What Is A Suitable Model ID?

[effCup]

A sub-section for lesser-knowns sounds preferable to the existing threads full of posts on lesser-knowns, or at least: maybe it should be attempted for one section as a trial, & evaluated after a set time? If it fails then can be merged back/restored. Perhaps a fair bit or work to set up but possibly an interesting/fruitful experiment?

From personal experience I know that the existence of some of those single-post/single-pictorial threads (e.g. some Mayfair models) has been what prompted a connexion/recognition of additional content within other mags., and one doesn't necessarily get the same opportunity/prominence/focus when posts are only in mag. threads. The threads look ridiculous sitting there on their lonesome for x number of years with no new content added, but then suddenly they may spring to life with unexpected additions. An example of such? Annabel Cawston (yes, OK, her thread had two posts but still). This is not to advocate for every single model being given her own thread, but it is to add context against the argument that thread stubs with "scant" content are necessarily a serious problem. What problem do they pose, exactly? More mod. maintenance effort? Yes, but is it significantly more? More server resources? /shrug/

[hos]

Originally Posted by burpman

You are conflating thread activity with commonality. You can have a lesser known model who has a lot of activity because there are many distinct posts.

i know, but you can't solve this "problem", which imho isn't such an issue with the idea cause you can name the subforum "non-busy models" or whatever you like to name it. you even could call the "busy models" and separate these from the others, by putting them into a new subforum. beside your personal preference, it doesn't matter, cause the model thread itself isn't touched at all.

the main point for thinking about this idea is the question of many: is the actual agenda for model threads reasonable and fair? is it reasonable and fair to avoid model threads when models don't have much content to offer or if this model is (actually) just known by a single mag appearance which was already posted in a magazine thread?

my opinion is: no, it's not reasonable. and the idea i am thinking of would be easy to setup, easy to manage, and very easy to cancel if it doesn't turn out good.

beside it would be possible to deal better with another "problem" - what's the best name for a model thread within the "common models" area? because now each new model thread has to grow first before it's ready for the main section.

Originally Posted by burpman

and what mods here want to spend the time to reorganize all these less "common" models.

if no mod likes to do that i would have no problem to spent the necessary 15 minutes of work to move related threads in all model forums 1 time a month. it's nothing you have to do each day to stay close to "assigned in realtime".

it's so quick and easy, you just have to know how it works.

but even realtime is eventually possible via admin tools, eventually (i don't remember) the options allow for threads in forum what they allow for member rights in forum. like the 150thanks rule which i've implementet with an automatism. no moderator has to deal with each member first before userrights allow to start threads in model id request (some single members flip through, still. but that's more of a software bug)

and sure it rather has to be discussed with the mods of the model sections than (just) here. here the discussion just started, cause i tried to convince beutelwolf that MIR is the wrong place to keep model threads which were already answered (solved) with an ID like "Samantha @MenOnly Vol 94". because he fears that the thread/content will be lost when we say "solved" if there's not much available for her yet (the main "crossover problem" between MIR and model sections).

[effCup]

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.

[Pepper II]

Originally Posted by effCup

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.

These observations are spot-on, especially the point of having a limited number of viewers here as compared with the model threads. I agree some of these cases should become model threads rather than being shunted to the Mystery Box. In the past the length of stay in the section was 9 months after the last post. At this point the thread was either removed or the original request moved to the Mystery Box. But due to a tremendous backlog these old threads remain in the regular section. Now we have a third option: the PMT section.

The choice of what is a suitable model thread title will always be arbitrary and we've debated this before. But I'd say if a member has a recommendation to move an id request thread to the PMT then make a post in the General Questions / Problem Reports thread and we'll consider it.

The Mods in this section have no control over the policies in the model thread sections. We can make recommendations about thread title changes and such but the choice of titles is ultimately up to those section Mods.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

The Mods in this section have no control over the policies in the model thread sections. We can make recommendations about thread title changes and such but the choice of titles is ultimately up to those section Mods.

Yes, good point, but I wasn't meaning you should step in. I was simply writing/reflecting about issues/themes that I think are by nature entangled/related. I hope/trust you all can allow me that even if some might disagree with my views.

[ponky]

Minor expanding of Pending Model Threads section would help a bit in some of these gray areas in pretty harmless way, by my opinion.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by hos

and the day when you find his name, i guess you'll take advantage of this, rather than "m012".

I would, but it would take some time to get used to that. There are some models in my database for which I have found a name, but that is so new that I only associate their looks with their numeric name, so I have to keep a reference to the numeric id so that I can still find them when I recognise them.

and what ID do they chose when they merge/replace unknowns with a named ID card? still XNK?

When they merge it is still an XNK, obviously. But either way (merge or solve) the move is documented in the solved list, so that people using the XNK number for their own purposes can track what happened to it.

is any starter of the thousands of still unsolved requests worried if these few "unknown female 1234 @iafd" / "XNK 4321" fills the amount of unsolved threads or the mystery box?

What people worry about is their private business. From my POV more problematic than by what threshold criteria a request is eventually deemed solved is that (long-term) solves are tricky to track with the system we have. At some point unsolved requests are either deleted or mystery-boxed.

So, I can look when the boxes are updated which box entries interest me, and bookmark the posts. (I actually do this via a sneaky forum trick of having my own "social group" for this purpose only). So, if I find a solve for one of those, or if I just want to check its current status, I can use the bookmark. Problem is: when it is solved it just goes away. Unless the box entry had a thread id that survived the boxing I cannot subscribe to that mystery. As a consequence, the solve may completely pass me by, and when it has there is no way to find out what happened to the id other than to open a new id request - because there is (i) no persistent numeric id by which to refer to a mystery, and (ii) no solves list that keeps track of those that have been solved.

nevertheless, if "Lucy @Wankmaster" is such an insufficient ID, then it's rather the question if such a request should better stay unsolved as well, than to do it totally wrong by chosing "Unknown xxx @yyy" as a solved request just because we've saying "Lucy @Wankmaster" is a solve (which, to me, is still more of a solve than "unknown xxx @yyy")

It depends what it means to be "solved", and what names are useful for search. An XNK at egafd can be great id, because it may lead to a substantial list of films the model has been in - and finding more material is what it's really all about. But it can also be a poor id, because it may just confirm: yes, egafd also recognised her in the same movie you did (and not in any others), and they also do not know anything else about her.

Lucy@Wankmaster is in that respect actually quite similar. You may search for that, you may find precisely that entry with nothing else beside it - and that is then pretty much the same situation as an egafd unknown one-timer. If there is additional material then great, that is like an egafd-non-one-timer. The problem with Lucy@Wankmaster is that there may be 31 of them, if Wankmaster is a long-running mag. Egafd has incidentally the same problem with non-XNK ids: it lists 31 Lucy's, i.e. models listed under the forename Lucy only (plus 6 Lucie's, plus numerous models where the forename Lucy also has a surname going with it). But there is a crucial difference: egafd keeps an index with all names, differentiating them with a numeric addition when ambiguous. We do not have complete name indexes. We just have a search function, and if that produces 31 different Lucy@Wankmaster threads you have to resolve that ambiguity every single time afresh.

[effCup]

I started this post here.

This is also perhaps an example of what many of these queries achieve: they're simply forgotten. Yes, sometimes someone finds some more info. & they're sitting there ready to link up but that's equally the case for [solved] XNK or [solved] Margerita @C17, and the last presents the option of higher visibility in the form of starting a model thread. /shrug/

Are we saying that queries here should only be marked solved provided the name so discovered will never again need modification as a thread title? I doubt it/hope not.

& please don't only read that last rhetorical question strictly literally. Although rhetorical it's also asking a question of you all: to think about the implications/ramifications; to think about the ways in which we think of/envisage mir queries, their processes, etc.

----

edit: late appendix, added here just so it doesn't get lost:

Originally Posted by effCup

If we wait a bit longer something else might come along & then we'd either:

a) have another instance of JR
b) have two different two-part contenders to tie-break
c) have another unsatisfactory singleton
d) rinse & repeat

This seems like another example of what I've tried to write about here & here... & probably elsewhere. It may seem otherwise but this is not meant as "having another go" at any of the current/past section mods. My discussion of this topic has always tried to focus only upon processes/thinking/how MIR operates.

To repeat: the alternative here is to accept a two-part mag. name, start a model thread, & hope that raised profile may prompt further discoveries. In that scenario we must remain open to the possibility that we don't always get it "perfect" first/every time so that thread may require a later renaming, should evidence for such turn up.

That is an iterative & incremental approach rather than the "big bang"/master-plan-up-front approach (software dev. & construction metaphors), which treats errors as/makes them prohibitively expensive.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by effCup

Are we saying that queries here should only be marked solved provided the name so discovered will never again need modification as a thread title? I doubt it/hope not.

What one could do is something along the following lines:

1. use full names when available
2. keep a redirection index, to record merged/renamed threads
3. keep an unknown register, with consistent numbering of VEF unknowns (essentially, like the mystery box but with some form of persistent numeric naming)
4. registered unknowns automatically get a thread which can be used for additional material as well as 'solves'
5. mystery solves can be recorded in the redirection index, perhaps in a separate subsection
6. another part of the redirection index could be: deleted names, i.e. to record threads that were deleted for various reasons (only dead content, copyright issues, whatever)
7. one can allow Lucy@Wankmaster type of entries, but once these become ambiguous they need subnumbering, i.e. Lucy@Wankmaster[1] etc., and in that case: recordings in the redirections index, which may mean: a complete name index, for pretty much everyone

In this scheme, a thread name can be modified, but the modification would be traceable. Of course, this scheme would go beyond merely the MIR section of VEF, as it affects models/celebs of both vintage and modern variety - though some sections of these do come with indexes already.

And what count as solves? Do we actually care? It really only counts for the HOF game, and that has been pretty much defunct for a while now anyway.

I have my doubts that this scheme (or anything similar) could gather sufficient support to be implemented, but - hey, we can brainstorm...

[sidewinder846]

I have noticed that some stars have multiple names.