Vintage Erotica Forums - View Single Post

**effCup** · July 25th, 2015, 04:38 AM

^^^ 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.

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.

July 25th, 2015, 04:38 AM	#20
effCup *Vintage Idiot* Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: History Posts: 22,127 Thanks: 226,682 Thanked 356,622 Times in 21,622 Posts	^^^ 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. 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.