Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum
Home Home
Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Information & Help Forum > Model ID Request

Follow Vintage Erotica Forum on Twitter
Best Porn Sites Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices
Model ID Request The place for all model ID requests, classic and modern day.
Note 1: 1 ID request per thread and maximum 3 new ID requests per member per day.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2015, 07:13 AM   #61
Immy
Maestro
 
Immy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sin City
Posts: 3,280
Thanks: 18,172
Thanked 53,411 Times in 3,108 Posts
Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+Immy 250000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by effCup View Post
Recently there's been some problems regarding members starting model threads with seemingly little basis for the name/id chosen. This is actually not just a recent problem--there are other such model threads started up to several years ago that have simply been left as is.

Obviously that is outside MIR and so one might think it not our concern, but I think it is still our concern in a way, both in terms of having a good MIR section (i.e. useful solves) and a good vef. I could not find specific guidelines about starting model threads in the general vef rules. There are comments e.g. in model sections rules about checking via search before starting model threads but although very important that's not quite the same thing. Is this something we should consider adding as a guide both to members and to section mods?

Maybe I'm just dreaming/hoping but I believe mods finding new model threads with e.g. just a first name title and no evidence that greater efforts have been made to find a better id should consider whether such threads should be moved to MIR to be "sorted out", rather than just left where found?
I'm also not sure what the vetting process is for new model threads when there's little info regarding a full name. What seems clear, at least with the recent examples I've used as possible solves, is that the section mods appear to have no problem with it.

What it then boils down to is, if it's good enough for one section, should it be good for this one? I think a few things should be taken into consideration - quantity, source material and the poster's rep. A new model post with one pic from someone with a limited posting history ought to be scrutinized more than something new from beutelwolf who does his homework very thoroughly. Plus, there are plenty of experts there who can spot dupes.

Now, does this mean a person with little posting experience is more likely to be inaccurate? That's hard to say. In the case of wdwyman, his threads have all had a consistant theme of Brit gals from the 80s, leading me to believe his credibility may be more legit, despite the insufficient names. Yeah I felt ikky linking to them, but I also couldn't ignore them.

And in the end, is it good enough for MIR? I think it's difficult to put a black or white rule in place when each example has its own variables. Leaving it open for discussion is best, and at the very least, a mystery gets more content. Win-win.
Immy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Immy For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2015, 07:31 AM   #62
beutelwolf
paludicolous paravant
 
beutelwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 22,017
Thanks: 55,690
Thanked 504,232 Times in 21,973 Posts
beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by effCup View Post
Recently there's been some problems regarding members starting model threads with seemingly little basis for the name/id chosen. This is actually not just a recent problem--there are other such model threads started up to several years ago that have simply been left as is.
It's a tricky one. Ids are not the concerns of the model section, but model threads that are unfindable only really serve for the OP (and people who stumble upon them by chance) to put some material together, and once they lose interest the threads drift down the list into oblivion, slowly but surely.

On the other hand, if you move these to MIR then collecting material for a model is regarded as "bumping the thread", when all what the OP really wants is to have a place to collect material for the model, and ideally attract contributions from others; the name is of secondary concern.

Perhaps one could single out a new subsection in the model areas, specifically dedicated for "anonymous" or "unsafely named" models?
beutelwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2015, 11:02 AM   #63
effCup
Vintage Idiot
 
effCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 15,977
Thanks: 178,530
Thanked 197,281 Times in 15,840 Posts
effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immy View Post
I'm also not sure what the vetting process is for new model threads when there's little info regarding a full name. What seems clear, at least with the recent examples I've used as possible solves, is that the section mods appear to have no problem with it.
I would have thought that the purpose of having a separate MIR is to sort out precisely such matters. Any thread from the classic era with just a single first name to me is immediately suspect. Of course there will be some that are well-established because they've been investigated (in MIR or elsewhere) and no better name is available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immy View Post
quantity, source material and the poster's rep.
[...]
his threads have all had a consistant theme of Brit gals from the 80s, leading me to believe his credibility may be more legit, despite the insufficient names.
I deliberately did not name him because for me it's not about his threads or rather him per se. I could have made links to various other threads by other members which I think should not have been started outside MIR as they were.

I am not saying that member has mixed up different models or has created duplicates of models in other threads. I am saying I think it would have been beneficial or better if he had first created a query in MIR to see if there are any other names for those models. To me that's the "sensible" way to do things, particularly when one only has a first name. Hypothetically, member A may have a pictorial of model X that only shows their first name but another member may happen to know of another pictorial, or other scans of the same, that provides a second name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immy View Post
And in the end, is it good enough for MIR? I think it's difficult to put a black or white rule in place when each example has its own variables. Leaving it open for discussion is best
I agree it's not a matter for black and white rules. That's why I above suggested providing/devising some form of guidance for both members and mods. Similar to those posts after the section rules posts that add the advice to search vef for a model before starting a thread for her. That's an example of guidance to improve outcomes, rather than a strict rule.
effCup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2015, 11:08 AM   #64
effCup
Vintage Idiot
 
effCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 15,977
Thanks: 178,530
Thanked 197,281 Times in 15,840 Posts
effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beutelwolf View Post
if you move these to MIR then collecting material for a model is regarded as "bumping the thread", when all what the OP really wants is to have a place to collect material for the model, and ideally attract contributions from others; the name is of secondary concern.
I agree but I think MIR mods. are also aware of the manner in which additions are made to query threads. Some are clearly just bumps and so are rightly warned, others, like you say, are accumulations and so potentially very valuable as they may lead to a solve. Mods rightly have the discretion to decide which is which. There are plenty of query threads that have been accumulating material for quite awhile and I've not seen mods. criticising those additions because they're not just trying to bump. There have also been a few cases where the OP does just try to bump and they've rightly been warned off that behaviour by mods.
effCup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2015, 12:29 PM   #65
beutelwolf
paludicolous paravant
 
beutelwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 22,017
Thanks: 55,690
Thanked 504,232 Times in 21,973 Posts
beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+beutelwolf 2500000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by effCup View Post
I agree but I think MIR mods. are also aware of the manner in which additions are made to query threads. Some are clearly just bumps and so are rightly warned, others, like you say, are accumulations and so potentially very valuable as they may lead to a solve.
Well, I have seen mods say: we have sufficient pictorial info for id, so that post counts as a bump, i.e. in cases where the corresponding post in a model thread would have been perfectly fine.

Don't get me wrong - that sort of judgment is also perfectly fine as a modding policy as long as MIR has the sole purpose of identification.

If you want to give it the additional purpose of being a pool through which the material of unknown models has to be funnelled then that policy would need an adaptation. Either be more permissive in such cases regarding thread content, or... allow (e.g. in the mystery corner) the creation of additional-material threads for mysteries outside the box; members could even link these to their original queries themselves by editing their respective posts, provided it is additional material to their own mystery. This has (eventually, given the current delay in box management) the additional advantage of being less work for mods when it comes to putting things into the box, i.e. the additional material thread and the link to it would already exist.
beutelwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2015, 11:04 PM   #66
Pepper II
Super Moderator
 
Pepper II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sunny South Florida
Posts: 5,859
Thanks: 104,251
Thanked 81,628 Times in 5,696 Posts
Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+Pepper II 350000+
Default

I try to look at adding material to a request thread in this way:

When the original requester adds one pic periodically from the same photo shoot no real value is added to the thread and I consider this a bump. Even in these cases I generally allow of couple of additional posts before I put a stop to it.

If a model does have a thread the request is usually solved quickly so bumping is generally not an issue. But when the requested model does not have a thread then all additional material is desirable since our request thread will probably eventually become her model thread.

The issue of using a recently created model thread as a solving reference is not new and Immy was correct in directing us to these. But in my opinion those three threads were a bit premature since there are no good solid references for the names used for the titles and the model could well have an existing thread. In one instance there are two different names for the model in the scans used in the first post so the thread starter just picked one. This is not something we should advocate.

In the end all of these are judgement calls and I have the sometimes unenviable position of being the judge. But please don't hesitate to call to my attention if you feel there's been an oversight; it does happen. Just make a post here or PM me. In the end we all want the same thing: to have the most useful model name and to have the most complete collection of her work.
Pepper II is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Pepper II For This Useful Post:
Old 06-29-2015, 12:50 PM   #67
effCup
Vintage Idiot
 
effCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 15,977
Thanks: 178,530
Thanked 197,281 Times in 15,840 Posts
effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+
Default Delphi method

Hopefully this is not regarded as off-topic here?

Recently there's been a bit of discussion about model threads, the selection of titles/names for them, and the role of MIR. What I want to suggest is that the MIR section, the people who participate here as a collaborative group, are generally more likely to produce more accurate and useful outcomes at the task of model identification than we each do when operating as individuals. Furthermore, that is true regardless of which individuals happen to be involved, i.e. it's not a product of some necessarily being "specialists" or "experts". Group trumps individual nearly all the time.

Why do I say that? Because of the Delphi method (sometimes previously known as the "Delphi effect"). Basically, when it comes to estimating the duration or "cost" of future software development tasks groups (usually smallish) almost always perform better than lone individuals (in agile dev. such as Scrum this activity is called Planning Poker). A fair bit of scientific research has gone into this and repeatedly borne it out. In addition to the above link there's heaps of stuff on the web & in academic research articles, plus the following article from today's newspaper which I thought both interesting and highly pertinent. It nowhere uses the term "Delphi" but what it discusses is the same thing.

effCup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post:
Old 06-30-2015, 01:09 AM   #68
ponky
Vintage Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,308
Thanks: 16,460
Thanked 12,576 Times in 1,198 Posts
ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+ponky 50000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beutelwolf View Post
Perhaps one could single out a new subsection in the model areas, specifically dedicated for "anonymous" or "unsafely named" models?
Better than keeping material about some model in MIR section. Eventually when we find out the name - in worst case scenario - forum will have two topics about same girl in model section for some time until it is determined... And with good naming of topic ([unknown], dating of materials, XNK number, CCC nick...) this issue should be avoided or quickly solved.

Maybe just one more - in order to prevent too many [unknown] topics and to ensure systematic and clearly naming maybe is good idea to ask for approval before opening for every one, so, in that case, it would be enough to open one new sticky (maybe in Pending Model Threads) for this and not whole subforum.
ponky is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ponky For This Useful Post:
Old 06-30-2015, 04:51 AM   #69
effCup
Vintage Idiot
 
effCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 15,977
Thanks: 178,530
Thanked 197,281 Times in 15,840 Posts
effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beutelwolf View Post
Perhaps one could single out a new subsection in the model areas, specifically dedicated for "anonymous" or "unsafely named" models?
Perhaps. There are various places where such can already be posted, whether under themes or favourites or Marlon's or "insufficient to start a thread"-type threads, etc. I'm wary of simply creating another such especially if it's for models for which we'd like, or are already looking, to find a better id/handle. In those cases I see no reason not to just use MIR?
effCup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post:
Old 07-08-2015, 04:04 PM   #70
electile disfunction
Vintage Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere flat, that's either hot, cold, or windy ... Canada?
Posts: 1,916
Thanks: 42,101
Thanked 17,819 Times in 1,891 Posts
electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+electile disfunction 50000+
Default

Small problem here:

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...96&postcount=2
electile disfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to electile disfunction For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 PM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.