[Rubinski]

I don't think any of the sources are 100% reliable.
So, where would we set the reliability threshold? 60%? 80%?

I believe we should accept them all.
We should consider all vintage video, magazine, and catalog IDs reliable.
Right or wrong, they are factual.
They are also vintage facts, and shouldn't change on us.

Right or wrong, those facts can be seen by anyone with access to them, and searched for by anyone wanting to find more of the girl they are looking for.
So, I feel we need to accept them all.

It may be untidy to have a bunch of extra AKAs to deal with, but it's just part of the landscape to me.
As long as we can see them, they are verifiable, solid IDs.

As much as we would like to clean the cloud, we can't.

Speaking of clouds, I suppose we should accept all website IDs too.
Websites seem to be the only ID source for many of the newer girls.

Websites are also factual, in a way.
If any website IDs someone (including this forum), it becomes part of the cloud, and it also becomes part of any personal database that finds the info.
So, I think we have to accept website IDs too.

Unfortunately, websites often include mistakes, and unproven IDs, but so do vintage sources.

We can clean mistakes off our model threads, but we can't clean the whole web, much less all the personal databases where the bogus IDs come from.

I think the only way to fight bogus IDs is by communicating the details.
Cleaning our threads just leaves us open to reinvent the wheel when the bogus ID gets introduced again.

I would love to get rid of the Jane Sikes ID that many folks gave to Laurie Noel, but it will never happen.
Same goes for Laurie being called Marsha Malone.
Both those bogus IDs have no actual credits for being Laurie, and both IDs have been credited to other girls, but the connections to Laurie persist.

Nothing anyone can do about it, except communicate the problem, so we don't stumble over it again later.


Reliability theories are only opinions, derived from sketchy data.
I would accept an opinion of sales numbers, before I accepted someone's reliability theory/opinions.

I think reliability theories should only be used as a last resort to pick between multiple suitable choices.

Mayfair is wrong a lot. How much?
We have named many of our model thread using Mayfair IDs.
Mainly because they often gave us a first and last name ID, making them more searchable.

Many of those Mayfair IDs have been proven wrong, and a few thread titles corrected.
Many are still wrong, but we don't know it, or can't prove it.
Even Playboy is wrong or lies at times.

What percentage of lies can a magazine give us, before we consider them unreliable?

The bigger problem is how can we know when there is an exception to the reliability theories?
There's no way to predict the exceptions with any real degree of accuracy.
Even if a magazine is wrong 100% of the time, there is always a chance that one particular ID from them will be right.
That makes denying IDs based on reliability theories an unsound decision.

We should not use reliability theories to prejudice us against IDs that could be right, or against IDs that would otherwise be a suitable and searchable ID.

I hope we will only use reliability theories as a last resort, to use as a tie breaker between otherwise equal IDs.