Unless you've actually compared the versions yourself and are sure actually sure neither of those are the case, there isn't much need to ask why, you already have your answer in the vast majority of cases. I don't think regular users can see the image ID of the non-primary versions after a merge unless they happen to have it in their browser history, so if they're identical, unless the other version is from months or years ago, just assume it was uploaded to the queue earlier.
My last upload was merged into another image and they look identical to me, so I guess the other image was uploaded earlier. What I am wondering, is how I could have known it was already uploaded. I checked for the name (when you are searching for a name, do the results include the images which are in the queue?) and even checked the most recent images without a name (when you do so, do you also see the unnamed images in the queue?). I didn't find the image in either way, so my conclusion was that it hadn't been uploaded by someone else.
Many tags are word form variants. For example, “smile” and “smiling.” I suggest consolidating into the most basic form of the noun (in this case, “smile”).
The other challenge is that it is not always clear how a tag is best used. Myself, I would rather have tags where they describe something visible in the photo and not open to interpretation. One example for this is “thong” where it was being used on photos where only the front is visible.
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.
As much as I like the joke, do we really need tags like bad grammar?
Not really.
As part of the new tags system we will tune the tags, and will make adjustments as necessary. As mods we are trying to address questionable tags or tags that are best merged into others. Some will be obvious, while others need a little more discussion.
The other challenge is that it is not always clear how a tag is best used. Myself, I would rather have tags where they describe something visible in the photo and not open to interpretation. One example for this is “thong” where it was being used on photos where only the front is visible.
We are looking to see how to better with model type tags (nationality, ethnicity, etc), but this is a work in progress.
I can't see the posts on her twitter but I'll take your word for it; I undeleted it. In the future you should leave a comment to this effect under the pic to decrease the probability of it being deleted.
Thanks for being on top of this, guys. Loving the new system. Just noticed a few recently that should be merged: "forearms veins" into "forearm veins", and "tights" and "yoga pants" with "leggings". And there are several "chest" tags now - should those just be merged into the equivalent "pec" tags?
There are a few instances corresponding to this theme. Plural versions and singular versions of the same idea.
Thanks for being on top of this, guys. Loving the new system. Just noticed a few recently that should be merged: "forearms veins" into "forearm veins", and "tights" and "yoga pants" with "leggings". And there are several "chest" tags now - should those just be merged into the equivalent "pec" tags?
The mods on this site are able to merge redundant tags together. This is the thread to bring tags to our attention that you feel like need to be merged. Suggested merges should be of tags that are very similar, if not identical to each each other. For example, "shredded" and "ripped" have been merged.
Also keep in mind that some tags that are similar can also have very specific differences, such as "double biceps flex" and "back double biceps flex". In this case, we'll probably need to change "double biceps flex" to "front double biceps flex" and fix the tags on an image per image basis accordingly. The other option would be to delete "double biceps flex" and start "front double biceps flex" from scratch (this is a last resort).
Being that these are considered suggestions, please do not expect them to all be acted on. We will consider each of them, however.
No, the 1080p version is noticably better in the fine details of that one.
Once again, the reasons for an image to not be picked as the primary in a merge are:
1. The other version was of observably better quality
2. If functionally identical, the other image was uploaded earlier
Unless you've actually compared the versions yourself and are sure actually sure neither of those are the case, there isn't much need to ask why, you already have your answer in the vast majority of cases. I don't think regular users can see the image ID of the non-primary versions after a merge unless they happen to have it in their browser history, so if they're identical, unless the other version is from months or years ago, just assume it was uploaded to the queue earlier.
Log in |
Register
A nice one I just noticed the other day, especially for nostalgia purposes, is magazine cover.
If you know the name and go to their gallery then click on the latest picture(s) it will usually say:
"This image is on the waitlist to get posted." on some queued pics at least.
Personally, I would like a tag for women over 50 years.
"single most......" Neither realistic nor possible. As of today, site stats on the home page reveal 1,684,796 uploads.
My last upload was merged into another image and they look identical to me, so I guess the other image was uploaded earlier. What I am wondering, is how I could have known it was already uploaded. I checked for the name (when you are searching for a name, do the results include the images which are in the queue?) and even checked the most recent images without a name (when you do so, do you also see the unnamed images in the queue?). I didn't find the image in either way, so my conclusion was that it hadn't been uploaded by someone else.
I love the measurements Tag the most personally :)
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?tags=group
Any tag suggestions for images/ videoes featuring more than 1 GWM.
Body comparision also features male or non muscle girls or progress.
My thoughts: Model comparison
GWMs colab
Muscle girls
Etc
Many tags are word form variants. For example, “smile” and “smiling.” I suggest consolidating into the most basic form of the noun (in this case, “smile”).
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.
Not really.
As part of the new tags system we will tune the tags, and will make adjustments as necessary. As mods we are trying to address questionable tags or tags that are best merged into others. Some will be obvious, while others need a little more discussion.
The other challenge is that it is not always clear how a tag is best used. Myself, I would rather have tags where they describe something visible in the photo and not open to interpretation. One example for this is “thong” where it was being used on photos where only the front is visible.
We are looking to see how to better with model type tags (nationality, ethnicity, etc), but this is a work in progress.
her loss
Suggest consolidating:
"feat of strength" into a single "strength" tag
"flexible" into a single "flexibility" tag
I can't see the posts on her twitter but I'll take your word for it; I undeleted it. In the future you should leave a comment to this effect under the pic to decrease the probability of it being deleted.
Hi everyone! I kindly ask you to restore this video as it is from her official twitter. Thank you.
Twitter/X: Maddieesxx
There are a few instances corresponding to this theme. Plural versions and singular versions of the same idea.
As much as I like the joke, do we really need tags like bad grammar?
Thanks for being on top of this, guys. Loving the new system. Just noticed a few recently that should be merged: "forearms veins" into "forearm veins", and "tights" and "yoga pants" with "leggings". And there are several "chest" tags now - should those just be merged into the equivalent "pec" tags?
The mods on this site are able to merge redundant tags together. This is the thread to bring tags to our attention that you feel like need to be merged. Suggested merges should be of tags that are very similar, if not identical to each each other. For example, "shredded" and "ripped" have been merged.
Also keep in mind that some tags that are similar can also have very specific differences, such as "double biceps flex" and "back double biceps flex". In this case, we'll probably need to change "double biceps flex" to "front double biceps flex" and fix the tags on an image per image basis accordingly. The other option would be to delete "double biceps flex" and start "front double biceps flex" from scratch (this is a last resort).
Being that these are considered suggestions, please do not expect them to all be acted on. We will consider each of them, however.
When we delete a picture there's a dialog to put in a reason, but if we don't do that then you don't get a notification.
For merges I think you always get notified.
Images get deleted without notification when a woman asks to be removed from this site.
Is there any reason why an image would get deleted or merged and I wouldn’t get a notification about it?
No, the 1080p version is noticably better in the fine details of that one.
Once again, the reasons for an image to not be picked as the primary in a merge are:
1. The other version was of observably better quality
2. If functionally identical, the other image was uploaded earlier
Unless you've actually compared the versions yourself and are sure actually sure neither of those are the case, there isn't much need to ask why, you already have your answer in the vast majority of cases. I don't think regular users can see the image ID of the non-primary versions after a merge unless they happen to have it in their browser history, so if they're identical, unless the other version is from months or years ago, just assume it was uploaded to the queue earlier.
1440 is the new black.
Perhaps, but so are many on this site...