What Is A Suitable Model ID?
 

There aren't many topics to be discussed in this section outside the individual threads but this is a suitable one. There is never going to be any set of rules which will cover every case so what we ultimately accept as a solve or a model's thread title will always be subjective. None the less here's a chance for everyone to express their opinion. The first two posts here are excerpts from an id request thread and since we really don't want a general discussion there we'll carry on here.

That is a very good question and I don't know the answer. They're all made up stage names but I personally feel a photographer's website should take precedence over a magazine name most of the time. The exception being if the same name appears in different shoots in different magazines then that may be more acceptable. But no matter what criteria we may choose it is always a judgement call.

OK, not wishing to disagree with you,:o but perhaps just to provide another perspective?:

prior to the web, photog. catalogues/portfolios are "published" only of a sort/in a limited fashion: they're generally not widely/publicly known (though with some exceptions, e.g. perhaps Caye), whereas mag. names are (comparatively) much more widely & publicly known, so I think on that basis I'd regard 3 different mags. all using the one name as stronger.

I like "clear" principles/rules, usually,;) but because of the above I'm slightly wary of making the idea that a photog. catalogue/index name == an id too hard/fast a principle for MIR. In some cases yes, agreed, but I'd want some leeway for discretion/context as in this case. & yes, that makes things more complicated/difficult in MIR.:o:rolleyes:

It also gets complicated "later" with more prevalent photog./agency web "catalogues"/indexes & similar (DD, SuzeR, etc.), or e.g. modern models some of whom may perhaps never have been in a mag. but only on vid. &/or websites, & who may otherwise have a long list of e.g. single-names only. Then I would generally agree with the relative simplicity of favouring the photog. catalogue/index site name over others.

Sorry, this is a long one.
From the viewpoint of a searcher of mostly 1980s girls.

First thing I look for is something verifiable.
If we can see it in videos or scans, I consider that a solid ID.
Even if it is just a first name.

Any verifiable/solid ID is at least an AKA.
Might not want to list all the solid first name IDs, but they should be considered AKAs.

I don't believe the reliability of sources, or someone's opinion of the ID, should be considered in what is a solid/verifiable ID.

When we have more than one 'solid ID', and they match, I call that a 'confirmed ID'.

There may be more than one ID to consider, so a confirmed ID does not mean we will use it as her primary trade name, but it is at least a confirmed AKA.

Somewhere along the way, I consider if it is searchable.
If it has a first and last name to it, they usually become more searchable.

We spend a lot of effort on finding these First/Last name IDs.

I believe if an ID is solid/verifiable, and is a F/L name ID, then it is a suitable ID.
Almost the lowest level of suitable.
Might even be all we get.

If that F/L name ID is unique, and/or searchable, then it is even better.

If there is a model thread in the forum by that ID, for the girl in question, then we are done.

When there is no thread, then the strongest suitable ID could be used to start a model thread.
I don't believe it has to be a strong ID, or a name we like, just suitable.

A model thread will provide a place to collect the content, and make the girl more visible.
Hopefully, the increased visibility will lead to more content, and more ID info.
Then maybe we can confirm, or improve the ID.

If we have more than one solid F/L name IDs, then we have to decide which ID to use.
When we have choices, then the number of appearances, and the sources should be considered.

If the ID is used in 2 different magazines from different publishers, that ID would be stronger than the name being in multiple issues of one magazine (or one publisher's family of mags).

The same concept applies to video appearances.
If two different video producers are using the same ID, then that ID is stronger than one producer using the ID on multiple videos.

As for ranking the various sources,
I take video IDs over other sources.
Then magazine IDs.
Then photographer catalogs.
I consider any verifiable IDs from those sources to be solid IDs.

Then there are the website IDs.
And lastly, hearsay IDs.

I pick magazines over catalogs because catalogs were seen by so few people.

I believe Website IDs should be considered hearsay IDs.
Some are better than others, but still hearsay.
Sometimes, that's all we have.

Ranking between different type sources can be difficult. Apples to oranges.
Even ranking between the same type sources can be difficult.

I think it should come down to which ID would be seen the most.
That should make it the most recognizable, and it should also indicate which would generate the most searches.
However, figuring out how many videos, or mags got sold, can be a problem.
Sometimes it is obvious, others times it is not.

Some like ranking ID reliability from past history.
Trends (like the ID reliability numbers I've seen) are nice to look at, but they aren't reliable indicators for the next event.
Maybe that should be another discussion.

Trends analysis is usable at times, but I don't like to see suitable IDs ruled out because of someone's impression of past reliability.

I think the only reason to discount any solid ID is the presence of a stronger ID.

On the vintage girls, there are usually few choices.
I'm usually happy to find one solid F/L name ID.

Well, sorry for the lengthy post, but it is a big question, and needs detailed answers.
This is not a complete answer, but I tried to keep it short.
So, I've probably missed some things.

I'd be happy to see more opinions, concepts, and ideas.

Maybe we can set up some guidelines, but they will have to be flexible.

Hopefully we can figure out most of these IDs easily, and come to a consensus on some of the tougher ones.

If we can't find a good answer, we can let the request sit longer, and hope for more data.
Unfortunately, we have thousands of those waiting in the Mystery Corner.

Excellent, very clear post, Rubinski.:thumbsup: Focusing on each of the steps of the process as you have I think helps us all to appreciate/understand it better.

I just though I'd address something else Pepper II mentioned:
He seems to be suggesting that if a model appears under the same name in two different mags, he thinks that name/id is stronger when the second mag. appearance comes from a different pictorial/photog. session, but not (as much) if it is simply further pictures from the same photog. session/pictorial as the first mag. appearance.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding picky but I don't think I agree.:o Finding additional, different content for a model is excellent:thumbsup:--for "rare"/uncommon models it's like gold dust,;) particularly as it may open up further avenues for investigation/discovery of her work--but to me that seems quite separate from the name/id issue. If two different mags. call the same model by the same name, that greatly strengthens that name's claim to be an id candidate, especially if it's a 2-part name, and I think that regardless of whether the second pictorial is simply a repeat/re-hash of the first or not.

I think Ruby is correct, though, when he suggests that the same model name used by two different & independent sources/mag. publishers is a stronger case than the same name used twice within a single mag. publisher's portfolio/stable of mags., etc. Again regardless of whether the pictures are different or not.

I'd also like to include the following comment from beutelwolf regarding sources of published names in this thread/discussion, because I think it's pretty important/worth keeping/remembering:

Judging from my focal point, mid 60s to mid 80s mags and movies, there were numerous occasions when one photoshoot was sold to several mags with the same back story, sometimes with a specific model name attached to that photoshoot, e.g. Pamela Prati as Lara Crash, or Jacky Franc with the claim of movie stardom in Germany.

Even more commonly, certain different mags have established international links (there are also national ones where derivative mags take a second bite at the same material), e.g. Italian Fiesta with UK Girl Illustrated, or Italian King with UK Rex, or Swiss Snob with German Kent, or German Sir2000 with UK Flirt, etc.; in those cases the same pictorials appear in these different mags, often with identical layouts - it's really all from the same single source.

I am generally happy when a print source gives a model a full name, i.e. first name and surname. My general observation, for that period (60s to mid 80s) is that when a pictorial is only labelled with a first name, then it's highly likely a one-off construction, and pretty much no infiomation in the text carries much weight. Full names occurred repeatedly, although quite a few models had a list of several full names that were used regularly.

I emphasized the period, because the style in which mags labelled their models changed significantly over time. In the 1960s it was common that most models were given a full name, and if not - no name at all. When a model appeared with a first name only it was indication that she really preferred anonymity, and that the name meant nothing. From the early 1970s we find more and more models that were primarily known under a first name which was used repeatedly; this is probably related to the rise of the page 3 phenomenon in the UK.

Hardcore porn mags are yet again a different kettle of fish. In the earliest mags, models tend to be completely unnamed, and from the late 1970s to early 1980s we commonly find storyline pictorials (mini movies) in which the only names are the fictional ones from the stories. That these names (e.g. from CCC) have also been used to name model threads on VEF is something I am not comfortable with, but that train has apparently travelled. One exception from this type of mag in that period is Italian Supersex - which gave actors names too, even though some of those were only used for Supersex. In the mid 1980s some hardcore mags would actually name (some of) their models, making them in that respect more similar to softcore mags.

What I'm saying here is: context matters. If you find a model named "Roberta" in 1966 mag, it means nothing at all. In 1977 it could easily be her common page-3 name. If "Roberta" appears in the credits of a 1988 porn flick that is likely to be a one-off construction; in the same kind of movie in 1999 it would be more likely a repeatedly-used name.

Reliability is always a problem with this kind of material. A modern problem we have to deal with is that on WWW everybody copies everything, thus finding the same info in two different places on the WWW adds not a lot to the reliability of the info.

I know this is going to sound out of context regarding identification, most of the points have being discussing the challenges facing identifying mystery girls from retro magazines, I think we face a challenge in the modern era where modern models have no listing in the approved sites but advertise using their social media site. I clearly identified a mystery request but because she was not listed in the old fashioned way she remained unsolved regardless of the fact she listed her work on her sites which cross referenced with the porn site the requested mystery image was from. I think we have to include models social media sites, it's where they are advertising and marketing from.
The traditional sites VEF use are not updated by a younger audience, the moderators and users are outdated, it's just a reflection on how the porn industry has evolved. Modern models use twitter, Facebook, vk.com, etc
If a model posts and ids her images on these sites in order to advertise, why can't we reference them in solving I'd queries
Regards teaktop

This is not out of context at all; in fact this is exactly why I created this thread. The modern girls present a challenge as you say. We have allowed solves using non-traditional references and the scope of these will no doubt expand. There's nothing to prevent any member from citing any reference they want; just remember to anonymize your links. While you can cite any reference it may or may not be regarded as sufficient to call a request solved. Also remember with some of the social media sites a membership may be required to view the pics so in this case a simple link to a model's homepage will not suffice.

teaktop: send me a link to the thread you mentioned and I'll have another look.

Good points, teaktop.:thumbsup: I don't really have answer(s) so maybe others will chip in? What I will say is that vef's list of "recommended" sites such as iafd, etc. are there because those responsible for putting information on them are regarded as at least somewhat "disinterested" regarding the content--I don't mean they don't care for it but rather than they're not financially or otherwise "interested" or rewarded parties, and that has possible implications for their behaviour & the quality of their information. Plus the information has in the past been found to be sufficiently reliable (nowhere is 100% accurate) as to earn a degree of acceptance/authority here.

A model's own site is an "interested" party/publisher. She/they may not wish to divulge all of her appearances/content/model aliases, info. etc. in that context. Something similar can arguably be claimed regarding a photographer's or studio's index of models--e.g. I've seen in other places discussions of whether photog. X is prepared to "admit" responsibility for certain image sets that may be financially entangled with/by other parties, etc.:rolleyes:

That shouldn't mean all models' own sites are regarded as junk but it does mean we should be at least a bit wary of claims on them. As others have noted above it's a matter of context and judgement so we may simply have to assess such sources on a case-by-case basis. If a model's site's information seems consistent with what else is known then great, but if it's claiming something that nowhere else corroborates then I'd be wary of simply accepting it at face-value.

Thought I'd add a little more about unreliable IDs.

I don't know what problems unreliable IDs cause, but I think ruling them out has problems too.

As long as the unreliable name is a verifiable ID, it shouldn't really cause any problems.
If a better name comes along, the unreliable name will still be a solid AKA.

Reliable or not, names from magazines might still be searched on, so they should be included on the thread as AKAs.

I think unreliable IDs are better than nothing, and if an unreliable ID might lead to more content and a better name, then why should we hold back?

The problem is it creates multiple identities. This is not completely avoidable anyway, but it would lead to a proliferation of that problem. If in addition the name has a poor searchability value then people would just create named threads without checking whether they exist already, because searches create too many false positives. And then it becomes much harder to maintain the one-thread-per-model policy in general for the mods.

As an example, take 2012 mystery box entry 406. What names have mags given to her? So far we've got: Mary P, Marilyn P, Lydia, Lisa, Alice, Joan, Sylvie, Melissa, Fran. We could have had a thread for her under all of these names (i.e. 9 of them), and possibly multiple ones for each as the searchability value of these names is low. It would be less of an issue had a mag named her (unreliably) "Walburga Dschindschichaschwili", because that name is distinctive. But creating threads just called "Lisa" is problematic anyway, as that would be difficult to find by search, and extending it to unreliable ids of this kind turns the "difficult" to "impossible".

Mary P is an extreme example.
The multiple names exist.
We can't change that by ignoring them.
We need to accept them, and deal with them.

The problems you describe with Mary P will occur in MIR, or in the model threads.
If we did actually start 9 model threads (or 9 request threads), they would be combined as we discover them.

A bit of work for the MIR mods, or the Model mods.
Either way, one set of mods will inevitably have to do it.

So, why should this girl sit in MIR for this long?

Even in the less visible MIR section, we have discovered these 9 matches.
In the model sections, it would be more visible, and I think it would get sorted quicker.
As long as the model mods let it happen.

As I said earlier, I think the lowest level of suitable ID's are verifiable, and have a first name/last name.

First names can be used for a model thread title, but we would like better.
So we wait.
But how long should we wait?
Should we leave Mary P in MIR forever?

I would rarely suggest we start a thread with a single name ID, but at some point, we need to take what we have, and move forward.

Now that we've been waiting for 3 years, I think it's time to do something.
Let's move forward with Mary P.
Mary P is the ID used in what is probably the largest selling magazine on her list of IDs, and therefore the strongest ID we have.
I think we should start a thread for Mary P @ Club.
Combine all the content we have so far, and make a thread for her.


Okay, there's what I think of this extreme example, but Mary P is not really what I'm talking about here.
I'm talking about the practice of ignoring suitable IDs because of reliability.

Juanita Banana is a suitable ID.
It is verified/solid, and it does have a first and last name.
It is even somewhat searchable.

Only problem is Juanita Banana sounds unreliable. Obviously a joke name.
However, the ID is solid, and might be searched for.
So, should we ignore that ID?
For 3 years? 6 years? Forever?

Somewhere along the way, we need to take what we have and move forward.

Another example was Kiara Vandt an AUPH name (but also in Swank as Lana) that was deemed insufficient because a) AUPH is supposedly more unreliable than other mags, although that view was based not upon actual numbers/data & b) because AUPH claimed she was Malaysian.

I know, it sounds like I've got a bee in my bonnet about this particular model (or AUPH names?). Well, not really/not quite. I still think she could have a thread but I'm really only using her here as an example, because I think it handily illustrates some things. Probably both "Lana" and "Kiara Vandt" are professional, made-up names so why does it matter if it doesn't "sound" Malaysian-enough? She was photog. by Hank Londoner so perhaps the pics. were taken somewhere in Calif., and maybe in a US or other country's mag. she'd have been described as some other suitably "exotic" ethnicity, I dunno. Does her professional name sound sufficiently Californian? /shrug/ I think that's pretty wonky thinking. There are, for example, Polish porn stars with not-at-all Polish-sounding but accepted ids, including sometimes where their "real name" (very Polish) is known, because vef/mir is not about finding models' "real names" just their best-known-as professional handles.

It may be that Kiara Vandt isn't her best-known-as handle, but after having her in MIR for awhile I think more content &/or info. will turn up by releasing her into a more public location (model thread), provided we can find a name that's sufficiently distinctive (searchable) and preferably two-part (also searchable).

Speaking of what seem like joke names, another AUPH name, this time for a claimed Thai model, was the name "Phuc".:rolleyes: Also looking through the model names used in 1970s-early-80s UK mags. such as Mayfair, CIUK, Men Only etc. one finds plenty of what seem to me like "joke" names. Many of them read a bit like a Benny Hill type of joke. Others are "exceedingly English" in form: parodically so. Even just the proportion of names that are alliterative (like "Pollyanna Patterson") should probably be a clue that these are not really "real" names.

But we already know we're not looking for "real names", so then why does it seem to matter?--& a mea culpa here, I have at times felt exactly that same way, e.g. Harriet Wilkinson just seems "wrong".:rolleyes::o Why do we want these known-to-be professional aliases (made-up names) to take a more "believable" form?

Actually, it's perhaps not really a great mystery. We generally want names for humans to seem like real names rather than, say, Ford Prefect, because that helps maintain the illusion, it disguises the pretence. Now, though, having identified/recognised that inclination will we continue to apply it or can we consciously break ourselves free from its spell?

Also, just a note about single-letter e.g. "second" names. They do provide greater distinction in terms of forum listings of model threads/titles but unfortunately they cannot be searched for in vef's search box--i.e. single letters, and guessing but probably also two-letters given that it's a PHP fulltext search function, are classed as "too short"--so they're better than a first-name-only but only v. slightly so.

Good point.

A model ID was accepted as solved and a thread started for Cherry-Licorice under these exact circumstances, and that name is no less invented.

All names are equal imho given their all potentially how someone will first see a model

If your opting for a name thats common then when you hover over her title , in a best case scenario you will see a physical description , what work she has done , what level she works to , even other aliases etc


example - from Australian photographer - Darren Mccormacks defunct site

http://img105.imagevenue.com/loc256/..._123_256lo.jpg

Belinda - never really identified - but when you hover over her name you see

Dutch Softcore Model - Long blonde hair - Blue eyes - Athletic
Solo pics - no video - DB 1974 - 5ft 6/7 169cm tall - 34b-24-34

Magazine Aliases Patsy & Chrissie

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...hlight=belinda

The title is like the tip of the iceberg - it alone can accomodate many names -
other info which is far more useful goes in the 1st post

The 1st post - top 4 lines / 120 characters

Means you dont need to choose just a name

One of our sister sites tends to have a minimum of 3 names in the title for the obscure
especially for the modern

Examples over the years say that you can get away with any title really
as there are a plethora of softcore models who chose to remain obscure unknowns


One name models - vintage softcore mostly

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...1&postcount=42
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...3&postcount=43
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...8&postcount=44

I think you've raised a valid question.:thumbsup: I agree it's worrying/problematic.

I'd say beutelwolf created those model threads because at the time it was the best info. he had. He made a model thread for one with a 2-part name, but for another with just a single-name he create an MIR query. His subsequent matching of the latter query (by now in the mystery box) to an existing model thread is an unfolded rather than an additional-info. because he's adding to that model thread outside MIR rather than to an existing MIR query... even if we might now perhaps wish it had been the latter rather than the former so we could reconsider which name really is her best-known-as.:o

But won't it always be the case that subsequent info. can turn up to suggest alternate possibilities for a model's best-known-as? I think "rare" models, i.e. those whose current thread only has perhaps just 1-3 mag. appearances, will always expose this conundrum most starkly.

An example might be Annabel Cawston, from Mayfair 23-08, 1988-08, here. The second post in her thread is someone finding her as Janine in Gallery. OK, not really a suitable name for a change of id. Someone else then finds her twice in AUPH as Amanda Wolfe, the first set of which is related to the Mayfair set. That's perhaps a viable name for an id (2-part), but is it worth the hassle of changing her thread title, or sending it back to MIR for consideration? We could, but maybe we've all got enough other things still to do? /shrug/

Perhaps you or other folk have suggestions for what they think is a better way to handle this kind of problem?

Effie interpreted me pretty well...

It's not a "secure" id, or rather: I'm not yet sure how reliable Reflets is as a source. However, I tend to create model threads (instead of asking for ID) when I have a 2-part name for a model, particularly for this period, as these are much more reliable in general. So, had I found these two pictorials the other way around, I would have never created an id thread for her.

In particular, the original pictorial was from Girl Illustrated. GI is highly reliable (by standards of girlie mags) for model ids when it comes to 2-part names, whilst their 1-part names (as in this case) mean virtually nothing.

Regarding "Norma Peterson" - that naming is from Girls of the World, a mag that frequently (but not always) made up 2-part names, which is fairly unusual for a mag in the late 60s. So, had I found the pictorials at the same time I would have opted for the Reflets name. The third source in that thread is from GI, yet another name, but a 1-part name.

Either way, when I'm finding conflicting model names I put the name used in the pictorial of the mag (however many parts it has) in the title of the post, so that a title-search will pick it up and the issue which one is the thread title is a minor one, as we don't have a search feature limited to thread titles.

We're blending two separate topics together, here. What is suitable for a solve and what is suitable for a model's thread title. Although related these are entirely different topics.

A thread title could be any name and really just serves as a guide to the place where we're storing her material. As beutelwolf stated above it is desirable to name aliases in the text to aid searching so what name has been chosen for the title is not so significant.

What we accept as a solve in the request threads is an entirely different matter. The only reason I'm reluctant to accept beutelwolf's [unfolded mystery] in this case is because he started her thread with the same magazine appearance as the solve and at the same time. Had the thread already existed then the name of the thread title would be accepted.

Now before I hear a lot of "what's timing got to do with it?" let me be the first to admit most of us are human therefore we would each use different subjective criteria to try to keep things orderly. Also we should all remain flexible when it comes to these obscure names. I advocate changing the thread titles if a new name is found from a more reliable source.

Also an id request should be accepted (and in fact usually is) if a less common alias is named. In these cases another member usually comes along with the more common name but I will generally give credit for the solve to the first to name any acceptable alias.

A thought: I think it would be beneficial to compile a list of what magazines or other sources should be considered reliable in what era and in what order of reliability. These comments would be off-topic here so I'll start a new sticky thread for that purpose (when I get around to it).

valid points
 

A model's own site is an "interested" party/publisher. She/they may not wish to divulge all of her appearances/content/model aliases, info. etc. in that context. Something similar can arguably be claimed regarding a photographer's or studio's index of models--e.g. I've seen in other places discussions of whether photog. X is prepared to "admit" responsibility for certain image sets that may be financially entangled with/by other parties,

thank you guys for your reply ,i ref effie here and points I overlooked ,pepper I will send link cant remember her name right now ,but in saying all that ,it may be quirky Im not looking for kudos on solved I like playing Sherlock Holmes ,I get a kick outa it
thanks again for your replies ..btw but best site ever ,and not to go overboard I really enjoy this community

We had this discussion before in some thread. Identifying someone with a documented id-tag such as the numbering at iafd is as much an id as one that declares her to be Guinevere Fairfax on the evidence that similar pics document Guinevere getting 2nd price at a marrow growing competition of the Women's Institute in Bedfordshire in 1993.

In fact, I have this any day over our "Heidi at CCC" style of ids that use random forenames used in magazines for pictorials (apparently on the grounds that some mods like these magazines).

Ultimately, what matters to most people is an id via which "more material" can be found. That is not often the case with "Unknown Female 123", but sometimes it is, and the documented id tag gives it a chance.

^^^ Mod Edit: I've copied the post linked here above. ^^^

This is in response to comments made earlier here.

I agree that having such info. (i.e. "unknown" @iafd) is useful and the finder deserves much credit, but I also agree with hos that it's quite unsatisfactory for marking as solved. I think mods should resist the temptation to mark such threads as solved because an "unknown" at site A could be a known at site B... & yes, an example would be handy here but I don't have one readily to hand, sorry.:o

I do not think we, or at least I hope we do not, accept all model names even from the most "trusted" of other sites simply at face value, because there are no end of examples where vef thinks we have better evidence either of our own or from other sites we've found. These "unknowns" should also be treated with due scepticism.

To me a "solved" name should meet the standard of acceptability for use as a model thread title. If it is not that then what is its purpose? Just to give finders credit? Anything else?

Untested but I doubt section mods would let me start a thread with any variation of "unknown ABC @iafd" or similar. As someone--beutelwolf?--previously pointed out, vef thread ids themselves already perform the very same "abstract key" (database-speak) function as an iafd or egafd "unknown" alpha-numeric combination, so on that basis all of the MIR "keep" threads where we're accumulating content for an as-yet-"unnamed", or a not-yet-satisfactorily-named, model are just the same.

Whenever I suggest such things other folk tend often to respond with a "don't be silly" type of comment. I quite agree that what I've just written is silly. My point is not to suggest its adoption. My point is that it is a logical outcome of the other position, that of accepting "unknown" @iafd as a solve. My point is to ask people to look at the bigger picture in order to avoid such silliness. If we accept "unknown ABC" @iafd simply because it provides us with a useful abstract key, then my point is why do we ignore the equally useful abstract keys provided by vef thread ids? Their function is precisely the same. So then to accept one form of abstract key as "acceptable" for a solve but another as not is being unnecessarily arbitrary and illogical.

Aside from wanting to give credit to finders, accepting "unknowns" as solves to me seems like preferring or accepting form over function. The function of MIR is to find ids for models in order to help steer the useful posting of content. Accepting as solves names that do not perform that function just seems short-sighted.

Having an abstract key frees the info. systems developer to also create a more meaningful human interface: something that looks like (but "under the hood" is not) a natural key. So we have a thread for a model with an abstract key (thread id) that is atomic for the computer/database to find/use, but we also give that thread a human interface of a meaningful title such as "Joanne Latham", or whatever, for the human to find/know/recognise.

MIR provides a venue for finding model ids/names/thread titles, not (at least, not directly) for finding thread ids.

Please note I have written the above in fairly plain/direct English. I apologise to all/anyone who feels I am thereby making or implying any personal attacks as I mean and intend nothing of the sort. To me it's about ideas, not egos.:o

Why indeed? In fact many of our responses to id requests that say "box post" do just that, they identify an unknown request with another unknown. Which is just that: an identification.

I think where there is a difference is when we are trying to be knowingly selective, i.e. not putting every single human being we find an image of into a database (leave that to google), but make a conscious decision about the ones that for one reason or another have some interest. This is what egafd/iafd are doing: they focus on people appearing in pornographic movies, i.e. movies that had some form of commercial release. When our section mods put unidentified models into the mystery box, they make a similar conscious selection of what's worth keeping an eye on.

I would also be in favour of moving some of our additional material threads for box entries into the respective model sections, using the numeric value of the postid in the box (not the number in the box - that changes all of the time) as part of the thread title - as opposed to merely calling her "Jenny from Knave" in the title which is non-distinctive. This is then saying: we know her (or indeed him), perhaps not by name but by face/tit/tattoo, here is where we put material for her, and there is the box entry, and this tag is what we use as her name.

There is one problem with this: stickability of our postids. Box posts tend to get deleted when either the material dies on the imagehost or the mystery is solved or two box entries are joined or there was a take-down request or whatever. To make our box post-ids usable in the same way as the xnk's of egafd we would need to keep (as egafd did) a list/table of deleted box-entries that explains what happened to them when they got deleted, again using the numeric value of the post-id in the list to identify the entry. Thus if the postid had been used as an id-tag and someone tried to follow it but only found a dead link, they can still find in that list why the link is no longer there - ideally with some sort of forward pointer.

Of course it would take some commitment to maintain such a list, but frankly I'd find it (not so pretty to look at but) more useful that the gallery of solved mysteries we have at the moment. For example, people could keep an eye on their very own mystery requests and when an entry is deleted because the material died they could re-up the material and PM a mod with a pointer to the re-up and the deleted post-id, to have the thing re-instated.

to break it down the line and make it short:

is a usable numeric ID suitable to say a request is solved?

for machines, and for hardcore collectors like me it would work. but for the most, it won't, because human brains are rather familiar with names when they like to associate something with something else. names hold the key.

if we now decide, that something like "unknown 1234 @iafd", "xnk 4321 @egafd" is a fine match to finish requests, we can now start finishing requests as soon as they've been made, by using the post number and call her "post 6789 @VEF".

that's physically correct. it's a clear pointer and it works to find the corresponding material.

but is it really that what we are here for?

Well, when I organise my very own unknows on my computer, I use numeric keys to keep matters organised. What I sometimes do, for certain common unknowns, is that I give them nicknames (in addition).

The numbers are definitely useful for organisational purposes anyway.

Using them as names is not everyone's cup of tea, so drawing on my nickname trick, we could do something similar as a matter of course: when an additional-material-thread for an unknown is opened the thread creator can give the unknown an invented name of his or her choice, under the condition that the thing is distinct and does not trip up our forum's modest search engine - no point inventing a name here that's used elsewhere or that cannot be found. So we could have some unknowns tagged as Beatrice Beachball or Eulalia von Eulenqual.

Regarding the separate issue of what counts as a solve, and whether the id-request should be dissed, there is the following natural distinction:

• name is found. Tick
• externally recognised unknown (e.g. iafd unknown) is found; that's a half-tick
• internally recognised unknown is found, i.e. the request equals an earlier opened but yet unresolved id-request, e.g. a box entry. Tick.

The difference between the last two is (i) that the former enters the unknown into the system when it was not there before, while in the latter case the request becomes redundant, and (ii) we may regard the efforts of the external source to find a name for the model as potentially insufficient and want to allow the vef crowd have a go at solving the mystery. So in that case that would be a solve in which the id-request would not be closed, unless that externally recognised unknown had a vef-thread anyway.

Agree.

We must start somewhere, even wrong, and probably lot of us start with some almost-random named folder on HD. However, I do not see point of use XNK (or similar) number as final answer in ID requests.

My opinion is that XNK number can be one of additional guideposts but not solving solution; often databases have, by mistake, ever multiple profiles with names for some models - so what can we expect for XNK pages? Valuable help through which we can find more materials and information, but where we talk about names - next to nothing.

Other way leads to opening of model-topic with that number.

Well, it will be the final answer if nothing ever follows it up. Even if a name is found that may not be final, because we may find that name later to be a one-off that needs replacing with another name. I myself have openend quite a few named threats on VEF that were later be bolted on to another thread where that model had a more established name.

We can expect even more multiple profiles for the same models, but there's nothing wrong with that: these are by definition lesser known models, so the multiplicity is harder to detect. Preventing multiplicities upfront is nigh impossible; it's much more productive to allow them, but to have a system in place to report and correct them.

In the heyday of egafd, whenever a new bunch of unknowns were entered to the database, the regulars would sift through the new candidates and report back when either a new XNK was actually known, or equal to an earlier XNK. We had our own specialist areas (mine was early German sex films), and egafd would in some cases mail the respective specialists beforehand to check over the planned update before it went live. In egafd's XNK system, the identification of two XNKs with one another was effectively a solve like any other, because in either case it meant that one XNK was removed from the system, and in either case this was indicated with an according forward pointer in their solved list, to either another name or another xnk. The identification of two XNKs is similar to identifying a new unknown with a box entry on VEF, except that we do not number our unknowns (they have postids though) and that we do not keep a solved-list either.

Using a VEF post number is impractical since these could change or be removed. In the case of the MIR especially the old threads, whether solved or not, will be removed eventually. And as pointed out by beutelwolf VEF model thread names are not permanent and are routinely changed by either a thread merger or by a more acceptable name being discovered. So the xnk's serve the same purpose as some ambiguous name by merely being a means of collecting her work under one heading.

i hate to quote myself, but it seems necessary to say, that

wasn't meant serious, it was more the irony of it all, when you want to continue using these numeric IDs for unknowns listed @egafd or iafd.

next time some guy comes around and wants to know "who is unknown female xxx @iafd" and you close his request by telling him: "you already have the answer".

no it's not, sorry.

a working name at a maybe random publisher is still more of an ID as a model who is just called "unknown xxx". Even the most random publisher which gave a very random name like "Lucy" to some model is listed with this pretty random name. and imho this is something we can use to solve requests, but not an ID card which already calls her "we don't know her, but we assign her to our database with number xxxx".

such (good) information can be collected inside requests like more unnamed material, like more material with just story names or like unclear suggestions. this is all stuff collected inside a request until it's really solved with something reliable - and not vague.

until then, it's not solved. what's the problem with that nowadays?

(addendum: i agree that it's sometimes not easy to find the right measure to define "what's a reliable ID" and what's not, but "unknown female xxx" or "xnk yyy" was never a reliable ID to solve a request in this forum, and we should keep going with this procedure)

We close the request if the unknown is a recognised unknown at VEF. Which means there is already an open id request for the same person. That other request remains open.

The reason for closing the new request and not the old one is one of convention, the overall effect would be similar if the new request was kept open and the old one closed (this actually has happened on VEF in a small number of cases when a newer mystery box entry was kept instead of the older equivalent one).

If the unknown is a recognised unknown outside VEF (egafd, iafd, ...) that can still be recognised as a solve (meaning: give credit to the solver in the HOF game), but should not lead to a close-of-thread, because the unknown would typically have no place inside VEF to collect further info, whether it's pictorial material or personal information. If they do have a separate thread in VEF, that's another matter.

Not in general. A case in point where I was absolutely fuming about this supposedly superior naming was when at some point on VEF egafd's XNK1600 was re-christedned here "Heidi@CC". What did those names tell us? Her Heidi credentials was in _one_ pictorial of one mag of the CC stable in which her _character_ was called Heidi and her partner Professor Schultz; so the mag did not even pretend that it was her real name. What did XNK1600 tell us? It told us that she appeared in early German sex films, at least 8 feature film length movies.

The other thing is that the "unknown xxx" tags are honest. They say: we do not know the name of this model, though we do know about her professional output. We know that she appeared in this or that mag with highly dubious names attached to her, just see the pictorials we have collected for her; she also appeared in movies X, Y and Z, completely anonymously. If you grew up with "The Prisoner" and find numeric names offensive, fine - invent a fresh name for her, use that as the thread title, but document the invention in the first post of the thread.

but it's not about being honest, or if numeric id's are offensive to me (they aren't). and this section is not about the HOF game - this is just a side-effect but not the main factor. this list has NO MEANING at all, since google reverse image search allows everyone to play the ID game with positive results.

i question a status "solved" for a request, which wasn't solved because the model in question was still "unknown". that's my main point.

if, at one point, we aren't able to find anything better, fine, we may can go with such a reference. but please not on the same day a member drops the "unknown female @iafd"-link.

I've been either merging the two if there are different pictures or references in both threads or keeping the newer one if the old one has no content value. The reason for this is the old thread would be scheduled for removal sooner. This way the request automatically stays alive.

Logical. Someone maybe remember her as Lucy from some old mag he saw (even the most unreliable one), but surely not as XNK123 @EGAFD. (Pornstars anyway usually use nicknames, often several of them, by the way. No need to tell you...)

Back to basis - if one try to find more materials (the main reason in many cases) googling name Lucy will give some results at the end, but XNK123 can give only one - EGAFD profile, site which we can't control (and which can merge profiles, close one of them, change coding or simply stop working as now).

Maybe just in cases when we don't have anything except XNK123 should be allowed to open topic titled XNK123 but just in PMT, and without calling ID request closed (if HOF game is problem - give point to poster by some lex specialis, points are far from most important thing here). Actually, I think that purport of Pending Model Threads would be missed if we don't use it for cases like this.

Of course, Lucy, XNK123 and EGAFD are just examples, to make story simple.

bit part player
 

Most modern ids are easily solved if shes beautiful,what I mean is she gets a full photographic solo set credited to her by met-art femjoy etc.For the not so beautiful who have credits in porn as name only e.g. Edina a German pornstar who Im searching at the moment for a solve ,she has a huge back catalogue of porn vids but dosent appear on our approved websites or credited anywhere else it seems. I would love to know who gave her the name ,how she got into it ,and she was producing porn as preganant..dont you wonder about their back- story?
p.s. if this is not a fitting post for this thread delete at will...:)

You underestimate us collectors, ponky. I keep images from magazines and movies for thousands of models and actors - e.g. my private movie database alone has about 25,000 entries for actors and actresses, including approximately 4,000 unknowns. These have all their numeric-style names, some home-made, some imported from an external source (such as egafd or Aveleyman), as these give me a cross-reference. Some of these unknowns I know the looks of instantaneously, even from their numeric names. For example, my m012 is a bit part actor whose appearances I have recorded for 52 films (including episodes of TV series), and I still do not know what his flipping name is! There are also quite a few egafd XNKs I know by heart.

egafd actually records these changes in their update lists, and in particular when unknown profiles are merged/solved this is recorded in a list on the website and can be looked up there (still assuming they'll be back); don't know though whether iafd does anything like that. The other thing about egafd/bgafd/iafd is that they avoid duplicate profiles when they can, which means that many unknowns have multiple entries in their list of movies, making their profiles a lot more meaningful.

The flipside of this is my issue with these forename@mag ids: if the name was used in multiple pictorials then fair enough, but typically our Lucy@Wankmaster appeared in other pictorials under a different name whilst Wankmaster magazine re-used forename Lucy for further pictorials. So it neither leads to any kind of interesting profile nor is it unique; the XNK numbers, even if the profile is disappointingly trivial (1 entry) will at least be unique.

Probably joke but I'll say that I didn't have intent to underestimate anybody; I appreciate the commitment, dedication. :thumbsup:

However, I do not see the reason for closing topic as solved if we don't find "normal" profile on usual databases or other common ways (keep it open - the simplest solution and win-win situation which satisfies both ideas). That is not ban on posts with link at some "XNK", "unknown" or similar profile-pages, they can be very useful... but I would say that for someone mag nickname is useful also. There everybody can pick nickname, name, code... for their folders on HD, depending on the habits, knowledge, etc.

In worst case scenario some topic will be open for years, maybe even forever - but we really don't loose anything. In other hand, less experienced topic-starter with "unknown @..." as final answer gets very little, with smaller chance for improving in some time period (let's say next several months or years in Mystery Corner).

and the day when you find his name, i guess you'll take advantage of this, rather than "m012".

and what ID do they chose when they merge/replace unknowns with a named ID card? still XNK? ;)

personally, i do it quite the same as you with my private(!) collection. all models are based on "unique keys", on a numeric ID. but that's not the "name" property. same with egafd and iafd. we all use this unique ID only if the name property is empty (and create something like "unknown [unique ID]").

a model ID request is usually started to fill the name property, not to receive a unique key someone is using instead.

is any starter of the thousands of still unsolved requests worried if these few "unknown female 1234 @iafd" / "XNK 4321" fills the amount of unsolved threads or the mystery box?

names are never unique. those which stay (or still are) unique are just lucky that either their performer name is carved in stone (successful models) - or - that their performer name is a very creative one. but i guess the main point is that many models do not even want to reach a recognizable name. so it's just part of this special business that they get called somehow, and often pretty random.

nevertheless, if "Lucy @Wankmaster" is such an insufficient ID, then it's rather the question if such a request should better stay unsolved as well, than to do it totally wrong by chosing "Unknown xxx @yyy" as a solved request just because we've saying "Lucy @Wankmaster" is a solve (which, to me, is still more of a solve than "unknown xxx @yyy")


they create redirects, so old links still work but lead to a single, merged profile. at least i am sure with this if multiple different names have been merged, i guess they do the same if unknowns find a name. they don't have a log like egafd had.

I think we should have the EGAFD UNK number searchable on the MIR thread, and link the EGAFD page there too.
That info should be searchable and linked in their Model thread too.

I don't care if we use names or numbers.
I just need something to call the folder, so I can collect the info and content.
Some of my folders have my MIR request thread number in the folder name, but I usually have a time frame, hair color, and first name listed first.

As for solving the requests, it depends on the girl, how long we've waited, the IDs we've seen, the content available, and the sources.

I wouldn't mind leaving the threads open for better ID, but MIR threads are not as visible as model section threads, and scan section mods will not accept links to model request threads.

Bottom line, when the threads resides in MIR, they are less visible, which makes more ID info and content less likely.

So, we need to get these girls an actual model thread, to get the extra visibility.
Especially the pretty ones with some decent content.

The only problem with starting a thread on a poor ID is, model mods usually trash ID info, and/or move threads without redirects.
Makes it hard for interested parties to keep up with.

Interested parties may still be subscribed, and their subscriptions should move, but
if the post with the better ID info was trashed, you wouldn't get any notice.

So, there are problems with solving it early, and problems with solving it later.

However, I think there are times when we should solve a request with what we have.
If Website-AAA has her as UNK 1234 in one movie, that may be the best we ever get.
If there are more titles linked at Website-AAA, I think it becomes more justified to use, but I'm not sure what the model section mods would think about a model thread called UNK 1234 @ Website AAA.
Does anyone know the rule? I hesitate to ask.

If the Model mods won't accept a number as a thread title, I'm not sure we should call it solved with a number.

I think some first names are allowed.
Hopefully a model with some decent content would at least have one first name ID we could use, and then we could add UNK 1234 @ Website AAA as an AKA.

Indeed they would say precisely that, if asked. But that's also different from how they behave in practice--I mention this without meaning to imply any criticism by that, just observing, because it seems pertinent. I'm sure you all don't need me to tell you there are lots of existing single-pictorial model threads, and they're by no means all "old" ones, either.

It was some years ago now (so the mod team would have changed since), but...

When I first started to contribute significantly to the model area I created a thread called "Lesser known Sexy models" (or something similar) that included likely one-off pictorials that appeared in the German mag Sexy. Next thing I noticed was that the thread had gone and a mod had split it into four individual model threads. Subsequently I liberally created fresh model threads, even if only based on a single image.

when it comes to model threads (and not fetish themed like "boobs", "matures", "stockings" or publication themed like "men only", "teendreams" etc), it should always be 1 model per thread and there should be no rule at all how much stuff has to be available at start. as if amount of threads would be a problem in a forum.

threads like "lesser known models" are just lazy, and the performance and search-worthyness is pita. it should have never been allowed to start or it should have been splitted early. now it's too late.

also, modern section should have a separation of pornstars and softcore models. this would eventually lower the amount of threads slightly ;). i have no idea why of all things "celebrities" are treated special in classic and in modern - in a forum dedicated to e r o t i c a.

Well, we have a few of those in the celebs area, and one can make a case for them. As single threads they just get lost in a sea of threads, where they wither slowly but surely into obscurity. Packaged together around a thematic grouping (in the celebs area it is by country) they attract a larger audience. When the posts for some model/celeb reach a certain level her posts are pulled out and turned into a separate thread.

Well, the content of those threads often tend to be rather different, indicating a rather different form of fan devotion. The distinction between softcore models and celebs is rather fluid though, so the categorical distinction into different subfora is rather artificial.