Log in | Register
Forum > Site Discussion > Thread

"Why was this pic deleted?"

« first < prev Page 21 of 21 next > last »
May 29, 2024 - permalink

Literally can't understand how this comes under nudity. I can select about 100s of posts which can be called nude in this website. Will you delete all of them too ??

tamarok
May 29, 2024 - permalink

I just looked and it was a video and the "adult content" part probably applies. The content also suggests it was probably from OF.

[deleted]
May 29, 2024 - permalink

Literally can't understand how this comes under nudity. I can select about 100s of posts which can be called nude in this website. Will you delete all of them too ??

she's quite literally grinding a pillow i don't see how that's not adult content

Chainer
May 29, 2024 - permalink

I can select about 100s of posts which can be called nude in this website. Will you delete all of them too ??

This argument comes up often enough that I wrote a post about it.

https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/thread/...

May 30, 2024 - edited May 30, 2024 - permalink

Just got this for a post that was online for 2 days already. Don't think it's right.

  1. Forum and images are 2 different crowds. There are people who almost exclusively browse the image part of the site as opposed to the text part. Hence, the many people who would be interested to see such a comparison would have never chanced upon it if it was posted in the forum (which they would rarely if ever visit). This is exemplified by the fact the comparison attained a score of ~100 and was on the high score section of the front page for >24h. It would never have received as much exposure or quality discussion had it been posted in the forum instead.
  2. There is a lot of noise in forum threads and no section dedicated to comparisons. In addition to (1), this makes it even more difficult for people interested in a comparison like that to find it in the first place. The comparison I made tagged the specific women, making it easy for the people interested in them to discover the related comparison
  3. Moreover this was a comparison of stats (height, weight, strength) and the each of the images were specifically selected for their similarities in pose, posture, camera angle and distance, footwear, etc to eliminate as many variables as possible to maximize objectiveness.

The typical forum "comparison" is completely non-scientific with random pics selected and a focus on opinions as opposed to appreciating the visuals and REAL stats of each woman. This latest forum comparison thread "Emma vs Emma" highlights the shortcomings I've pointed out https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/thread/...

I think "comparisons" in the forum in their current state should rightfully stay in the forum. But if the comparison is a more direct one, with a focus on constants to make things as even as possible (e.g. not 2 randomly selected images of 2 different people side by side), then they deserve a place in images, tagged to the relevant women.

Appreciate you reading this post and considering what I've written. Thanks.

[deleted]
May 30, 2024 - permalink

Generally we do not do comparison posts to the gallery between different women. It turned into a weird “who do you think is bigger or stronger” thing.

If this was a before later that’s fine. But we stay away from peer comparisons unless they were already in the same picture. Also the women hate that shit

May 30, 2024 - permalink

Generally we do not do comparison posts to the gallery between different women. It turned into a weird “who do you think is bigger or stronger” thing.

If this was a before later that’s fine. But we stay away from peer comparisons unless they were already in the same picture. Also the women hate that shit

I see where you're coming from. Thanks for the response and clarity!

May 31, 2024 - permalink

What on earth does this mean?

[deleted]
May 31, 2024 - permalink

Sounds like it was reported as a Patreon exclusive, unless you can provide a link to a public (non paywalled, non membership) posting. Not sure why the mega link was included tho

May 31, 2024 - permalink

I found it on Reddit to be honest so I wouldn’t say that’s exclusive haha

May 31, 2024 - permalink

I found it on Reddit to be honest so I wouldn’t say that’s exclusive haha

Just because it was posted on Reddit doesn't mean it wasn't originally lifted from a pay site.

[deleted]
May 31, 2024 - permalink

Yeah unfortunately we kind of have to go on the word of people who do subscribe. I don’t see it on her IG. She has been particular aggressive with takedowns of her content online (it’s very hard to find the old videos that used to be posted all over the place from 6-7 years ago) so we’re not trying to run afoul

May 31, 2024 - permalink

Fair enough, just that I’ve never seen that reason for a deletion haha

tamarok
May 31, 2024 - permalink

It’s basically an image report message that was acted on.

Jun 22, 2024 - permalink

You deleted my post saying it is from onlyfans even if Nataliya posted it on her twitter.

So now delete this video too as it is from onlyfans only. But I bet you won't.. https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2192463/

[deleted]
Jun 22, 2024 - permalink

its deleted now, so what's your problem?

4 days ago - permalink

May I question the how two recent uploads I made violate site policies?

I would agree with the facts of the statements for deletion. Many images of Karen Orlena Wall prominently feature her breasts. She certainly has a "high impact to muscle ratio". However, neither of these are unique to these images, nor this to this model. I would point out that there are numerous images on the site that have similar composition. Some I would argue are more egregious:

https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/8...
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/1...

I realize there is no "one size fits all" policy. And if the reason were "too much boob on the site about muscle", that makes sense. It just seems opaque why those images don't pass muster when a lot other similar content does.

4 days ago - permalink

What's funny is that the picture on the far right, top row, was uploaded by a mod back in 2019. Wonder if they're having any second thoughts?

tamarok
4 days ago - permalink

@Dominus_Ferrum Looking at your images:

  • First image is border line
  • Second image has no muscle or not enough of it to stay

As for the other images, you are generally pointing to older photos where the moderation rules were a little different. Based on current rules, most of them show sufficient muscle, but in some of them the muscle ratio does look low.

And for chipperpip, he wasn’t a mod back in 2019, from what I remember.

4 days ago - permalink

Could be right about chipper pip. Sorry to see fp909 leave and delete his account; at least I assume that was him. Liked his comments.

tamarok
4 days ago - permalink

fp909 left because he needed to deal with some stuff in life. It was sad to see him leave, but appreciate the contributions he did.

4 days ago - permalink

So we can't post contest pics now?

3 days ago - permalink

So we can't post contest pics now?

It's always interesting how some people can't seem to understand the difference between "prohibited" and "discouraged".

Generally I try to keep it to a only small number of really good contest pics per woman, except for older models from the 80's/90's etc where stage stuff is mostly all that exists for them, where we tend to be more lenient.

 

Also, yeah that pic of Tania Amazon was uploaded in 2018, when I wouldn't have been a mod. On a side note, after looking closer at that and some of the other stuff from her Instagram, I've now added her to the soft blacklist for too much self-morphing.

« first < prev Page 21 of 21 next > last »