Log in | Register
« first < prev Page 530 of 577 next > last »
myrrdin emrys
Aug 10, 2010 - context
here's mine.   i've been a fan of Hope's since i first got wired up to the internet over a decade ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GtKWf6mLdk&playnext=1&videos=KZlLSk-8qwA

here's another... you have to watch closely from 1:05 to 1:08 to catch a glimpse of her physique, but believe me when i say this girl is RIPPED:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYJ25BWy2aI&feature=related


poetry in motion, both of them.
myrrdin emrys
Aug 10, 2010 - context
i'd wager they're implants... too globular to be natural.

normally, i prefer natural, but hers are "just right" to blend with her level of upper-body muscularity.
bob7708
Aug 09, 2010 - context
Ever since the change over from the old server to the new one things have been loading up at dialup speed (52K) and and I have 20 MG. download speed on my internet Cable.  It's almost impossible to get anything done on this website....and this is a top notch website!!! Hope Chainer can get it up to speed soon.
rob666
Aug 09, 2010 - context
OK...so it's not just me and it's not just a coincidence. That's good to know:) The new server is extremely slow.
passionfor
Aug 09, 2010 - context
The new server appears to be very slow indeed and the site is now effectively unusable.
Please fix this.
Chainer
Aug 09, 2010 - context
That's too bad...

keep me updated on how it is tomorrow... I'm still considering upgrading to a faster server within the next 2 weeks if the site remains slow.
Aug 08, 2010 - context
Site functioning at a snails pace today. ???
Aug 08, 2010 - context
I'm not sure if you mean this to be related to the speed issue, but there really isn't any connection between image size and the way in which the site is "slower" on this site than previously.

Sorry for being unclear - I meant to say that reducing the max image size (and retroactively reducing the size of some of the hugest images) might help if the problem was actually bandwidth or storage space.  Since that's not the case, as you say, I guess this measure isn't needed for that specific reason.

But apart from that, I'm split on the idea of a smaller max image size (currently it's 3.5 MB I think)... If I decreased it, rather than people resizing those big pictures and uploading them in a smaller version, they would probably just not upload them at all. And even though a slightly smaller picture is better than a HUGE picture, a huge picture is still better than not having that picture at all (especially if it's a good picture).

Shrinking the image on the server side would solve that dilemma, though I suppose that may be difficult to implement at this phase.  I'd understand if you didn't feel like doing that.  That is, if the image is above a certain size threshold, some sort of script makes a more reasonable rerendering of the picture, and then "publishes" that version.  There's also hybrid solutions, where you change things around to make a second size of "thumbnail" for the images.  This larger thumbnail would then be the one that gets displayed when people click on the images from the main index.  Clicking on the image from that page would then load the original.
ptr
Aug 08, 2010 - context
Did you copy/pastet the image? Also norminations are restricted to no more than 15
orel5555
Aug 07, 2010 - context
I followed the instructions, but I can't the girl of the week ppicture to upload.
Chainer
Aug 07, 2010 - context
Hmm.  This is just a guess, but was the server change mainly for the sake of additional storage space (and/or bandwidth allowance), rather than increased performance?
The server change was mainly because the previous hosting plan was shared hosting, which (for those that don't know) mean that there are other websites run by other people sharing the space on that one server. Periodically, the host would complain that I was hogging the server's shared resources with my site, and would shut down some of my pages until I claimed that I had made them more efficient (this was what the 403 forbidden errors that you'd see periodically were). They started to do this more and more recently until there really wasn't a way I could think of to improve my pages, so I left. Now, this site is on its own server so the (new) host doesn't have the power to shut down pages like that. There was also a 250,000 file count limit on the old hosting plan, which we're still a while away from, but the site will probably get there eventually.

Neither performance nor bandwidth were reasons to switch... in fact, the previous server was more powerful than the current one, but I was much more restricted with what I could do on it than I am currently.

It's probably been suggested before, but it seems more and more as if this site could use a maximum image size.  Either you can prevent images above some logical level (512 or 768 KB) from being uploaded, or maybe you could find something that re-renders the big images into something more web-presentable.
Those 1.5 to 3MB images are ridiculous - a lot of the time they don't even look that great, because some chick didn't bother shrinking the image from her low quality point and shoot or cell phone before uploading it to the web.  They're not terribly nice to load from the user end either, for those with merely adequate internet like myself. :P

I'm not sure if you mean this to be related to the speed issue, but there really isn't any connection between image size and the way in which the site is "slower" on this site than previously. The site is "slower" than before because the server takes more time to process individual requests coming in from people, not because the transfer of information itself between users and the server is slow.

But apart from that, I'm split on the idea of a smaller max image size (currently it's 3.5 MB I think)... If I decreased it, rather than people resizing those big pictures and uploading them in a smaller version, they would probably just not upload them at all. And even though a slightly smaller picture is better than a HUGE picture, a huge picture is still better than not having that picture at all (especially if it's a good picture).

Back to the issue of speed- the site is running quite fast for me now... I'm about to install some software that optimizes a few things so maybe it'll be even faster afterwards. Keep me updated.
Chainer
Aug 07, 2010 - context
-Be able to flag inappropiate comments so that they can be reviewed by a mod.

This is something I've been meaning to do as soon as I get time. Right now I'm working on the donator system and once I'm done with that I'll work on a new way of getting pics approved (both of which have precedence over this IMO), but after that I might take on this.

-No morphs. It says so in the Upload rules, yet there's a morph tag under Images. I think they're pointless, like many other fake things. Existing ones should be removed and new ones not accepted.

The morphs tag is there so that morphs can get tagged so they'd be easy to find and delete for the mods. It's still against the upload rules to upload morphs, but the fact of the matter is that some will sneak through to the site anyway.
atombender
Aug 06, 2010 - context
Well I can't think of any additional rules right now, the important ones (what or what not to upload) are covered under the Upload link and as for comments, just don't be a douche I guess. Which reminds me...

-Be able to flag inappropiate comments so that they can be reviewed by a mod.

-No morphs. It says so in the Upload rules, yet there's a morph tag under Images. I think they're pointless, like many other fake things. Existing ones should be removed and new ones not accepted.
Aug 06, 2010 - context
Hmm.  This is just a guess, but was the server change mainly for the sake of additional storage space (and/or bandwidth allowance), rather than increased performance?

It's probably been suggested before, but it seems more and more as if this site could use a maximum image size.  Either you can prevent images above some logical level (512 or 768 KB) from being uploaded, or maybe you could find something that re-renders the big images into something more web-presentable.

Those 1.5 to 3MB images are ridiculous - a lot of the time they don't even look that great, because some chick didn't bother shrinking the image from her low quality point and shoot or cell phone before uploading it to the web.  They're not terribly nice to load from the user end either, for those with merely adequate internet like myself. :P
Chainer
Aug 06, 2010 - context
Well, there could be two reasons for this:
1) The load is much lighter this time of day, than about 10 hours prior. Load is highest around noon - 3pm Eastern USA time (GMT-5).

2) I made a change to two of the most-viewed pages that might make a difference... or it might not, hard to tell.

Keep me updated, especially for how it is tomorrow when the load is highest again (and I'm at work and can't check the site).
Aug 06, 2010 - context
Chainer the site is much faster tonight. Looks like we're back to normal. ;D
Chainer
Aug 05, 2010 - context
-You should be able to edit or at least delete your comments. Information may be false or outdated and typos are annoying.
Not a bad idea

-Upload date for pics. For information and it would also help to weed out doubles which were uploaded at a later point because the original upload doesn't always have the lowest picture ID. It's only fair to keep the oldest upload.
Upload date is possible for most pics, although I didn't keep track of it for the first few thousand.
Mods already have an automated system for merging two duplicates, and the smaller of the two pictures is the one to get deleted.

-Some people might be curious about those Stars and Rankings (under Members). Here's a rundown:

5 Brown Stars: Admin
5 Blue Stars: Moderator
5 Stars: 250+ uploaded pics
4 Stars: 100-249 uploaded pics
3 Stars: 35-99 uploaded pics
2 Stars: 1-34 uploaded pics
1 Star: Registered user with no uploads so far

This info and more should be part of a general FAQ.

Maybe you should write an FAQ, then :P
I don't really have time to write one right now. It's not a bad idea though, and if one were to be written, I'd post it under the About section.
Chainer
Aug 05, 2010 - context
I'm afraid that the speed (or lack thereof) is not a bug, but rather a function of the new server's CPU... that is, this is the fastest it can process all the requests coming in from users for webpages.

Let's wait a few days and see how the server does... if the speed is unbearably terrible, I can always upgrade to a more expensive server. Of course, I don't really want to do this unless I can help it because it's more expensive.

Edit: right now for me, the speed is slower than it was on the old server but still bearable... but I'm at work at the times of day when the site is busiest, so I can't check. Maybe over the weekend.
chief ouray
Aug 05, 2010 - context
It's not even at dial-up speed. Definitely seems to be a server problem as I get the same result with both Firefox and Safari browsers. I agree; great site; but hopefully the glitch gets fixed soon.
Aug 05, 2010 - context
Yes. Compared to previous server the site is running at a snail's pace. Hopefully Chainer is just ironing out a few bugs.  Meanwhile the site is second to none. :)
gritsforbrains
Aug 05, 2010 - context
The website seems to be running at dial-up speed today.  Anyone else noticing this? Is this a consequence of the new server?
atombender
Aug 05, 2010 - context
-You should be able to edit or at least delete your comments. Information may be false or outdated and typos are annoying.

-Upload date for pics. For information and it would also help to weed out doubles which were uploaded at a later point because the original upload doesn't always have the lowest picture ID. It's only fair to keep the oldest upload.

-Some people might be curious about those Stars and Rankings (under Members). Here's a rundown:

5 Brown Stars: Admin
5 Blue Stars: Moderator
5 Stars: 250+ uploaded pics
4 Stars: 100-249 uploaded pics
3 Stars: 35-99 uploaded pics
2 Stars: 1-34 uploaded pics
1 Star: Registered user with no uploads so far

This info and more should be part of a general FAQ.

Regs,

Atom
ferrari
Aug 03, 2010 - context
Do you know now what you think about it?  ???
Chainer
Aug 03, 2010 - context
I changed all the "view more..." links (you're talking about the 3 on the home page, right?" to bring you to the page that actually works.
chief ouray
Aug 02, 2010 - context
Not sure why this is an issue. She is topless on at least one web site, which should come up for you in a Google search. Then you can decide for yourself.
« first < prev Page 530 of 577 next > last »