep 13, 2010 - context
Just joined Muscle Pinups, the new site from Muscle Elegance, and it's just so terrible. It promises that all of their films are online, but only a handful actually are, all the scenes are cut-downs and the resolution is pretty poor.

Avoid Avoid Avoid

Sep 09, 2010 - context
i was thinkin more to block the inane comments by certain people on every single pic
Sep 08, 2010 - context
Maybe two new ones
1: Girl Next Door
Hard to say which pics are in this category

2: measuring
better defined and what is meant is clear
 :)           ;)            :D            ;D             8)             :P                ^-^              :-*
Sep 08, 2010 - context
Sep 08, 2010 - context
Trouble Makers are dealt with by Chainer or site staff(on main site read "About")if you have a problem with a fellow member please send myself or one of the guys listed a brief PM stating who and what the person has done wrong-hoping this helps
Sep 08, 2010 - context
Rating pix on the main site is purely an option as like leaving comments-I must confess plenty of pix are over-rated but plenty are under-rated',as the old saying goes you cant please people all the time-just some of the time,as to gracillis 8.65 that figure is in fact an average what other members have rated your uploads for example if you have posted 10 pix all been voted once with all 10 votes your average would be 10
Sep 08, 2010 - context
I think I mostly agree with you (although I'm not sure what you really need a sample size of > 100 *for*), but on the subject of "rating more photos that don't necessarily bowl us over" ...

yes, but there are *so many photos* coming in to the site these days that I rarely bother to even click on the thumbnail of anything I think looks like less than an 8.  Which is probably why my current average rating is 8.65.

This is also related to why I asked for a "pictures I haven't rated yet" filter, but that idea didn't seem to pick up much steam.
Sep 06, 2010 - context
Whoops, forgot to respond...

Yeah, this is completely fine. I might have a little bit of a problem with it if it just linked to the image files themselves, but it links to the full image page, so it's great.

Sep 06, 2010 - context
Here's the feed URL.


If any moderators want to weigh in on the value of this, please let me know!
Sep 05, 2010 - context
id like an ignore button for people who keep stirring up crap
femuscle lover extreme
Sep 04, 2010 - context
So, is anybody on the forum actually a girl/woman/female with muscles? :D
Sep 01, 2010 - context
thanks for voting be good to hear why those who think she would win would say a bit about why
Aug 31, 2010 - context
so who wins wrestke between these two and why?

(1) her


(2) him

Aug 30, 2010 - context
britneys latest pic. check out the guns! a bicep vein on her left bi! shes more diesel than ever i think!http://www.besteyecandy.com/BestEyeCandyCOM.php?pid=1032468
Aug 29, 2010 - context
I've got an RSS feed of recent images built from scraping new thumbs. Any objections to me publicizing the feed?
Aug 28, 2010 - context
I apologize for having posted some of these observations in connection with a comment thread for a photo. Obviously, this forum is the appropriate place for it. There are some important considerations concerning the rating system! This is just a reminder to the site staff and the members of what we already know intuitively! First, no ratings are statistically meaningful unless the sample size is large enough. Three viewers rating a photo is just not comparable to one hundred rating it! the former case would be valuable as an opinion, but not generalizable. Personally, I prefer a sample size of one hundred or more.

Second, viewers should be encouraged to rate pictures according to how they actually feel/think rather than how somebody else does or how they think somebody else does. It's ok to rate a photo low, if it's not a prank or a conscious effort to mess up the rating (which practice has been alluded to in many comment threads)! In fact, we need more votes particularly in the mid-range and even at the lower end in order to get a more realistic picture of people's reactions! It doesn't mean anything if we only rate photos we love; we've gotta rate some we're less enthusiastic about! That's why there's a preponderance of 8.8-8.9 ratings on this site right now! Nine is by far the most common rating, because if you feel strongly about a photo, you're going to rate it high, but not too high so as to be out of line with other raters or to call attention to yourself, because, after all, we do value each other's opinions to some extent! A fellow-member of the site has made an interesting observation about the rating system. He/she suggests it might be useful to look at the ratio of the number of viewers favoriting a picture to the number of people rating that photo. It would tell what percentage of people that took the time to rate a photo call it a favorite. Ideally, that percentage should be maybe between 40 and 70: if the ratio is too low, then it indicates very few who rated it consider it a favorite (a distortion), and if the ratio is too high, it means the only people who rated it were those who really liked it (an all too common situation). But when the ratio is in the middle range, it means some of the people who rated the photo really liked it while others didn't (more realistic)! You could, of course, have the fairly uncommon case where more people favorite the photo than rate it! 

Third, are we rating the model, the particular pose, the quality of the photo, or some combination thereof? High resolution photos or morphed photos influence ratings to some degree. Fourth, it has been my experience that people rate differently when thay are forced to make a comparison.  A certain model may at first glance have excellent biceps, . . . until her photo is placed side-by-side with that of another model with more developed ones. It may be that the ratings of one or both models would change! Such comparisons would certainly result in a truer and more meaningful rating. So maybe the site could do some breakout pairing-up or group comparisons complete with ratings and comments pertaining thereto!  Of course, something like that is already being done in some of the polls, but this idea would involve pictures as well as text!

To sum up, we site members could perhaps benefit from rating more photos that don't necessarily bowl us over, comparitive ratings scenarios, and maybe we could pay a little more attention to those ratings that come from larger samples of viewers! IMHO! (:^{D)
Aug 27, 2010 - context
More pictures that didn't make it onto the main site...

Aug 19, 2010 - context
It helped, thanks.
Aug 19, 2010 - context
Not really much visible muscle? Pleeeaase! lol
Yeah, the arse is composed of the largest muscle(s) in the body. Hard not to see it ;D
« first < prev Page 1058 of 1,102 next > last »