Log in | Register
Forum > Site Discussion > Thread

[TODO] High Res Reposts Counted as New

Mar 22, 2021 - edited Mar 27, 2021 by Chainer - permalink

A gripe of mine, and this is only my opinion: image mergers of higher resolution pictures shouldn't date the picture as new (that is, inheriting the high res upload date vs the original upload date).

It is an incredibly common practice for models to release increasingly high resolution (but still inferior) copies of the original photo, to ensure a stream of content on their social media. Cindy Landolt for example is probably the worst with this - we routinely see re-releases of photos 8+ years old. Her photo history is a mess.

While the better quality re-release should be welcomed, it's not new content. In my opinion, the post date of the very first instance of that image should be preserved, even if the re-release is better quality. The new uploader should of course be listed as the most recent uploader, and the better quality upload accepted.

Hell, I'd argue that this new dating convention should be retroactive. That is, take the merge history of all photos, and reset the upload date to the original.

A re-release is simply not new content, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Thoughts?

cgsweat
Mar 22, 2021 - permalink

I think it's a valid point, especially when the image comments are of a certain age but the image is dated much later than those comments.

Mar 23, 2021 - permalink

@cgsweat That definitely exacerbates the issue. Then again, old photos do occasionally get renewed interest seemingly out of the blue due to users pushing it to the front page with a comment and everyone subsequently voting it to the high score today section.

I unsubscribed from Cindy's pictures because her endless reposts being pushed to the front page and my notifications were getting irritating. I'd love to actually see NEW photos of her in my notifications rather than the same lake St Tropez reposts over and over again.

Photo negatives dated from 2013 SHOULD NOT show up as uploaded in 2021. Seriously, a re-release just 100 pixels wider that's still just 1/10th the size of the original 30 MB raw is not special. People on Instagram just eat it right up, but it's annoying here.

No, wait, I take that back - it's an annoying practice everywhere that's the bane of social media for fitness models.

End rant.

M76
Mar 23, 2021 - permalink

How would a different sized and differently cropped image be merged to an old one? Manually by moderators? Or the site has google level ai for detecting images based on content?

cgsweat
Mar 23, 2021 - permalink

How would a different sized and differently cropped image be merged to an old one? Manually by moderators? Or the site has google level ai for detecting images based on content?

Straying a bit off topic, but the rules of merging have always been https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/thread...

And yes, mods do it manually through image reports sent in by users.

M76
Mar 23, 2021 - permalink

Straying a bit off topic, but the rules of merging have always been https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/thread...

And yes, mods do it manually through image reports sent in by users.

Then it should be an easy fix to keep over the original upload date and not the new one.

tamarok
Mar 24, 2021 - permalink

A “first submitted date” field could be interesting. On the other hand not having this info helps rejuvenate the model 😁

Chainer
Mar 25, 2021 - permalink

Yeah, this could be done with the method of using the earliest upload date from a group of merges to list the image under, and it can also be applied retroactively.

I unsubscribed from Cindy's pictures because her endless reposts being pushed to the front page and my notifications were getting irritating.

This wouldn't solve the notification problem though, as you would get notified when a new upload is tagged with a name, which is before it gets merged with an old pic.

« first < prev Page 1 of 1 next > last »