If I search, for instance, "Vanessa Garcia", even in quotes, the search matches the individual words, so in https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/4/?name=%22Vanessa+Garcia%22 (page 4 of the current search) I can also find a picture with "Angie Garcia (L), Vanessa Silvera Brun (R)".
I don't see an option to perform an exact search... is this functionality removed?
There's NO video progress bar or other evidence that it's a video unless I pass my mouse over the image - which I don't always. So I'm approving still images which are actually videos, but I don't know that.
This especially applies to what is now called "Vote" (I much preferred Moderation). I've been doing some Moderation - sorry - Voting today and more than once accidentally clicked on Approve when I thought it was just a single image, then the video progress bar showed briefly just before the page reloaded with the next image.
Also, I preferred A and L rather than A and R, as A and L are at opposite ends of the keyboard. L is easier to find than R. Left finger A, right finger L. Never mind. Probably just me.
When viewing the library of images of a particular girl.... Is there, or can there be an easier way to get to the first images of a girl that has say 8 or 10 pages of images, other than clicking next 8 or 10 times?
I click the Post Comment button and nothing happens. But if I click it again, I end up with the comment posted twice! Not consistent, but it happens quite a lot. I've learned to refresh the page before trying again, as it's often been saved even though the page doesn't show that until refreshed.
This should happen only with older images imported from the old GWM site. Uploads were approved in batches, so many of the pics have the same timestamp. When this is the case, their ordering is arbitrary, and the "Next" button may report a different image than what you see in the image index.
I tried fixing it by also making it do a secondary-sort by ID (so if the timestamp is the same, sort by ID), but it turns out this decreased the performance quite a bit and as a result is unfortunately not worth it.
I thought I knew that until my own first comment didn't show. I wish I could remember what pic that was. Well anyway probably not a big problem. Take care.
That is by design; someone is blocked so you'll see the comment reflected in the count, but you won't see the comment.
The blocks aren't reflected in the count under the thumbnail because it would be too resource intensive to keep track of the different counts that different people see.
Here is another one about comments, and this was true on the old site as well. I sometimes see that the comment count is one greater than the comments that actually appear. This is often true when there is just one comment in the count, but no comments show under the image. It's happened to me at least once where I made the first comment and it showed one in the count, but my comment never appeared. Here is a recent example where, as of this point, the count shows one comment, but there it nothing under the image.
It does actually do this in most cases, but the ø was a character that wasn't being handled correctly. This is fixed now so "Bergøe" and "Bergoe" return the same results.
Let me know if there are other characters that aren't working correctly.
This is by design. Pictures are now sorted according to the time they were posted, not the ID.
There are two main cases where pictures will not be in the same order as ID: - They are imported from the old GWM site, where often pictures were approved in batches by the mods. Any one group of these would have the same posted time, and their displayed order here is arbitrary. - New pictures are not approved in the order they are uploaded. Every picture is assigned an ID at upload time, but they may be approved in a different order. They retain their IDs once they get posted, so in this case they would be out of order. (This is different from the old behavior, where pictures got assigned a new ID when they were posted.)
Maybe these images were submitted at the same time to GWM, maybe that's why the order is a little messed up.
Anyway, as the order appearing on the screen can be useful for chronological comparisons (I mean transformation of the body), it might be good to correct this minor defect, and especially make sure that it can't appear on larger "gaps" of the number.
In the previous version, for instance searching for "Caroline Bergoe" found also all instances of "Caroline Bergøe". The same with accented characters from names in French or Spanish, many people may not find online the properly accented names but people who know the real names may register them correctly.
Is there a way to restore this functionality? Searches may not be returning all the relevant results due to the change.
Thanks for addressing this. I access the site through the Safari browser on my iPhone. I type the comment, hit “post” and I do not get a message that says comment posted successfully. The image blinks and goes back to normal. The photo does not appear in recently commented section. I was able to leave a comment in the GotW section but unable to vote. Is this a cookies issue? I am selective about accepting cookies. All the best.
I forgot to reply, but this was fixed a few days ago.
I don't know if this is related, but I have had several instances where I received a notification but that person's comment was not there on the picture. A number of these have been from user Bigheadmike. When I look at his profile, it shows 0 Image comments, so maybe he is having trouble posting as well. I know Kristi has mentioned the same issue of missing comments when she got a noti. This is one case I saw today:
Log in |
Register
I don't see an option to perform an exact search... is this functionality removed?
There's NO video progress bar or other evidence that it's a video unless I pass my mouse over the image - which I don't always. So I'm approving still images which are actually videos, but I don't know that.
Correction - make that four. No video bar until after I'd clicked Approve!
Five now. I'm going to have to abandon Voting. There's no obvious sign that it's a video until too late!
Also, I preferred A and L rather than A and R, as A and L are at opposite ends of the keyboard. L is easier to find than R. Left finger A, right finger L. Never mind. Probably just me.
Is there, or can there be an easier way to get to the first images of a girl that has say
8 or 10 pages of images, other than clicking next 8 or 10 times?
Thanks
would you happen to know what photo ID this should be resolved at or around?
I tried fixing it by also making it do a secondary-sort by ID (so if the timestamp is the same, sort by ID), but it turns out this decreased the performance quite a bit and as a result is unfortunately not worth it.
Nice graphic by the way :)
you click on a picture and you use the prev or next , the pictures do not sequence in the same order
The blocks aren't reflected in the count under the thumbnail because it would be too resource intensive to keep track of the different counts that different people see.
Let me know if there are other characters that aren't working correctly.
There are two main cases where pictures will not be in the same order as ID:
- They are imported from the old GWM site, where often pictures were approved in batches by the mods. Any one group of these would have the same posted time, and their displayed order here is arbitrary.
- New pictures are not approved in the order they are uploaded. Every picture is assigned an ID at upload time, but they may be approved in a different order. They retain their IDs once they get posted, so in this case they would be out of order. (This is different from the old behavior, where pictures got assigned a new ID when they were posted.)
Either way, the order is still chronological.
572214 569751 569753 569755 569754 569748 555755
Maybe these images were submitted at the same time to GWM, maybe that's why the order is a little messed up.
Anyway, as the order appearing on the screen can be useful for chronological comparisons (I mean transformation of the body), it might be good to correct this minor defect, and especially make sure that it can't appear on larger "gaps" of the number.
Is there a way to restore this functionality? Searches may not be returning all the relevant results due to the change.
I forgot to reply, but this was fixed a few days ago.
Thanks for the report, this should be fixed now going forward.