Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
yea i brought this up to HBC since on the cam end it would be nice to have a consolidated view on log in to see the ones i'm really interested in but i also asked them to expand that to the VODs because some of them are pretty frequently uploaders and i wasn't going to buy their stuff anyway.
i've asked about this here since there are some that i would be ok with never seeing again but i think implementation wouldn't be as simple (but also i'm a mod so it would behoove me not to remove certain postings from moderation). or perhaps im misremembering.
B L O C K
BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK
Okay seriously though, my perception of the quality of GWM uploads has been steadily going down. Not because of image resolution or composition, but because there are too many women being uploaded that I don't find attractive.
I've been ignoring them, but their sheer volume has been overtaking those I'm wanting to see. There are days that I'll look at the front page lately and not see even one model I like.
fp909 expressed it really well:
it would be nice to have a consolidated view on log in to see the ones i'm really interested in
I think PP1000's concerns that:
I would be spending more time just blocking
are overblown. Nobody is forced to spend time blocking if the feature is added. But however much time I initially spent on blocks, it would become a much more curated and personal experience.
Women I've never seen before would still show up, and I still want that. I love new finds. And if a few I don't like appear, I'd only need to block their name once to never see them again.
EDIT: Out of curiosity, I went through the entire front page. All sections. There were 7 I would've blocked to improve my feed.
Also, it occurred to me that photos with multiple named models should still show up. If say, a photo had one blocked model, and one that wasn't, it should still appear in my feed. If both models were blocked, it shouldn't.
Who are those 7? Just so I can get an idea of what you don't like.
And the per-user blocking of models has been requested quite a few times, and is something I could see doing, although I will have to make sure it works from a performance point of view. The image gallery page in particular is very sensitive to even small changes.
Chainer:
Who are those 7? Just so I can get an idea of what you don't like.
Sorry, I didn't take note of names. I can't go back and look since all the sections of the front page continually update. The best I could do is look again at any given moment and write the names down.
I'm not sure how helpful you'd find such a list since it would only be anecdotal to me, and I pretended that the feature actually existed, so for example, one of them actually has a nice body, but I didn't like her face.
I think gathering "big data" metrics from the entire userbase once the feature was implemented would be of more use.
I can repeat the experiment later if you still want a sample list. For the moment, I'm a bit short on time and am just trying to give a bit of feedback at the moment.
Chainer:
And the per-user blocking of models has been requested quite a few times, and is something I could see doing, although I will have to make sure it works from a performance point of view. The image gallery page in particular is very sensitive to even small changes.
As I understand it, most, if not all of the coding for GWM is custom code that you've written. You know the ins and outs of it best.
It would be a really nice feature to have, and I'm glad you're considering it. That said, I wouldn't want you to jeopardize the stability or performance of GWM in the process.
Do it if you can implement it safely without performance problems. Otherwise, don't.
PS- While I've made serious posts here, I've also been kind of a smartass with my jokes. It comes out more often when I'm stressed as a coping mechanism, so thanks for your tolerance.
I was trying to get an idea of whether the ones you don't like are ones I agree don't belong on the site, or if it's more about your specifically not liking them. But it's not that important.
Ah.
The first girl I posted a picture of in this thread doesn't belong on the site. She's overweight, has no visible muscle, and didn't appear to be a powerlifter or other kind of strength athlete. The uploader never provided a name for either of the 2 pics of her that they uploaded. Both pics are already deleted.
The second obese woman that I posted pictures of is extremely obese, but does workout and does have muscle. I didn't look her up so I don't know if she's a powerlifter or something else, but I don't get that impression from viewing her gallery. Given that you've already viewed her and only deleted those pictures without any visible muscle, I'm assuming you consider her appropriate for the site provided the pictures uploaded show muscle.
As for the 7 mentioned, all were appropriate for the site, they just will never be attractive to me and are the equivalent of white noise when I'm wanting to see what shows are playing.
Generally we allow a few of the better contest pics/clips for each woman, and are more lenient with "classic" FFB's from years ago, who may not have much available outside of stuff taken at contests.
This makes me wonder. I recently had an upload of Victoria Pratt and Stacey Lynn Boetto deleted for poor image quality. I would think it should qualify for an exception as "classic FBBs from years ago".
It's a 30 year old file. The image quality just isn't going to measure up to modern standards. It's a good pic. Both models look super sexy.
Can't GWM take into account the lower quality of pics from 30 years ago?
Victoria Pratt (L), Stacey Lynn Boetto (R)
PP1000:
All I can say to that is there are plenty better quality pics of both women from the period, It was the 1990s, not the 1890s! They aren't so rare that low res screencaps need to be included.
I'm less familiar with the available content for Victoria than I am with Stacey's. Now that you say screenshot, I'm noticing the VHS scan-line along the bottom. My gaze was... um... distracted.
While I'm aware of Stacey having some video content, I predominantly know her as having been a magazine model for Robert Kennedy's Muscle Mag International. I believe at least some of the higher quality images of her are current, or semi-current magazine scans. Since I've not seen much magazine print dotting in the images, they may be sourced elsewhere, but I know many were originally in magazines.
Now I'm left wanting to know what video the above screenshot came from. Thanks for calling my attention to the scan-line.
Also, if you're holding back on a trove of Stacey Lynn Boetto pictures from the 1890s, for cryin' out loud, you've gotta post 'em!!
If you lived though the VHS home video period or worked with converting VHS to mpeg (as was popular at the time) you don't need to see any scan lines at the bottom. It's so obviously a video screen cap.
eg: look at the white outline on Stacey's arm, the misaligned blurry colour separation on Vicky's bikini...I could go on.
In the 90s videos had much worse quality than today. but still pictures looked very good much better than most stuff that gets posted to Instagram today. if you go back to the early 80s or before pictures may have messed up colors or a grany effect. the worst period is the early internet age in the 2000s when most of the pics got compressed. the videos also had a drop in quality. when you see a Pic from the 90s in 240p it was probably compressed so people could download it on dial up.around the year 2000. there was probably a higher res version out there.
GWM= all WOMEN with any amount of muscle. We all have our own preferences. Its easy enough to scroll past what we dont like,,its a learned skill. Dont overcomplicate it.
Except it's not.
As already stated by both Mod fp909, and by Chainer (Chainer) (Chainer) in this very thread, there are women that don't belong on this site, and photos that don't belong.
Just by me sharing 3 images earlier in this thread, those 3 images were later deleted with cause.
And as already stated by me earlier in this very thread:
technically speaking, even the most emaciated anorexic has at least some muscle
So sure, ALL women have some amount of muscle. But this site wasn't created to feature ALL women, it was created to feature Girls With (visibly developed) Muscle.
You've got the entire Internet (and, um, you know, actual humans IRL) to look at and enjoy any kind of woman you like. Morbidly obese, deathly anorexics, elderly centenarians, comatose women... I mean hey, if that's what you're into, have at it... just not on this site. Kindly stop overcomplicating this very simple to grasp concept.
Yet here I am trying to explain things to someone that thinks "scrolling past what we don't like" is so complex as to be a "learned skill".
A block list isn't a necessity, it's a feature being considered (fp909) (Chainer) to improve the experience of using GWM and ultimately save users the cumulative hours of time wasted "scrolling past what we don't like".
Talking of "Girls without muscle" I dunno why this is still up. https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2095520/
I agree with this removal, but searching both their names on Youtube allowed me to find a source: https://youtu.be/6qh5DhXSOaE?t=2338
Musclemag's "Hardbodz On Location" VHS from 1997.
Looking at the video I actually agree with it even more, some of Victoria Pratt's apparent ab lines were actually just shadows from leaves.
I'll also note that there's a better-quality version of that full video floating around, which is probably what the Youtube upload was derived from. It's nice, but I don't think there's much in it that would be justifiable to upload on the main site.
chipperpip:
I agree with this removal, but searching both their names on Youtube allowed me to find a source: https://youtu.be/6qh5DhXSOaE?t=2338
Musclemag's "Hardbodz On Location" VHS from 1997.
You made my night when I saw this. I couldn't reply at the time, but immediately downloaded it with Newpipe. I haven't had the chance to watch more than a minute yet, but now have something to look forward to. The minute I viewed was completely cheesy and the so-called outtakes and pranks were obviously scripted, but I don't really care. I've had the biggest crush on Stacey Lynn Boetto since before her implants, bleached hair, and fitness bod. I remember when she was modeling sportswear in the back pages. Her face alone just makes me melt. In short: thankyouthankyouthankyou
Just before writing this reply, I discovered and read through the original thread requesting the same model blocking feature. There were some pretty irrational replies in it with a few selfish users wanting to boost visibility of their favorite girls, playing faux victim, but really just working backward from their conclusions. I didn't realize the request was made 3 years ago. I've since bumped the thread. Hopefully more rational voices will prevail.
The number of fuzzy images, under exposed (dark), screenshots, slideshows, boob shots, butt shots and girls with questionable muscle we need to reject is stupidly high.
There are women that may be border line and get a closer look, but if these are by uploaders who have a reputation for not making an effort in being selective (we don’t have a list, but we do have our own memory), then we as mods aren’t going to be forgiving. Why should mods give time approving borderline images from uploaders who don’t seem to care to follow the rules? Borderline images also take a little more time to mod, since we need to really decide whether they are closer to accept to reject. If we get tired, they automatically go in the reject pile.
A high score on an image doesn’t grant it immunity from deletion. Things like boob shots and cleavage frequently get high scores, even if no muscle is to be seen. As the member count increases an attractive image is more likely to get a high score, before the mods get a chance to react.
So focus on good quality uploads and don’t build a reputation of being a sub-standard uploader. This site is “girls with muscle”, so don’t make us question if you can read and comprehend.
BTW I’d be happy to see a hall of shame if it helped the quality, but I can understand people not wanting to be outed for lack of effort.
Agree, I try to report stuff but sometimes it's like playing wack-a-mole and would be so time consuming, and even after that it takes time for them to be deleted by the Mods . Once they get past the first main images page or so , they are unlikely to be flagged. If you can penalize duplicate uploaders, the surely you can (manually if necessary ) penalize poor quality uploaders.
I’m curious as to those who upload pics that the woman is clearly fully nude but edits the images and basically puts little circles on the nipples and crotch region. To me, that also violates what you are trying to have here and should be removed. You don’t change the orientation of the pics by simply covering their nipples or crotch region by editing it out on photoshop or whatever editing program you use.
Sometimes those are posted as is by the woman but don’t always check
I am also thinking a model blocking option would be useful. Mostly to see less of those who interest me in the least, more recently a possible option for those who object to a model's presence here on other grounds .
For those who say, "why don't you just ignore the models you don't like", the new images pages get very busy so it would clear some of the visual traffic as I catch up, often several times a day.
But another part of me, thinks I would be spending more time just blocking IMO mediocre models and the list could get very long, very quickly but might be interesting as an experiment, I don't think it should replace actual full site bans , like serial morphers etc