Vintage Erotica Forums - View Single Post

**effCup** · February 15th, 2016, 02:18 AM

This post is a continuation of a discussion started here.

It comes back to the question of if/when MIR decides enough is enough and an existing/known 2-part name for a model is sufficient basis for starting a model thread.

Looking organisationally, I think there are two notable grey areas/areas of uncertainty, creating two corresponding patterns of rigidity:

1. MIR mods., in rightly striving for "the best" model id names, risk raising the standard too high in the case where models have existing two-part names. There never will be perfect ids, and we (collectively) retain the power/prerogative to fix earlier mistakes, assuming we allow ourselves to do so.

2. Model section mods. sometimes seem reluctant to amend existing model thread titles even when solid evidence is provided--instead they tend to append additional names at the end of the title. They perhaps view this as "conservative" or cautious behaviour but the risk instead can be of perpetuating poor (early) name choices, of lack of clarity or simplicity.

Both those grey areas will never go away. What I would like to see, however, is a willingness to allow/consider greater flexibility in both areas.

1. I think MIR mods should accept that, after a significant length of time stuck in MIR, some of those models with existing two-part names may not be going to progress any further whilst still stuck in MIR. That in large part is simply a reflection of the fact that only a tiny proportion of vef's membership spends much time in the MIR section. That is of course entirely their choice and I wouldn't want it any other way, but my point is simply that it narrows the range of eyes & knowledge/experience. The existence of a model thread can and often does lead to additional content and information, it's just there's no way to predict if & when.

How long should that "significant length of time" be? The answer is a piece of string so we have to be arbitrary. One possible arbitrary such answer, chosen not for any reasons of length but because of its functional & formal significance/relationship, is to decide to not automatically move queries with existing two-part names into the boxes but instead first consider them for PMTs.

2. I think models sections mods. should also be a little more open to the idea of not just appending names to the end of model thread titles but also the idea of changing them--that is, where solid evidence for such is presented. Model section mods. may resist such because it will/must entail a judgement call rather than be easily amenable to blanket/black-&-white "rules"/directions. In my experience that's the nature of much information management. I'm not talking about changing model titles where the id came originally out of MIR but rather threads started by members from a basis of limited or poor information.

Models section mods. may feel I am trying to blur the boundaries between their section and MIR. I do not wish that, but I also think it would be good for them to gain some understanding of and direct experience of the processes within MIR. The separation of MIR from the rest of vef is a good functional design, but it is in the nature of information management that some aspects of what vef delegates to MIR as its specific concern still remain within the purview of e.g. models section mods. In my view that is unavoidable.

The creation of a vef model thread & its title/model name/id is a process of institutionalisation. It "solidifies" both data and metadata. We can see that in the example of the many threads founded earlier based upon Mayfair model names--e.g. Harriet Wilkinson (Mayfair) rather than Andrea Nadler (Penthouse). My point in mentioning that is not to say that's good or bad/right or wrong but rather to reflect and recognise the institutional nature and function of that process: what its effects upon our behaviour are, effects not simply in the past but instead and rather, both in the present and implications for the future. My point is then to ask whether we recognise the wider implications of those steps & behaviours in other forms/areas, e.g. when we're trying to decide upon model ids?

Think of it as organisational sociology or ethnography. That's how I'm viewing it.

February 15th, 2016, 02:18 AM	#53
effCup *Vintage Idiot* Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: History Posts: 22,143 Thanks: 226,792 Thanked 357,053 Times in 21,638 Posts	This post is a continuation of a discussion started here. It comes back to the question of if/when MIR decides enough is enough and an existing/known 2-part name for a model is sufficient basis for starting a model thread. Looking organisationally, I think there are two notable grey areas/areas of uncertainty, creating two corresponding patterns of rigidity: 1. MIR mods., in rightly striving for "the best" model id names, risk raising the standard too high in the case where models have existing two-part names. There never will be perfect ids, and we (collectively) retain the power/prerogative to fix earlier mistakes, assuming we allow ourselves to do so. 2. Model section mods. sometimes seem reluctant to amend existing model thread titles even when solid evidence is provided--instead they tend to append additional names at the end of the title. They perhaps view this as "conservative" or cautious behaviour but the risk instead can be of perpetuating poor (early) name choices, of lack of clarity or simplicity. Both those grey areas will never go away. What I would like to see, however, is a willingness to allow/consider greater flexibility in both areas. 1. I think MIR mods should accept that, after a significant length of time stuck in MIR, some of those models with existing two-part names may not be going to progress any further whilst still stuck in MIR. That in large part is simply a reflection of the fact that only a tiny proportion of vef's membership spends much time in the MIR section. That is of course entirely their choice and I wouldn't want it any other way, but my point is simply that it narrows the range of eyes & knowledge/experience. The existence of a model thread can and often does lead to additional content and information, it's just there's no way to predict if & when. How long should that "significant length of time" be? The answer is a piece of string so we have to be arbitrary. One possible arbitrary such answer, chosen not for any reasons of length but because of its functional & formal significance/relationship, is to decide to not automatically move queries with existing two-part names into the boxes but instead first consider them for PMTs. 2. I think models sections mods. should also be a little more open to the idea of not just appending names to the end of model thread titles but also the idea of changing them--that is, where solid evidence for such is presented. Model section mods. may resist such because it will/must entail a judgement call rather than be easily amenable to blanket/black-&-white "rules"/directions. In my experience that's the nature of much information management. I'm not talking about changing model titles where the id came originally out of MIR but rather threads started by members from a basis of limited or poor information. Models section mods. may feel I am trying to blur the boundaries between their section and MIR. I do not wish that, but I also think it would be good for them to gain some understanding of and direct experience of the processes within MIR. The separation of MIR from the rest of vef is a good functional design, but it is in the nature of information management that some aspects of what vef delegates to MIR as its specific concern still remain within the purview of e.g. models section mods. In my view that is unavoidable. The creation of a vef model thread & its title/model name/id is a process of institutionalisation. It "solidifies" both data and metadata. We can see that in the example of the many threads founded earlier based upon Mayfair model names--e.g. Harriet Wilkinson (Mayfair) rather than Andrea Nadler (Penthouse). My point in mentioning that is not to say that's good or bad/right or wrong but rather to reflect and recognise the institutional nature and function of that process: what its effects upon our behaviour are, effects not simply in the past but instead and rather, both in the present and implications for the future. My point is then to ask whether we recognise the wider implications of those steps & behaviours in other forms/areas, e.g. when we're trying to decide upon model ids? Think of it as organisational sociology or ethnography. That's how I'm viewing it.