Ah, the reason that's not coming up is because of the soft-blacklisting due to self-morphing.

Can you link to an image of her please, so I can see what is going on.

Oh no, it's not wrong. Infact I think it's exactly how it's supposed to work. I was just nitpicking about how some names do have the diacritics in them, and others don't before I actually read the whole post.

You've done a great job with how it's set up now <3

Great! It's basically up to users whether to put a diacritic in a name or not. If a name is missing one, you can edit the profile name to add it.

Another model whose name is misplaced is Rose Santos, who appears as: Rose Kellen Santos, sharing photos with another woman.

This looks like it was incorrectly combined. I have separated them.

The gallery for Min Yung Kim has another model that now appears.

Here, on the other hand, I don't see any other model profiles that have been combined into Min Yung Kim. There is unfortunately not a good way of separating two models currently under the same name other than by doing it manually. You have to give one a distinct name from the other. Ideally you would do this by adding a link to their social media (like: "Min Yung Kim (instagramhandle)" or similar), not by adding a long text description.

Typed Jushi Hui into the search box and no results appear????

Can you link to an image of her please, so I can see what is going on.

Typed Jushi Hui into the search box and no results appear????

I know the correct spelling of her name uses accents ù , í and ì but are non native speakers expected to remember all the correct slants of all the different diacritics of all the languages of models on this site.

Chainer:

I have just made some changes to how model name information is stored and associated with images...

In the old system, there were some images that due to unintented behavior were not searchable (there was no search term that would make them appear). This is now fixed. On the other hand, due to how middle names were ignored in the old system, some model profiles may now mistakenly have pictures of more than one person under them. If you find these, please report them, or fix them yourself by renaming the pics of one of the models to distinguish it from the other (for example, by adding or removing a middle name, or adding an instagram handle).

The gallery for Min Yung Kim has another model that now appears.

I don't know if the name of the other model is also Min Yung Kim, but I tried searching for her using Google, and also reverse image search on Yandex. I was only able to find results for the original Min Yung Kim.

There doesn't appear to be an Instagram account for either model. The only way I can think to distinguish between the two is to change the original to something like:

Min Yung Kim (IFBB Fitness Pro)

-or-

Min Yung Kim (Born February 8th, 1970 in South Korea)

I didn't want to change it on my own and am alerting site staff as requested by Chainer.

Original Min Yung Kim:

Unverified "Min Yung Kim":

Another model whose name is misplaced is Rose Santos, who appears as: Rose Kellen Santos, sharing photos with another woman.

Oh no, it's not wrong. Infact I think it's exactly how it's supposed to work. I was just nitpicking about how some names do have the diacritics in them, and others don't before I actually read the whole post.

You've done a great job with how it's set up now <3

I don't understand which part of that behavior is wrong, or should be happening differently than it is.

This might be nitpicking, but Ellen Åkesson's autocompletion makes it Ellen Akesson. The Å and A are definitely different letters, and her name does start with an Å. It shouldn't be a problem for people who don't have an Å on their keyboard (I don't have it, I just know the shortcut) because I tested it. searching for any letter with or without diacritics will return all variatons of that letter.

There are others who do have the diacritic in their name (Gabriela Hejná, Angélica Aguilera, Amairani Magaña, Celeste Chávez just to name a few)

Edit: Never mind... read half of the post, then typed my comment, then read everything properly. Fixed it and life is good again.

I would be ok with an off topic forum that included politics if users were ok with and understood that stuff like repeated ad hominems and uncivil discussion were still liable for bans. Perhaps stricter in that way where you'd have a one strike or your out rule. Maybe people would learn to proofread their statements a bit.

Unfortunately, and predictably, it's two things: trans (and I guess LGBTQ in a wider sense but it's pretty rare) and the general AMerican conservative vs liberal area. Also predictably, most users won't even participate although they may lurk, and among the active users it'll be the usual suspects on each side of an argument.

If they weren't ok with formatting comments as an argument/discussion vs "you're a bigot" or "you're a commie" or whatever, then thney shouldn't dive in.

I think we've been plenty lenient elsewhere with deleting comments and only bans as a last resort for frequent flyers

In a word: Don't.

There are plenty of other places on the Internet for people to talk politics. It will absolutely get out of hand, and that will be the rule, not the exception.

You and the Mods already have more than enough on your plates in maintaining GWM. Politics, if permitted, will suck too much time and energy from the Mods, result in countless user bans, and still get out of control.

I agree with phenoms about this.

I think an off topic forum could be nice. since there are some things I want to say but they are only loosely related to strong women. and I can't think of a good place to post them

. politics should just be banned. I have a hard time imagining why someone would leave the entire site if they think members of their rival gang or tribe is on this site. but it's the way it is nowadays if only we could go back to 2010.

So I eventually (not sure when, maybe after a few years) deleted the aforementioned off-topic forum because it was getting very few worthwhile posts. Most of it was just spam and/or self-promotion.

I'm not too worried about those latter two these days because self-promotion is easy to delete or move to the correct section, and spam hasn't been a huge problem, so I have no reason to think that adding a new section would suddenly make it one. I also think it would see more activity because the forum as a whole is much busier these days than 2010 (~100 posts per day vs. less than 1).

What I am concerned about is the increased polarization of the internet, much more so now than in 2010, and whether to allow political topics on the new hypothetical off topic forum.

If I don't allow political and controversial topics, what even is there to discuss that can't be currently? This seems like it would be (or, become) its main purpose. Most other topics can just go in the existing General section.

If I do allow political topics, we run into the issue where some people will discover that their political opponents are right here browsing this site and will be unable to handle it. Currently we keep a lid on this by mostly not discussing it, which is fine because it's not like we need to do that for the site to function well. But if we allow it, suddenly now there's friction and conflict where there was no need for it, and we might lose people who are otherwise quality contributors to the site. At the very least it would require very strict moderation, and whoever is doing the moderating would be frequently accused of being unfair to some people, or sides of an argument.

I am open to being swayed here (let me know if there have been similar examples on similar sites, and how that went), or to ideas that would mitigate the conflict caused by choosing to allow political topics. One thing I've thought of is to make it opt-in only in some way rather than visible to everyone, but I haven't fully thought it through.

Hey Chainer

So I was thinking more along the lines of discussion of hobbies and interests that people here have outside of muscular women. For example, outside of my "preference" I am also into fitness, tabletop gaming and roleplaying, music, film and literature. I never really thought of it as a springboard for controversial topics like politics or other serious social issues. I personally think it would be a good forum for people to show more of who they are outside of the "fetish."

And while I could have discussions about, say, tabletop gaming on boards that are dedicated to that, I think it would be cool to share those interests with people who also are into buff women.

What I am concerned about is the increased polarization of the internet, much more so now than in 2010, and whether to allow political topics on the new hypothetical off topic forum.

In a word: Don't.

There are plenty of other places on the Internet for people to talk politics. It will absolutely get out of hand, and that will be the rule, not the exception.

You and the Mods already have more than enough on your plates in maintaining GWM. Politics, if permitted, will suck too much time and energy from the Mods, result in countless user bans, and still get out of control.

Politics is by its nature "all" or "nothing" and no holds barred.

Opt for "nothing" for your sanity and to preserve the atmosphere of GWM.

If I don't allow political and controversial topics, what even is there to discuss that can't be currently? This seems like it would be (or, become) its main purpose. Most other topics can just go in the existing General section.

What else might be discussed in an "Other" subforum if politics is off limits?

No idea.

Best way to find out is to create the section and see what (if anything) is discussed. If it suffocates, put the section out of it's misery by locking it.

?????????

The problem with a subforum like this would be maintaining what I'd call a netiquette. It used to be a thing when only universities, research facilities and military installations had Internet.

It includes things such as 1) not "voting" on things, 2) not writing "ditto" messages unless explicitly asked, 3) always responding below the quoted text, 4) always quoting text properly, 5) not starting a sentence in the title and finishing it in the body of the message, 6) not writing messages that are purely expressions of private emotion or don't mean anything to the reader, 7) not quoting entire messages if only responding to a small part, 8) not quoting anything at all if responding to a previous message, 9) always assuming that the other person's viewpoint either makes sense or even when not, is held for a reason, 10) critique over criticism, means that you're allowed to tell the other person he's wrong only if you tell him why or how you think he is wrong, 11) absolute prohibition on outright blasting or ridicule, spite or snark, 12) only very limited use of irony or sarcasm.

Not everyone finds all information interesting and nobody agrees with every other viewpoint. But very rarely if ever people find each other's pure expressions of emotion in any way interesting.

The problem with American politics in particular and Western politics in general is that most if not all positions are intentionally unattainable ideals or catchphrases intended mainly to hypnotize the followers and aggravate the opponents. There's usually nothing else to it than emotional reactions. And if ever someone tries to have a sensible discussion on anything political, it takes only one idealist or sentimentalist to ruin it for everyone. Sometimes it's hard to avoid caricatures of people and positions when caricatures are all they have always been to begin with.

The problem with politics is that it's a mixture of reality and fantasy, but the end goal is to keep everyone busy in their fantasy, and the method to achieve this is to get people to attack the other guy's fantasy and in turn see their own fantasy under attack. Even if you tried to grasp something real, be it natural resources or energy, population or agriculture, it will get immediately swallowed up by the fantasy struggle. By definition and by the very nature of the thing, everything in politics is worth ridiculing but extremely few things are worth discussing or learning about, and this naturally sets the tone of most political discussions.

But saying "?????????" is like pointing down at my penis with an alarmed expression on my face, not making a single sound and expecting everyone to know what I mean. An even slightly smarter person would just say what he means.

If I don't allow political and controversial topics, what even is there to discuss that can't be currently? This seems like it would be (or, become) its main purpose. Most other topics can just go in the existing General section.

I kinda feel like this is what the "Subcommunities" section is for, so that users can find other things in common with each other that aren't immediately obvious. The problem is that it's jumbled together with "Foreign Language" threads, so it's a bit of a mess.

Also, I always thought the "General" section was more specifically for female muscle-related discussions, and not necessarily just anything and everything.

So I eventually (not sure when, maybe after a few years) deleted the aforementioned off-topic forum because it was getting very few worthwhile posts. Most of it was just spam and/or self-promotion.

I'm not too worried about those latter two these days because self-promotion is easy to delete or move to the correct section, and spam hasn't been a huge problem, so I have no reason to think that adding a new section would suddenly make it one. I also think it would see more activity because the forum as a whole is much busier these days than 2010 (~100 posts per day vs. less than 1).

What I am concerned about is the increased polarization of the internet, much more so now than in 2010, and whether to allow political topics on the new hypothetical off topic forum.

If I don't allow political and controversial topics, what even is there to discuss that can't be currently? This seems like it would be (or, become) its main purpose. Most other topics can just go in the existing General section.

If I do allow political topics, we run into the issue where some people will discover that their political opponents are right here browsing this site and will be unable to handle it. Currently we keep a lid on this by mostly not discussing it, which is fine because it's not like we need to do that for the site to function well. But if we allow it, suddenly now there's friction and conflict where there was no need for it, and we might lose people who are otherwise quality contributors to the site. At the very least it would require very strict moderation, and whoever is doing the moderating would be frequently accused of being unfair to some people, or sides of an argument.

I am open to being swayed here (let me know if there have been similar examples on similar sites, and how that went), or to ideas that would mitigate the conflict caused by choosing to allow political topics. One thing I've thought of is to make it opt-in only in some way rather than visible to everyone, but I haven't fully thought it through.

?????????

Can something like this be created?

Personally I don't think the Ruzhena images are manipulated enough to warrant a blacklist entry for her. The examples Chainer gave (nearly 4 years ago...) are women who went exceptionally far, to the point where it became cartoonish.

However, I could see a case being made to put Yuan on the 'soft' blacklist, since she was blacklisted mainly for shrinking her head, which is something that many of the Asian culture tend to do these days.

I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread, due to its age and the information in the original post isn't as relevant as it once was. The discussion can resume in the thread I linked above.

I should ad Ruzhena Bedzir too to the list.

At first I looked for signs of conventional morphing, but couldn't find any. A person not familiar with tilt shifting can probably see nothing wrong with the cupboards, doors and mirrors. Like isn't perspective supposed to work like that? Some things are wider, some narrower.

But when you compare her biceps to her thighs you notice the problem. So it looks kind of like the upper part of the photo had fallen towards the camera. A house of mirrors effect.

How many of her photos are like this?

I should ad Ruzhena Bedzir too to the list. Till she's can't provide any raw photage and acceptable explain, I call her Ms Photoshop Princess. Check the cupboards, doors and mirrors behind her! If I try to compensate the tilt the background looks amorph! Here I enabled grids too! You can see her dirty secret...

She's using Tilt Shifting! In this case picture's upper part looks wider bigger, the lower part looks thinner smaller in few cases the shoes looks longer too During Tilt Shifting event the background tilting out! You can recognise these!

i

No, I don't even browse their site, let alone post on it. If there is someone there using this name, it is not me.

Chainer you seem to be active on saradas too, gotta say though this site is far better imo