This is an interesting idea, though I bet if I implemented it lots of people would start complaining about how the ratings don't make intuitive sense (unlike the current arithmetic mean system, which does make sense).
First off,this is a great sight. I have noticed that only two of my pictures have downloaded and i have 15 on hold. Is there something wrong with the pictures, or am I doing something wrong. I would love to contribute to the sight.
yeah that helps, thanks. i didn't realize how hard it would be to notify a person if their pics were deleted cuz they weren't on the site anymore. haha i never thought that through.
that would separate the ones at the top and the bottom but would lump average pics all together in the middle. Doesn't matter to me since I do not rate them.
Perhaps in my attempt to be somewhat concise I didn't explain what I was saying clearly enough, because what you said did not accurately reflect my suggestion. I have no desire for the scale to go up to 100 - that would serve no purpose. What I was saying is more akin to curving a test or creating a distribution (and I'm guessing a roughly bell-shaped curve will naturally result).
So here goes a second shot at explaining:
I was saying that you take percentile and multiply that times 10 to get a score between 0 and 10. Percentile is more like a ranking system, so the image with the highest "raw" score - the arithmetic average currently used - would be in the 99th percentile (turned into a value this would be 0.99) and thus earn a 9.9 score after being multiplied by ten, and so forth. For example, being in the 97th percentile would mean that there are about 3% of images with higher scores, and 97% below; being in the 5th percentile would place 5% below and 95% above.. This would allow the scale to reach to 9.9, instead of "stalling" out at 8.8 or so due to the perpetual lack of absolute unanimity. At the bottom it might be desirable to make an adjustment - so perhaps the "floor" can be set to avoid otherwise decent pictures from receiving a score of 1 or lower (as would be the case for the bottom 10 percentile).
multiplying the scores by 10 would just mean they average 80 something to 50 something instead, it would look the same. The reason they get averaged out to be about the same is because there are so many guys on here thaqt have different tastes, just look at some of the polls and comments on some of the pics and you will see what I mean.
First of all - I'm impressed by the quality of questions and the analysis of the results. Couple offhand comments:
1. Steroid use - from my conversations with many FBB's this is the fact of the matter: A professional FBB *uses steroids* (and this goes for the males too), unless she is competing specifically in "natural" bodybuilding (which still allows copious use of supplements, but places limitations on them in terms of types and when they are taken). So, for people to try to distinguish between obvious and non-obvious steroid use is somewhere between disingenuous or ignorant. Some women perhaps take them in a more regulated manner, and some may take them like they're going out of style. Some women's bodies react to them differently then others. I agree that when masculinity of facial features occurs, it greatly detracts from the woman's overall appeal. Some people I've spoken to, however, will readily "forgive" the facial changes associated with steroid use and favor women's endeavors to simply pack on as much heavy, veiny muscle as possible - and I understand that too, even though I am a big proponent of facial beauty. What I'm saying is, you can't truly filter out steroid users, and probably wouldn't want to as some of our favorite ladies have partaken heavily in their use. If you want to filter out women with less attractive faces, that's another story - but let's call it that instead.
2. The great age debate: Too Young, Too Old? I've seen this issue arise time and again on similar message boards. As a matter of legality, even the youngest pictures do not violate any laws, because they are not pornographic in nature, nor do they appeal to prurient interests whatsoever. These pictures represent the novelty of the extremely rare and improbable. Namely, an extremely young female - almost always a precocious gymnastics athlete - boasting a chiseled physique and bulging arms that are the envy of...well anyone who has ever wanted to get abs and impressive arms (so, the vast majority of guys I'd imagine?) I agree it is grossly inappropriate for comments to be made regarding sexual desires or fantasies that refer to these images, but I think that posting the images themselves should unquestionably be allowed. I also have some qualms about posting the younger girls' names on the site, as that could cause them to get stalked or the like - and that just wouldn't be cool and none of use would want to be responsible for that. A potential solution, therefore, is to simply categorize these pics (via the moderators) and to disable comments, and possibly to disable putting the girl's name in. Now, as for too OLD - this should be handled as in section 1 of this post - let's just base it on overall aesthetic appeal and facial beauty. If she's 50 years old and looks 30, who cares?? If she's 40 and looks 25 - who cares?? Fitness and bodybuilding are nature's preservative in a sense.
Another idea would be to periodically review the images with the lowest scores and re-evaluate if they belong on the site.
Awesome job on the site - this is merely a minor suggestion for your consideration.
I noticed that the rating system goes from 0-10 when you vote (which is perfect) - but then the actual scores of the ladies max out at about 8.8 and that's only a couple pictures. I believe this is the result of using an arithmetic average. I think it would work better to convert it to a ranking scale or "percentile x 10" in other words so that we get a better distribution. Then we'd see ladies getting 9.9's down to low scores instead of everything being stuck in the 5-8 range. Just a thought.
That would actually be pretty hard to do... I can't show you the images that were deleted because, well... they're deleted, and by definition they're no longer on the site. The best I could do is tell you the original filename (on your computer) of the images that were deleted, but I feel like that wouldn't be too helpful.
Here's what I did instead:
Whenever you upload pictures, it tells you how many pictures (including yours) are now in the queue. (This was supposed to work before too, but it was broken.) For duplicates, it also gives you a link to the duplicate that it detected on the site. Like this:
Also, when you go to the main upload page, it tells you how many images you have in the queue:
Log in |
Register
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=21513
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=21512
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=9822
or are you getting an error message?
1.
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=3765
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=11095
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=5464
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=16435
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=16334
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=19171
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=15221
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=21026
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=10655
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=21081 (morphed)
2.
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=3781
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=16327
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=10523
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=21057
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=9183
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=11675
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=9184
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=11630
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=16192
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=16312
3.
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=3856
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=16328
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4974
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=20057
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=8773
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=13592
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=551
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=20217
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=16118
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=12952
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=14999
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=11225
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=16913
I'll think about it.
I have noticed that only two of my pictures have downloaded and i have 15 on hold.
Is there something wrong with the pictures, or am I doing something wrong.
I would love to contribute to the sight.
i didn't realize how hard it would be to notify a person if their pics were deleted cuz they weren't on the site anymore. haha i never thought that through.
So here goes a second shot at explaining:
I was saying that you take percentile and multiply that times 10 to get a score between 0 and 10. Percentile is more like a ranking system, so the image with the highest "raw" score - the arithmetic average currently used - would be in the 99th percentile (turned into a value this would be 0.99) and thus earn a 9.9 score after being multiplied by ten, and so forth. For example, being in the 97th percentile would mean that there are about 3% of images with higher scores, and 97% below; being in the 5th percentile would place 5% below and 95% above.. This would allow the scale to reach to 9.9, instead of "stalling" out at 8.8 or so due to the perpetual lack of absolute unanimity. At the bottom it might be desirable to make an adjustment - so perhaps the "floor" can be set to avoid otherwise decent pictures from receiving a score of 1 or lower (as would be the case for the bottom 10 percentile).
Just a thing.... i also have 4 images in the queue to be approved... they're the same like you...it's a match or a bug?? XD
1. Steroid use - from my conversations with many FBB's this is the fact of the matter: A professional FBB *uses steroids* (and this goes for the males too), unless she is competing specifically in "natural" bodybuilding (which still allows copious use of supplements, but places limitations on them in terms of types and when they are taken). So, for people to try to distinguish between obvious and non-obvious steroid use is somewhere between disingenuous or ignorant. Some women perhaps take them in a more regulated manner, and some may take them like they're going out of style. Some women's bodies react to them differently then others. I agree that when masculinity of facial features occurs, it greatly detracts from the woman's overall appeal. Some people I've spoken to, however, will readily "forgive" the facial changes associated with steroid use and favor women's endeavors to simply pack on as much heavy, veiny muscle as possible - and I understand that too, even though I am a big proponent of facial beauty. What I'm saying is, you can't truly filter out steroid users, and probably wouldn't want to as some of our favorite ladies have partaken heavily in their use. If you want to filter out women with less attractive faces, that's another story - but let's call it that instead.
2. The great age debate: Too Young, Too Old?
I've seen this issue arise time and again on similar message boards. As a matter of legality, even the youngest pictures do not violate any laws, because they are not pornographic in nature, nor do they appeal to prurient interests whatsoever. These pictures represent the novelty of the extremely rare and improbable. Namely, an extremely young female - almost always a precocious gymnastics athlete - boasting a chiseled physique and bulging arms that are the envy of...well anyone who has ever wanted to get abs and impressive arms (so, the vast majority of guys I'd imagine?) I agree it is grossly inappropriate for comments to be made regarding sexual desires or fantasies that refer to these images, but I think that posting the images themselves should unquestionably be allowed. I also have some qualms about posting the younger girls' names on the site, as that could cause them to get stalked or the like - and that just wouldn't be cool and none of use would want to be responsible for that. A potential solution, therefore, is to simply categorize these pics (via the moderators) and to disable comments, and possibly to disable putting the girl's name in.
Now, as for too OLD - this should be handled as in section 1 of this post - let's just base it on overall aesthetic appeal and facial beauty. If she's 50 years old and looks 30, who cares?? If she's 40 and looks 25 - who cares?? Fitness and bodybuilding are nature's preservative in a sense.
Another idea would be to periodically review the images with the lowest scores and re-evaluate if they belong on the site.
I noticed that the rating system goes from 0-10 when you vote (which is perfect) - but then the actual scores of the ladies max out at about 8.8 and that's only a couple pictures. I believe this is the result of using an arithmetic average. I think it would work better to convert it to a ranking scale or "percentile x 10" in other words so that we get a better distribution. Then we'd see ladies getting 9.9's down to low scores instead of everything being stuck in the 5-8 range. Just a thought.
Here's what I did instead:
Whenever you upload pictures, it tells you how many pictures (including yours) are now in the queue. (This was supposed to work before too, but it was broken.) For duplicates, it also gives you a link to the duplicate that it detected on the site. Like this:
Also, when you go to the main upload page, it tells you how many images you have in the queue:
Does this help?