What Is A Suitable Model ID?

[Rubinski]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

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.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by Rubinski

Only problem is Juanita Banana sounds unreliable. Obviously a joke name.
[...]
Somewhere along the way, we need to take what we have and move forward.

Another example was Kiara Vandt an AUPH name (but also in Swank as Lana) that was deemed insufficient because a) AUPH is supposedly more unreliable than other mags, although that view was based not upon actual numbers/data & b) because AUPH claimed she was Malaysian.

I know, it sounds like I've got a bee in my bonnet about this particular model (or AUPH names?). Well, not really/not quite. I still think she could have a thread but I'm really only using her here as an example, because I think it handily illustrates some things. Probably both "Lana" and "Kiara Vandt" are professional, made-up names so why does it matter if it doesn't "sound" Malaysian-enough? She was photog. by Hank Londoner so perhaps the pics. were taken somewhere in Calif., and maybe in a US or other country's mag. she'd have been described as some other suitably "exotic" ethnicity, I dunno. Does her professional name sound sufficiently Californian? /shrug/ I think that's pretty wonky thinking. There are, for example, Polish porn stars with not-at-all Polish-sounding but accepted ids, including sometimes where their "real name" (very Polish) is known, because vef/mir is not about finding models' "real names" just their best-known-as professional handles.

It may be that Kiara Vandt isn't her best-known-as handle, but after having her in MIR for awhile I think more content &/or info. will turn up by releasing her into a more public location (model thread), provided we can find a name that's sufficiently distinctive (searchable) and preferably two-part (also searchable).

Speaking of what seem like joke names, another AUPH name, this time for a claimed Thai model, was the name "Phuc". Also looking through the model names used in 1970s-early-80s UK mags. such as Mayfair, CIUK, Men Only etc. one finds plenty of what seem to me like "joke" names. Many of them read a bit like a Benny Hill type of joke. Others are "exceedingly English" in form: parodically so. Even just the proportion of names that are alliterative (like "Pollyanna Patterson") should probably be a clue that these are not really "real" names.

But we already know we're not looking for "real names", so then why does it seem to matter?--& a mea culpa here, I have at times felt exactly that same way, e.g. Harriet Wilkinson just seems "wrong". Why do we want these known-to-be professional aliases (made-up names) to take a more "believable" form?

Actually, it's perhaps not really a great mystery. We generally want names for humans to seem like real names rather than, say, Ford Prefect, because that helps maintain the illusion, it disguises the pretence. Now, though, having identified/recognised that inclination will we continue to apply it or can we consciously break ourselves free from its spell?

Also, just a note about single-letter e.g. "second" names. They do provide greater distinction in terms of forum listings of model threads/titles but unfortunately they cannot be searched for in vef's search box--i.e. single letters, and guessing but probably also two-letters given that it's a PHP fulltext search function, are classed as "too short"--so they're better than a first-name-only but only v. slightly so.

[Immy]

Originally Posted by Rubinski

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.

Good point.

A model ID was accepted as solved and a thread started for Cherry-Licorice under these exact circumstances, and that name is no less invented.

[buttsie]

All names are equal imho given their all potentially how someone will first see a model

If your opting for a name thats common then when you hover over her title , in a best case scenario you will see a physical description , what work she has done , what level she works to , even other aliases etc


example - from Australian photographer - Darren Mccormacks defunct site



Belinda - never really identified - but when you hover over her name you see

Dutch Softcore Model - Long blonde hair - Blue eyes - Athletic
Solo pics - no video - DB 1974 - 5ft 6/7 169cm tall - 34b-24-34

Magazine Aliases Patsy & Chrissie

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...hlight=belinda

The title is like the tip of the iceberg - it alone can accomodate many names -
other info which is far more useful goes in the 1st post

The 1st post - top 4 lines / 120 characters

Means you dont need to choose just a name

One of our sister sites tends to have a minimum of 3 names in the title for the obscure
especially for the modern

Examples over the years say that you can get away with any title really
as there are a plethora of softcore models who chose to remain obscure unknowns


One name models - vintage softcore mostly

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...1&postcount=42
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...3&postcount=43
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...8&postcount=44

[effCup]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

I realize info for some of these '60s models is scant but this magazine seems to be unreliable with regard to names. So far we have two different magazines calling her by two different names.

I think you've raised a valid question. I agree it's worrying/problematic.

I'd say beutelwolf created those model threads because at the time it was the best info. he had. He made a model thread for one with a 2-part name, but for another with just a single-name he create an MIR query. His subsequent matching of the latter query (by now in the mystery box) to an existing model thread is an unfolded rather than an additional-info. because he's adding to that model thread outside MIR rather than to an existing MIR query... even if we might now perhaps wish it had been the latter rather than the former so we could reconsider which name really is her best-known-as.

But won't it always be the case that subsequent info. can turn up to suggest alternate possibilities for a model's best-known-as? I think "rare" models, i.e. those whose current thread only has perhaps just 1-3 mag. appearances, will always expose this conundrum most starkly.

An example might be Annabel Cawston, from Mayfair 23-08, 1988-08, here. The second post in her thread is someone finding her as Janine in Gallery. OK, not really a suitable name for a change of id. Someone else then finds her twice in AUPH as Amanda Wolfe, the first set of which is related to the Mayfair set. That's perhaps a viable name for an id (2-part), but is it worth the hassle of changing her thread title, or sending it back to MIR for consideration? We could, but maybe we've all got enough other things still to do? /shrug/

Perhaps you or other folk have suggestions for what they think is a better way to handle this kind of problem?

[beutelwolf]

Effie interpreted me pretty well...

Originally Posted by Pepper II

Thank you but this should probably be a [mystery - additional content] thread. After all you yourself have started a thread for Norma Peterson and later added scans from this same magazine calling her by a different name. I realize info for some of these '60s models is scant but this magazine seems to be unreliable with regard to names. So far we have two different magazines calling her by two different names.

It's not a "secure" id, or rather: I'm not yet sure how reliable Reflets is as a source. However, I tend to create model threads (instead of asking for ID) when I have a 2-part name for a model, particularly for this period, as these are much more reliable in general. So, had I found these two pictorials the other way around, I would have never created an id thread for her.

In particular, the original pictorial was from Girl Illustrated. GI is highly reliable (by standards of girlie mags) for model ids when it comes to 2-part names, whilst their 1-part names (as in this case) mean virtually nothing.

Regarding "Norma Peterson" - that naming is from Girls of the World, a mag that frequently (but not always) made up 2-part names, which is fairly unusual for a mag in the late 60s. So, had I found the pictorials at the same time I would have opted for the Reflets name. The third source in that thread is from GI, yet another name, but a 1-part name.

Either way, when I'm finding conflicting model names I put the name used in the pictorial of the mag (however many parts it has) in the title of the post, so that a title-search will pick it up and the issue which one is the thread title is a minor one, as we don't have a search feature limited to thread titles.

[Pepper II]

We're blending two separate topics together, here. What is suitable for a solve and what is suitable for a model's thread title. Although related these are entirely different topics.

A thread title could be any name and really just serves as a guide to the place where we're storing her material. As beutelwolf stated above it is desirable to name aliases in the text to aid searching so what name has been chosen for the title is not so significant.

What we accept as a solve in the request threads is an entirely different matter. The only reason I'm reluctant to accept beutelwolf's [unfolded mystery] in this case is because he started her thread with the same magazine appearance as the solve and at the same time. Had the thread already existed then the name of the thread title would be accepted.

Now before I hear a lot of "what's timing got to do with it?" let me be the first to admit most of us are human therefore we would each use different subjective criteria to try to keep things orderly. Also we should all remain flexible when it comes to these obscure names. I advocate changing the thread titles if a new name is found from a more reliable source.

Also an id request should be accepted (and in fact usually is) if a less common alias is named. In these cases another member usually comes along with the more common name but I will generally give credit for the solve to the first to name any acceptable alias.

A thought: I think it would be beneficial to compile a list of what magazines or other sources should be considered reliable in what era and in what order of reliability. These comments would be off-topic here so I'll start a new sticky thread for that purpose (when I get around to it).

[teaktop]

A model's own site is an "interested" party/publisher. She/they may not wish to divulge all of her appearances/content/model aliases, info. etc. in that context. Something similar can arguably be claimed regarding a photographer's or studio's index of models--e.g. I've seen in other places discussions of whether photog. X is prepared to "admit" responsibility for certain image sets that may be financially entangled with/by other parties,

thank you guys for your reply ,i ref effie here and points I overlooked ,pepper I will send link cant remember her name right now ,but in saying all that ,it may be quirky Im not looking for kudos on solved I like playing Sherlock Holmes ,I get a kick outa it
thanks again for your replies ..btw but best site ever ,and not to go overboard I really enjoy this community

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by hos

no, dx. your id work is very reliable, my reply wasn't for your post and you should get your credits for that.

but this section is about solving unknowns and "Unknown Female xxx" @IAFD is obviously not a good name to finish a request. so my reply was rather addressed to the moderation of thread titles.

We had this discussion before in some thread. Identifying someone with a documented id-tag such as the numbering at iafd is as much an id as one that declares her to be Guinevere Fairfax on the evidence that similar pics document Guinevere getting 2nd price at a marrow growing competition of the Women's Institute in Bedfordshire in 1993.

In fact, I have this any day over our "Heidi at CCC" style of ids that use random forenames used in magazines for pictorials (apparently on the grounds that some mods like these magazines).

Ultimately, what matters to most people is an id via which "more material" can be found. That is not often the case with "Unknown Female 123", but sometimes it is, and the documented id tag gives it a chance.

[effCup]

^^^ 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.