Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
facial looks aside they look like very normal women. nothing about them screams "i spend significant time in the gym".
it's likely that one or two cameup or were reported after seeing your upload history. don't think of it as a targeted attack on your uploads.
They look fit but not muscular, and this site is about that second thing...
Interesting that you delete some of these images but leave others of the same women still up there. what exactely are the criteria?
There aren't "criteria". It's about value add to the site.
Things that detract from an image are anything under the "strongly discouraged" section of the upload rules. Additionally, images of women that already have many pics on the site are also low value.
Things that add value are basically the opposite of that.
The less value an image adds to the site, the more likely it is to be deleted. If a particular woman has, for example, 100 very similar, mediocre pics on the site, each one of those has a higher than average chance of deletion. This is especially true for new, similar uploads. However, it's likely that not all of these will be deleted, possibly because the mod going through them subjectively thought some were worse than the rest, and there was still some value to having some of them remain on the site, just not the previous clutter of redundant pics.
Interesting that you delete some of these images but leave others of the same women still up there.
That's not "interesting", if a somewhat-muscular woman is flexing her muscles in one picture and showing little signs of visible muscularity in another, the first picture is going to have a much higher chance of staying up. Not to mention that a lot of pics of the same women are often from different stages of conditioning or different years.
Going by the visual qualities of the individual pictures should be an obvious concept, but apparently some people can't grasp it?
> flexxxfan said: > > That's a subjective area that's anything but black and white when it comes to muscular women
Isn't the amount of muscle also subjective and not black and white? In the end this is a community driven website, where you should be able to share muscular and fit women, there is no need for someone to gatekeep submissions
Who does all the deleting of images for "Not enough visible muscularity." Seems somebody went on a hating spree and deleted a whole bunch of images I uploaded, even though a lot of them are with a muscle, or images of a woman from a different angle. Maybe I speak for myself, but I for one enjoy having different views of the same woman, not just all huge beef shots. This kind of arbitrary deleting does make it discouraging to upload content.
One thing to consider is sometimes a moderator will notice, either through reports or other images, that a user has been uploading marginal images or images that don’t follow the rules. For this reason their uploads will get a bit more scrutiny and may result in a large number of deletions.
I appreciate as a user this is frustrating, but the best way to avoid this is to upload better quality images that align with intent of this site.
Also, if there were other low quality images in the uploads, then the mod may have missed them, judged they were maybe slightly acceptable or ran out of time? We don’t target users, but sometimes low quality uploads are screaming to get more attention.
flexxxfan said: That's a subjective area that's anything but black and white when it comes to muscular women
Isn't the amount of muscle also subjective and not black and white? In the end this is a community driven website, where you should be able to share muscular and fit women, there is no need for someone to gatekeep submissions
This site is semi-curated, meaning that while you get to upload images, the mods get final say over what gets approved or stays on the site. The site is “girls with muscle” and that is the way we want it to stay. Simply being fit doesn’t necessarily equate to having muscle. When it comes to muscle you can split it into three categories:
Recommendation is to focus on the last category for uploads if you don’t want to risk the “not enough visible muscle” deletion reason.
As to the community getting to decide, we tried that in that past. Either people weren’t really participating in moderating or let too many pictures of “sexy women with no muscle” stay. If you come here the main criteria is in the site’s name. You can try other sites, such as Tumblr, if you are looking for a different audience.
in two of them shes squatting which is inflating the size of her calf. in the other two shes not doing anything but standing and those are pretty unremarkable calves.
even if these were good photos they would be merged btw, theyre basically duplicates.
ok but these photos are poor. it doesn't matter if in general she is a well built woman otherwise.
there are plenty of images of buff women that have been deleted here for being poor images of them, nothing to worry about.
These pics are of Chén Xiǎoxiān (Chénxiǎoxiān98) and looking at her photos she is a well built woman. The AI or whatever decides on what is and what isn't deemed worthy appears to need a lot of work. I have been on this site for years and this has never been as strict sadly. :(
Ouch... this really highlights how well she uses angles, perspective, and lighting in her other pictures. It's like revealing Santa's true identity and honestly, I miss the magic.
The massive, larger than life GWM is actually a small, slender woman ripping cigs in the parking lot. These aren't flattering shots of her. I wish I hadn't seen these. Now I don't know what to believe.
Surprised with this one, her biceps are popping 💪💪
I approved that one:
Since the default thumbnail didn't show any muscularity and the flex was only for a couple seconds in the middle, my guess is a mod clicked the wrong parts near the beginning and end and thought the whole thing was like that.
I mean the whole thing is only 10 seconds long. If it were 30 with a flex that brief, then it might be more of an issue. Generally you can't edit down something that short losslessly even if you wanted to, since it's too short for interstitial keyframes.
I mean the whole thing is only 10 seconds long. If it were 30 with a flex that brief, then it might be more of an issue. Generally you can't edit down something that short losslessly even if you wanted to, since it's too short for interstitial keyframes.
Possibly in some longer cases with fleeting flexes there might be an argument for prioritising a screencap vs the entire video , which I know is the opposite of general policy, and also because people still end up posting multiple single shots from the same video.
Since my perspective got lost in my previous explanation:
For videos going through the manual queue, if need to wait more than a few seconds before seeing any action and then I only see the muscle for a second or two, then I’m usually likely going to opt to delete, since I really don’t want to be encouraging that type of video. I’ve seen too many go through the queue and they feel like time wasters. It wastes moderation time (we do this as volunteers, and I like to imagine I have a life) and as PP1000 indicated it could have just been a photo, despite us wanting to encourage the video original. Now, if a reveal was in the first 2 seconds, then I might feel different.
Note, as moderators we do the best job we can and we do sometimes disagree with each other, so we may approve or reject differently. This is especially true for certain types of uploads.
At the opposite end, think the most annoying ones as time wasters are single pics disguised as videos , they really need to be banned, unless they are converted to an image IMO.
Combined with videos that seem legit and then become slide shows, just when you were ready to approve them.
BTW for the single frame videos, I’d be curious whether ffmpeg could detect this? Right now it is only the music that makes them video form, and that’s not a good reason.
Combined with videos that seem legit and then become slide shows, just when you were ready to approve them.
BTW for the single frame videos, I’d be curious whether ffmpeg could detect this? Right now it is only the music that makes them video form, and that’s not a good reason.
As well as other methods, Chrome on Pc at least has a built in "save video frame as image file" option, maybe other browsers have. Really should put the effort on the uploader to do that if it works on source sites and resubmit and otherwise virtually ban such uploads adding that to the list of types of files that are not welcome on the upload page - ie no stills as video/no slide shows as videos
Interesting that you delete some of these images but leave others of the same women still up there. what exactely are the criteria? Seen smalltown TV presenters nobody outside the US knows about with less muscle on here than some of the women you just deleted. You are a community site surviving by community contribution. Some of these images have been u for a year, and yet suddenly someone went through and deleted a heap of images i had uploaded...