|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar |
Model ID Request The place for all model ID requests, classic and modern day. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
April 20th, 2015, 01:38 AM | #11 | |
paludicolous paravant
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 26,735
Thanks: 75,664
Thanked 745,388 Times in 26,855 Posts
|
Quote:
It's not that egafd is not prepared to list unknowns, in fact they list them all - under their XNK id: they all have a page with a filmography (mostly just a single film, but some longer) and a gallery, sometimes with additional info such as info about tattoos etc. They are listed in cast lists of their movies with their XNK id etc. You can even browse them, in the unknowns list. Personally, I prefer that organisational model over naming girls as "Susan from Mayfair", because that is non-distinct, non-memorable and she'll become soon near unfindable in a sea of susans, especially when there's no complete index, only relying on the search function. We have something close to the egafd system with our mystery boxes and associated additional-content threads, with the postid in the box playing the part of the xnk-number, or at least having the potential to do just that. Sorry that this is slightly off-topic, but the issues of "what is a reliable source", "what is a reliable id", and "how do we organise identified/unidentified models" are not independent. |
|
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post: |
April 26th, 2015, 11:32 AM | #12 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paludicolous paravant
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 26,735
Thanks: 75,664
Thanked 745,388 Times in 26,855 Posts
|
Quote:
In volume 5 (issue 7), verifiability dropped to 42%, and proportion of full names to 64%. In volume 9 (issue 1) verifiability evaporised (0%), only 8% had full names, with one (single) name even being verifiably wrong. The volume 5 figures are still looking good enough to base identifications on, but one can tell that the mag's on a slippery slope. One can tell even from these figures alone that the mag moved on from well-established models to girl-next-door type, and any care about the identity of the models declined proportional to this trend. Last edited by beutelwolf; April 26th, 2015 at 11:37 AM.. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post: |
May 15th, 2015, 02:32 AM | #13 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,003
Thanks: 1,960
Thanked 8,725 Times in 936 Posts
|
Quote:
The last issues of Challenge adult mags are dated 1980 October (for bimonthly titles published in even months) and 1980 November (for bimonthly titles published in odd months, and for all monthly titles). Titles published by Sari and Press Arts (also a couple others I don't recall right now) until circa 1970 are also Challenge imprints. Challenge also published some non-adult titles which continued after 1980. |
|
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to magnut For This Useful Post: |
October 15th, 2015, 06:08 PM | #14 |
paludicolous paravant
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 26,735
Thanks: 75,664
Thanked 745,388 Times in 26,855 Posts
|
Mod Edit: I've copied this post in here from a regular id request thread.
Sexy Girl no 17 Undated, but late 1960s. The pics from ifr2lax are also from that mag, in fact I very much suspect that they are a scan I once made myself. Regarding the id-reliability of the mag, I'd say: average for the time. Several known models of the time were given to us under their usual name (Shirley Linden, Maria Frost, Marie Estelle, etc), but e.g. the title girl (Cheryl Peters) was not: she was introduced as Nadine Miller. Last edited by Pepper II; October 15th, 2015 at 11:39 PM.. Reason: added note |
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post: |
November 8th, 2015, 08:10 AM | #15 | |
Vintage Idiot
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 22,135
Thanks: 226,717
Thanked 356,751 Times in 21,630 Posts
|
I've moved the following here because I think I'd be growled at if I responded in the query thread. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.
Quote:
I have previously discussed this issue publicly in MIR and privately with some of the MIR mods. so as they may recall I can reiterate some views, but first what's the evidence that AUPH model names are any different from other mags.--mags. of comparable era that is, i.e. 1979-1997? Evidence that means they're "notoriously unreliable"? |
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post: |
November 8th, 2015, 08:53 AM | #16 | |||||||||||||||||||||
paludicolous paravant
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 26,735
Thanks: 75,664
Thanked 745,388 Times in 26,855 Posts
|
Australian PH snapshot stats
Quote:
I had a look at three random issues on VEF, using sweeet's extensive index, and came up with this:
There were no single-name models, either the models were given a full name, or it was a "themed" pictorial with anonymous models. Of the three wrong ones of the June 1995 issue two were porn stars, i.e. they were not given their porn name in there. Several of the unidentified models were presented as Australian which may or may not be right. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post: |
November 8th, 2015, 12:34 PM | #17 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: back in the dirt
Posts: 10,635
Thanks: 29,724
Thanked 89,361 Times in 9,363 Posts
|
imho it's an impossible task to define "what is a reliable ID source". you can ask 10 different model collectors and gain 10 different answers.
imho, and especially for this section, the question should be focussed on what's enough to say that a request is solved. we aren't the global registration office for models. we are, in first case, helping other guys who like to know something about a specific model. and in reflection to this wish, something like "she is Samantha in Men Only Volume 93" is already enough (if it's prooved with available material). how reliable this information is, can be answered in both directions. if you can answer this question with "unreliable" you sure have to deliver a better name. and if that's possible, it's nearly rule that someone joins the request discussion with such a better name. in this business a huge part of models are one-offs or "rare models", who don't have a "reliable" ID at all. do we all want to sort them out, avoid the sign "solved" just because the name we have is unreliable to some? if any single person isn't happy with a given ID, he can always avoid this ID in his own collection. but for me, an ID like "Samantha @Men Only Vol 93" is at least a fact you can't deny. if there is something better, add it. to the request, or to such a model thread. nothing is more easy than to change a name in a thread title.
__________________
You may be the most important brick in the least important wall, but really you're just a bit of something on a bit of something else. Last edited by hos; November 8th, 2015 at 12:47 PM.. |
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to hos For This Useful Post: |
November 8th, 2015, 01:08 PM | #18 | |
paludicolous paravant
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 26,735
Thanks: 75,664
Thanked 745,388 Times in 26,855 Posts
|
That is actually debatable.
Quote:
The most common reason is: finding more material about the model. In that sense, "Samantha in Men Only Volume 93" is an id (of sorts) if that info is new, and it is not if it was not. Should that close the thread though? I would say it should close the thread if Ms Samantha has a separate thread elsewhere in the forum, as this is also a place where extra info can go. If not, it is a useful piece of info, an id of sorts, possibly worth to be recognised in the HOF game (not that I care), but extra info may still come along and had nowhere else to go, so why not keep it open. Another is: classifcation, i.e. future searchability, principal key of a database. What collectors use at home, in their private DBs, does not really matter here, but what does though is how well our search engine copes with it - e.g. creating a thread for French actress Monique Just is a bit of a problem as our search engine removes the word "just" from all searches. |
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post: |
November 8th, 2015, 01:37 PM | #19 |
Vintage Idiot
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 22,135
Thanks: 226,717
Thanked 356,751 Times in 21,630 Posts
|
Vef has two distinct methods of finding or enhancing/improving a model id. One is MIR and it is really excellent--look at how many solves are achieved here each day/week. The second method is where a model's content is posted in model threads. While there, additional content and/or information may be found, including possible changes to thread title.
I know model mods don't want too much of the latter appearing in their domain. & that's right. But we can't preclude all of it from there no matter how hard we try, and in my view if MIR has been tried but not succeeded in turning up any akas, then for a model with an existing acceptable handle there's no harm, and potentially some benefit, to be gained in turning her "loose" from MIR and into a models section. Yes, OK, technically this post has strayed off the thread topic but it was prompted by posts/discussion directly above. Not sure it quite fits the "what is a suitable id" thread, either? |
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post: |
November 8th, 2015, 06:34 PM | #20 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: back in the dirt
Posts: 10,635
Thanks: 29,724
Thanked 89,361 Times in 9,363 Posts
|
Quote:
anyhow... Quote:
sure it's nice and welcomed that with the quest for names further material comes to light, but this was never the factor to run this section and it was never a necessarity for calling a request solved. it's side-effect. you may remember the days when icu and me have taken care of this section - we always kept solved threads for at least a month. this gave enough time for further material, for eventually name changes and more important - for the starter of a request to find his question in the same section where he puts it. after that month, we decided for all those solved requests the ones which are worth to keep. we cleaned them up so that model section moderators don't have any work to do beside welcoming either new content in existing model threads or completely new models. and for all solved models we created ID sheets to have at least one pic / name reference in our stores. all these solved models were logged and announced to the members: http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/t14...pdate-log.html so we rather put some extra work into informing and logging, and we never had to deal with questions about reliability of sources or IDs. may because we had a very comprehensive knowledge of models on our own. may because we had a clear concept which kind of sources we accepted as reliable enough and which sources were dropped (and not one way this, another the next). whatever. sadly, when it comes to "appreciation of work", the majority of forum members either don't take advantage of this work or aren't very thankful. Quote:
in a forum you don't have these relations. you have to build it by hand, with the help by its members and its adminstrators (who can create "subforums" like "classic movies") and its moderators (who can move wrong posts from a model thread to the correct one). the relations of a forum database are forum:thread (1:n), thread:post (1:n) and member:post (1:n), which gives us just those search results and list views we all know. so, no matter what and how we do it here in MIR, the "future searchability" will always be the result of how organized the entire forum is, and not how organized model id request is, beside that the future of threads in this section can be declared as "very temporary" in comparison to the model forums. Quote:
so why not saying solve? people can always come here and ask for the same model again. and not every model must be kept with a separate thread, if there is just the 5 pics in a MenOnly mag which are posted in the mag section. but sure, you can also keep (or create) those threads, if you (or the section mods) like to handle it this way. tl;dr: model id request section is about asking for names. a correct answer based on a "clear line for reliabilty and approval" is already enough to call a request solved. everyone can use this information like he wants to, or add more stuff, more names, better names. everything further (how long will threads be kept here, will they be moved or deleted, what is the clear line for reliability and approval) is in moderators hands.
__________________
You may be the most important brick in the least important wall, but really you're just a bit of something on a bit of something else. Last edited by hos; November 8th, 2015 at 11:48 PM.. Reason: typos and sorts |
||||
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to hos For This Useful Post: |
|
|