I saw pics and vids that are new to me even though I've visited the site for years already. Hope it really takes off, I feel like this is where we'll see more hidden gems
It's April 1st, which means it's time for an experimental feature. Last year it was Hidden Gems, this year it's Similar Images.
If you're logged in, any time you go to an image that a score of at least 25, you will see this new link under it at the bottom of the info box:
This will take you to a page of 150 images that the site thinks are similar to the starting image. It does this by looking at the other favorites of users who favorited the original image. The final ordering that you see is determined by a bunch of factors, including overlapping favorites, the scores of the images, as well as the number of favorites each user has given.
The goal of this is to allow you to find new pictures you'll like that you haven't seen before. I think you'll get the best results by starting on an image you like (for example, from your favorites), but here are a few examples I've found:
If you start with a very focused pic, for example the abs one above, you're more likely to get a higher concentration of similarly focused images. The less focused the initial pic, the wider the variety you will see in the results. Even so, I've found that as long as I like the original picture, I also like the majority of the pics in the output.
Also note that the results you get are from approximately the time period of the original image, so if you start from an older pic, you'll get older results.
The downside: This is pretty resource intensive for the server, so I'm planning on keeping this around for a few days and then seeing what it does to the server load. I may remove it. Also, for performance reasons, this is only available to logged in users.
I think we've now reached the point where there is not much new commentary to add to this thread, and as such I want to put it to rest by locking it so it doesn't keep getting bumped and all of us notified on a regular basis.
I'm open to reevaluating this once some time has passed.
I honestly don't understand how the manpower isn't there for it. How hard is it to ban these users? If you do nothing but delete the comments (which is what the practice has been on here), it'll be rinse and repeat the next time.
It's not a trivial problem to solve. Moderation is complex, and adding staff means more management/overhead.
Users who make outright transphobic comments have a clear case to be banned, but what about users who only post mildly passive-aggressive comments (e.g. "Isn't this site girlswithmuscle? 🙄")? Those can be incredibly offensive comments to a transwoman, but come across as quite innocent to someone who doesn't scrutinize closely. Not everyone actually even has a concept of what a transwoman is - some just don't see them as women, and not because they are transphobic. They simply don't know better - transgender is a very western concept, with other cultures having no concept of it at all. It's rarely an easy line to draw, and the grey area is huge.
Also, users who are banned for reasons like racism and transphobia rarely just leave. They often take it upon themselves to crusade against the site with puppet accounts made with VPNs and burner emails. These kinds of people can persist for literal decades - I've seen it firsthand too many times.
The problem is made even worse if the woman doesn't "pass". Many people make the honest mistake of assuming the wrong picture of a man was uploaded, and report the picture. Some will report maliciously, but there is no way to distinguish the two.
The problem is, the resources to thoroughly moderate the comments on trans pictures do not exist. It's not because the mods are lazy - the manpower just isn't there.
The policy is basically choosing between one of the two:
Allow transwomen on the main site, but also be unable to delete the transphobic comments, flaming, and other undesirable conversations.
Adopt the existing policy, and have the ability to keep such comments under control.
If I were a transwoman, I'd rather my pictures have positivity and support. Not comments like "It’s a man, baby!" or "get this disgusting freak off the site!!!!".
Ideally, the manpower to keep such comments under control would exist, and transwomen could be posted to the main site. But that's not reality.
I honestly don't understand how the manpower isn't there for it. How hard is it to ban these users? If you do nothing but delete the comments (which is what the practice has been on here), it'll be rinse and repeat the next time.
But unlike the racism discussion, you're forgoing the moral decision for a practical one by preventing people from posting them altogether.
The problem is, the resources to thoroughly moderate the comments on trans pictures do not exist. It's not because the mods are lazy - the manpower just isn't there.
The policy is basically choosing between one of the two:
Allow transwomen on the main site, but also be unable to delete the transphobic comments, flaming, and other undesirable conversations.
Adopt the existing policy, and have the ability to keep such comments under control.
If I were a transwoman, I'd rather my pictures have positivity and support. Not comments like "It’s a man, baby!" or "get this disgusting freak off the site!!!!".
Ideally, the manpower to keep such comments under control would exist, and transwomen could be posted to the main site. But that's not reality.
Does this not come with the territory of being a mod/admin?
Some amount of moderation does, unfortunately. That doesn't mean I won't try to minimize it, if possible.
If there's a black model and you see racist comments, chances are you're going to deal with the people that post racist comments, yet not outright prevent people from posting black models. With trans models, the only difference is that this outright bigotry against them is more common to see.
Not really an accurate comparison. See point "two" from my post.
This is what I was talking about in my previous post where this feels like you're volunteering our time to cull comments. Moderating user behavior is probably my least favorite part of running the site, and while it is often necessary, I want to minimize having to do it as much as possible and instead spend time doing development/coding work.
I was away from my phone/computer for about 10 hours while he was commenting in this thread and banned him immediately upon seeing the comments when I got back. It is entirely wrong to assume that just because a comment exists on the site that I approve of it, or even know about it.
Does this not come with the territory of being a mod/admin? If there's a black model and you see racist comments, chances are you're going to deal with the people that post racist comments, yet not outright prevent people from posting black models.
With trans models, the only difference is that this outright bigotry against them is more common to see. The fact that you're deleting these comments to begin with shows that you think they're wrong. But unlike the racism discussion, you're forgoing the moral decision for a practical one by preventing people from posting them altogether.
Moderation team is opting for a practical solution rather than a moral one. And the issue I have with that is that there is an option to culling those comments rather than just deleting the forum to house those negative comments.
This is what I was talking about in my previous post where this feels like you're volunteering our time to cull comments. Moderating user behavior is probably my least favorite part of running the site, and while it is often necessary, I want to minimize having to do it as much as possible and instead spend time doing development/coding work.
Like letting a user like Mr. Awesome continually make transphobic/homophobic comments and then slapping a 3-day ban on him when he does it for the 50th time
I was away from my phone/computer for about 10 hours while he was commenting in this thread and banned him immediately upon seeing the comments when I got back. It is entirely wrong to assume that just because a comment exists on the site that I approve of it, or even know about it.
I popped into the trans subforum just to become enlightened (curious seemed like a poor choice of words) and found a LOT of pics, vids and conversations about dongs. Now I don't personally care about what happens on a clearly labeled subforum, but I thought placing them on the GWM mainpage would be "seamless" ? We'd never know! We can't be sure anyway!
Yet there it is... pages and pages of dick-talk, photos and videos. Exactly what we should expect to find on "Girls With Muscles".
To clarify, transwomen on the main site didn't bother me. I did in fact just move on, instead of leaving nasty comments and/or reports. But I meant everything I said about my own personal attraction.
I see Chainer's new policy as a practical move rather than an ideological move. Facts are, many people feel the same way I do about transwomen, but simply cannot or will not be respectful about it. I think it's wrong for people to act that way, but that's currently how the userbase is. The burden to police the aftermath of that is on the moderation of this site, and their resources are limited.
I think this is the crux of the situation. Moderation team is opting for a practical solution rather than a moral one. And the issue I have with that is that there is an option to culling those comments rather than just deleting the forum to house those negative comments. I think Chainer is well-meaning here, maybe just a bit naïve. Like letting a user like Mr. Awesome continually make transphobic/homophobic comments and then slapping a 3-day ban on him when he does it for the 50th time does absolutely nothing to suggest that that type of behavior shouldn't be accepted. He'll be back, and it'll be the same thing all over again.
Chainer mentioned earlier that he wanted to cater to users such as yourself rather than the Mr. Awesome's of the world, but I don't see that as the case at all. You've said right here that you did move on from those pics when you saw them, and you're articulating your thoughts here rather than trans woman = man and disgusting. And your views are completely fine to have.
I think a lot of people are taking this odd stance that trans women are trying to be forced into the main pages, when it's literally just about having them as an option. It's going the complete opposite way, certain users are trying to force out a specific demographic as the option, yet don't see the hypocrisy at play when they're talking about it. It's like those people that say, "You can be gay, just don't do that shit around me." Like how are we not past that at this point?
To clarify, transwomen on the main site didn't bother me. I did in fact just move on, instead of leaving nasty comments and/or reports. But I meant everything I said about my own personal attraction.
I see Chainer's new policy as a practical move rather than an ideological move. Facts are, many people feel the same way I do about transwomen, but simply cannot or will not be respectful about it. I think it's wrong for people to act that way, but that's currently how the userbase is. The burden to police the aftermath of that is on the moderation of this site, and their resources are limited.
Interesting, this is after you demanded actual journal articles. Now the source material you demanded somehow doesn't count because the conditions are rare? Guess what: being trans is coincidentally rare!
No it really isn't. Not all people are XX or XY, and not all trans women are XY, that's the point you're choosing to miss.
It sounds like you actually think you can conduct chromosomal and gender testing by looking at a picture, which falls under the category of "delusions of grandeur."
Slippery slope, anyone? Try this version of your argument: "If [maximally roided] women appear on this site, the more biologically buff women will request their photos removed and more users will complain and eventually abandon GWM." Is that happening?
Also, trans women already appear "mixed" on this site. (I think this is the underlying cause of some freakouts). Your belief that you can identify binary gender or chromosomal makeup simply by looking at a picture has blinded you to this fact. As I mentioned earlier, unless a particular trans woman self identifies, then deciding whether she is "trans" or not is based on rumor or accusation.
Do consider: many trans and intersex people have had puberty suppressed because of their conditions and then have moved on to adult life without the dramatic "Chris Jenner" surgeries and changes, and in the case of trans women, they were never "men" first as you assume.
Here's the real thesis of the argument!
This is an important point. How does your capacity to ignore pictures you don't like somehow go away if you suspect a woman is trans?
It doesn't offend or threaten me. When attempting to have a good faith discussion, I just feel obligated to call out false arguments, false appeals to science, and delusions of persecution. I actually appreciate your openness to polite discussion.
I am not dismissing these articles but merely stating that these medical conditions don’t represent the majority of trans people. None of these articles or anything else you’ll find on pubmed will state that biological X? = XX.
You spend a lot of effort trying to refute me line by line. And you are inaccurately restating my points. What is your objective? Mine is simple. I prefer and expect to see biological XX women on the Girls With Muscle site. I suspect that you also prefer biological women. So are you just a holy warrior in the culture wars arguing to advance the new era of social enlightenment? There are plenty of forums for trans people so why push into this forum?
I’m done with this thread. The moderators provide an equitable solution which is more charitable than I would do. This thread is becoming pointless. Signing off.
Log in |
Register
Good
Agree with asqwert. This certainly is superior to hidden gems. This really improves the site immensely. Thanks Chainer
Agree !
Great work, one of your best ideas yet.
I saw pics and vids that are new to me even though I've visited the site for years already. Hope it really takes off, I feel like this is where we'll see more hidden gems
Well done Chainer. I hope it can last.
Works like a charm.
Just tried it. It’s awesome! As advertised. Thanks Chainer
Interesting feature
It's April 1st, which means it's time for an experimental feature. Last year it was Hidden Gems, this year it's Similar Images.
If you're logged in, any time you go to an image that a score of at least 25, you will see this new link under it at the bottom of the info box:
This will take you to a page of 150 images that the site thinks are similar to the starting image. It does this by looking at the other favorites of users who favorited the original image. The final ordering that you see is determined by a bunch of factors, including overlapping favorites, the scores of the images, as well as the number of favorites each user has given.
The goal of this is to allow you to find new pictures you'll like that you haven't seen before. I think you'll get the best results by starting on an image you like (for example, from your favorites), but here are a few examples I've found:
If you start with a very focused pic, for example the abs one above, you're more likely to get a higher concentration of similarly focused images. The less focused the initial pic, the wider the variety you will see in the results. Even so, I've found that as long as I like the original picture, I also like the majority of the pics in the output.
Also note that the results you get are from approximately the time period of the original image, so if you start from an older pic, you'll get older results.
The downside: This is pretty resource intensive for the server, so I'm planning on keeping this around for a few days and then seeing what it does to the server load. I may remove it. Also, for performance reasons, this is only available to logged in users.
Happy exploring!
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/topic/56/
It's for threads for pics/videos on a particular topic. If that's confusing, take a look and you'll see what it's for.
These threads were taking up a lot of the General section, and were arbitrarily split between General and Requests. Now they are in one place.
I think we've now reached the point where there is not much new commentary to add to this thread, and as such I want to put it to rest by locking it so it doesn't keep getting bumped and all of us notified on a regular basis.
I'm open to reevaluating this once some time has passed.
It's not a trivial problem to solve. Moderation is complex, and adding staff means more management/overhead.
Users who make outright transphobic comments have a clear case to be banned, but what about users who only post mildly passive-aggressive comments (e.g. "Isn't this site girlswithmuscle? 🙄")? Those can be incredibly offensive comments to a transwoman, but come across as quite innocent to someone who doesn't scrutinize closely. Not everyone actually even has a concept of what a transwoman is - some just don't see them as women, and not because they are transphobic. They simply don't know better - transgender is a very western concept, with other cultures having no concept of it at all. It's rarely an easy line to draw, and the grey area is huge.
Also, users who are banned for reasons like racism and transphobia rarely just leave. They often take it upon themselves to crusade against the site with puppet accounts made with VPNs and burner emails. These kinds of people can persist for literal decades - I've seen it firsthand too many times.
The problem is made even worse if the woman doesn't "pass". Many people make the honest mistake of assuming the wrong picture of a man was uploaded, and report the picture. Some will report maliciously, but there is no way to distinguish the two.
I honestly don't understand how the manpower isn't there for it. How hard is it to ban these users? If you do nothing but delete the comments (which is what the practice has been on here), it'll be rinse and repeat the next time.
The problem is, the resources to thoroughly moderate the comments on trans pictures do not exist. It's not because the mods are lazy - the manpower just isn't there.
The policy is basically choosing between one of the two:
Allow transwomen on the main site, but also be unable to delete the transphobic comments, flaming, and other undesirable conversations.
Adopt the existing policy, and have the ability to keep such comments under control.
If I were a transwoman, I'd rather my pictures have positivity and support. Not comments like "It’s a man, baby!" or "get this disgusting freak off the site!!!!".
Ideally, the manpower to keep such comments under control would exist, and transwomen could be posted to the main site. But that's not reality.
Some amount of moderation does, unfortunately. That doesn't mean I won't try to minimize it, if possible.
Not really an accurate comparison. See point "two" from my post.
Does this not come with the territory of being a mod/admin? If there's a black model and you see racist comments, chances are you're going to deal with the people that post racist comments, yet not outright prevent people from posting black models.
With trans models, the only difference is that this outright bigotry against them is more common to see. The fact that you're deleting these comments to begin with shows that you think they're wrong. But unlike the racism discussion, you're forgoing the moral decision for a practical one by preventing people from posting them altogether.
This is what I was talking about in my previous post where this feels like you're volunteering our time to cull comments. Moderating user behavior is probably my least favorite part of running the site, and while it is often necessary, I want to minimize having to do it as much as possible and instead spend time doing development/coding work.
I was away from my phone/computer for about 10 hours while he was commenting in this thread and banned him immediately upon seeing the comments when I got back. It is entirely wrong to assume that just because a comment exists on the site that I approve of it, or even know about it.
I popped into the trans subforum just to become enlightened (curious seemed like a poor choice of words) and found a LOT of pics, vids and conversations about dongs. Now I don't personally care about what happens on a clearly labeled subforum, but I thought placing them on the GWM mainpage would be "seamless" ? We'd never know! We can't be sure anyway!
Yet there it is... pages and pages of dick-talk, photos and videos. Exactly what we should expect to find on "Girls With Muscles".
I think this is the crux of the situation. Moderation team is opting for a practical solution rather than a moral one. And the issue I have with that is that there is an option to culling those comments rather than just deleting the forum to house those negative comments. I think Chainer is well-meaning here, maybe just a bit naïve. Like letting a user like Mr. Awesome continually make transphobic/homophobic comments and then slapping a 3-day ban on him when he does it for the 50th time does absolutely nothing to suggest that that type of behavior shouldn't be accepted. He'll be back, and it'll be the same thing all over again.
Chainer mentioned earlier that he wanted to cater to users such as yourself rather than the Mr. Awesome's of the world, but I don't see that as the case at all. You've said right here that you did move on from those pics when you saw them, and you're articulating your thoughts here rather than trans woman = man and disgusting. And your views are completely fine to have.
I think a lot of people are taking this odd stance that trans women are trying to be forced into the main pages, when it's literally just about having them as an option. It's going the complete opposite way, certain users are trying to force out a specific demographic as the option, yet don't see the hypocrisy at play when they're talking about it. It's like those people that say, "You can be gay, just don't do that shit around me." Like how are we not past that at this point?
@markstewart
To clarify, transwomen on the main site didn't bother me. I did in fact just move on, instead of leaving nasty comments and/or reports. But I meant everything I said about my own personal attraction.
I see Chainer's new policy as a practical move rather than an ideological move. Facts are, many people feel the same way I do about transwomen, but simply cannot or will not be respectful about it. I think it's wrong for people to act that way, but that's currently how the userbase is. The burden to police the aftermath of that is on the moderation of this site, and their resources are limited.
Elegant solution, respects everyone involved, but of course some people will never be satisfied. Oh well.
I am not dismissing these articles but merely stating that these medical conditions don’t represent the majority of trans people. None of these articles or anything else you’ll find on pubmed will state that biological X? = XX. You spend a lot of effort trying to refute me line by line. And you are inaccurately restating my points. What is your objective? Mine is simple. I prefer and expect to see biological XX women on the Girls With Muscle site. I suspect that you also prefer biological women. So are you just a holy warrior in the culture wars arguing to advance the new era of social enlightenment? There are plenty of forums for trans people so why push into this forum? I’m done with this thread. The moderators provide an equitable solution which is more charitable than I would do. This thread is becoming pointless. Signing off.
Exactly