Pictures that didn't make it onto the main site...

what about this photo?i don't get why it was rejected by site staff at girlswithmuscle.com

Probably rejected due to lack of noticeable muscle. Read again the name of this web site.

Can someone please tell me why 2 Rene Campbell photos that appeared on the website yesterday were deleted? They were not nude, even though she wore no cloth - no private part shown.

I've repeatedly uploaded large-sized pics of SAMANTHA BAKER and they've repeatedly disappeared w/o explanation, after a bunch of likes and favorites.

Why??

Those are copyrighted images from a shoot with Ralph DeHaan.

But there's no copyright or watermark on the pics, which I took from Samantha Baker's own non-paysite.

There doesn't have to be a watermark on a picture in order for copyright to apply.

And what if they hail from a public site w/o restrictions? The very model's no less?

Shame all the Manon Verge pix keep getting taken down ... copyright issues?

And Rachel Plumb's pics too. Did she ask to not be posted, or is there any other reason?

http://ink361.com/app/users/ig-1275642422/norwegian_liftinggoddess/photos

http://saradas.org/index.php?topic=285657.0

Yeah, both of those have asked not to have their pics on the site.

How about this new Natalia Trukhina pic from her instagram?

Geez, how could her upper body so big and her waist so small? (For newcomers, in here, that's one of the highest praises we give.)

The best explanation I can give is that Natalia is fucking ridiculous

After I uploaded these (like 8 similar pics), I deleted them from my folder so they're all gone except for this one still; n my phone :'(
I thought they'd be approved since this one made it through and was well received

Reason: Barely muscular. Yet, steroidy women get uploaded all the time. For those who of us who like the fitness look a lot more than Belgian blue types this is at risk at turning worse. Her as are clearly visible.

If we compare Karina Elle Lisenbee picture above with this:

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

Then Karina actually has more visible muscle..

I deleted that picture.

Please see this explanation.

bunch of high quality alessandra alvez images were deleted for "No images that are offered for sale anywhere."
got them from the photographer's facebook https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1936178136490174&set=pb.100002940198085.-2207520000.1543022829.&type=3&theater
i never upload pay for images

Apparently this 6'1" Olympic gold medalist sprinter doesn't "show visible muscularity", despite having bigger delts than literally all of the Ms. Olympia winners from the 1980s.

This is also deleted for "lack visibility". No offense, but her abs are clearly bigger than this:

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

• The bath picture already exists on the site, i uploaded a 4k version (comparable images:1, 2, 3)
• the corset picture her breast are no bigger than normal and covered more than usual, she is also more muscular than usual in this set, 4k version (comparable images: 1, 2, 3)
• implied topless, 4k version (comparable images: 1, 2, 3)

Sorry about the bath one. I remember deleting it originally several times but I guess people kept uploading it so much that eventually I let it be. Given that, I've merged the one you uploaded into it.

The other two: I would say that the existence of similar pictures is *more* of a reason to delete them, not less. When she already has 2,000 pics on the site, I'm not a fan of adding further ones that aren't even showcasing her muscles, which is what the site is supposed to be about.

As an aside, I previously explained to another user why I frequently delete Cindy's pics in particular. I'll quote that here:


Now of course, when I see pics of her where the muscles *are* front and center, that's a different story, and I'm happy to have those stay. But this does not seem to be a trend in her pics nowadays.

i guess the question should be how sexual can content be on this website? i posted the comparable pictures because it's hard to understand where the line is if you're deleting images without a report.
it's understandable to not have sexual content because its not tasteful or whatever, but that wouldnt explain the camgirl ads. the main reason in my head is because most sexual content is premium and behind a paywall. that would be a headache to moderate. cindy is clearly an exception, while she use to do high res images behind a paywall, all of her content is free.

here is my petition to let her content on here, besides explicit nudity;

• archival, there are no places on the internet to get as vast of a collection of her photos besides here (she also deletes tweets, so does her photographer)
• her content is becoming more sexual, as you said, and its no more sexual than the camgirl ads
• people have a variety of tastes as im sure you'd admit running a site like this
• it's hard to argue any of her photos are mediocre when they're professionally done

her highest ranking images are without implants, sure, but if you're going to artificially suppress her pictures now its not really a mystery as to why her older pictures rank higher. if she didnt have her implants it would be easy for you to say she has one of the most impressive physiques on here.

i personally prefer when she didnt have implants as well but its going to be hard for her to hide them

You bring up the point of the camgirl ads being sexual and how that relates to the content on the site generally not being allowed to be as sexual. The two are related but not exactly in the way that you think.

Based on my experience running the site over the past 11 years, it's much easier to get high quality ads for non-adult sites than it is for adult sites. By "high quality", I mean ads that pay well and also are minimally invasive to the user--for example, a banner rather than a popup. Now, GWM could be considered what I would call "PG-13" (if you're familiar with the American movie rating system) in that it straddles the line between being considered adult content, versus not. As such, I've worked with many ad agencies over the years, some of which were geared specifically toward adult sites, and some of which disallowed adult sites altogether, and it has consistently been my experience that the latter gives higher quality ads than the former.

So in short, the more suggestive pictures I allow of the kind that Cindy frequently outputs, the more the site starts leaning toward the "adult" side of PG-13 and the harder it becomes for me to find high quality ads for the site. If, for example, I were to start allowing full nudity on the site, the chances of working with a non-adult ad network in the future would drop to basically 0. This is also related to why the webcam ads being sexual doesn't matter as much, because if I were to stop doing business with them the ads would be gone and would not factor into what appears on the site when I am looking for ad networks. (Aside from this, I like the webcam ads because they're very well targeted toward the site users and are also not very invasive; compare to a hypothetical "PENIS ENLARGEMENT!!!11!" popup, for example.)

This is one tradeoff among several others (read this for more) that I consider when looking through the uploads and picking ones to delete. If I come across a more sexual picture that has lots of positives going for it--a good amount of muscle showing, or a new model without lots of pics on the site--I might lean towards keeping it. If, on the other hand, the picture doesn't show much muscularity and the model already has thousands of pics on the site, as is the case with Cindy, usually I'll lean toward deleting it.

To clear up one point of confusion:


When I say "mediocre" I mean "mediocre" in terms of not passing the aforementioned tradeoff (and others), not just in terms of photographic quality.

just to clarify i have zero issue with what ads you run and hope the best for whatever partnerships you can get. you run the best site for "girls with muscle" and you definitely have the experience to pick and choose the content. i've been around since the beginning watching the site grow.

my only point when bringing up the camgirl sites, to use your own words "I like the webcam ads because they're very well targeted toward the site users..."
barring explicit nudity, are cindy's pictures not suitable? you say there is a tradeoff to consider, or a gray zone. i'll give my input on some points;
her image quality is exceptional. she rarely flexes but her overall physique is usually showcased
i'd say she falls inbetween fitness and bodybuilder
i understand this is a rule and its why i'm contesting it -- either you continue to remove some of her images and it remains confusing what images you allow or you can allow cindy to have her big boobs and you can allow Bakhar Nabieva to have her big butt
i personally think deleting images is not the correct approach to balancing the site, because if you don't want to alienate users with disproportionate content then you probably don't want to alienate uploaders.
you could alternatively artificially suppress favorites/+1 when images become unbalanced. for example you could suppress an image with a timestamp that negates favorites when ranking for a day. the favorite function would still serve its purpose to add the image to the users favorites but it wouldn't help it rank up on the front page.

don't know how the site works but you could, for example, add a column in images db for suppress_end_time, you can use your search functionality to query images you want to target then update suppress_end_time (e.g. current time + 1 day). whatever mechanism you use for front page ranking could check if current time is greater than suppress_end_time to allow ranking to go ahead.

so if cindy uploads 10 images of herself in a corset you could do a quick search and suppress them for a day, and if you want you could go back and remove the suppression timestamp from 1 or whatever