Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
Yea but what about those that have much bigger legs than arms or the other way around. and some strong women have a more ripped look while others have a strongfat build so everyone has different taste
Maybe they could use a radar chart (see Wikipedia, my account can't post links) to have multiple parameters, but yeah, it would be too complicated.
Yea but what about those that have much bigger legs than arms or the other way around. and some strong women have a more ripped look while others have a strongfat build so everyone has different taste
Ultimately the rating will average out to a general website level.
Even in your example where someone might like someone really shredded while another person likes someone with a strongfat build, they will ultimately see what rating level their favourite models end up at, and even if within the size filter they still see women who aren’t their type, they would still have excluded everyone outside of that filter, so they may like 1 in 3 results now, as opposed to 1 in 10
The hard part will be adding all that meta data to all the images. Someone would need to do that.
I figured that already somewhat existed within the ability to designate bodybuilder, fitness, athletic, gymnast pics in the advanced search.
I figured that already somewhat existed within the ability to designate bodybuilder, fitness, athletic, gymnast pics in the advanced search.
The tags are not accurate, not subject to any sort of averaging across opinions, and aren’t moderated at all. An example is figure/fitness:
Here we have one image tagged figure/fitness: she isn’t even big enough to make it into bikini fitness:
Here we have another image tagged figure/fitness: absolutely humongous quads, unachievable without steroids, insane work, and top tier genetics:
How will you factor in size changes during the off and prep-season?
It doesn’t need to be an ultimate assessment of muscle mass, just a general judgement of how big someone looks in a photo. Some peak bulk photos might get marked down because there’s less muscle definition, some competition photos might get marked down because there’s less muscle mass. Ultimately it doesn’t matter, you’ll simply see an averaged opinion of how big they look in each photo.
Added bonus: being able to filter on a specific model to see what photo people believe she looks most muscular in.
The tags are not accurate, not subject to any sort of averaging across opinions, and aren’t moderated at all. An example is figure/fitness:
Here we have one image tagged figure/fitness: she isn’t even big enough to make it into bikini fitness:
Here we have another image tagged figure/fitness: absolutely humongous quads, unachievable without steroids, insane work, and top tier genetics:
One of the problems is that, over time, the muscularity line moves. I mean, this was a physique competitor 15 years ago (from this site):
One of the problems is that, over time, the muscularity line moves. I mean, this was a physique competitor 15 years ago (from this site):
This is further evidenxe for tags being innacurate, I think in terms of a size rating, it would stay more consistent, and even if it doesn't, people will atill have a general idea of what the website average looks like
One of the problems is that, over time, the muscularity line moves. I mean, this was a physique competitor 15 years ago (from this site):
If that was a physique competitor from 15 years ago, why is she wearing heels?
Sorry, meant to type figure, but today's figure girls are MUCH MUCH bigger than that. Even most wellness girls are. The point is the "size" tag may apply at that point in time, then not apply years later.
It doesn’t need to be an ultimate assessment of muscle mass, just a general judgement of how big someone looks in a photo.
You may find that the opinion of whether someone is "big" or not varies greatly across all users of this site. A regular fitness model might look like a 1 on your scale to someone who looks at pics of Natalia Trukhina all day, whereas a figure girl might register as an 8 to someone who looks at fitness models all day.
Another factor is how do you categorise a woman, who has moved up through the classes from bikini to physique or bodybuilding, which some have done. Some women could have images in several categories.
You may find that the opinion of whether someone is "big" or not varies greatly across all users of this site. A regular fitness model might look like a 1 on your scale to someone who looks at pics of Natalia Trukhina all day, whereas a figure girl might register as an 8 to someone who looks at fitness models all day.
Of course. Which is why it won't be an effective rating for an individual, but will be effective for having a website-wide average.
I'm conscious that my preference is likely a 1-3 on a website-wide scale, and I would eventually start rating as such when I realise that my uploads get given 1-3, stuff I maybe rate higher ends up rated lower, and the majority of my favourited pictures fall in that range.
People will eventually figure out where they fall on the website-wide average
Although the site already has tags, I find that there is no effective way to filter for how muscular/big models are. “Classic, bodybuilder, athlete, etc… are all broad, vague, subjective, and poorly tagged.
My suggestion is a “size” rating on an image, which would allow people to vote 1-10 on how big/muscular the model is. A model can then be assigned an average score based on all their most recent images, and people could filter their image search based on a certain size range they are interested in. This would especially be useful for people who are interested in particularly big or small models.
Though I appreciate the current advice is not to provide new tag suggestions, I think this extends beyond a simple tag request as it would majorly overhaul the quality of search features on the site.
Cheers