What Is A Suitable Model ID?

[hos]

before i get misinterpreted.. for me it's ok (and reasonable) that celebrities are running in a dedicated forum (even if one would be enough for modern and classic, which would also skip the strange filter criteria in which of the 2 forums a celeb has to be placed).

my intention is rather the question, why softcore models are combined with porn models inside modern section while they are separated in classic section. celebs are separated in both sections, just the fans of modern softcore or hardcore have to search their taste inside an unnecessary huge segment of combined tastes.

[rotobott]

Originally Posted by hos

before i get misinterpreted.. for me it's ok (and reasonable) that celebrities are running in a dedicated forum (even if one would be enough for modern and classic, which would also skip the strange filter criteria in which of the 2 forums a celeb has to be placed).

There are 3 actually pre 1935 vintage, 1935 to 1975 classic and post 1975 modern, get it wrong at your peril

[hos]

always thought "elegance & beauty" is celeb independent and rather for the early days of photography (the real vintage period).

anyhow, if i'd like to start a thread for "Cindy of Marzahn" (don't panic, i won't ) - i would feel like being trolled when rules tell me to place her into "classic celebrities" section.

[Rubinski]

Seems like the discussion here should be discussed on this thread.
There is a reliability question too.

I'm asking if we should call that request solved.
She's got an ID as Melanie Peake from a Australian Penthouse.

The ID has not yet been confirmed from other sources.
It may never be.

Should we deny that ID, because of reliability opinions?

The fact is, we have an ID, from a magazine, in a scan showing the ID in text.
Whether we personally approve of the source or not, we can all see it.

That fact makes Melanie Peake at least an AKA for the girl.
Argue about reliability all you want, post a hundred opinions, but that fact will remain.

Maybe it's not the only ID, or the best ID, but I see it as a solid ID.
A step on the trail. Maybe the only step we will ever find.

The ID is from a professional/industry source, that printed thousands of copies.
It's likely that the ID will be seen by others, which means many will call her that.
Some might even search for her by that ID.

Besides being a solid ID, Melanie Peake is a searchable ID.
There is no conflicting ID in our forum. No thread here for that name
I think that makes Melanie Peake a suitable ID.

Again, maybe not the best ID we will ever find, but it is a solid ID.

After 2 years of waiting, no other ID has been suggested, much less proven in print.
The AUPH ID is the only solid and suitable ID I've seen for her.

We've waited 2 years for a stronger ID, with no results in MIR.
What else should MIR do here?

There might be a better ID, but we don't know.
Do we choose the path that is most likely to not find a better ID?

We have a factual solve, so I don't think it belongs in the request section, or in the Mystery Corner, or the trash.

There is also content in this request.
If it's not enough for a thread, where should it go?
Should that content go in the trash?

Is there more content from this girl?
We don't know that either.
Do we choose the path that is most likely to not find more?

What should I/MIR do with this thread?
Make her a Mystery Box girl, and sit on it?
2 more years? 20?

I think our best option is to get more eyes on her.

Yes, I've heard the opinion that AUPH is an "unreliable" source for IDs.
That isn't my opinion.
I don't care if trends analysis shows that 99.9% of them are wrong, this one might be the .1% that is right.

As I've said before, we can't predict absolutes based on trends.
We should not be prejudiced by reliability opinions.
I see reliability opinions as counter productive.

If there were other factual choices, maybe we should argue about which one is more reliable, and pick one based on reliability.

With no other IDs to pick from, reliability shouldn't enter the equation.

I don't really care how reliable the source is, I see the Melanie Peake ID as a fact.
At the very least, a solid AKA.
An AKA that should be searchable.

IMO - There's no reason this request should not be called solved, and the ID should be in the title bar.

Claiming there isn't enough content doesn't make sense either.
Is there a theory/formula to predict that?
We don't know what else is out there, until we get it in front of all the eyes we can.
Not just MIR eyes.

We know that after 2 years in MIR, and this latest bump, MIR has not found better.
It looks like MIR will not find more/better for this girl.
I think it's time to go with what we have, until proven otherwise.

I don't think a solved ID request should be in the Mystery Corner.

A solved ID with content should not be trashed either.
But if there is no thread, where do we put the content?

I'm trying to clean up the old requests.
There are dozens of them with AUPH IDs.
I would like to know what to do with them.

Should we just trash them all because some folks say it's a weak ID source?
What about the content? Should that be lost in the trash?

I think we should call her solved, and get the ID we DO have in the title bar.

If we do call her solved, the next question is, what should we do with the content?
Since there is currently no thread, there is no place to put the content.
Should it be trashed, or saved somewhere?

If nothing new comes up in 30 days, I think we should move her to the Pending Model Thread section.
That will begin the thread with a searchable and suitable ID.
If the model mods don't like the ID, or the amount of content, they can leave it.

If we are going to leave her somewhere indefinitely, the PMT seems like the best place to me.

[Pepper II]

It simply makes no sense to start a model thread with every girl whom a magazine gives a name. That's just duplication. Anyway the content isn't lost or trashed; it's the same place it's always been: in the Penthouse Australia thread. If any member wishes to solicit the model thread section Mods to allow a one or two post thread then that is their perogative. I'm not in charge of those sections.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

It simply makes no sense to start a model thread with every girl whom a magazine gives a name. That's just duplication.

Agreed. But I didn't find that suggestion/idea in R's post?

Originally Posted by Pepper II

the content isn't lost or trashed; it's the same place it's always been: in the Penthouse Australia thread.

Again agreed. It's an issue only where models appear in more than one place/mag., i.e. there's a connexion. That's what model threads are about: recognising/representing the association. The tricky bit is the initial stages, moving from ~2-3 pictorials/appearances to whatever is deemed enough for a thread. It's just another bootstrapping issue, like operating/software systems. It's problematic because model threads often lead to further content being found/produced, but on an uncertain/uneven basis: there's no guarantee on when/if a thread "stub" may blossom or not.

[hos]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

It simply makes no sense to start a model thread with every girl whom a magazine gives a name.

depends what sense you're looking for if you visit a forum

but for VEF i fully agree, cause having a forum structure like this and on top of that have a lack of members with good model knowledge AND the willingness to help out as moderator - such an idea would leave a bigger mess than we already have to deal with.

That's just duplication.

imho that's not the best argument. especially if a model isn't just in one mag but maybe in two, three or a few more. for models it's rather best practice to have one dedicated thread where everything for this specific model can be collected and shared. there are lots of members who are interested in specific models and don't want to seek their favorite girl through 1000+ magazine threads.

anyhow, with our small and compact forum structure, it's already an issue to find the girl. a wider spectrum of subforums (by 5-year steps based on "seen first in business" or other managable criterias) - or an "innovation" like a tagging system would be helpful. but same time, it would raise a hell of work to migrate the actual forum version into a new structure. i fully understand that the available moderators won't have any motivation to do this. thinking about working concepts is rather something which has to be done before you invite members to post. if you forget about it, or don't think deep enough, a forum with so many members is designed to explode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gjJ2lNfbzo

[hos]

whatever is deemed enough for a thread

ok. not meant serious, but interesting. may some guys remember my special relation to stats, but sometimes they can be helpful

Forum	Threads in Total	Threads with 2 posts or less	Posts in Total	Posts per Thread Average
Classic Pornstars	2.447	216 ( 9% )	114.979	46
Softcore Models	6.431	2.726 ( 42% )	113.413	18
Celebs Classic	3.845	303 ( 8% )	138.453	36
Modern Models	8.610	709 ( 8% )	273.780	32
Celebs Modern	2.265	266 ( 12 % )	87.601	39

at least it seems clear, that the section which is mainly built on magazine content is already running (and maintained) with a very huge amount of "one-offs" - compared to other sections.

imho there is not any reason at all to disallow new threads just having few content. in none of our sections: beside softcore, ca. 10 percent of all model threads have 2 posts or less! that's not assumed, that's already fact. if you need it even more extreme in percentage, then do the same for 5 posts or less. this will definitly raise some eyebrows

just for fun and not comparable:

Forum	Threads in Total	Threads with 2 posts or less	Posts in Total	Posts per Thread Average
Model ID Request	8.711	5407 ( 62% )	34.676	4

maybe an ** IDEA **:
what about adding a new subforum to EACH model section, called "lesser known models". all actual threads with less than X posts (to be defined) will be moved to this place. it helps to get a simple separation between common / uncommon models and it would be easy to move (mods can sort threads by post count and mark complete blocks of threads for a move, this is 1 minute work which could be done 1 time a month). bookmarks won't get lost when threads were moved.

this would also help the typical "transfer conflict" between the sections.

[burpman]

Originally Posted by hos

maybe an ** IDEA **:
what about adding a new subforum to EACH model section, called "lesser known models". all actual threads with less than X posts (to be defined) will be moved to this place. it helps to get a simple separation between common / uncommon models and it would be easy to move (mods can sort threads by post count and mark complete blocks of threads for a move, this is 1 minute work which could be done 1 time a month). bookmarks won't get lost when threads were moved.

this would also help the typical "transfer conflict" between the sections.

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. It doesn't necessarily mean the model is common or even popular but has enough core fans to keep the thread moving along with many posts. There are already threads like this that have far exceeded your "X" limit. Whatever that would be. Who decides the limit and what mods here want to spend the time to reorganize all these less "common" models.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by hos

I am probably single-handedly responsible for quite a few of those in the softcore section.

There is a reason for it though. Many of those originate from 1960s mags like Parade/Carnival/Escort etc. which often do not lend themselves well for a full mag scan - too much crap in the mag, and there is no particular sense of style either, just a set of disconnected pics. Many of the models appearing in there are regulars, and many are one-timers, and it is upfront impossible to tell who is who. So, threads are started often on a single pic to see whether it attracts a mate.

Having said all of that I don't find 42% too bad, I would have thought it a lot worse. If anything, I find 9% in the pornstar section disappointingly low, that indicates that the rare ones are at risk of being forgotten entirely.

I like the idea of a lesser-known-models subsection, which some people can ignore as they wish, and others will use as their favourite stomping ground to regularly discover something new. But that's for the section mods to consider.