Categorizing pictures...?

How about a bikini tag?

Thanks. They were different sizes, so I deleted the smaller one.


I feel like the other tags ("abs", "overall physique") cover that pretty well... if I added tags for clothing the list would get way too long.

Another duplication:

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=1618

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=3919

Nice shot, too ...

Thanks... again, deleted the smaller one

Congratulations, Chainer -- you've really got it fine-tuned now. If I can make one final icing-on-the-cake suggestion -- how about a second 'tab' menu for cross-referencing two criteria, like -- for instance -- 'athlete' and 'abs' or 'biceps' and 'lats'?

And another duplicate:

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=2438

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4417

Nice shot, of course -- when you remove duplicates, do you merge their ratings/tags/comments?

And YET another:

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4295

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4424

I think that duplicate-finding-script needs to be pimped a little ^^
Does it consider the pictures' histograms at all?

Thanks -- and done!  :)


No, I just delete whichever image has a smaller resolution, along with ratings and tags and comments. It's currently not possible to merge ratings/tags/comments.


Yes, the script is far from perfect.  :(

The way it works is that for each uploaded image, it gets that image's width, height, and filesize (in bytes). It then goes through the entire database of pictures on the site and compares those three values with the corresponding values of each picture in the database. If all three values match for any particular image, the uploaded picture is identified as a duplicate.

Problems: Obviously, this doesn't work if the image uploaded is a duplicate of a picture on the site, except at a smaller resolution (width and height and filesize are all different). If the uploaded picture happens to have the same width, height, and filesize, by coincidence, as a different picture already on the site, the script falsely identifies it as a duplicate. The chance of this happening is very small, but grows as the number of images on the site increases (especially for popular resolutions such as 800x600px).

I'm not sure whether trying to match the histograms of two images would work for duplicates of different sizes... It would identify exact duplicates, but I would assume that whenever a program resizes an image, the histogram changes depending on which pixels the program decides to keep, and the quality at which the image is then saved. I'm not quite sure that's how it works, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

And the duplicates keep on coming. Two more pairs:

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4588
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=1365

and:

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4586
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=2286



Incidentally, it's interesting to see how varied different posters' tastes are. I'm a sucker for spectacularly-ridged ab-shots, but every time I give one a high score, others zoom in and seriously mark them down ... or retag them as 'glutes/butt.'

Still, variety = spice of life, etc. I wouldn't want to see any category or style barred or discouraged, other than pre-pubescents, which Chainer already monitors pretty carefully.

Nice photo but duplicated:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

is it possible to make categorizing of pics within your account?
rating, views and some tags.

Chainer, is there possible to group photos by theme or by girl name?

Astounding how often pix of women of color get routinely marked down -- wonder if it's the same person(s) who routinely award(s) zeros to ab-shots?
I guess the quickest way to get a pic directly onto page 145 of 'Highest Rated' is to post a shot of a black woman's abs ...

^^^^^^^^

And it's still going on, too ...

Anyone not offended by the sight of non-white female muscle should definitely investigate beyond the first few pages when in 'Highest Rating' mode ... you'll find some lovely pix downgraded to very low ratings because someone's bombarded them with zeros.

Well there's a variety of haters out there.. not only colored women get rated down. Same if there's no face showing etc. I gave up getting all excited over ratings or stupid "who is she?" comments :D . Better just enjoy the pics.

Anyway, blocking guest comments and a policy that forbids posting links to personal myspace/bodyspace profiles might help a little in some cases. IMHO there's the need for some responsible moderators.

Jeez Chevron you could have picked a better example then some fully clothed girl pulling her shirt up a little bit that was a lame a$$ choice!! We are guys here and if the babe is fully clothed and barely showing she may get rated down.

Now if you were whining about this girl below, you might have a case.  (very well balanced BTW)!:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=7596

Somehow she has a lower rating then this girl:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=6418

But surprisingly girl above also beat out the following mix:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=6516
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=8044
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=6682
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=7485
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=6434
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4004

We also have the other following oddity that this girl in her sweats and tee shirt rolled up:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=9223
Beat out this girl by a 0.1 of a point, which may cause me to have a heart attack if saw her in the gym:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=8832

Surprisingly the second link posted (6418) beat out 2250 others who happened to be from a  multitude of races. Is the first link I posted underrated IMHO Yep! Is i because she is non-white. The jury is still out! If this is the case then why is lady below so lowly rated.
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=8044

We all have different tastes, thank God! Just think of it this way Chevron, if we all had the same taste in women as you did you'd have nothing to choose from because they would all be taken.

Not right now... that's a good idea for the future, though.


If you want to look for pictures by theme, try the tags... I'm working on a search function for name as well, but that functionality is not available right now.


Hmm, let's look at some stats. This should be interesting  :)
The black girl in the first link has the following ratings (as of this post): 7, 0, 8, 3, 1. The last two are from the same person, but none of the others are repeated. (And yes, voting multiple times on a picture is against the rules, and repeat offenders who seem to do it on purpose (very easy to tell from my end) risk getting banned.)
The 2nd girl (6418) has votes 10, 0, 8, 9. The same person who gave the first girl a 0 gave this one a 10.

This girl: http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=8044 is lowly rated because she only has 2 ratings. One is an 8, the other a 1. Two ratings are statistically not significant enough to determine whether people like or dislike that image in general. It's possible that most people would rate it a 7, for example, but they just haven't voted on it and thus the rating remains low.

This black girl:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=7485 has ratings 7, 4, 3, 2, 6, and 8. The 3 and 2 are from the same person. (The person I mentioned before who gave the other black girl a 0 and then another (white) girl a 10 gave this a 4.)

My advice is, don't take the ratings too seriously. On average, I think they're a good way of telling whether an image is likely to be good (ratings of 8+), or whether an image sucks (ratings of 4 or below)-- but this is only true when several people have voted on an image, and even so, your own tastes might differ significantly from the tastes of most of the site's visitors. In any case, claiming that an image with a rating of 8 is inherently better than one with a rating of, say, 7, is foolish.