View Single Post
Old April 10th, 2015, 02:55 PM   #11
Rubinski
Classic Models Super Moderator
 
Rubinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Avatar is NGC1097
Posts: 4,075
Thanks: 58,423
Thanked 133,787 Times in 3,984 Posts
Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+Rubinski 500000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beutelwolf View Post
As an example, take 2012 mystery box entry 406.
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.
Rubinski is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Rubinski For This Useful Post: