Title is pretty self-explanatory. As of now this includes:
Rhonda Lee
Yuan Herong
These models morph (photoshop) the vast majority of their own pictures; even if they don't morph literally all of them, it's impossible to trust any picture that they put out. I want the site to be more about the hard work that athletes put in rather than fiction, and while lots of people on Instagram stretch the truth by, for example, using perfect lighting, literally morphing your own pics is on another level.
We've also gotten a fair amount of (understandable) image reports for pics of these models, which have been hard to deal with because if we delete one image we pretty much have to delete all of them because they're all morphs. So now we're doing exactly that.
I don't anticipate this list growing too much, as at least for now not that many women do this.
Due to a combination of irrelevance, lack of activity, and/or lack of moderating time.
Pictures: Redundant with the main site Links: Prone to spam, otherwise low activity Off topic: There's no reason for this to exist, other topics can be discussed on other sites.
Ratings always did seem a bit douchy to me. It's kind of an insult to be doing that, though I understand Chainers original intent behind it. I'm just not so sure everyone else did.
I've implemented the +1 option. It appears under every image and has the effect of increasing an image's score by 1 (just like adding to favorites) without actually adding it to your favorites list. This means you can vote on images without worrying about cluttering your favorites.
Hey Chainer, I think the +1 option that you mentioned is a great idea - Facebook does this and it works well for billions of pics. This removes the negativity of rating and also gives the possibility to like a picture without putting it into ones favourites, which is very important for me and others too. Great work in maintaining the site for all those years! Thank you for that! 👍🏻 don
What I am gathering out of feedback I've gotten (here and elsewhere) is:
The ratings system was flawed and is not missed in its old form.
What is missing, though, is the interactivity the ratings provided, i.e. some way to express "liking" an image without putting it in your favorites list in your profile.
In response to the second point, I am planning to implement a way to +1 a picture without having it appear in your favorites. The total score of a picture will be determined by the sum of its +1s and favorites. This way, for example, if you like all pictures of a model you can +1 all her pictures while only favoriting the select few you like the most.
I’m a little late to the party (as, alas, is so often my usual habit) but here goes:
There’s no question that the 0-10 scoring system was being horribly abused. Once a few people discovered that they could have a disproportionate impact on the scoring by voting only tens and zeros, any honest objectivity in the scoring was completely lost.
But, there were other problems, too. Whenever we scored a particular photo, we all had to ask: what are we judging it against? If we compare the women of GWM with the women we see at the local Wal-Mart, then practically every photo would rank a “9” or “10” (which could, perhaps, explain some of the “ten-bombing” we were seeing). But, if that photo was being judged against all of the other photos on the GWM site … well, then the judging naturally becomes a lot harsher.
I tried to take a middle ground, granting most of the photos sevens or eights (and reserving my nines and tens for the really outstanding photos) but of course, with everyone using a different scoring standard, it naturally created inconsistencies in the scoring.
It’s also worth noting, though, that (for many of us) the scoring wasn’t always a “how beautiful is this woman” kind of score. I have a few women who are among my particular favorites (say, Karina Nascimento) but if it was a photo of her that was just poorly done (bad lighting, out-of-focus, etc.) I’d still give it a poor score. That poor score meant absolutely nothing against beautiful Karina – the photo got a poor score because it was, technically, just a poor photo.
So, while I liked the general “concept” of the scoring system, I understand the reasons for its demise.
I might note, though, that the image ratings also served a secondary purpose for me: it helped me remember where I left off from the last time I visited. My work schedule is such that I can sometimes only visit once or twice a week, and it’s not always easy to remember where I’d been the last time I visited (especially when there could be two-dozen pages of new photos waiting for me). By using the scoring system, I’d scan through all the new pages, and when I started seeing pictures that I’d previously rated, I knew that I’d gone through all the new ones.
I suppose I could use “Favorites” for this, but (as Kakuzade noted) I’d soon have so many photos in my Favorites file that it would become too cumbersome to use.
Also (again, as Kakuzade noted) not everyone has been using the “Favorites” list for simply listing their favorites. I have been using my “Favorites” list to log photos of all the great-looking women who were identified as “Unknown.” I’d tag these photos as Favorites, and then check back in a week or two to see if someone had come up with their identity (I may have been the only one who used my “Favorites” list for this purpose, though).
In any case, compiling a list of everyone’s top “Favorites” may not actually represent what it seems.
One option, I guess, might be to create a new category of “Super Favorites” (or whatever). The old “Favorites” files could then serve as a voting mechanism (and if everyone wound up with 30,000 photos in their “Favorites” files, it wouldn’t matter). We could all then use our new “Super Favorites” file just as we had been using the old “Favorites” list up until now.
Or, alternatively, perhaps something as simple as a “Like” button could be created to begin compiling all the positive votes, and the existing “Favorites” file could be kept just as it was. Of course, we wouldn’t be able to count all the current “Favorites” under such a system.
Just some ideas, not really complaints. And thank you, Chainer, for you efforts, we do appreciate it.
If you put a picture on your favorites it is to view it later without the risk of forgetting. If this saturated with unnecessary photos you have to clean.
I'll give an example: Melissa Wee. In my opinion it is one of the best models of GWM. She has 580 photos, and all of them are good. But in many of her pictures she looks posing in the same way and her body has not changed much over time.
What I did with the old system was to give 8.9 or 10 to all of her photos and chose for my favorites that I thought best (as I said, has many similar photos to each other).
Now I have no choice but to make favorite all of her photos, because otherwise it would indirectly saying that the picture is not good. And I will remove those photos later if I do not want my favorites are unusable.
I think good idea to remove the system from 1-10, but I think it would replace it with another system, separate from the favorites.
The idea is that people don't change their favoriting behavior, so that those pics that happen to get favorited the most rise to the top.
The problem with the binary (-1, 1) voting system is there is no good way to transition to it from the 0-10 scale for older pics (which is even more true now that lots of pictures don't have 0-10 ratings anymore).
Exactly! That is the major drawback of this system. Not always a good score was accompanied by a favorite. But now if you want to say that a picture is good, by force we have to make favorite. As a result our favorites will be getting bigger, so we would have to clean them occasionally. And when the favorite is removed, the photo, which is still as good as before is harmed. I think the best solution would be to implement a system of "like or dislike" as YouTube or one option as the "greenlight" of Steam.
The potential downside to going with a Favorite only system is the number of Favs that will pile up in one's account. I've always tried to limit my Favs to just a few hundred so I can find them as I go forward. I don't have any idea at all how people with 5,000 or more Favs can keep track of them; or if they even bother. I've even found fellow members who may hav 30,000 or more Favs. To me, making a picture a Favorite conveys a status that the model is important enough to continue to track. I guess the only option will be to periodically go through my Favs and clean them out.
Am a big fan of high resolution. It should be, in my opinion, one of the leading criteria in searching for pics.
I deleted some off-topic comments here about the women on the site not being muscular enough, which belong in a different thread.
Currently the favorites in the last month or year can't be done because I only started keeping track of favorite dates/times in the past few weeks. Even once it becomes feasible, it would be very computationally intensive and thus require additional work.
The "highest resolution" sorting might be useful to find pictures that look life-size on your monitor. In any case, it costs nothing to keep it there, so I'm unlikely to remove it.
I deleted some off-topic comments here about the women on the site not being muscular enough, which belong in a different thread.
Currently the favorites in the last month or year can't be done because I only started keeping track of favorite dates/times in the past few weeks. Even once it becomes feasible, it would be very computationally intensive and thus require additional work.
The "highest resolution" sorting might be useful to find pictures that look life-size on your monitor. In any case, it costs nothing to keep it there, so I'm unlikely to remove it.
I think that ultimately the only way to keep this site relatively "pure," for female muscle and within the limits allowed by Chainer, is to aggressively monitor the Moderate button. I just voted on about 70 pictures, at least a third I voted 'No' on due to lack of muscle. It's both amazing; and sad; the amount of "cheesecake" that some guys are trying to upload here.
First off, let me say I have some sympathy with Chainer's decision to abolish the 0-10 rating system, as I've been one of the noisiest complainers about zero-bombing (and its cousin, 10-bombing) and mischief-voting in general for quite some time. I will still miss the rating system, though, because of the interactiveness it brought to the site. I always used 'fave-ing' as a way of 'turning it up to 11': fave-ing the very best of the 10s.
This new system is restrictively binary (kind of like the Yes/No in moderation), and makes it impossible to register the fact that you like a pic ... just not quite enough to fave it. It seems based on the idea that all non-faved pix are equal ... and they're not.
I very rarely handed out a score of less than 7, but there was still plenty of scope for indicating different degrees of approval. In a way, it makes GWM less fun ... but considering how some members chose to have THEIR fun, I guess it was inevitable.
Log in |
Register
.
These models morph (photoshop) the vast majority of their own pictures; even if they don't morph literally all of them, it's impossible to trust any picture that they put out. I want the site to be more about the hard work that athletes put in rather than fiction, and while lots of people on Instagram stretch the truth by, for example, using perfect lighting, literally morphing your own pics is on another level.
We've also gotten a fair amount of (understandable) image reports for pics of these models, which have been hard to deal with because if we delete one image we pretty much have to delete all of them because they're all morphs. So now we're doing exactly that.
I don't anticipate this list growing too much, as at least for now not that many women do this.
See the button either right after you upload a video, or on the actual video page once it is already on the site, below the video.
.
Pictures: Redundant with the main site
Links: Prone to spam, otherwise low activity
Off topic: There's no reason for this to exist, other topics can be discussed on other sites.
There is now an option for this under your account settings: https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/users/settings/
.
Past month: https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?order...
Past year: https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?order...
.
Much appreciated!
don
In response to the second point, I am planning to implement a way to +1 a picture without having it appear in your favorites. The total score of a picture will be determined by the sum of its +1s and favorites. This way, for example, if you like all pictures of a model you can +1 all her pictures while only favoriting the select few you like the most.
There’s no question that the 0-10 scoring system was being horribly abused. Once a few people discovered that they could have a disproportionate impact on the scoring by voting only tens and zeros, any honest objectivity in the scoring was completely lost.
But, there were other problems, too. Whenever we scored a particular photo, we all had to ask: what are we judging it against? If we compare the women of GWM with the women we see at the local Wal-Mart, then practically every photo would rank a “9” or “10” (which could, perhaps, explain some of the “ten-bombing” we were seeing). But, if that photo was being judged against all of the other photos on the GWM site … well, then the judging naturally becomes a lot harsher.
I tried to take a middle ground, granting most of the photos sevens or eights (and reserving my nines and tens for the really outstanding photos) but of course, with everyone using a different scoring standard, it naturally created inconsistencies in the scoring.
It’s also worth noting, though, that (for many of us) the scoring wasn’t always a “how beautiful is this woman” kind of score. I have a few women who are among my particular favorites (say, Karina Nascimento) but if it was a photo of her that was just poorly done (bad lighting, out-of-focus, etc.) I’d still give it a poor score. That poor score meant absolutely nothing against beautiful Karina – the photo got a poor score because it was, technically, just a poor photo.
So, while I liked the general “concept” of the scoring system, I understand the reasons for its demise.
I might note, though, that the image ratings also served a secondary purpose for me: it helped me remember where I left off from the last time I visited. My work schedule is such that I can sometimes only visit once or twice a week, and it’s not always easy to remember where I’d been the last time I visited (especially when there could be two-dozen pages of new photos waiting for me). By using the scoring system, I’d scan through all the new pages, and when I started seeing pictures that I’d previously rated, I knew that I’d gone through all the new ones.
I suppose I could use “Favorites” for this, but (as Kakuzade noted) I’d soon have so many photos in my Favorites file that it would become too cumbersome to use.
Also (again, as Kakuzade noted) not everyone has been using the “Favorites” list for simply listing their favorites. I have been using my “Favorites” list to log photos of all the great-looking women who were identified as “Unknown.” I’d tag these photos as Favorites, and then check back in a week or two to see if someone had come up with their identity (I may have been the only one who used my “Favorites” list for this purpose, though).
In any case, compiling a list of everyone’s top “Favorites” may not actually represent what it seems.
One option, I guess, might be to create a new category of “Super Favorites” (or whatever). The old “Favorites” files could then serve as a voting mechanism (and if everyone wound up with 30,000 photos in their “Favorites” files, it wouldn’t matter). We could all then use our new “Super Favorites” file just as we had been using the old “Favorites” list up until now.
Or, alternatively, perhaps something as simple as a “Like” button could be created to begin compiling all the positive votes, and the existing “Favorites” file could be kept just as it was. Of course, we wouldn’t be able to count all the current “Favorites” under such a system.
Just some ideas, not really complaints. And thank you, Chainer, for you efforts, we do appreciate it.
I'll give an example: Melissa Wee. In my opinion it is one of the best models of GWM. She has 580 photos, and all of them are good. But in many of her pictures she looks posing in the same way and her body has not changed much over time.
What I did with the old system was to give 8.9 or 10 to all of her photos and chose for my favorites that I thought best (as I said, has many similar photos to each other).
Now I have no choice but to make favorite all of her photos, because otherwise it would indirectly saying that the picture is not good. And I will remove those photos later if I do not want my favorites are unusable.
I think good idea to remove the system from 1-10, but I think it would replace it with another system, separate from the favorites.
Sorry for my bad English.
The problem with the binary (-1, 1) voting system is there is no good way to transition to it from the 0-10 scale for older pics (which is even more true now that lots of pictures don't have 0-10 ratings anymore).
That is the major drawback of this system. Not always a good score was accompanied by a favorite. But now if you want to say that a picture is good, by force we have to make favorite.
As a result our favorites will be getting bigger, so we would have to clean them occasionally. And when the favorite is removed, the photo, which is still as good as before is harmed.
I think the best solution would be to implement a system of "like or dislike" as YouTube or one option as the "greenlight" of Steam.
Currently the favorites in the last month or year can't be done because I only started keeping track of favorite dates/times in the past few weeks. Even once it becomes feasible, it would be very computationally intensive and thus require additional work.
The "highest resolution" sorting might be useful to find pictures that look life-size on your monitor. In any case, it costs nothing to keep it there, so I'm unlikely to remove it.
This new system is restrictively binary (kind of like the Yes/No in moderation), and makes it impossible to register the fact that you like a pic ... just not quite enough to fave it. It seems based on the idea that all non-faved pix are equal ... and they're not.
I very rarely handed out a score of less than 7, but there was still plenty of scope for indicating different degrees of approval. In a way, it makes GWM less fun ... but considering how some members chose to have THEIR fun, I guess it was inevitable.
Shame, though ...