I always have to manually copy the comments, because they appear full of square brackets and dots.
I don't know if the browser has something to do with it.
I see two rejected comments from you, "what a woman!!!" and "My goodness she was special. What an amazing body." Note that the first one could be applied to literally every picture on the site, and the second one is not much better. These are the kind of substanceless comments the filter is designed to prevent, and it seems to be working as intended in this case.
Yes, the filter does still let a fair amount of poor comments through. This is because I've been erring on the side of making it less restrictive, rather than more.
What are some examples of "good" comments?
Going through some recent comments this pic
has some good ones talking about the weight she is lifting.
I haven't fully thought about how to describe what makes a good comment, but something like this: Is specifically about the image or model in question, and is something you would say to her if her enormous, built husband were also standing right there. (For example, "That's a nice bicep pump" is probably fine, "Oh what I would give to lick the sweat off those abs" is not.)
While I understand the purpose of the filter I think the implementation of it might not be the best. Every single comment I've tried making has been rejected but bizarrely some absolutely low quality posts are allowed.
Something seems to be wrong with the High score (today). When I make an overview with my own uploads with this filter applied, I see just a few uploads, and not the pics I uploaded today.
This also seems to affect the High Score Today section on the homepage.
Welcome to the silent comment section. That will be the result. Then there will be no point to it anymore. I don’t care really, after all it is the images that count, but if only machine curated comments are allowed, it will be pointless.
Well it'll never be silent, but agreed. This is more loosely referred to as 'censorship', which carries a more negative connotation than was implied by Chainer et al... I completely believe their intentions were and are good. But in almost every situation where censorship is applied, the intentions are good (even if only the ones applying it believe them to be), and the end result is not. Once you can only say what it's decided you're allowed to say, you're on that slippery slope. Tbh I think it should be left alone, but if it can somehow miraculously be fine-tuned to only get rid of the stuff we don't want to see - in itself a subjective and impossible task - then I'll applaud the effort.
Welcome to the silent comment section. That will be the result. Then there will be no point to it anymore. I don’t care really, after all it is the images that count, but if only machine curated comments are allowed, it will be pointless. What stunningly new comment can be made about a beautiful woman that has not been said before? None.
People don't seem to get that their genuineness isn't worth anything. Neither is it any excuse for anything.
This is getting to be the biggest and only argument against the existence of the filter. A simple refusal to see what has already been said.
Because the admins and moderators don't want it. Though there are also others who do not want it. If this were a simple vote then it is quite possible that the supporters of the repetitive comments could even be outvoted. But either way it does not matter. You don't need a majority to attempt something that is commendable in itself.
The problem of false positives does not mean that the filter is a bad idea. If 95 % of the comments it stops should be stopped then I think that is a good trade-off and it's constantly getting better. People who would like to write boings and repetitive comments don't get to piggyback on the complaints of those who wrote good comments but were accidentally caught by the filter. It just does not work that way.
Most of the arguments against the filter are also low effort and low IQ.
Some people seem to think that rebellious venting and fuming is good enough to convince anyone.
It doesn’t mean they don’t want to say it or they don’t feel it genuinely.
People don't seem to get that their genuineness isn't worth anything. Neither is it any excuse for anything.
So what if someone says the same or similar each time?
This is getting to be the biggest and only argument against the existence of the filter. A simple refusal to see what has already been said.
Because the admins and moderators don't want it. Though there are also others who do not want it. If this were a simple vote then it is quite possible that the supporters of the repetitive comments could even be outvoted. But either way it does not matter. You don't need a majority to attempt something that is commendable in itself.
The problem of false positives does not mean that the filter is a bad idea. If 95 % of the comments it stops should be stopped then I think that is a good trade-off and it's constantly getting better. People who would like to write boings and repetitive comments don't get to piggyback on the complaints of those who wrote good comments but were accidentally caught by the filter. It just does not work that way.
Most of the arguments against the filter are also low effort and low IQ.
Some people seem to think that rebellious venting and fuming is good enough to convince anyone.
This is a stupid filter. So what if someone says the same or similar each time? It doesn’t mean they don’t want to say it or they don’t feel it genuinely. It’s a dumb rule, and I bet unpopular.
I don’t really get this filter. I was trying to make what I thought was a perfectly legitimate comment on a recent Ranya Dally post stating how much I like her “big but not ripped” look but it got rejected. Meanwhile, someone else’s comment of “so much beef” was accepted. Not sure why that meets the quality threshold but mine doesn’t.
It's probably exactly what you seem to be saying. This is only my guess, but it would seem every new comment is compared to not only the user's previous rejected comments but everyone else's accepted comments. This is how artificial intelligence works when done manually. Now there is no need to specify every bad word or combination of words, because if the comment is repeated too many times or with too great similarities in the context of the entire forum then it is probably not original and not specific to any particular picture.
Also, I never understood LOL in any context. It's like "I drank some milk a minute ago, hahaha". "This is going to take long, hahaha." "He is not getting anywhere soon, hahaha." The whole abbreviation screams "I think I am funny and amiable when I am not".
People used to know that a joke is bad when the person telling it is either the first one or the only one to laugh.
My suggestion is to ban LOL in every form. Doubt that it could ever happen but that's what I feel anyway.
Besides, a stunned silence would be an apt reaction to someone being painfully gorgeous. Unless the very idea was to ridicule the "painfully gorgeous" person.
The filter is officially broken. I just tried to copy and paste a comment someone else had just made on another image and it was not accepted. What the hell is going on?
The comment was "So utterly gorgeous. Like painfully gorgeous lol."
When the previous person just a few minutes before me can just say 'Whoah!!'
This is something I've been very interested in. That is, if the comments should be cleaned up after the fact and all the inane whoas and boings removed.
The second thing I've been interested in is what is the level of immaturity and self-absorbedness of some people here. This is like mom asking "why did Andrew try to do the naughty thing" and Andrew replying that "because Kyle did too so why can't I?"
I guess the ultimate authority has spoken, then.
I've been simply stating the obvious and repeating what has already been said. Why do I do that? Because some people here constantly miss the obvious and fail to read what has already been said. This is how a discussion should go. You have the wrong idea and the only thing anyone can do in that situation is to try to help you to get the right idea.
And it's their business, not yours, if and when they decide to give up and find something else to do.
Nothing to do with authority.
On the other hand, did someone promise that you could write some whoas too? If so, then you should complain to him directly.
It is. When the previous person just a few minutes before me can just say 'Whoah!!' and my entire sentence with 15-20 words doesn't meet the minimum filter requirements on the first attempt, then there's a problem.
Log in |
Register
Thanks for fixing this, I'm seeing the pics that I expect to see!
I always have to manually copy the comments, because they appear full of square brackets and dots. I don't know if the browser has something to do with it.
Example:
l
Thanks!
I see two rejected comments from you, "what a woman!!!" and "My goodness she was special. What an amazing body." Note that the first one could be applied to literally every picture on the site, and the second one is not much better. These are the kind of substanceless comments the filter is designed to prevent, and it seems to be working as intended in this case.
Yes, the filter does still let a fair amount of poor comments through. This is because I've been erring on the side of making it less restrictive, rather than more.
Going through some recent comments this pic
has some good ones talking about the weight she is lifting.
I haven't fully thought about how to describe what makes a good comment, but something like this: Is specifically about the image or model in question, and is something you would say to her if her enormous, built husband were also standing right there. (For example, "That's a nice bicep pump" is probably fine, "Oh what I would give to lick the sweat off those abs" is not.)
Looks like I broke it with a change I made to it yesterday so it wasn't updating. Should be fixed now. Let me know if it looks good to you.
I appreciate you noticing this, and thanks for reporting it!
While I understand the purpose of the filter I think the implementation of it might not be the best. Every single comment I've tried making has been rejected but bizarrely some absolutely low quality posts are allowed.
Something seems to be wrong with the High score (today). When I make an overview with my own uploads with this filter applied, I see just a few uploads, and not the pics I uploaded today.
This also seems to affect the High Score Today section on the homepage.
Well it'll never be silent, but agreed. This is more loosely referred to as 'censorship', which carries a more negative connotation than was implied by Chainer et al... I completely believe their intentions were and are good. But in almost every situation where censorship is applied, the intentions are good (even if only the ones applying it believe them to be), and the end result is not. Once you can only say what it's decided you're allowed to say, you're on that slippery slope. Tbh I think it should be left alone, but if it can somehow miraculously be fine-tuned to only get rid of the stuff we don't want to see - in itself a subjective and impossible task - then I'll applaud the effort.
Welcome to the silent comment section. That will be the result. Then there will be no point to it anymore. I don’t care really, after all it is the images that count, but if only machine curated comments are allowed, it will be pointless. What stunningly new comment can be made about a beautiful woman that has not been said before? None.
Even sadder is that it lets you post THAT comment lol
What are some examples of "good" comments?
People don't seem to get that their genuineness isn't worth anything. Neither is it any excuse for anything.
This is getting to be the biggest and only argument against the existence of the filter. A simple refusal to see what has already been said.
Because the admins and moderators don't want it. Though there are also others who do not want it. If this were a simple vote then it is quite possible that the supporters of the repetitive comments could even be outvoted. But either way it does not matter. You don't need a majority to attempt something that is commendable in itself.
The problem of false positives does not mean that the filter is a bad idea. If 95 % of the comments it stops should be stopped then I think that is a good trade-off and it's constantly getting better. People who would like to write boings and repetitive comments don't get to piggyback on the complaints of those who wrote good comments but were accidentally caught by the filter. It just does not work that way.
Most of the arguments against the filter are also low effort and low IQ.
Some people seem to think that rebellious venting and fuming is good enough to convince anyone.
There have been a few people expressing a slight dissatisfaction.
This is a stupid filter. So what if someone says the same or similar each time? It doesn’t mean they don’t want to say it or they don’t feel it genuinely. It’s a dumb rule, and I bet unpopular.
Chainer's currently working on improvements. It's a work in progress and so this feedback is valuable for him.
I don’t really get this filter. I was trying to make what I thought was a perfectly legitimate comment on a recent Ranya Dally post stating how much I like her “big but not ripped” look but it got rejected. Meanwhile, someone else’s comment of “so much beef” was accepted. Not sure why that meets the quality threshold but mine doesn’t.
Am I imagining it or has it been fixed?
Sad when you start seeing......I apparently can't even comment.... :( Instead of a genuine comment.
Welcome to the Minimum Threshold Club, Y'all!!!
It's probably exactly what you seem to be saying. This is only my guess, but it would seem every new comment is compared to not only the user's previous rejected comments but everyone else's accepted comments. This is how artificial intelligence works when done manually. Now there is no need to specify every bad word or combination of words, because if the comment is repeated too many times or with too great similarities in the context of the entire forum then it is probably not original and not specific to any particular picture.
Also, I never understood LOL in any context. It's like "I drank some milk a minute ago, hahaha". "This is going to take long, hahaha." "He is not getting anywhere soon, hahaha." The whole abbreviation screams "I think I am funny and amiable when I am not".
People used to know that a joke is bad when the person telling it is either the first one or the only one to laugh.
My suggestion is to ban LOL in every form. Doubt that it could ever happen but that's what I feel anyway.
Besides, a stunned silence would be an apt reaction to someone being painfully gorgeous. Unless the very idea was to ridicule the "painfully gorgeous" person.
The filter is officially broken. I just tried to copy and paste a comment someone else had just made on another image and it was not accepted. What the hell is going on?
The comment was "So utterly gorgeous. Like painfully gorgeous lol."
This is something I've been very interested in. That is, if the comments should be cleaned up after the fact and all the inane whoas and boings removed.
The second thing I've been interested in is what is the level of immaturity and self-absorbedness of some people here. This is like mom asking "why did Andrew try to do the naughty thing" and Andrew replying that "because Kyle did too so why can't I?"
I've been simply stating the obvious and repeating what has already been said. Why do I do that? Because some people here constantly miss the obvious and fail to read what has already been said. This is how a discussion should go. You have the wrong idea and the only thing anyone can do in that situation is to try to help you to get the right idea.
And it's their business, not yours, if and when they decide to give up and find something else to do.
Nothing to do with authority.
On the other hand, did someone promise that you could write some whoas too? If so, then you should complain to him directly.
It is. When the previous person just a few minutes before me can just say 'Whoah!!' and my entire sentence with 15-20 words doesn't meet the minimum filter requirements on the first attempt, then there's a problem.
Exactly. This filter is failing bigtime.
Not everyone has time or opportunity to write long passages. Surely often a single word like 'stunning' should be enough.
Similarly not everyone has time to read lengthy comments or arguments.
I like to see short snappy and long detailed contributions here and cannot understand why either should be a problem.
Tried posting this comment and some similar ones but was not accepted. What is wrong with this?
"The kind of girl I am always hoping will get huge, but looks nice enough as she is!"