I'm getting the same thing recently. The site status page says there are currently 1,146 pictures in the voting queue, and I'm pretty sure I haven't gone through anywhere near that many. It just keeps loading the same image on the moderation page no matter what I do. Does the site limit users to only voting on a certain percentage of the pictures in the queue or something?
EDIT: If it helps, I'm in Firefox 43.0.4 on Windows XP.
It is also implicit that if this site is for girls should not be admitted René Toney, and there is a rule that supports it. Is unjust that there is no a rule specifying that this site is for girls whit muscles and not for ordinary skinny.
But alas kakuzade René Toney is on the website. So if the fans of extreme bodybuilders get René Toney, I guess than fans of girls with less muscles should get theirs.
It's pretty clear, and explicit in the rules. YOU have very narrow ideas about what belongs here and what doesn't. You're entitled to your own tastes, but you're not entitled to impose them on everyone. If you want a narrower set of rules, go make your own site. Otherwise, use the rating system like everyone else does, and quit your crusade to censor every image that doesn't cater to your exact tastes.
The ideas aren't what's narrow, the rules have narrowed down the images that should be uploaded and people aren't following it. No one is looking to impose their tastes on anyone we simply just want to see the rules followed to keep things organized.
While I agree that we've been relaxing our standards quite a bit, that sure is not well-meaning participation.
I say we make the minimum a 5 and make more people have to vote on an image to make it on the website. Therefore any image that passes moderation has to be one that a lot of people agree on, therefore having a score less than 5 would be unnecessary.
I think a good solution is to make the minimum score be higher than a zero. A zero to me means that the image has no place on the website. Moderation of the images weeds out pics that don't belong, therefore there should be no image that makes it on the site that deserves a zero.
I say make the minimum score a 5 and strengthen the moderation section of the page, by making more people having to come to a consensus before the image is posted.
I don't care that much about the ratings, but let's be honest: a zero has a much greater effect on a score than a ten. It's basic math. The idea that zeroes and tens balance each other out is just wrong. If 3 people give a picture a 10 and then one idiot gives it a zero, that knocks it down to a 7.5. That's a very mediocre score and not at all indicative of a true consensus on the picture.
Another example, if 3 people give a picture an 8 and then a fourth person gives it a 10, that only raises the score to 8.5. But if that fourth person gives it a zero, that drops it all the way down to a 6, which is kind of an insulting score. However you try to argue it, a zero has far more power than a 10, or even multiple 10's. If the true average score on GWM was 5, tens and zeroes would have equal weight, but since the actual average is probably 8 or above, a 10 will make very little difference while a 0 will make a lot of difference in the score.
Some people only rate pics that they think are extraordinary, so they give a lot of 10's. I see nothing wrong with that. Since (I'm guessing) only a small percentage of people do that, it really doesn't affect scores that much. Other people only rate pictures they want to "punish" for some reason, so they give a lot of 0's. I do have a problem with that. If you're consistently giving 0's, you're on the wrong website, so you should be sent home. My two cents.
Herbiceps was the best site for many years in the early 2000s, but times left it behind. They haven't improved since they first started the page. The design is laughable by today's standards. With a little investment they could hire a professional to make the site much better.
But of course the site is nothing without content. And the content is a very mixed bunch on herbiceps. Personally I think there are too many bikini type women on there, who show absolutely no definition, not to mention muscularity. And when occasionally a nice looking model crops up, you have to wait months to get just 2-3 videos of that model. Because of their dripping of the content from one shoot for months or even a year. They should post all material of one model from one shoot, in maybe 2 or 3 installments max, and within a month. Not streched out over 6 months, often getting just an interview and nothing else at a time.
Another thing I don't like about the site is that the videography is amateurish. They almost always rely on natural lighting and nothing else, which is crap especially since many of the shoots are done in poorly lit hotel rooms or hallways. For someone who was in the business for decades I'd expect better than shaky handicam work in poor light. The only improvement over the herbiceps of 15 years ago comes from the better cameras thus higher resolution videos.
Anyone want to see what professional work should look like check out musclegirlshd.com and don't be afraid that it's only a vimeo channel. It's well worth it. With some of the most beautiful models you'll see anywhere, shot with professional makeup and ligting. Also the posing is more natural with much experimenting with angles and poses.
Is there anyway to make another submission queue where pictures are submitted without names. Then those pictures just sit in that queue until they are named by GWM members or staff. Usually unnamed pictures are duplicates anyway.
This is the exact reason I don't upload my pictures to the voting queue, but I do fuck up from time to time and upload my pictures into the voting queue instead of the staff queue. >:(
kakuzade, I invite you to take a look at the 'Weighted Rating' ranking, and see how many full-on bodybuilders you'll find. And while I do agree that most of OPs uploads don't comply with rules (I would vote no on most of them), the voting seems ridiculously negative most of the time. If there is a way to rake out the 'moderators' who vote nothing but 'no', my suggestion would be to implement it.
Hello, on the last page of the image's gallery (to access to the oldest pictures uploaded) some thumbnails are missing, though the big images are still visible on their corresponding pages. That's a minor bug but can it affect less ancient pictures?
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...).
Log in |
Register
The way it works is that a picture gets onto the site if 15 people vote "yes" on it before 15 people vote "no".
EDIT: If it helps, I'm in Firefox 43.0.4 on Windows XP.
But alas kakuzade René Toney is on the website. So if the fans of extreme bodybuilders get René Toney, I guess than fans of girls with less muscles should get theirs.
The ideas aren't what's narrow, the rules have narrowed down the images that should be uploaded and people aren't following it. No one is looking to impose their tastes on anyone we simply just want to see the rules followed to keep things organized.
I say we make the minimum a 5 and make more people have to vote on an image to make it on the website. Therefore any image that passes moderation has to be one that a lot of people agree on, therefore having a score less than 5 would be unnecessary.
I say make the minimum score a 5 and strengthen the moderation section of the page, by making more people having to come to a consensus before the image is posted.
Another example, if 3 people give a picture an 8 and then a fourth person gives it a 10, that only raises the score to 8.5. But if that fourth person gives it a zero, that drops it all the way down to a 6, which is kind of an insulting score. However you try to argue it, a zero has far more power than a 10, or even multiple 10's. If the true average score on GWM was 5, tens and zeroes would have equal weight, but since the actual average is probably 8 or above, a 10 will make very little difference while a 0 will make a lot of difference in the score.
Some people only rate pics that they think are extraordinary, so they give a lot of 10's. I see nothing wrong with that. Since (I'm guessing) only a small percentage of people do that, it really doesn't affect scores that much. Other people only rate pictures they want to "punish" for some reason, so they give a lot of 0's. I do have a problem with that. If you're consistently giving 0's, you're on the wrong website, so you should be sent home. My two cents.
But of course the site is nothing without content. And the content is a very mixed bunch on herbiceps. Personally I think there are too many bikini type women on there, who show absolutely no definition, not to mention muscularity. And when occasionally a nice looking model crops up, you have to wait months to get just 2-3 videos of that model. Because of their dripping of the content from one shoot for months or even a year. They should post all material of one model from one shoot, in maybe 2 or 3 installments max, and within a month. Not streched out over 6 months, often getting just an interview and nothing else at a time.
Another thing I don't like about the site is that the videography is amateurish. They almost always rely on natural lighting and nothing else, which is crap especially since many of the shoots are done in poorly lit hotel rooms or hallways. For someone who was in the business for decades I'd expect better than shaky handicam work in poor light. The only improvement over the herbiceps of 15 years ago comes from the better cameras thus higher resolution videos.
Anyone want to see what professional work should look like check out musclegirlshd.com and don't be afraid that it's only a vimeo channel. It's well worth it. With some of the most beautiful models you'll see anywhere, shot with professional makeup and ligting. Also the posing is more natural with much experimenting with angles and poses.
Any pic or info on her would be stellar
Thanks :)
This might help identify repeat zero bombers.
While I agree that we've been relaxing our standards quite a bit, that sure is not well-meaning participation.
Awesome work mods and keep up the great work you guys do with GWM.
:)
just a thought.
free image upload
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...).