Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
I am going to wade in here and hopefully not inflame things even more.
I rarely moderate comments, but when I do it is because certain contributors forget how to be civil. Commenting in a forum thread is one thing, while in image comments it should be treated as if you were speaking in front of the model in real life. If you were in their position you’d surely get annoyed at put downs and disrespectful commentary. Maybe to the point of walking away from the establishment that helps showcase them?
GWM tries balancing free comment with not letting it get out of hand, to the point of yet another model asking to not be associated with the site. In any private establishment there is notion of accepted behaviour.
I can appreciate the auto-comment moderation system has its flaws, but then again so does any moderation system, whether human or machine based.
One thing I’d ask you to consider is which is worse: no moderation, with risk of losing more models, or an imperfect moderation system that helps stem the loss of models.
Just speaking for myself, but I feel it would be more palatable if this were the only instance of a heavy-handed approach. Instead, it's just one of many.
Based on that, I would say it's better without the automated filter. What percentage of women are actually signing up and reading comments? Probably less than the number of members disappointed with the constant restrictions.
I’m not a woman and I still don’t want to be subjected to reading low quality filler comments.
I propose that anyone making a “this comment filter sucks” post should be required to include their comment that was filtered. I feel that context would explain many of the cases.
I haven't had anything filtered. But I generally don't leave comments unless I have a question or can answer one.
What's wrong with just ignoring people that only say "wow she's hot"?
Tall1:
Doesn't matter that the community wants Eunhee on the site. The admin doesn't, so that's that.
You do realize that due to the number of people that wanted her back on the site, I put in a decent amount of thought and hours of work into finding a way to make that happen? And that she's currently on the site? Like, of all the examples of heavyhandedness you could think of, you picked one that makes the opposite point of the one you are trying to make?
To those making arguments along the lines of "I have a right to express myself", for example, wollbern:
I feel restricted in my freedom to form opinions
rob666:
No comment should ever be rejected. PERIOD!
Do you realize that I pay actual, real money for disk storage space for the site, and that your comments take up some of that space? Should you have the right to force me to spend money to store your comments in my database?
Regarding this comment by superiorgenetics:
I've never had a comment rejected and it's not like I'm writing essays. You guys who complain the loudest must be writing absolutely inane tripe to consistently have problems with the filter.
Usually when someone complains about the filter I look up their pre-filter commenting history as well as their comments that were rejected by the filter (which I keep a record of) and I can attest to the fact that not once have I thought "Oh man, the filter is totally messing up here, having all these comments be on the site would definitely add interesting discussion to the site".
Yes, the filter occasionally rejects a comment that I would prefer it didn't, and even more frequently it approves comments that I would prefer to have rejected. But I have never seen a case where a significant portion of a user's comments are getting rejected and it is the filter that is completely off base.
Honestly, I want to know what makes for a good comment on images. Barring questions about who she is, or if she's competing again, or whatever.
It's hard to exactly describe it, but one way of getting at it is, "Could bots have made these comments?" In other words, was there some amount of original thought put into them?
Here are some examples I just found of decent threads:
This discussion of muscular girls now vs. the past:
Specific comments referenceing parts of the video:
Mildly amusing comments about her dress:
Tall1:
You do realize that due to the number of people that wanted her back on the site, I put in a decent amount of thought and hours of work into finding a way to make that happen? And that she's currently on the site? Like, of all the examples of heavyhandedness you could think of, you picked one that makes the opposite point of the one you are trying to make?
To those making arguments along the lines of "I have a right to express myself", for example, wollbern:
rob666:
Do you realize that I pay actual, real money for disk storage space for the site, and that your comments take up some of that space? Should you have the right to force me to spend money to store your comments in my database?
Regarding this comment by superiorgenetics:
Usually when someone complains about the filter I look up their pre-filter commenting history as well as their comments that were rejected by the filter (which I keep a record of) and I can attest to the fact that not once have I thought "Oh man, the filter is totally messing up here, having all these comments be on the site would definitely add interesting discussion to the site".
Yes, the filter occasionally rejects a comment that I would prefer it didn't, and even more frequently it approves comments that I would prefer to have rejected. But I have never seen a case where a significant portion of a user's comments are getting rejected and it is the filter that is completely off base.
You brought her back after people complained. But shortly after that, I believe you said you were "annoyed that she's back in the high score", so then you completely pulled her from the algorithm. So essentially, the community decided she deserved to be in the high score, and you said no. That's heavyhanded IMHO. I don't know what qualifies as being on the site, but when I search her name, only one photo comes up.
I'm not knocking the work that goes into developing and maintaining this site. My argument is only about the community aspect.
You brought her back after people complained. But shortly after that, I believe you said you were "annoyed that she's back in the high score", so then you completely pulled her from the algorithm. So essentially, the community decided she deserved to be in the high score, and you said no. That's heavyhanded IMHO. I don't know what qualifies as being on the site, but when I search her name, only one photo comes up.
I'm not knocking the work that goes into developing and maintaining this site. My argument is only about the community aspect.
Personally, I'd rather not see someone like Eun-hee on the site. South Korean girls go above and beyond when it comes to photoshop and she's one of the most egregious examples. I think it's gross, but I'm also not so self-absorbed as to whine about it if the community feels differently. What makes you think the majority of people agree with you, though? It's so weird that you keep whining like a baby about minutiae when the content is free.
Personally, I'd rather not see someone like Eun-hee on the site. South Korean girls go above and beyond when it comes to photoshop and she's one of the most egregious examples. I think it's gross, but I'm also not so self-absorbed as to whine about it if the community feels differently. What makes you think the majority of people agree with you, though? It's so weird that you keep whining like a baby about minutiae when the content is free.
I don't mind if everyone disagreed with me on Eunhee, the point is the community should decide instead of a single person. If she never gets enough votes to make high score again, then so be it. If she does, then that should be fine too. The community should dictate these things. But ultimately, I agree it's not worth arguing over. It's weird you're upset over someone expressing their opinion.
Good points made against the filter, has really reduced the joy in a good interaction below the pics for me. Your explanation that comments take up disk space that you're paying for Chainer... really funny. Wonder how many comments equal the size of a 5 second clip on this site.
But maybe it's a good thing to reduce the attractivity of the GWM site, I feel like I spent to much time in here anyways... ;)
Right, but now you have a significant (or what appears to be significant) subsection of the userbase disaffected, and to the point that they express sentiments -in droves - such as "the site isn't fun anymore," "I'm frustrated," "I'm just waiting for an alternative to arrive," "I'll spend less time here"... I look at where Facebook was before they added their "independent" fact-checkers and the near MySpace-level ghost town that it is now, and I'm not sure that the discussion board feature here is driving more engagement than it is killing at the same time. My two cents.
This comment was just rejected:
"Yes, and that is a very sexy pose that really shows what she looks like and how much muscle she has put on."
I love this site, and often take the time to input tags so others can easily identify the shots they want to look over. I don't want to complain about such a great site, and I understand the desire to filter out pointless or potentially painful comments. But, the comment I wanted to post surely would not have done anyone any harm. Thus, I do feel the filter needs some tweaking.
Do you realize that I pay actual, real money for disk storage space for the site, and that your comments take up some of that space? Should you have the right to force me to spend money to store your comments in my database?
I think a lot of people forget that you pay to run this site, and as owner you can do what you want. It's a balance between being too heavy handed and running everyone off and allowing anarchy and running people off anyway from the constant fights.
But in terms of database space, our local psychological expert has to take up more database space than short comments on pictures does. :-)
dongonzor wrote:
Your explanation that comments take up disk space that you're paying for Chainer... really funny.
It may sound cheeky and petty but it's 100 % a fact and also true in principle. The complainers really don't have a leg to stand on.
hotdamn wrote:
Right, but now you have a significant (or what appears to be significant) subsection of the userbase disaffected, and to the point that they express sentiments -in droves...
That's the problem right there. They're expressing sentiments. Instead of saying anything substantial. All the atrociously misunderstood Libertarian rhetoric doesn't count as substance. Please, everyone, stop expressing sentiments.
I look at where Facebook was before they added their "independent" fact-checkers...
Like I do in the image comments, telling folks that no, that 5' girl with 13" biceps is neither able nor willing to smash you to pieces and probably doesn't even lift more than the average adult man. But she probably looks cute and fascinating nevertheless. The difference is I actually am independent.
Tall1 wrote:
Based on old comments, which I'm sure in part prompted this new filter, many people here enjoy being dominated and are generally submissive.
Everyone willing to live in a functioning society must therefore be a masochistic pervert morbidly fascinated with the pain of having to behave. You have now terribly exposed us all and we feel so naked and humiliated.
So essentially, the community decided she deserved to be in the high score, and you said no.
There is no such thing as a community. There are just next to mindless horny guys individually liking an image. Nobody decided any such thing and being on the front page is not a reward due to anyone. The front page is there to inform people and it's perfectly reasonable not to inform them of questionable images. Eun Hee Kang literally did not deserve to be there and removing her actually fixed that mishap.
Tall1 responding to superiorgenetics:
It's weird you're upset over someone expressing their opinion.
Be careful. It is a well-known and widely publicized trait of narcissistic personality disorder to attempt to gain the upper hand in a discussion or an argument by painting the other person as upset, overreacting, emotional or out of control. Both when it is not the case at all and when the other person has some perfectly good reason to disagree a bit more strongly.
From a broader perspective, this is an interesting dynamic. Based on old comments, which I'm sure in part prompted this new filter, many people here enjoy being dominated and are generally submissive. I'm curious if that manifests itself outside of admiration for FBBs. If so, it would be hard to argue with the moderation style.