Yes, I misread that. I was reading 2367945, where the 6 is a 9. Thanks for being honest and pointing that out.
The image queue still exists, so it's possible this image was queued when you checked. This is a recurring issue, especially with that particular uploader. Also, it's possible the image wasn't named yet when you had checked.
I reversed the merge. Both images are identical. Elsie's image ID is 2367926 whereas the other one is 2367645. If the mod who did the original merge would like to chime in as to why they merged in that direction, they are welcome to. Otherwise I'll just assume it was a simple mistake.
We should have a ranking system for body part tags like going from normal to big. grand. huge giant. super giant. ultra gigantic hyper colossal omega rank s. and so on
I agree with this. Tags should address attributes objectively visible in the photograph/video. An example of a problematic tag: “nice face.“
I think I understand “huge calves” or “huge biceps” to mean their size relative to the subject’s body, but even then, this is strangely subjective. Maybe some attributes will require a cultural consensus among users and will take some time to normalize. An example of this is the generalized “sleeve”. Now we can have “quads under pants” whereas “sleeve” was only and always reserved for arms.
I would use Huge Calves for images where the calves are prominently big, wide, and the focus, compared to if they just happen to be in an image.
@rackt12. Opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one. I gave you mine, which you don't like.
Do you know what an opinion is? What you gave were facts and stats that nobody asked for. Everyone else was giving their opinion. All you did was try (again) to ruin yet another thread like you did the Emily Brand one.
Stop being such a "hall monitor" and let people have their fun.
Edit to add: Although in this case it's literally an uncensored vagina so there's no amount of comparing to other pics where this comes out looking like less of a violation.
Can’t be that over if you’re having to zoom in that much. I’m not on my tiny phone screen actually and you have to really zoom in just even to see anything that isn’t just black. Also, don’t talk to me like that, I’m asking a perfectly normal question and your response is that? Are you a dictator or something. And you wanna talk about sticking to the guidelines? Guarantee there’s a lot worse on here than that picture and stuff that breaks other guidelines
And I'm telling you I can, looking at the full pic. Do you think we're hallucinating or something, what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish here? I don't give a shit if you can't see anything on your tiny phone screen set to power-saver mode or whatever, the pic is over the guidelines for the site.
I was the original uploader of these Ashley Jones pics. I then got a notification that my upload was merged with another user's, and now I am gone completely from the images.
How come? Are they higher resolution than the ones I shared?
Log in |
Register
Yes, I misread that. I was reading 2367945, where the 6 is a 9. Thanks for being honest and pointing that out.
The image queue still exists, so it's possible this image was queued when you checked. This is a recurring issue, especially with that particular uploader. Also, it's possible the image wasn't named yet when you had checked.
But 2367645 is the lower number, right?
I reversed the merge. Both images are identical. Elsie's image ID is 2367926 whereas the other one is 2367645. If the mod who did the original merge would like to chime in as to why they merged in that direction, they are welcome to. Otherwise I'll just assume it was a simple mistake.
Likely the image wasn't named until later.
Like I said, if there's no real difference between the versions, it's safe to assume the other one was uploaded first if yours lost a merge.
Ignore that I said "guideline", that's an actual hard rule, not one of the "recommended against" categories.
We should have a ranking system for body part tags like going from normal to big. grand. huge giant. super giant. ultra gigantic hyper colossal omega rank s. and so on
Back when yahoo was still relevant
I would use Huge Calves for images where the calves are prominently big, wide, and the focus, compared to if they just happen to be in an image.
At the time, yahoo.com linked directly to GWM in an article and the resulting traffic spike briefly ground GWM to a halt, for something like a day.
Do you know what an opinion is? What you gave were facts and stats that nobody asked for. Everyone else was giving their opinion. All you did was try (again) to ruin yet another thread like you did the Emily Brand one.
Stop being such a "hall monitor" and let people have their fun.
Yes, that's what I checked, but I'm sure the image wasn't there. So I'm curious what happened.
I don’t really care tbh, I’m just saying I can’t see it if I just look at it. But surely I’d think she’s got the cup there to hide it?
And if I get spoken to like that again by him, I won’t be happy
You don't have to really zoom in, just look at the picture at its full resolution.
Ah you have hit upon my pet peeve.
Edit to add: Although in this case it's literally an uncensored vagina so there's no amount of comparing to other pics where this comes out looking like less of a violation.
Can’t be that over if you’re having to zoom in that much. I’m not on my tiny phone screen actually and you have to really zoom in just even to see anything that isn’t just black. Also, don’t talk to me like that, I’m asking a perfectly normal question and your response is that? Are you a dictator or something. And you wanna talk about sticking to the guidelines? Guarantee there’s a lot worse on here than that picture and stuff that breaks other guidelines
Ah I see, thank you for the clarification. Apologies.
And I'm telling you I can, looking at the full pic. Do you think we're hallucinating or something, what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish here? I don't give a shit if you can't see anything on your tiny phone screen set to power-saver mode or whatever, the pic is over the guidelines for the site.
Yes. They were also uploaded before yours, so even if there was no difference they would have won the merge.
@rackt12. Opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one. I gave you mine, which you don't like.
I was the original uploader of these Ashley Jones pics. I then got a notification that my upload was merged with another user's, and now I am gone completely from the images.
How come? Are they higher resolution than the ones I shared?
It’s black, you can’t see anything there
[Mod Edit: Wrong thread. Also, you're being annoying]
Below the cup. Maybe take 10 seconds to look at the pic when you've already been told why it was removed?
+2 on this one.
Mainly because this picture went viral and was everywhere.
Thanks captain obvious. The OP was obviously asking for opinions.
Where’s the nudity here?