I may have been haste in my accusations and for that I appologize. I took a petty tact. It's not about who receives credit, it's about honesty. I just want to know what happened to the pics that I RETOUCHED and uploaded, but then they were removed.
As for "retouching", my definition is taking a high quality(high kB), yet small pic and enlarging it, then softening it so it does not look pixelated. I have NEVER ONCE morphered or intentionally uploaded a morphed photo.
2nd - You are currently the biggest offender of uploading duplicates & poor quality / undersized images.
PROVE IT
3rd - We are currently averaging over 500 pictures a day and a large increase in traffic, nobody can honestly remember every pic out of hundreds of thousands of pictures. So your "retouching" is not only fictitious but a complete & total bold faced lie. And of the batch I uploaded only 2 came back already existing and after the upload only 1 was found to be a duplicate.
Well, I'm not lying. I don't get my jollies from making something like this up. That is an absurd accusation.
5th- I approve based on criteria not setup by me, Nothing from Images of Venus (no matter how great it looks) No Over-Roided SheMales (if it looks too much like a guy its getting canned) No contest pictures (only a few of those get approved and none by me) No orange skin, (This one I'm kinda loose on as long as its a decent picture.) Nobody that appears to be under 14 (Total Judgment call, and I try to avoid these as much as possible)
Lastly - Someone points out something that is wrong, copy, etc. I'm more than happy to correct it. But nothing gets deleted without proof of the original post. If you know of duplicates do something about them, it can't be delete if nobody else knows about it.
I've been on a bit of an uploading-spree today, when I suddenly noticed that sometimes, the link to the duplicate copy leads to the full view and sometimes to the image page. Because I would like to be able to read the comments about (and more often than not, the name of) those I am uploading, this link to the full picture is a bit of a nuisance.
So the two things I'd like to ask here, are: - Could it be made so that the duplicate link always points to the image page? - Is there a way to go to the image page, if you know the filename of the full picture?
You can already sort by highest rating, so the highest raw (arithmetically averaged) scores would still be the same if some sort of "curving" algorithm was put on it. So, in terms of browsing pleasure the current system should be equivalent. I merely thought that scores should go closer to 10 and that way would better reflect what we really think of them.
Thinking about it, better scores would be a useful side-effect -- but more usefully it'd provide a great way to browse the content of the site.
There are just so many photos now...
My way to browser is: open a page (example 1) CTRL-CLICK all images (looool yes, i do so), then go on the 2nd tab, and click CTRL-F4 to close everyimage....when you're back to the 1st and only tab, click page 2 and start again :D :D It's the faster mode to view all uploaded images, now ^^
I haven't read the algorithm, but I suggested the same exact thing (minus the link) a few months ago. I still support the idea, but so far no groundswell of support to inspire action. Max score is about 8.6 btw
The website-scoring system doesn't seem to work too well -- all the good images, even some really fantastic ones, just hover with a score around the 8 mark.
Does anyone else think that a thefairest.info/bestthing.info-style voting page would be worth adding?
1st - Duplicates go in the above mentioned thread, or check to the report the image, drop by chat with the link's to both, and the duplicate will be removed. Whatever one of the two with the newest ID# gets deleted, pure and simple
2nd - You are currently the biggest offender of uploading duplicates & poor quality / undersized images.
3rd - We are currently averaging over 500 pictures a day and a large increase in traffic, nobody can honestly remember every pic out of hundreds of thousands of pictures.
4th - http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=8980 was posted in chat uploaded by the user "Phoenix" which prompted my google fu, and resulted in the upload of a batch of pictures of the lovely Kimberly Martin obtained from http://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=201078 and another site. So your "retouching" is not only fictitious but a complete & total bold faced lie. And of the batch I uploaded only 2 came back already existing and after the upload only 1 was found to be a duplicate.
5th- I approve based on criteria not setup by me, Nothing from Images of Venus (no matter how great it looks) No Over-Roided SheMales (if it looks too much like a guy its getting canned) No contest pictures (only a few of those get approved and none by me) No orange skin, (This one I'm kinda loose on as long as its a decent picture.) Nobody that appears to be under 14 (Total Judgment call, and I try to avoid these as much as possible)
Lastly - Someone points out something that is wrong, copy, etc. I'm more than happy to correct it. But nothing gets deleted without proof of the original post. If you know of duplicates do something about them, it can't be delete if nobody else knows about it.
lonnieg ...... mosty of us gather in the chat room, not much activity here in the forum, so it may be several days (or even weeks) before anyone even sees it
I'm not staff, but I highly doubt Phoenix is in trouble.
Also, and in all sincerity, this isn't meant to sound harsh as your contributions are undoubtedly highly valued to the community - but, that said - who really cares if you don't "receive credit" for your uploads? Why does it matter? You are neither the photographer, nor the model, nor the publisher/copyright holder, and there are no internal incentives, rewards, compensation, or recognition given to image posters (with the possible exception of stars etc - but those can be earned by commenting as well). Personally, I feel the model deserves the lion's share, and the photographer deserves a bit. The rest of us didn't do much other than search the web and click "Save Image As..." I'm sure there is a perfectly logical technical reason for the discrepancy and why the images are listed under a mods name. Similarly, Chainer is listed as having uploaded over 3,000 images personally, and precocious chap as he may be, I'm sure some of those fall in the same category as what your complaint/question pertains to. Hopefully that addresses your concerns - you are not the victim of any ill-intentions conspiracy to deprive you of credit.
As for quality declines: it's primarily contingent on what is uploaded, and what constitutes quality (i.e. aesthetics, in this case) is subjective and there is therefore a divergence of opinion. Personally, I haven't noticed a marked decline and have seen many nice postings in recent weeks/days. There may have been complaints as to why too many pictures were not being approved, and perhaps letting more get through is being done in response to that. Inevitably, site staff is destined to get stuck in a Catch 22 situation - let in too little and hear complaints, or let in "too much" and hear complaints. By the law of large numbers, I think truly exceptional images would actually go up in number by letting in more, although the average quality may decline due to more mediocre and the occasional lower quality upload.
Duplicates are addressed by either posting to the "duplicates" thread on the forum, to which mods are extremely responsive, and of course by the automated systems. As human beings, you can hardly place blame on any individual for not having memorized close to 30,000 images - especially when they may not have approved the other duplicate copy in the first place and also because the photos tend to be of a similar nature in the first place. To err is human and to forgive divine, right? Innocent mistakes at the very worst.
I've found the operation of this site to be refreshingly equitable and responsible, especially in light of the high degree of interactivity maintained. My only hope is that now you see it that way too. The above comments were intended solely to help give you reasonable assurances that you are not the victim of abuse or exploitation.
I do, however, have a question/concern for you: Namely, why are you retouching images? Again, you are not the photographer et al. so why alter the images (other than for fun, perhaps)? Do we not have a right to see the image as you found it? It's certainly not a big deal, but it definitely makes me curious. There is no tag for this, and aside from professionally edited photos, I rather doubt anyone else is engaged in the practice. Personally, I would prefer un-retouched images whenever possible. Again, no offense intended, just some honest answers and an honest question.
Echo echo echo....I guess no response means somebody is in trouble? I don't care what happens, I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the "staff". I know for a fact I've uploaded some pics, they were approved, disappear and suddenly reappear under a mod. The Kim Martin pics I retouched (no morphing, just cleaning up) are the most recent that come to mind. All I want is a simple acknowledgment.
This whole subject is getting very stale. Almost every time I come onto this forum, there is someone trying to dictate what is right or wrong to the rest of us. None of the photographs on this site are illegal. If there were such photo's, this forum would have been shut down by now. Have you nothing better to do with your time?; "this isn't suitable, that should be removed". They are just a bunch of photographs. If you don't want to look at them, fuck off somewhere else!
If you feel that strongly about the subject of child exploitation, perhaps you should try and spend your time finding sites that contain content of that nature, and try and get those sites closed, instead of wasting your time complaining to us.
This doesn't apply to 99% of you out there - but food for thought anyway because disagreements are inevitably bound to occur. That said...
The fundamental purpose of a FORUM is to spark discussions - preferably of somewhat intelligent caliber (though that latter part is debatable). Discussing a topic, especially when values and opinion come into play, is bound to elicit conflicting points of view. On this site, for example, it may revolve around an individual, drug use, or perhaps the level of muscularity one prefers to see on a female. I feel pretty safe in adding that, yes, a little playfulness and sarcasm is welcome to bring some levity to the discussion. But what is not necessary or called for is taking things extremely personally and spouting off curses and derogatory statements about other forum participants just because they do not agree with your opinion on one particular miniscule matter. Considering you both are on this forum, you probably have more commonalities than differences. And even if you don't, you should keep your posts mature. I know on other boards people get into asinine "flame wars" but this board is too intimate and tightly knit to get into that immature nonsense. So yeah, keep it real, keep it clean, keep it fun, but also keep it respectful.
Something else I noticed, I uploaded and had approved some Kimberly Martin pics a while back and now those same pics , enlarged and "retouched" by me appear under his name.....
Whoever is the moderator (Phoenixhawk I suspect) that has been approving photos lately is sloppy. The quality of uploads have fallen duplicates have increased.
1. i'm with ursus here 1000% 2. it is legal, and even so we have set boundaries of propriety as far as comments etc go, not to mention mods review images to ensure there is no nudity 3. most of the allegedly offensive pics listed are actually in their LATE teens, and several of them could easily be 18-19. 4. the only younger person in the batch is a nationally competing gymnast who was 14-15yo at the time, and wearing a tank top - her parents and civilized society as a whole sees nothing wrong with having her appear on television clad more scantily in a leotard (and doing splits to boot). this, in comparison, is a far more "innocent" shot. furthermore she is proud to display her muscularity and has taken and posted online (presumably knowing that anyone/everyone could view) numerous pictures of herself flexing her arms and abs. 5. you can choose not to look at those images since the thumbnails show plenty of detail. the only purpose of your post, it therefore seems, is to criticize and attempt to control what others do or what your perverse imaginings would have them do.
Log in |
Register
This one goes to Chainer!
I think it's enough from Marko. Ha want to f*ck everyone. Just some of his comments...
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=32780
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4557
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=9565
So what do you say? I think it's time to restrict commenting just for members. Or some type of IP banning would be enough?
--S3R!0US--
As for "retouching", my definition is taking a high quality(high kB), yet small pic and enlarging it, then softening it so it does not look pixelated. I have NEVER ONCE morphered or intentionally uploaded a morphed photo.
So the two things I'd like to ask here, are:
- Could it be made so that the duplicate link always points to the image page?
- Is there a way to go to the image page, if you know the filename of the full picture?
open a page (example 1) CTRL-CLICK all images (looool yes, i do so), then go on the 2nd tab, and click CTRL-F4 to close everyimage....when you're back to the 1st and only tab, click page 2 and start again :D :D
It's the faster mode to view all uploaded images, now ^^
There are just so many photos now...
Does anyone else think that a thefairest.info/bestthing.info-style voting page would be worth adding?
('Pootery people: see http://bestthing.info/algorithms.html)
In theory, it shouldn't be that hard to implement, and should have much better results..
2nd - You are currently the biggest offender of uploading duplicates & poor quality / undersized images.
3rd - We are currently averaging over 500 pictures a day and a large increase in traffic, nobody can honestly remember every pic out of hundreds of thousands of pictures.
4th - http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=8980 was posted in chat uploaded by the user "Phoenix" which prompted my google fu, and resulted in the upload of a batch of pictures of the lovely Kimberly Martin obtained from http://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=201078 and another site. So your "retouching" is not only fictitious but a complete & total bold faced lie. And of the batch I uploaded only 2 came back already existing and after the upload only 1 was found to be a duplicate.
5th- I approve based on criteria not setup by me, Nothing from Images of Venus (no matter how great it looks) No Over-Roided SheMales (if it looks too much like a guy its getting canned) No contest pictures (only a few of those get approved and none by me) No orange skin, (This one I'm kinda loose on as long as its a decent picture.) Nobody that appears to be under 14 (Total Judgment call, and I try to avoid these as much as possible)
Lastly - Someone points out something that is wrong, copy, etc. I'm more than happy to correct it. But nothing gets deleted without proof of the original post. If you know of duplicates do something about them, it can't be delete if nobody else knows about it.
Also, and in all sincerity, this isn't meant to sound harsh as your contributions are undoubtedly highly valued to the community - but, that said - who really cares if you don't "receive credit" for your uploads? Why does it matter? You are neither the photographer, nor the model, nor the publisher/copyright holder, and there are no internal incentives, rewards, compensation, or recognition given to image posters (with the possible exception of stars etc - but those can be earned by commenting as well). Personally, I feel the model deserves the lion's share, and the photographer deserves a bit. The rest of us didn't do much other than search the web and click "Save Image As..." I'm sure there is a perfectly logical technical reason for the discrepancy and why the images are listed under a mods name. Similarly, Chainer is listed as having uploaded over 3,000 images personally, and precocious chap as he may be, I'm sure some of those fall in the same category as what your complaint/question pertains to. Hopefully that addresses your concerns - you are not the victim of any ill-intentions conspiracy to deprive you of credit.
As for quality declines: it's primarily contingent on what is uploaded, and what constitutes quality (i.e. aesthetics, in this case) is subjective and there is therefore a divergence of opinion. Personally, I haven't noticed a marked decline and have seen many nice postings in recent weeks/days. There may have been complaints as to why too many pictures were not being approved, and perhaps letting more get through is being done in response to that. Inevitably, site staff is destined to get stuck in a Catch 22 situation - let in too little and hear complaints, or let in "too much" and hear complaints. By the law of large numbers, I think truly exceptional images would actually go up in number by letting in more, although the average quality may decline due to more mediocre and the occasional lower quality upload.
Duplicates are addressed by either posting to the "duplicates" thread on the forum, to which mods are extremely responsive, and of course by the automated systems. As human beings, you can hardly place blame on any individual for not having memorized close to 30,000 images - especially when they may not have approved the other duplicate copy in the first place and also because the photos tend to be of a similar nature in the first place. To err is human and to forgive divine, right? Innocent mistakes at the very worst.
I've found the operation of this site to be refreshingly equitable and responsible, especially in light of the high degree of interactivity maintained. My only hope is that now you see it that way too. The above comments were intended solely to help give you reasonable assurances that you are not the victim of abuse or exploitation.
I do, however, have a question/concern for you: Namely, why are you retouching images? Again, you are not the photographer et al. so why alter the images (other than for fun, perhaps)? Do we not have a right to see the image as you found it? It's certainly not a big deal, but it definitely makes me curious. There is no tag for this, and aside from professionally edited photos, I rather doubt anyone else is engaged in the practice. Personally, I would prefer un-retouched images whenever possible. Again, no offense intended, just some honest answers and an honest question.
None of the photographs on this site are illegal. If there were such photo's, this forum would have been shut down by now.
Have you nothing better to do with your time?; "this isn't suitable, that should be removed".
They are just a bunch of photographs. If you don't want to look at them, fuck off somewhere else!
If you feel that strongly about the subject of child exploitation, perhaps you should try and spend your time finding sites that contain content of that nature, and try and get those sites closed, instead of wasting your time complaining to us.
Respect the moderators or get lost!
The fundamental purpose of a FORUM is to spark discussions - preferably of somewhat intelligent caliber (though that latter part is debatable). Discussing a topic, especially when values and opinion come into play, is bound to elicit conflicting points of view. On this site, for example, it may revolve around an individual, drug use, or perhaps the level of muscularity one prefers to see on a female. I feel pretty safe in adding that, yes, a little playfulness and sarcasm is welcome to bring some levity to the discussion. But what is not necessary or called for is taking things extremely personally and spouting off curses and derogatory statements about other forum participants just because they do not agree with your opinion on one particular miniscule matter. Considering you both are on this forum, you probably have more commonalities than differences. And even if you don't, you should keep your posts mature. I know on other boards people get into asinine "flame wars" but this board is too intimate and tightly knit to get into that immature nonsense. So yeah, keep it real, keep it clean, keep it fun, but also keep it respectful.
:)
2. it is legal, and even so we have set boundaries of propriety as far as comments etc go, not to mention mods review images to ensure there is no nudity
3. most of the allegedly offensive pics listed are actually in their LATE teens, and several of them could easily be 18-19.
4. the only younger person in the batch is a nationally competing gymnast who was 14-15yo at the time, and wearing a tank top - her parents and civilized society as a whole sees nothing wrong with having her appear on television clad more scantily in a leotard (and doing splits to boot). this, in comparison, is a far more "innocent" shot. furthermore she is proud to display her muscularity and has taken and posted online (presumably knowing that anyone/everyone could view) numerous pictures of herself flexing her arms and abs.
5. you can choose not to look at those images since the thumbnails show plenty of detail. the only purpose of your post, it therefore seems, is to criticize and attempt to control what others do or what your perverse imaginings would have them do.
Consider yourself zinged, b1tch.
;)
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=9342
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=10412
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=2805
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=3895
Fixed
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=8612
The size and the background are changed, ut the pic is the same
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=23626
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=6766
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=24548
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=6765
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=23627