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".