Hello. To moderate the picture, I suggest that GWM should send on our screens a reduced copy of too big pictures (in terms of bytes) in order to accelerate the moderation. It can be really boring to wait 8 or 9 seconds for many pictures (for example, the last pictures of Becs Cronshaw), moreover these pictures are actually to small previews, quite enough to accept or reject each one. So I think it would be the same choice to judge a picture of 4.4 mega bytes of 2283 pixels (H) nicely reduced to 620 pixels by a simple bicubic algorithm and nicely compressed in JPEG. Maybe the queue of pictures awaiting moderation would be "reduced" too. By the way, "heavy" pictures using PiNG format should recompressed too. People should use JPEG mainly, specially with a mediocre quality of the original picture: in that case, the PiNG lossless compression is a nonsense (well, maybe this website lacks a good tutorial...).
I have no problem with doing so in moderation, but for the gallery, I believe the 5 MB limit we are having is already too restrictive. These days, pics with good quality usually exceed that. And attempts to reduce the size, even by a little, sometimes get us unwanted results and do horrible damages to the colors or clarity (especially if you use MSPaint for that purpose).
I was going to suggest the option to "follow" certain names of women or tags so that we would get a notification when something matching that gets tagged, but I see that's already on the list of potential features. Consider this a vote in favor!
Also, on a tangentially related note, it would be nice if there were an easy way to search for pictures that are unnamed or have no tags, to make it easier to help out.
I've implemented the +1 option. It appears under every image and has the effect of increasing an image's score by 1 (just like adding to favorites) without actually adding it to your favorites list. This means you can vote on images without worrying about cluttering your favorites.
Hey Chainer, I think the +1 option that you mentioned is a great idea - Facebook does this and it works well for billions of pics. This removes the negativity of rating and also gives the possibility to like a picture without putting it into ones favourites, which is very important for me and others too. Great work in maintaining the site for all those years! Thank you for that! 👍🏻 don
What I am gathering out of feedback I've gotten (here and elsewhere) is:
The ratings system was flawed and is not missed in its old form.
What is missing, though, is the interactivity the ratings provided, i.e. some way to express "liking" an image without putting it in your favorites list in your profile.
In response to the second point, I am planning to implement a way to +1 a picture without having it appear in your favorites. The total score of a picture will be determined by the sum of its +1s and favorites. This way, for example, if you like all pictures of a model you can +1 all her pictures while only favoriting the select few you like the most.
I’m a little late to the party (as, alas, is so often my usual habit) but here goes:
There’s no question that the 0-10 scoring system was being horribly abused. Once a few people discovered that they could have a disproportionate impact on the scoring by voting only tens and zeros, any honest objectivity in the scoring was completely lost.
But, there were other problems, too. Whenever we scored a particular photo, we all had to ask: what are we judging it against? If we compare the women of GWM with the women we see at the local Wal-Mart, then practically every photo would rank a “9” or “10” (which could, perhaps, explain some of the “ten-bombing” we were seeing). But, if that photo was being judged against all of the other photos on the GWM site … well, then the judging naturally becomes a lot harsher.
I tried to take a middle ground, granting most of the photos sevens or eights (and reserving my nines and tens for the really outstanding photos) but of course, with everyone using a different scoring standard, it naturally created inconsistencies in the scoring.
It’s also worth noting, though, that (for many of us) the scoring wasn’t always a “how beautiful is this woman” kind of score. I have a few women who are among my particular favorites (say, Karina Nascimento) but if it was a photo of her that was just poorly done (bad lighting, out-of-focus, etc.) I’d still give it a poor score. That poor score meant absolutely nothing against beautiful Karina – the photo got a poor score because it was, technically, just a poor photo.
So, while I liked the general “concept” of the scoring system, I understand the reasons for its demise.
I might note, though, that the image ratings also served a secondary purpose for me: it helped me remember where I left off from the last time I visited. My work schedule is such that I can sometimes only visit once or twice a week, and it’s not always easy to remember where I’d been the last time I visited (especially when there could be two-dozen pages of new photos waiting for me). By using the scoring system, I’d scan through all the new pages, and when I started seeing pictures that I’d previously rated, I knew that I’d gone through all the new ones.
I suppose I could use “Favorites” for this, but (as Kakuzade noted) I’d soon have so many photos in my Favorites file that it would become too cumbersome to use.
Also (again, as Kakuzade noted) not everyone has been using the “Favorites” list for simply listing their favorites. I have been using my “Favorites” list to log photos of all the great-looking women who were identified as “Unknown.” I’d tag these photos as Favorites, and then check back in a week or two to see if someone had come up with their identity (I may have been the only one who used my “Favorites” list for this purpose, though).
In any case, compiling a list of everyone’s top “Favorites” may not actually represent what it seems.
One option, I guess, might be to create a new category of “Super Favorites” (or whatever). The old “Favorites” files could then serve as a voting mechanism (and if everyone wound up with 30,000 photos in their “Favorites” files, it wouldn’t matter). We could all then use our new “Super Favorites” file just as we had been using the old “Favorites” list up until now.
Or, alternatively, perhaps something as simple as a “Like” button could be created to begin compiling all the positive votes, and the existing “Favorites” file could be kept just as it was. Of course, we wouldn’t be able to count all the current “Favorites” under such a system.
Just some ideas, not really complaints. And thank you, Chainer, for you efforts, we do appreciate it.
The closest I've seen is one that is more for wrestling (competitive and NSFW adult) but it does have fbbs and similar athletic ladies posing, working out and yes wrestling. There's some YouTube stuff in here too - returns more vids of the kind you select than a similar search on YouTube and I think on the better adult sites too (for those of us who like "erotic muscle"). Again this is more for wrestling (mostly female and some gay men) than female muscle though:
If you put a picture on your favorites it is to view it later without the risk of forgetting. If this saturated with unnecessary photos you have to clean.
I'll give an example: Melissa Wee. In my opinion it is one of the best models of GWM. She has 580 photos, and all of them are good. But in many of her pictures she looks posing in the same way and her body has not changed much over time.
What I did with the old system was to give 8.9 or 10 to all of her photos and chose for my favorites that I thought best (as I said, has many similar photos to each other).
Now I have no choice but to make favorite all of her photos, because otherwise it would indirectly saying that the picture is not good. And I will remove those photos later if I do not want my favorites are unusable.
I think good idea to remove the system from 1-10, but I think it would replace it with another system, separate from the favorites.
The idea is that people don't change their favoriting behavior, so that those pics that happen to get favorited the most rise to the top.
The problem with the binary (-1, 1) voting system is there is no good way to transition to it from the 0-10 scale for older pics (which is even more true now that lots of pictures don't have 0-10 ratings anymore).
Log in |
Register
Anyone knows her name ?
Can you try a different browser (i.e., if you're using Chrome, try Firefox) and see if it still happens?
Since I can't reproduce the problem all I can do is try to come up with explanations based on what you tell me.
Have you tried reloading the page? Is it at all possible that the image fails to load completely and the black part is what didn't load?
You'll have to upload here and then copypaste in the link it gives you:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/host/
Whassup with that? Or is it just me?
by the way I have sex pictures of womenbodybuilder may I post this kind of pics in this forum? tks agais
18, 18a,18b this 2 are from builtmore
tks in adv
Much appreciated!
I have no problem with doing so in moderation, but for the gallery, I believe the 5 MB limit we are having is already too restrictive. These days, pics with good quality usually exceed that. And attempts to reduce the size, even by a little, sometimes get us unwanted results and do horrible damages to the colors or clarity (especially if you use MSPaint for that purpose).
Also, on a tangentially related note, it would be nice if there were an easy way to search for pictures that are unnamed or have no tags, to make it easier to help out.
don
In response to the second point, I am planning to implement a way to +1 a picture without having it appear in your favorites. The total score of a picture will be determined by the sum of its +1s and favorites. This way, for example, if you like all pictures of a model you can +1 all her pictures while only favoriting the select few you like the most.
There’s no question that the 0-10 scoring system was being horribly abused. Once a few people discovered that they could have a disproportionate impact on the scoring by voting only tens and zeros, any honest objectivity in the scoring was completely lost.
But, there were other problems, too. Whenever we scored a particular photo, we all had to ask: what are we judging it against? If we compare the women of GWM with the women we see at the local Wal-Mart, then practically every photo would rank a “9” or “10” (which could, perhaps, explain some of the “ten-bombing” we were seeing). But, if that photo was being judged against all of the other photos on the GWM site … well, then the judging naturally becomes a lot harsher.
I tried to take a middle ground, granting most of the photos sevens or eights (and reserving my nines and tens for the really outstanding photos) but of course, with everyone using a different scoring standard, it naturally created inconsistencies in the scoring.
It’s also worth noting, though, that (for many of us) the scoring wasn’t always a “how beautiful is this woman” kind of score. I have a few women who are among my particular favorites (say, Karina Nascimento) but if it was a photo of her that was just poorly done (bad lighting, out-of-focus, etc.) I’d still give it a poor score. That poor score meant absolutely nothing against beautiful Karina – the photo got a poor score because it was, technically, just a poor photo.
So, while I liked the general “concept” of the scoring system, I understand the reasons for its demise.
I might note, though, that the image ratings also served a secondary purpose for me: it helped me remember where I left off from the last time I visited. My work schedule is such that I can sometimes only visit once or twice a week, and it’s not always easy to remember where I’d been the last time I visited (especially when there could be two-dozen pages of new photos waiting for me). By using the scoring system, I’d scan through all the new pages, and when I started seeing pictures that I’d previously rated, I knew that I’d gone through all the new ones.
I suppose I could use “Favorites” for this, but (as Kakuzade noted) I’d soon have so many photos in my Favorites file that it would become too cumbersome to use.
Also (again, as Kakuzade noted) not everyone has been using the “Favorites” list for simply listing their favorites. I have been using my “Favorites” list to log photos of all the great-looking women who were identified as “Unknown.” I’d tag these photos as Favorites, and then check back in a week or two to see if someone had come up with their identity (I may have been the only one who used my “Favorites” list for this purpose, though).
In any case, compiling a list of everyone’s top “Favorites” may not actually represent what it seems.
One option, I guess, might be to create a new category of “Super Favorites” (or whatever). The old “Favorites” files could then serve as a voting mechanism (and if everyone wound up with 30,000 photos in their “Favorites” files, it wouldn’t matter). We could all then use our new “Super Favorites” file just as we had been using the old “Favorites” list up until now.
Or, alternatively, perhaps something as simple as a “Like” button could be created to begin compiling all the positive votes, and the existing “Favorites” file could be kept just as it was. Of course, we wouldn’t be able to count all the current “Favorites” under such a system.
Just some ideas, not really complaints. And thank you, Chainer, for you efforts, we do appreciate it.
http://www.grappletube.com
Tks for your help
I'll give an example: Melissa Wee. In my opinion it is one of the best models of GWM. She has 580 photos, and all of them are good. But in many of her pictures she looks posing in the same way and her body has not changed much over time.
What I did with the old system was to give 8.9 or 10 to all of her photos and chose for my favorites that I thought best (as I said, has many similar photos to each other).
Now I have no choice but to make favorite all of her photos, because otherwise it would indirectly saying that the picture is not good. And I will remove those photos later if I do not want my favorites are unusable.
I think good idea to remove the system from 1-10, but I think it would replace it with another system, separate from the favorites.
Sorry for my bad English.
The problem with the binary (-1, 1) voting system is there is no good way to transition to it from the 0-10 scale for older pics (which is even more true now that lots of pictures don't have 0-10 ratings anymore).