Model Name Source Reliability

[effCup]

Originally Posted by highwayman274

There has been a lot of discussion in this section about the reliability of the model names published at different index sites.

Yes. @highwayman I'm quoting you here but only because it was your above post/phrase that triggered the following (stray?) train of thought. I'm in no way criticising what you decided in the above instance.

I've not listed any sources in this thread and that's with some reason. I think the search for reliable sources is, underneath, an attempted short-cut. The search for short-cuts is a good thing, e.g. the world needs truly lazy programmers. But we need to be aware of their occasional pitfalls.

There are plenty of very good/highly-reliable sources... no need to list here, it's just that I don't think that's the right thinking or approach. Any more than we should rely upon another MIR poster's repute: do they make lots or errors in which case their next suggestion is likely to be wrong? No, that's a very dangerous path. Do they make no errors so their next suggestion will surely be correct? Equally dangerous/mistaken.

I think the thing that counts is evidence, i.e. academic-style citation. No, I'm not saying we need to start adding footnotes to our posts like wikip., but MIR generally requires links to show evidence and that's very much along similar lines/thinking.

I think there are e.g. websites with highly suspect information, some of which we already know about or can find examples of, but as things move towards the other end of the (imaginary?) reliability "spectrum" they become very difficult/troublesome. Both iafd & egafd have erroneous info., yet they're still generally highly reliable with good reason. How do we find the errors so we can avoid them? By finding and using evidence. xyz is named abc on iafd but they're wrong as shown here at... yadda, yadda.

I think it's a great idea to separate MIR from the rest of vef as a section for "dealing with" id issues. At the same time I think the reluctance of mods from other sections to countenance further "amendments" to existing threads (e.g. changes of name) is troubling. No, I'm not saying I think "discussion" should occur in model threads but I am saying, for example, there should be less (apparent) resistance to changes to model thread titles when evidence is produced.

Oh, so I'm just having another grizzle about mods from other sections? No, that's not my motivation or purpose. I'm trying to look at a wider picture.

Edit: What I was trying to get at immediately above is: sometimes MIR feels like it's pressured to always find a perfect id. OK, understandable because it's best to start out on the right track, cheaper to fix errors early, but I think we should also recognise when sometimes we've possibly reached all we're going to get using the MIR method. This is software dev. too: the construction metaphor is often false/misleading. Often more useful is the gardening one of iterative re-work. That is sometimes the case with model ids, too. MIR may not always have produced a perfect id but after a fair bit of further time that may be the best we can manage, and then if we've got something usable for a handle it may be time to try another method--e.g. model thread--and hope that it can be improved upon, i.e. consciously leaving the door ajar for such improvement.

Sounds like I'm lowering the standard of evidence on model ids? I don't think so. We must keep it as high as possible for as many as possible. Just recognise that there's sometimes other approaches required.

Also just to be clear: my above comments are in no way a disagreement about, for example, beutelwolf's comments about the reliability or otherwise of certain 1960s/70s mags, etc.

[slowdiver]

I have a question I feel is pertinent here.

A former glamour photographer has a public Facebook (or similar social media) page. Listed within their "friends" on the page, are a number of people who are identified as having modeled in the past, with the names they use (again appearing on public Facebook profiles).

Accordingly it is now possible to provide a near definitive id to the model, to put a name to them, from their own social media profile.

However, and this is where I find an issue. Some, possibly all, of the 'models' identified in this manner, no longer work in the industry. Perhaps they modeled for a very short time, some 20 odd years ago, simply to make a bit of cash. They have 'moved on', and there is no reference on their social media page to correlate the lady you see there, with the naked girl appearing in the pages of a magazine you bought years ago.

While it would be nice to put a name to the models we follow and collect, I would in no way wish to risk causing offence or upset to someone for something they did years ago.

I have previously seen examples of models (themselves, or their partners/husbands/boyfriends etc) requesting that photos, pages or even entire threads are removed because they represent a time in the model's life that has now long since passed.

So the question I suppose is - how far is it reasonable to search for an id, when the person whose id one is searching for has long since abandoned the persona that we are trying to identify? Do we assume that if someone has a public profile, they have no issue with being recognised until told specifically otherwise? Or do we simply stick to the more established means of id, igafd, bgafd etc?

Food for thought

[effCup]

Originally Posted by slowdiver

Listed within their "friends" on the page, are a number of people who are identified as having modeled in the past, with the names they use (again appearing on public Facebook profiles).

Do you mean it lists their real names (#1, #2)? If that's the case then probably best leave well alone. MIR/vef is only interested in models' professional names/aliases, not their real ones. For example, Sandra Scream isn't her real name but it is her best-known-as professional handle. There are, however, some on vef (celebs, vintage elegance & beauty, maybe some playmates, etc.) who are best known by their (perhaps) real name.

[slowdiver]

Originally Posted by effCup

Do you mean it lists their real names (#1, #2)? If that's the case then probably best leave well alone. MIR/vef is only interested in models' professional names/aliases, not their real ones.

Therein lies a further problem - the models I'm talking about modeled, or are commonly known by, their real names, or variations of.

For example (made up) - a forum thread/post lists a model as being Sally from Mayfair/Sally Stevens/Sandra Stephens - all names that the model has been seen to use professionally. The same girl, on her public (and I keep stressing that deliberately) social media profile page, can now be positively and definitively identified as "Sally Stevens". That's the name she goes by these days, and is a variant of one of the names she is known to model under. Would it then be fair, to make the correction to her name, using her social media name, given that Google etc would allow a connection to be made (between the 'real' person on social media, and this site).

Whereas a lot of models/pornstars made a relatively long career from the industry (and have no issue with people knowing who they are in 'real life') there are also others, who simply modeled for a short time, for a 'bit of cash' or a youthful thrill, who now may view that time in their lives as ancient history, with no wish to revisit it.

Should we assume (as is largely the case already) that unless we have been specifically asked NOT to post/id a model, that it is fine to do so?

A few years, maybe a decade ago, this wouldn't have raised a concern, as far fewer people were active in the public forum of social media

[effCup]

Ahh. Yes, well, a curly one. Technically all of the web is publishing but I suspect many folk wouldn't regard facebook as quite as public as page 3 or a nude mag.

[highwayman274]

Ultimately, the VEF Forum Rules prohibit the publishing of any data that would compromise the privacy of any person (whether it be a VEF Member, model, etc). Hence our reliance on stage-names (and "aliases"); we would not knowingly permit a "legal name" to appear here.

So the use of information gleaned from social media sites can be a bit of a minefield; particularly if images, etc., appear under an Account Name that purports to be the legal name of someone we know ( or think we recognize) as a former or current model. It can sometimes be difficult to ascertain if an Account Holder is merely introducing another "alias" or is actually using their legal name. This dilemma extends to sites like Model Mayhem, too.

Even though the discovery of a new name might have immense porn-archaeological importance, and we might be keen to share, it would probably be wise to send a PM to a Super-Mod in the appropriate VEF Section before posting.

Just my two-cents worth . . . certainly not the definitive word on this subject.

[Pepper II]

There are examples of models using their real names professionally although these are few. Conversely there are those who have chosen to trade on the notoriety of their porn past and now use that name professionally, the most notable example being Traci Lords.

There will always be some gray areas in the matter of what level of investigation we find desirable. I would dissuade the members from posting any names which are believed to be real unless it is in common usage. And, of course, when in doubt just send me a PM rather than making a public post.

[burpman]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

There are examples of models using their real names professionally although these are few. Conversely there are those who have chosen to trade on the notoriety of their porn past and now use that name professionally, the most notable example being Traci Lords.

There will always be some gray areas in the matter of what level of investigation we find desirable. I would dissuade the members from posting any names which are believed to be real unless it is in common usage. And, of course, when in doubt just send me a PM rather than making a public post.

Yep, there are a few cases where the photographers used their real names or where the real name is an AKA of a professional/stage name. The ones that are very common I figure are fairly innocuous as there are probably so many people with the same name it would be hard to discern who is who.

[slowdiver]

The irony is, in the few cases I've encountered, I've found that the model's real name is already known, and in use, among a couple of other aliases - all a post would do is confirm that one of the model's commonly used 'professional' names is actually correct. So it isn't as if it would open up any new avenues of search for unseen material.

I haven't discovered anything I didn't know, so much as gained confirmation for something I already did. As long as we have A name, then searches, database functions and cataloguing can be carried out.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by slowdiver

all a post would do is confirm that one of the model's commonly used 'professional' names is actually correct.

What do you mean by "correct"?

If a given model's professional name is already commonly used, then what evidence is facebook providing? For example, we know Sandra Scream is a made-up name, and that it's strongly/widely associated with a particular performer. Is that an "incorrect" name if it happens to differ significantly from her real name? For vef's purposes, no.

Or are you talking about a model with, say, two well-known professional names, and facebook evidence seems to support one over the other? But does it really? Even if it shows that professional name A is closely associated with that person's real name whereas professional name B isn't, that still doesn't necessarily make A their best-known-as name.

A concrete example: vef has two names for the same model: Helen Page (her name on Joanie Allum's website) aka Abby Kirchner. I don't know which of those two is the better-known handle. Hypothetically, facebook evidence that her real name is XYZ seems to me to have no bearing upon which of those professional handles is more famous, even if her real name were "Abigail Kitchener" or "Helen Paige" (both made-up, just to illustrate).

This seems to me to be similar to the fallacy of "believability" that's sometimes raised regarding professional names, i.e. that Sandra Scream, say, can't be her best-known-as name because it doesn't sound very Polish, or whatever. Yes, I know she's not Polish but MIR has had precisely that type of discussion about other models & their handles.

I can imagine that facebook might potentially provide confirmation that model A really did also go by the name B, whereas until then vef had them as separate models, or perhaps only suspected the two might be the same but wasn't sure, things like that.