moderation: sick of crappy pictures

Hello administrators. Please, when will you do something drastic to stop the hemorrhage of pictures posted everyday of women and girls without significant muscular hypertrophy?
I've just rejected about 90% of pictures of a woman called "AliciaMarieBODY"... Who wants to continue to moderate pictures in these conditions? I don't want to see millions of pictures of the same woman coming from Instagram (or something like that) because I want to be surprised, not to see clones.
In my opinion, the solution will be to prevent temporarely someone to upload more than two pictures per day (for example) if that person had previously uploaded too many bad pictures (rejected by moderators), let's say at least 33% of rejection during the last two weeks. So, from now the uploader won't be able to upload more than two pictures daily for the next 7 days and an email will be send to this person containing the statistics of the moderation (so this person will quickly know there's something wrong with its pictures).
You could create a gallery too of some pictures accepted and rejected to educate the uploaders. This could help a lot.

It is true what you say. GWM is so saturated with girls with fashion model body, which is incredibly tedious moderate. And it is useless to say no. There are many heroes members who reached that level by up only this kind of skinny.

I long to stop moderate.

Site administrators should do something.

Yeah, it sure tends to make one quit trying to moderate at all :o

Isn't this the purpose of the moderation? So you wouldn't have to see these pics on the main site?

You're right Chainer, but sometimes the Moderation is incredibly tedious, and say NO is useless.

I remember one occasion when I voted NO twenty times the photos of Dana Bruna, and later were inside.

Maybe you should look for a way to make it harder for the girls without muscles pass moderation.

It's true that the bar for an image to pass the voting queue is set fairly low at the moment. However, there needs to be a balance struck between false positives (allowing images that are not quite good enough onto the main site) and false negatives (deleting an image that would've been a good fit for the site). I would say that false negatives are worse than false positives because a bad image can always be deleted from the main site later, whereas images that have been deleted from the queue won't be recovered.

Some people have varying definitions of what a "girl with muscle" is.  15 years ago all the girls on the Michael Scott website were considered muscle girls.  We called them fitness girls back then.  I doubt any of them would make the site today.  I still consider them muscle girls but what do I know. 

I gave up posting pictures to the main site years ago.   I put 10 in and 9 get rejected, flip that.  I just post links here now.   You guys act like sorting through pictures of pretty girls is the shittiest thing ever.  You'll have to pardon me for questioning your sanity.         

@chainer:
I think that there are many more false positives than false negatives. Also, if the pictures are from the Internet, will eventually put in GWM by another user. And false positives not always are eliminated, as Dana Bruna. I have not seen a single photo eliminate of her, not even this:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/628308/Dana-Bruna

Maybe it's a just a perception, but I think that there are many more justifications to upload photos without muscles. For example this photo:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.php?imgid=708969 Obviously this photo shows nothing of muscles, but still approved the moderation and the uploader justifies it using the "argument of the other photos" I'm talking about here: http://forum.girlswithmuscle.com/index.php?topic=4902.0
It is not my intention disrespect anyone, but does not seem right that the uploader has the level "hero" if many of his pictures are like that.

Maybe you should find a way to remove some of these "justifications".

@knocker: It is a matter of common sense. You can not consider a girl with a flat musculature a girl with muscles. Otherwise the fashion models would girls with muscles. It's absurd. A minimum degree of hypertrophy and toning is required

The reason to have a place of photos of girls, specializing in  girls whit muscles is to save the job of searching through photos that do not interest you. To accomplish this, whether we like it or not, there must be a process in which photos are discarded by a criterion.

Sorry for my bad English.

Interestingly both of the pictures you linked were approved by a staff member from the staff queue, rather than through the voting queue. Whatever problems you have with the voting queue, these are bad examples.


Good luck coming up with a completely objective criterion. Even something like "must have visible hypertrophy" is not good enough from your perspective because "visible hypertrophy" is subjectve. For example, for this one could argue that her butt and quads are pronounced and visible in the picture.

You have thus far not convinced me that there are enough of these less muscular women on the site for it to be a problem. There is variety among the pictures, which I believe to be a good thing.

Maybe what you need is a 200 photo gallery of pictures that have been rejected.  New ones bump the old ones off.  That way uploaders can go through that to get a feel for what's good and what's crap.   You can even refer people who tend to submit lots of crap to have a look via personal message.

BTW Kakuzade, your English is miles better than my Japanese.     

I agree with Chainer. If a picture doesn't meet your tastes, express it with your rating vote. Moderation is not the place for that.

@Chariner:
That's when I mean that there are many justifications for girls without muscles. The concept of hipertropfia is NOT something subjective. Hypertrophy, as far as I know, relates to enlarge the size of the muscles. So that hypertrophy is not enlarge the size of the ass, it is to enlarge the size of the glutes. Some hypertrophied glutes looks, more or less, like this: http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/105984083.jpg

Hypertrophy glutes has a rather flat appearance, not pronounced like the picture of Catlin. The "pronouncing" is because fat, and develop the gluteus that burns fat. It is logical.

And what about Dana Bruna's photo? Obviously it is a "false positive", whether has entered by the staff. Why it was not eliminated? So far I have not seen a single photo of Dana Bruna showing, not even, a pair of packs of abs. Dona Bruna is not a "less muscular" girl, shows nothing of muscles. How could she have hundreds of photos on the site? A "less muscular" girl would Gracyanne, which although not very big, at least has some well-defined quadriceps above the knee, and a couple of packs of abs: http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/185454692.jpg

And what about this other picture? http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/143797218.jpg I think the least we should require a photo of an ass in GWM is that looks firm, right? And obviously, if when she press her fingers on her ass, the buttock is deformed like a bread dough, should not be in GWM. I understand that only seven moderators is difficult to control all the pictures, but it calls my attention that have not yet seen this picture.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that are currently going two things with moderation. First, users have the idea that if a picture is a model already present in GWM, or the model has some other good shot, the photo going in, no matter how bad it is. Second, there are some models that have some sort of "diplomatic immunity" and her photos are not eliminated no matter how bad they are, like Ana cozar.

This is very bad, because the grace of having a specialized site girls working muscles is to avoid searching through photos that do not interest us.

I agree that Dana Bruna is not very muscular... If I were approving images from the staff queue and came across her pics, I would not approve them. But she is athletic, and because of that she is not completely out of place on the site.

In the Ana Cozar butt pic you linked, her forearm looks jacked.

No, a butt does not need to be flat to be muscular. It can both be built AND have a layer of fat on top.

I think you just have a very high standard for what you consider to be muscular, which you're entitled to have, and you should have no difficulty finding that on the site (for example,

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this is the most recently commented image right now, which I'm guessing you don't have a problem with). What I don't like is that you expect everyone else to have the same tastes and standards as you. How do you explain the fact that Dana Bruna's pictures have high ratings and comments praising her looks?

@Chainer: This is not a matter of taste. It is simple common sense. Muscles are biceps, triceps, abs, quadricep, etc. Therefore, for a girl showing muscles she should show a peak of bicep, a couple of packs of abdominal or the lines of the quadriceps above the knee. A girl with a flat musculature is not a girl with muscles. Even a model like Gracyanne meets this. Is this a very high standard? Really?

I say this with all due respect, but it is hypocritical justify the photo of Ana Cozar by her forearms. It is obvious that you notice only when you need to find an excuse. But what about this photo: http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/673196/Ana-Cozar. There is nothing more than a big ass, that we know is flabby. Perhaps that's not a "false positive"?

You say that Dona Bruan is "athletic", but why the only photo that shows your face and fake tits was not eliminated. Does athletic condition is reflected on tits and face?

What do you mean with "athletic"? For example, this photo of Anllela Sagra:

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

. Is she athletic? However, this picture is not unlike in almost anything of this fashion model: http://especiales.primerahora.com/elbombon2011/naiyadeortiz/images/foto9.jpg Fashion models may be in GWM?

These models have good photos, but also have others that do not make sense in GWM, and can not justify the latter by the former. Moderation works voting each photo, one by one, in isolation.

As they say in my country "You can not hide the sun with your thumb." It is evident that many of the "false positives" are not deleted. At least not for these models. So it is not possible to be a balance with the "false negative".

PS: The reason why Dona Bruna is so popular is because it shows a big ass, not because she have good muscles.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave; When instagram we practise to surf (pardon the bad rhyme).

Everybody agrees that our collective actions have effectively lowered the standard of pics on the main site these days. This matter has been raised here many times in the past to no result, so I don't expect this time will be any different. I have posted elsewhere about this matter, so I won't repeat myself here, but I really, really want to say this: just as girls get a thrill out of taking selfies and posting them incessantly, some of our members seem to get one out of accumulating and posting as many of those selfies to the site, that they can't be bothered to be more responsible about them as can reasonably be asked of them. The hurry to post makes them forget to be more selective, to take a second look at a picture, or to record the name of its owner.

One particular member, for example, only record the first name of the girl, which makes it barely different from having no name at all. (If a last name is that much trouble to find - which in most cases isn't true - one can always use the instagram nick instead). We have opened the gate for a flood of pics with no i.d. and no quality check, and it looks to me like we are gonna have to live with that. But hey, that's not the end of the world, so try to enjoy the site with all its shortcomings.

Yes, but what makes a site exceptional is that it is willing to change for the best of what it truly stood for in the first place: Girls With Muscles
Any site can show boobs and butts but what distinguishes this site is that it focuses on females with visible muscle.
And by now, we should all be aware of what that entails... obviously.

I totally agree with the original poster!.

I too get fed up with moderating pics that don't meet the 'standard'!.

If these pics make it through to the main site, I notice they are invariably posted by the 'multi-posters' who are in competition with each other to get the highest number of pics posted = quantity over quality!.

I think we know who they are-invariably they don't post names of the girls or on occasions they may give a christian name!.

The problem is that the moderators do not "penalize", in any way, to these users who upload photos without muscles continuously.

If you read all the entries of the post with attention, it is clear that when a photo enters, it stays, no matter how skinny or flaccid it may be. Moderators do not delete these photos.

And they do not seem to have any intention of implementing any system that improves moderation in this area.

I already said this, but before the "about" said "GWM is an attempt to gather in the same site public domain photographs of female musicians." If you read the current "about" you will notice that the moderators are forcing things to justify these girls without muscle.

We do warn users who upload large amounts of subpar pics. If we didn't the problem would be worse than it is.

I am hearing a lot of complaints but not many suggestions on how to improve the voting queue system.

I think the underlying problem is that all members can moderate the same amount of photos.
They could implement a system that will lower the number of photos for penalized users. Or that we all have a base amount of basic photos, and that it goes up if we do not pealize. It would be a way to control that moderate more photos that respect the rules.

You also have to remove the "diplomatic immunity" to models that show no muscles. If members realize that their photos stay, no matter how skinny they may be, they will continue to upload photos of skinny people.

I already put several examples, but that of this photo:

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

This photo does not have any muscles and still continues in GWM. And do not use the excuse of "fit", because this photo is as "fit" as any fashion model or even a housewife, as they say in their comments.

Sorry for my English.

I did suggest that we cut down on the number of pics one member can post at one time. 100 is just too many. If each member can have only 10 pics in the voting queue, they'd be more selective about what they post.

Since nobody has responded to the suggestion, I kinda understand that it wasn't considered desirable for some reason. So I don't really wish to repeat that and act like a child who doesn't get what he wants. Just wanted to say that we did offer suggestions. :D

I am currently in the middle of some heavy back-end refactoring that needs to be done, but doesn't affect the user experience.

Once that's done my next project will be to try to improve the voting queue experience.

If I may butt in again, Chainer, when you consider making changes I would just like to you encourage you to think about whether there really is widespread demand for the kinds of things that are being asked about here, or if it's just three or four very (very very  o.0) vocal complainers. I personally am happy with the range of what's posted on this site and I think judging from its popularity a lot of your users are too, even if they don't say anything.

Well, I think it's a little bit of both. Some of the posters in this thread have tastes that tend towards the more muscular bodybuilders and are not tolerant of anything else, and I think purely pandering to them is not the way to go. However, it's also true that we get lots of mediocre uploads. I have on occasion gone through the queue (both the staff queue and voting queues) and easily deleted a bunch of pictures that have no business being on this site. This amounted to maybe 10-20% of all the uploads, with some uploaders being more at fault than others.

One idea could be to incentivize uploaders to self-filter their uploads. In the current system, people can dump large quantities of mediocre pictures into the queues and hope that the staff/voters sort it out, which is the source of the complaints. Here is what I propose:

We set a limit of 10 pictures that a user can have in the queues at any one time (this would be down from 100 currently). For every two of a user's uploads that pass the queue, this number increases by 1 up to a max of 100. For every one of a user's uploads that get rejected from the queue, the number decreases by 1 down to a minimum of 10.

This system rewards uploaders of good pics while restricting those who continuously upload subpar pics to a small number of uploads.

I'll continue to keep an eye on the queues. I looked through both queues just now and they looked pretty good, unlike some of my previous experiences.

I don't trust the common sense of many members when it comes to moderation, so I kinda suspect that the rewarding system will bring the situation back to where it was. Maybe it would take several months, but if a guy keeps posting and keeps getting approved, he'd get back to the magic number of 100 eventually. These days, almost anything get approved and applauded.

This is an example:

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

The muscles are supposed to be "under that uniform"! I have no doubt about that, but, hey, why can't we post a pic of a box, saying a girl is in there somewhere? Letting an ordinary girl wearing bikinis to appear would make more sense. Her muscles might be pathetic, but at least we get to see them!