June 28th, 2015, 06:13 AM | #61 | |
Maestro
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sin City
Posts: 4,513
Thanks: 26,200
Thanked 84,024 Times in 4,350 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Immy For This Useful Post: |
June 28th, 2015, 06:31 AM | #62 | |
paludicolous paravant
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 26,876
Thanks: 76,030
Thanked 751,106 Times in 26,998 Posts
|
Quote:
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? |
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post: |
June 28th, 2015, 10:02 AM | #63 | ||
Vintage Idiot
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 22,242
Thanks: 227,351
Thanked 359,979 Times in 21,740 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. 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. |
||
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post: |
June 28th, 2015, 10:08 AM | #64 | |
Vintage Idiot
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 22,242
Thanks: 227,351
Thanked 359,979 Times in 21,740 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post: |
June 28th, 2015, 11:29 AM | #65 | |
paludicolous paravant
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 26,876
Thanks: 76,030
Thanked 751,106 Times in 26,998 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post: |
June 28th, 2015, 10:04 PM | #66 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sunny South Florida
Posts: 7,882
Thanks: 165,471
Thanked 119,902 Times in 7,671 Posts
|
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. |
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Pepper II For This Useful Post: |
June 29th, 2015, 11:50 AM | #67 |
Vintage Idiot
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 22,242
Thanks: 227,351
Thanked 359,979 Times in 21,740 Posts
|
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. |
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post: |
June 30th, 2015, 12:09 AM | #68 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,445
Thanks: 18,112
Thanked 17,931 Times in 1,341 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ponky For This Useful Post: |
June 30th, 2015, 03:51 AM | #69 |
Vintage Idiot
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: History
Posts: 22,242
Thanks: 227,351
Thanked 359,979 Times in 21,740 Posts
|
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?
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post: |
July 8th, 2015, 03:04 PM | #70 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere flat, that's either hot, cold, or windy ... Canada?
Posts: 1,966
Thanks: 42,100
Thanked 21,385 Times in 1,903 Posts
|
|
|
|