What Is A Suitable Model ID?

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by effCup

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?

Why indeed? In fact many of our responses to id requests that say "box post" do just that, they identify an unknown request with another unknown. Which is just that: an identification.

I think where there is a difference is when we are trying to be knowingly selective, i.e. not putting every single human being we find an image of into a database (leave that to google), but make a conscious decision about the ones that for one reason or another have some interest. This is what egafd/iafd are doing: they focus on people appearing in pornographic movies, i.e. movies that had some form of commercial release. When our section mods put unidentified models into the mystery box, they make a similar conscious selection of what's worth keeping an eye on.

I would also be in favour of moving some of our additional material threads for box entries into the respective model sections, using the numeric value of the postid in the box (not the number in the box - that changes all of the time) as part of the thread title - as opposed to merely calling her "Jenny from Knave" in the title which is non-distinctive. This is then saying: we know her (or indeed him), perhaps not by name but by face/tit/tattoo, here is where we put material for her, and there is the box entry, and this tag is what we use as her name.

There is one problem with this: stickability of our postids. Box posts tend to get deleted when either the material dies on the imagehost or the mystery is solved or two box entries are joined or there was a take-down request or whatever. To make our box post-ids usable in the same way as the xnk's of egafd we would need to keep (as egafd did) a list/table of deleted box-entries that explains what happened to them when they got deleted, again using the numeric value of the post-id in the list to identify the entry. Thus if the postid had been used as an id-tag and someone tried to follow it but only found a dead link, they can still find in that list why the link is no longer there - ideally with some sort of forward pointer.

Of course it would take some commitment to maintain such a list, but frankly I'd find it (not so pretty to look at but) more useful that the gallery of solved mysteries we have at the moment. For example, people could keep an eye on their very own mystery requests and when an entry is deleted because the material died they could re-up the material and PM a mod with a pointer to the re-up and the deleted post-id, to have the thing re-instated.

[hos]

to break it down the line and make it short:

is a usable numeric ID suitable to say a request is solved?

for machines, and for hardcore collectors like me it would work. but for the most, it won't, because human brains are rather familiar with names when they like to associate something with something else. names hold the key.

if we now decide, that something like "unknown 1234 @iafd", "xnk 4321 @egafd" is a fine match to finish requests, we can now start finishing requests as soon as they've been made, by using the post number and call her "post 6789 @VEF".

that's physically correct. it's a clear pointer and it works to find the corresponding material.

but is it really that what we are here for?

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by hos

for machines, and for hardcore collectors like me it would work. but for the most, it won't, because human brains are rather familiar with names when they like to associate something with something else. names hold the key.

Well, when I organise my very own unknows on my computer, I use numeric keys to keep matters organised. What I sometimes do, for certain common unknowns, is that I give them nicknames (in addition).

The numbers are definitely useful for organisational purposes anyway.

Using them as names is not everyone's cup of tea, so drawing on my nickname trick, we could do something similar as a matter of course: when an additional-material-thread for an unknown is opened the thread creator can give the unknown an invented name of his or her choice, under the condition that the thing is distinct and does not trip up our forum's modest search engine - no point inventing a name here that's used elsewhere or that cannot be found. So we could have some unknowns tagged as Beatrice Beachball or Eulalia von Eulenqual.

Regarding the separate issue of what counts as a solve, and whether the id-request should be dissed, there is the following natural distinction:

• name is found. Tick
• externally recognised unknown (e.g. iafd unknown) is found; that's a half-tick
• internally recognised unknown is found, i.e. the request equals an earlier opened but yet unresolved id-request, e.g. a box entry. Tick.

The difference between the last two is (i) that the former enters the unknown into the system when it was not there before, while in the latter case the request becomes redundant, and (ii) we may regard the efforts of the external source to find a name for the model as potentially insufficient and want to allow the vef crowd have a go at solving the mystery. So in that case that would be a solve in which the id-request would not be closed, unless that externally recognised unknown had a vef-thread anyway.

[ponky]

Originally Posted by hos

if we now decide, that something like "unknown 1234 @iafd", "xnk 4321 @egafd" is a fine match to finish requests, we can now start finishing requests as soon as they've been made, by using the post number and call her "post 6789 @VEF".

Agree.

We must start somewhere, even wrong, and probably lot of us start with some almost-random named folder on HD. However, I do not see point of use XNK (or similar) number as final answer in ID requests.

My opinion is that XNK number can be one of additional guideposts but not solving solution; often databases have, by mistake, ever multiple profiles with names for some models - so what can we expect for XNK pages? Valuable help through which we can find more materials and information, but where we talk about names - next to nothing.

Other way leads to opening of model-topic with that number.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by ponky

However, I do not see point of use XNK (or similar) number as final answer in ID requests.

Well, it will be the final answer if nothing ever follows it up. Even if a name is found that may not be final, because we may find that name later to be a one-off that needs replacing with another name. I myself have openend quite a few named threats on VEF that were later be bolted on to another thread where that model had a more established name.

My opinion is that XNK number can be one of additional guideposts but not solving solution; often databases have, by mistake, ever multiple profiles with names for some models - so what can we expect for XNK pages?

We can expect even more multiple profiles for the same models, but there's nothing wrong with that: these are by definition lesser known models, so the multiplicity is harder to detect. Preventing multiplicities upfront is nigh impossible; it's much more productive to allow them, but to have a system in place to report and correct them.

In the heyday of egafd, whenever a new bunch of unknowns were entered to the database, the regulars would sift through the new candidates and report back when either a new XNK was actually known, or equal to an earlier XNK. We had our own specialist areas (mine was early German sex films), and egafd would in some cases mail the respective specialists beforehand to check over the planned update before it went live. In egafd's XNK system, the identification of two XNKs with one another was effectively a solve like any other, because in either case it meant that one XNK was removed from the system, and in either case this was indicated with an according forward pointer in their solved list, to either another name or another xnk. The identification of two XNKs is similar to identifying a new unknown with a box entry on VEF, except that we do not number our unknowns (they have postids though) and that we do not keep a solved-list either.

[Pepper II]

Originally Posted by hos

...if we now decide, that something like "unknown 1234 @iafd", "xnk 4321 @egafd" is a fine match to finish requests, we can now start finishing requests as soon as they've been made, by using the post number and call her "post 6789 @VEF". that's physically correct. it's a clear pointer and it works to find the corresponding material. but is it really that what we are here for?

Using a VEF post number is impractical since these could change or be removed. In the case of the MIR especially the old threads, whether solved or not, will be removed eventually. And as pointed out by beutelwolf VEF model thread names are not permanent and are routinely changed by either a thread merger or by a more acceptable name being discovered. So the xnk's serve the same purpose as some ambiguous name by merely being a means of collecting her work under one heading.

[hos]

i hate to quote myself, but it seems necessary to say, that

we can now start finishing requests as soon as they've been made, by using the post number and call her "post 6789 @VEF"

wasn't meant serious, it was more the irony of it all, when you want to continue using these numeric IDs for unknowns listed @egafd or iafd.

next time some guy comes around and wants to know "who is unknown female xxx @iafd" and you close his request by telling him: "you already have the answer".

Originally Posted by Pepper II

(..)VEF model thread names are not permanent and are routinely changed by either a thread merger or by a more acceptable name being discovered. So the xnk's serve the same purpose as some ambiguous name by merely being a means of collecting her work under one heading.

no it's not, sorry.

a working name at a maybe random publisher is still more of an ID as a model who is just called "unknown xxx". Even the most random publisher which gave a very random name like "Lucy" to some model is listed with this pretty random name. and imho this is something we can use to solve requests, but not an ID card which already calls her "we don't know her, but we assign her to our database with number xxxx".

such (good) information can be collected inside requests like more unnamed material, like more material with just story names or like unclear suggestions. this is all stuff collected inside a request until it's really solved with something reliable - and not vague.

until then, it's not solved. what's the problem with that nowadays?

(addendum: i agree that it's sometimes not easy to find the right measure to define "what's a reliable ID" and what's not, but "unknown female xxx" or "xnk yyy" was never a reliable ID to solve a request in this forum, and we should keep going with this procedure)

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by hos

next time some guy comes around and wants to know "who is unknown female xxx @iafd" and you close his request by telling him: "you already have the answer".

We close the request if the unknown is a recognised unknown at VEF. Which means there is already an open id request for the same person. That other request remains open.

The reason for closing the new request and not the old one is one of convention, the overall effect would be similar if the new request was kept open and the old one closed (this actually has happened on VEF in a small number of cases when a newer mystery box entry was kept instead of the older equivalent one).

If the unknown is a recognised unknown outside VEF (egafd, iafd, ...) that can still be recognised as a solve (meaning: give credit to the solver in the HOF game), but should not lead to a close-of-thread, because the unknown would typically have no place inside VEF to collect further info, whether it's pictorial material or personal information. If they do have a separate thread in VEF, that's another matter.

a working name at a maybe random publisher is still more of an ID as a model who is just called "unknown xxx".

Not in general. A case in point where I was absolutely fuming about this supposedly superior naming was when at some point on VEF egafd's XNK1600 was re-christedned here "Heidi@CC". What did those names tell us? Her Heidi credentials was in _one_ pictorial of one mag of the CC stable in which her _character_ was called Heidi and her partner Professor Schultz; so the mag did not even pretend that it was her real name. What did XNK1600 tell us? It told us that she appeared in early German sex films, at least 8 feature film length movies.

The other thing is that the "unknown xxx" tags are honest. They say: we do not know the name of this model, though we do know about her professional output. We know that she appeared in this or that mag with highly dubious names attached to her, just see the pictorials we have collected for her; she also appeared in movies X, Y and Z, completely anonymously. If you grew up with "The Prisoner" and find numeric names offensive, fine - invent a fresh name for her, use that as the thread title, but document the invention in the first post of the thread.

[hos]

but it's not about being honest, or if numeric id's are offensive to me (they aren't). and this section is not about the HOF game - this is just a side-effect but not the main factor. this list has NO MEANING at all, since google reverse image search allows everyone to play the ID game with positive results.

i question a status "solved" for a request, which wasn't solved because the model in question was still "unknown". that's my main point.

if, at one point, we aren't able to find anything better, fine, we may can go with such a reference. but please not on the same day a member drops the "unknown female @iafd"-link.

[Pepper II]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

The reason for closing the new request and not the old one is one of convention

I've been either merging the two if there are different pictures or references in both threads or keeping the newer one if the old one has no content value. The reason for this is the old thread would be scheduled for removal sooner. This way the request automatically stays alive.