Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
This is the wrong thread for deletion questions , move it to: https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/thread/...
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2490367/
I checked the model profile, saw the image missing, and posted the one below.
Now it got merged and for some reason the low res alternative was kept. Error?
I checked the model profile, saw the image missing, and posted the one below.
Now it got merged and for some reason the low res alternative was kept. Error?
The decision making here was a) the big one doesn't appear to offer any additional fine detail compared to the other one, and b) the other one was uploaded first as seen by their respective original image page numbers (2490367 vs. 2490418).
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2490367/
I checked the model profile, saw the image missing, and posted the one below.
Now it got merged and for some reason the low res alternative was kept. Error?
Also, how was your version downloaded? Because it looks to have been run through an upscaling filter set to 1.725x.
It might be a tiny smidge more detailed, but to a lesser degree than I would normally expect from an image that's 22xx pixels on a side, compared to a lowly 1280. I'm not certain it's a direct upscale, though (or if it is, it's a pretty good one).
Looking at them, I get the impression that there might be some version of that pic between the two sizes seen here that is better in quality than either.
Got it straight from Snapchat stories.
Ah, I see. Although the image upload resolution for Snapchat is generally 1080x1920, Snapchat apparently stores some images internally as 1242x2208 resizes (a 1.15x upscale of a 1080p source, or a 1.725x of 720p), which can be seen using sites like this that link directly to them on the Snapchat domain sc-cdn.net (I think this one actually has a better interface and seems to grab the same versions, it just routes them through another CDN first).
The larger versions might only be for the most recent uploads and then they get downsized to 720x1280 afterwards, not too sure. I don't see that particular photo on https://www.snapchat.com/add/charschaech, but it probably expired from her Stories, or I would need to be signed in to see it.
In light of the above I've gone ahead and swapped to the higher-res one, it's not much of a difference when viewed emebedded on the page, but it is noticably clearer when zooming in full size:
(On a side note, Snapchat seems to be a lot more usable from the web than the last time I tried it years ago, when you pretty much had to use the mobile app)
Are these really the same? I get the pose is the same but she’s smiling in the one I posted:
Compared to the one it got merged into https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/2...
Are these really the same? I get the pose is the same but she’s smiling in the one I posted:
Compared to the one it got merged into https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/2...
The only difference is smiling vs not smiling. The rest is the same. While not the same photo, they don’t different in a way to make them distinct.
The video this has been merged into ( https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/2...) is two separate parts of a video, almost like a mini compilation of sorts which I thought wasn’t allowed. My versions are the full thing and not clips cut and made into one
The video this has been merged into ( https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/2...) is two separate parts of a video, almost like a mini compilation of sorts which I thought wasn’t allowed. My versions are the full thing and not clips cut and made into one
I assume this is what you were trying to link:
I don't see a problem. Cutting together two segments from a longer video of the same shoot, in the same outfit, is fine, that's not a "compilation" in the sense that's discouraged, that would be different unrelated clips cut together into a montage. Cuting the shots together would actually be encouraged in cases where for instance there's 5 brief flexes in the same outfit spread throughout a youtube video that are only a few seconds long each.
The only times there would usually be an issue in a case like that is if the editing was done non-losslessly in a way that degraded the quality (I mentioned how to avoid that here), or if there were particularly significant parts cut out of the separate segments, such that they would work better as the full things on their own. Neither of those seems to apply here.
Right ok, I’d appreciate if it could’ve been brought to attention that it was a dupe when it was in my queue considering I put it in there nearly a week ago and it’s just a waste of an upload now
OK, so let me get this straight.
The other upload wasn't in the queue or anything at the time of your upload. If you had bothered to check her profile you would have seen it, it was visible to you. But instead of doing that, you just upload it blindly, creating an extra merge for us to do, and THEN have the gall to complain that WE didn't make you aware of the duplicate.
This is on top of the fact that I've repeatedly emphasized that you should be uploading images of less popular models... so who do you choose to upload? Leanbeefpatty, who already has over 1,000 uploads. And looking at your other recent uploads, it's not any better; they're all highly posted models who each have at least 500 pictures already on here.
I swear I'm this close to permanently revoking your ability to upload altogether. In the past few months you've managed to piss me off more than any other uploader with your upload habits and subsequent complaining. The next time you make any sort of noise about an upload of yours of a popular model, is probably going to be the last upload you make on here.
OK, so let me get this straight.
The other upload wasn't in the queue or anything at the time of your upload. If you had bothered to check her profile you would have seen it, it was visible to you. But instead of doing that, you just upload it blindly, creating an extra merge for us to do, and THEN have the gall to complain that WE didn't make you aware of the duplicate.
This is on top of the fact that I've repeatedly emphasized that you should be uploading images of less popular models... so who do you choose to upload? Leanbeefpatty, who already has over 1,000 uploads. And looking at your other recent uploads, it's not any better; they're all highly posted models who each have at least 500 pictures already on here.
I swear I'm this close to permanently revoking your ability to upload altogether. In the past few months you've managed to piss me off more than any other uploader with your upload habits and subsequent complaining. The next time you make any sort of noise about an upload of yours of a popular model, is probably going to be the last upload you make on here.
I actually did check before I did and it wasn’t there. But yeah, I’ll just shut up then shall I? I think I’m at least entitled to ask the question
The main thing that you’ll find annoying Chainer is the number of times you contest the merges. Dupes is one thing, but contesting frequently when they don’t go your way gets tiring.
Advice would be to focus on less known women (as suggested by Chainer) and just let slide the merges that don’t go your way. Yes it is annoying when you lose a merge, but it is also annoying when mods have to frequently do extra checks, since this is extra work we don’t need.
If you want us to accept your mistakes and let them slide, then do the same about merge decisions.
Actually that's backwards, Siddharth's upload is 2482640 so that was first.
In this case I kept the other one because it seems to have the same amount of detail yet is lower-res, and therefore less blurry.
These days I also don't care at all, if a picture is uploaded a few hours apart by several people, whose was first, and that only factors into my decisionmaking as a last resort if literally everything else is the same.