Let me clarify. I'm not trying to say that I think the dumb stuff is good, I like intelligent conversation more than most. But I also don't think the dumb stuff is bad. In a way it is just padding and fluff. But leaving it at that is too shallow a view. It is data that is useful and saying something. If people quip 'nice split' well damn, they have just allowed me a way to find posts with split biceps... I thank them. If 20 people make short comments on a post, it's usually because the post if a fantastic image. I want to know about that. Sure, there are plenty of comments that I roll my eyes at, and people's fantasies I just skip over... but it doesn't mean the comments have no value at a meta level. You see this is where dumb = intelligent. Just say you want to add a tag 'bicep peak' (I hope you do one day)... then you can data mine comments for 'peak' and retrospectively tag photos. So when I say I like the dumb stuff, it's because I'm intelligent. If you are trying to control the dumb stuff too much, you lose the true sense of how people felt when they viewed the photo and gave an intuitive quip... and that is important meta data that can be used to improve the site. Google would mine it for value.
However, if you are trying to make this site appear more 'intelligent' well... you've kinda missed the purpose of the site. I agree that lots of intelligent people use this site, but they are probably using it to have a rest from a busy life of intellectual pursuits. If I want intelligent reading, I do not come to GWM... I go to the New York Times, Modern Philosophy Journal or buy a good book. Trying to make out a site like this should and could be more intelligence is a category error.
I do understand the point that monitoring posts manually is a pain, and I am not against filters that help the moderators. But it needs to be done incredibly carefully in order to be useful or fair. Do you have those skills? Maybe you do I don't know, but I spent ages recently trying to make a short comment about something and just got frustrated.
Youtube does it even more funny these days. Maybe one out of a hundred comments I try to post I will see disappear after say five minutes. But maybe three out of four comments seem to stick but when I go look at them using a different browser that is not logged in, they're invisible.
Youtube is (or was) pretty notorious for shadow-banning. That can mess with people mentally though. It'd be funny if this "filter" just randomly flagged people, so they're jumping around like Skinner's superstitious pigeons.
To quote fellow moderator tamarok from another thread:
...but given that GWM is being developed by a single person, who also has a day job, I’d ask everyone have a bit of patience with features. Sites like Instagram, Tik Tok, Facebook and Tumblr have teams of developers with at least 10-20 paid developers minimum, doing it as a day job, and even then features can take months.
It’s sad that there are many visitors to the site who can’t appreciate how much work developing a website is, but then again not everyone has spent time writing code.
Having posted that, I will say that Chainer decided to do this on his own without any moderator input. This may or may not have had intended benefits or detriments because he has been indisposed of for the last several days, and no discussion has taken place.
I think that if you said to a data expert that you wanted to add a quality filter... he/she would shake his/her head at you knowing and say 'Our research indicates that people's intuitive first reaction to a photo is the most valuable data you have. This data represents people's true feelings about an image and therefore is the most useful data in future Artificial Intelligence search algorithms which soon everyone will be using more and more. A quality filter will skew this data in a way that gives less authentic results. You see, increasingly we are discovering it's all about how people feel, not what they say.'
Tags will die as a way to characterise things eventually. It will be replaced by AI. Future proof your site. Stop the quality control filter.
> I mean sometimes I make long insightful posts and sometimes I don't. But... who cares.
Sometimes people disagree that a particular discussion should take place, instead of leaving it alone or just participating on the same level with others.
But it's a bit more rare to see a person participate in a discussion while denying that the discussion exists.
> This site is nice because you can relax and say dumb stuff. As long as it isn't offensive to the people here, it serves a useful purpose.
To some people that is a contradiction. To some dumb is offensive. At least if it is avoidable.
Let me clarify. I'm not trying to say that I think the dumb stuff is good, I like intelligent conversation more than most. But I also don't think the dumb stuff is bad. In a way it is just padding and fluff. But leaving it at that is too shallow a view. It is data that is useful and saying something. If people quip 'nice split' well damn, they have just allowed me a way to find posts with split biceps... I thank them. If 20 people make short comments on a post, it's usually because the post if a fantastic image. I want to know about that. Sure, there are plenty of comments that I roll my eyes at, and people's fantasies I just skip over... but it doesn't mean the comments have no value at a meta level. You see this is where dumb = intelligent. Just say you want to add a tag 'bicep peak' (I hope you do one day)... then you can data mine comments for 'peak' and retrospectively tag photos. So when I say I like the dumb stuff, it's because I'm intelligent. If you are trying to control the dumb stuff too much, you lose the true sense of how people felt when they viewed the photo and gave an intuitive quip... and that is important meta data that can be used to improve the site. Google would mine it for value.
However, if you are trying to make this site appear more 'intelligent' well... you've kinda missed the purpose of the site. I agree that lots of intelligent people use this site, but they are probably using it to have a rest from a busy life of intellectual pursuits. If I want intelligent reading, I do not come to GWM... I go to the New York Times, Modern Philosophy Journal or buy a good book. Trying to make out a site like this should and could be more intelligence is a category error.
I do understand the point that monitoring posts manually is a pain, and I am not against filters that help the moderators. But it needs to be done incredibly carefully in order to be useful or fair. Do you have those skills? Maybe you do I don't know, but I spent ages recently trying to make a short comment about something and just got frustrated.
I have been getting the “ Your comment doesn't meet the minimum quality threshold.” when I comment & the comment is less than 6-8 words & it is so VERY annoying!.
I just tried to comment on one image & got that message even though there were 9 words.
The comment above mine was “yes”, why are some people getting this message & others are obviously not affected.😡😡😡
Then the criteria for "quality" should be made explicit before people post. The definition of "quality" is still arbitrary. In fact, if any more of my comments get rejected I will stop using this site and transfer to a competitor. This kind of thing is far better regulated by a human being since we are all human beings using this website and are commenting, subjectively in response to images that have aesthetic appeal. How is that measurable by some clunky, AI bot?
I have not had any comments censored (yet), but I know how frustrating it can be to randomly fail to publish. That's what had been happening with me on Yahoo. Sometimes they allow a remark, but often times they do not. And these are not one-word replies. I quit the platform.
Julian, you miss a point that most of us who post on this site are relatively intelligent. In addition to the endless comments about "wow," "what a woman," "what a flex;" the "dumb stuff" that you seem to like; I suspect that most of us can see and understand the pictures without being "coached"
At least one of the chronic time wasters is now getting more creative with some of his comments as a result of this dialogue.
"I worry about the direction of site management lately....." Well, I don't. This site began at the end of 2008 and is still here, unlike many other sites, particularly pay sites, that have been discontinued. GwM also remains as a free site. I came in around 2016, but have also talked with some here from the beginning.
I never realised the comments were a problem - there are not thousands of comments being made on each image, not even hundreds, in fact most posts don't have any comments at all and only a tiny fraction would have over 10 comments.
Reporting and removing offensive comments absolutely, but relying on algo hasn't got me sold.
I don't really understand this comment quality filter thing. Why can't we say 'wow amazing bod' or 'what a great flex' or 'fantastic backside'. I mean sometimes I make long insightful posts and sometimes I don't. But... who cares. Sometimes the little comments like 'fantastic peak' is great, because then I can search comments with the word 'peak' and find a great collection of peaked biceps. If a photo attracts a lot of short comments, it's because it's a good photo. So searching on the number of comments is also quite useful. However, when a photo attracts a lot of long comments, it's usually because someone said something political and a debate started. I would prefer to read the short comments rather than the politics, on this site. This site is nice because you can relax and say dumb stuff. As long as it isn't offensive to the people here, it serves a useful purpose.
I worry about the direction of site management lately. Trying to fix things that are not broken smacks of control issues. If you want to improve the site, add more tags, include the lady's name in photograph names, but don't introduce arbitrary algorithms that censor comments. Doing that sort of thing is very very difficult to do properly, even for Google. I can't see a situation where you won't create more harm than good.
> How are you defining quality regarding commenting on this site? The definition seems arbitrary to me...
An easy way to approach the issue is to list as many comments as possible that are not quality comments. Then list as many as possible that are. Then draw the line somewhere in between.
Still people keep saying that the problem is offensiveness. My money is on some form of inanity instead. Inane comments outnumber offensive comments at least ten to one.
I remember fondly when I and the guys thought of Fight Club as an exploration into lost masculinity. Well, it kinda is. I later found out that it's an allegory of gay culture. But that's far more obvious in the book than in the movie.
Then the criteria for "quality" should be made explicit before people post. The definition of "quality" is still arbitrary. In fact, if any more of my comments get rejected I will stop using this site and transfer to a competitor. This kind of thing is far better regulated by a human being since we are all human beings using this website and are commenting, subjectively in response to images that have aesthetic appeal. How is that measurable by some clunky, AI bot?
Personally I think this is over-doing it. Reporting disrespectful posts should be more than enough. But people losing sleep over harmless eggplant emojis or boing comments? I mean if this is such a big deal why not just remove image comments all together and save all interaction for the forum?
Why would that be a success to get rid of the majority of comments? I thought this was "social" media, interaction is a big part of that in my opinion.
Why would that be a success to get rid of the majority of comments? I thought this was "social" media, interaction is a big part of that in my opinion.
Log in |
Register
Some really good points here...
Youtube is (or was) pretty notorious for shadow-banning. That can mess with people mentally though. It'd be funny if this "filter" just randomly flagged people, so they're jumping around like Skinner's superstitious pigeons.
Sometimes the "cure" is worse than the problem.
To quote fellow moderator tamarok from another thread:
Having posted that, I will say that Chainer decided to do this on his own without any moderator input. This may or may not have had intended benefits or detriments because he has been indisposed of for the last several days, and no discussion has taken place.
I think that if you said to a data expert that you wanted to add a quality filter... he/she would shake his/her head at you knowing and say 'Our research indicates that people's intuitive first reaction to a photo is the most valuable data you have. This data represents people's true feelings about an image and therefore is the most useful data in future Artificial Intelligence search algorithms which soon everyone will be using more and more. A quality filter will skew this data in a way that gives less authentic results. You see, increasingly we are discovering it's all about how people feel, not what they say.'
Tags will die as a way to characterise things eventually. It will be replaced by AI. Future proof your site. Stop the quality control filter.
I tend to think it sounds pretty idealistic to be concerned about fairness.
Let me clarify. I'm not trying to say that I think the dumb stuff is good, I like intelligent conversation more than most. But I also don't think the dumb stuff is bad. In a way it is just padding and fluff. But leaving it at that is too shallow a view. It is data that is useful and saying something. If people quip 'nice split' well damn, they have just allowed me a way to find posts with split biceps... I thank them. If 20 people make short comments on a post, it's usually because the post if a fantastic image. I want to know about that. Sure, there are plenty of comments that I roll my eyes at, and people's fantasies I just skip over... but it doesn't mean the comments have no value at a meta level. You see this is where dumb = intelligent. Just say you want to add a tag 'bicep peak' (I hope you do one day)... then you can data mine comments for 'peak' and retrospectively tag photos. So when I say I like the dumb stuff, it's because I'm intelligent. If you are trying to control the dumb stuff too much, you lose the true sense of how people felt when they viewed the photo and gave an intuitive quip... and that is important meta data that can be used to improve the site. Google would mine it for value.
However, if you are trying to make this site appear more 'intelligent' well... you've kinda missed the purpose of the site. I agree that lots of intelligent people use this site, but they are probably using it to have a rest from a busy life of intellectual pursuits. If I want intelligent reading, I do not come to GWM... I go to the New York Times, Modern Philosophy Journal or buy a good book. Trying to make out a site like this should and could be more intelligence is a category error.
I do understand the point that monitoring posts manually is a pain, and I am not against filters that help the moderators. But it needs to be done incredibly carefully in order to be useful or fair. Do you have those skills? Maybe you do I don't know, but I spent ages recently trying to make a short comment about something and just got frustrated.
I have been getting the “ Your comment doesn't meet the minimum quality threshold.” when I comment & the comment is less than 6-8 words & it is so VERY annoying!.
I just tried to comment on one image & got that message even though there were 9 words.
The comment above mine was “yes”, why are some people getting this message & others are obviously not affected.😡😡😡
Youtube does it even more funny these days.
I have not had any comments censored (yet), but I know how frustrating it can be to randomly fail to publish. That's what had been happening with me on Yahoo. Sometimes they allow a remark, but often times they do not. And these are not one-word replies. I quit the platform.
To some people dumb is offensive. At least if it is avoidable.
The overuse of any special effect is bad.
The nature of the algorithm is not disclosed so that people would not attempt to circumvent it.
Your constant ellipses make me imagine that you talk like William Shatner.
@Pluto..... Just wondering..... How many Muscle Women have you been with ?????.... Probably none....
Julian, you miss a point that most of us who post on this site are relatively intelligent. In addition to the endless comments about "wow," "what a woman," "what a flex;" the "dumb stuff" that you seem to like; I suspect that most of us can see and understand the pictures without being "coached"
At least one of the chronic time wasters is now getting more creative with some of his comments as a result of this dialogue.
"I worry about the direction of site management lately....." Well, I don't. This site began at the end of 2008 and is still here, unlike many other sites, particularly pay sites, that have been discontinued. GwM also remains as a free site. I came in around 2016, but have also talked with some here from the beginning.
I never realised the comments were a problem - there are not thousands of comments being made on each image, not even hundreds, in fact most posts don't have any comments at all and only a tiny fraction would have over 10 comments.
Reporting and removing offensive comments absolutely, but relying on algo hasn't got me sold.
@Julian…..Well said I totally agree
I don't really understand this comment quality filter thing. Why can't we say 'wow amazing bod' or 'what a great flex' or 'fantastic backside'. I mean sometimes I make long insightful posts and sometimes I don't. But... who cares. Sometimes the little comments like 'fantastic peak' is great, because then I can search comments with the word 'peak' and find a great collection of peaked biceps. If a photo attracts a lot of short comments, it's because it's a good photo. So searching on the number of comments is also quite useful. However, when a photo attracts a lot of long comments, it's usually because someone said something political and a debate started. I would prefer to read the short comments rather than the politics, on this site. This site is nice because you can relax and say dumb stuff. As long as it isn't offensive to the people here, it serves a useful purpose.
I worry about the direction of site management lately. Trying to fix things that are not broken smacks of control issues. If you want to improve the site, add more tags, include the lady's name in photograph names, but don't introduce arbitrary algorithms that censor comments. Doing that sort of thing is very very difficult to do properly, even for Google. I can't see a situation where you won't create more harm than good.
Then the criteria for "quality" should be made explicit before people post. The definition of "quality" is still arbitrary. In fact, if any more of my comments get rejected I will stop using this site and transfer to a competitor. This kind of thing is far better regulated by a human being since we are all human beings using this website and are commenting, subjectively in response to images that have aesthetic appeal. How is that measurable by some clunky, AI bot?
Chainer-
I am trying to simply post this: Image is from Patti's Instagram @pattiannie_ifbbpro
and it's being rejected. Does that not meet the criteria for some reason?
Personally I think this is over-doing it. Reporting disrespectful posts should be more than enough. But people losing sleep over harmless eggplant emojis or boing comments? I mean if this is such a big deal why not just remove image comments all together and save all interaction for the forum?
Yes.
Exactly. (oops - that was only one word 😱)
@Liesbeth
Why would that be a success to get rid of the majority of comments? I thought this was "social" media, interaction is a big part of that in my opinion.
Did you get refused on your own pic?! Ouch! That is hilariit...hilarious and sh**. :-)