Mutltiple Posts - Duplicates

[Tony T]

Of late there seems to have been the fashion for posting large numbers of pictures in various galleries without much thought as to whether or not a picture has already been posted. A number of the later posts are duplicates and often of a lower size/quality.:frown:

It is apparent that some posters make no effort to check the gallery before posting - presumably they are only interested in 'achieving numbers'. This was highlighted in a recent discussion post on the 'most popular models', based on the numbers of pictures in their folders. Kevin rightly pointed out that the sheer number of pictures was not a guide because of the number of duplicate/triplicates in some folders.

Whilst I am all for keeping this site at the forefront of being a definitive guide to all the luscious ladies of the past, there is a danger of it becoming so cluttered with multiple repeats of pictures, some of questionable quality, as to lose it's way, which would be very sad.

Sorry for the 'moan', but I feel strongly that this site has grown to be the best of it's type by the hard work of the Administrators/Moderators and the members and it would be a shame to lose that position through the over exuberance of some posters.

TT

[Mushashi7]

Of late there seems to have been the fashion for posting large numbers of pictures in various galleries without much thought as to whether or not a picture has already been posted. A number of the later posts are duplicates and often of a lower size/quality.:frown:

It is apparent that some posters make no effort to check the gallery before posting - presumably they are only interested in 'achieving numbers'. This was highlighted in a recent discussion post on the 'most popular models', based on the numbers of pictures in their folders. Kevin rightly pointed out that the sheer number of pictures was not a guide because of the number of duplicate/triplicates in some folders.

Whilst I am all for keeping this site at the forefront of being a definitive guide to all the luscious ladies of the past, there is a danger of it becoming so cluttered with multiple repeats of pictures, some of questionable quality, as to lose it's way, which would be very sad.

Sorry for the 'moan', but I feel strongly that this site has grown to be the best of it's type by the hard work of the Administrators/Moderators and the members and it would be a shame to lose that position through the over exuberance of some posters.

TT

You are right, Tony.
Primarily there can be a lot of repostings because it is hard to get the main overview of a folders content. Use 240 Images a page as standard will help a lot.
Secondary because people are too lazy to even look for duplicates.

All moderators are deleting duplicates all the time. It is not that we are lazy, but the task is also heavy on us. Nobody can remember every single picture posted :redface:

What you can do is reporting some of the duplicates you discover. It would help a great deal.
If you discover a folder that is very messy please PM me. I'll try to have a look at it.
Another help would be if you state some specifics, of course.

Mush

[Tony T]

Mush

Thanks for your response - I hope you didn't think I was having a go at the Moderators, because I wasn't. You all do a very difficult (and time consuming job) very well and that is why this site is as good as it is.

My peeve was at the lazy posters.

I don't have the time at present to offer my services officially in helping with the site, but am happy to report as suggested.

TT

[legin]

I totally agree with Tony T!!...I personally check Nika's folder every so often and always report re-posts...maybe if members sometimes/every so often checked through folders of their fav' models for dupes this would help the mod's a little.

[kevin]

I totally agree with Tony T!!...I personally check Nika's folder every so often and always report re-posts...maybe if members sometimes/every so often checked through folders of their fav' models for dupes this would help the mod's a little.

Legin patrols that folder like a man possessed :eek: Thanked many times too.

A couple of the popular folders/babes are being swollen with vidcaps and sub folders are needed - Christy Canyon for one.

Not everything uploaded gets through, Tony. I won't name names but many are rejected as reposts - some unfortunately not from laziness - posted the other day and rejected :frown: - UNKNOWN BIG TIT MODEL
http://www.myarchives.net/gallery/files/7/4/3/0/breasts012.jpg

[shadowwolf]

Legin patrols that folder like a man possessed :eek: Thanked many times too.

A couple of the popular folders/babes are being swollen with vidcaps and sub folders are needed - Christy Canyon for one.

Not everything uploaded gets through, Tony. I won't name names but many are rejected as reposts - some unfortunately not from laziness - posted the other day and rejected :frown: - UNKNOWN BIG TIT MODEL
http://www.myarchives.net/gallery/files/7/4/3/0/breasts012.jpg

Dibs on Candy Barr!:biggrin:

[charliels531]

Tony, you and all the mods are on the same wavelength, but there are a couple of issues: 1) Sometimes the duplicates are better quality, in which case we delete the lower quality shot; and 2) lately there has been a huge increase in the sheer number of submissions from two or three members.

I emphatically agree that we need a vidcap category for many more models, including C.C. and Ebony Ayes.

[shadowwolf]

2) lately there has been a huge increase in the sheer number of submissions from two or three members.

I emphatically agree that we need a vidcap category for many more models, including C.C. and Ebony Ayes.

Yeah, I've noticed that to, Charlie.

Don't get me wrong...the models that they are submitting are all good enough to make me wear a ''drool bib'' when I'm here. But, with the shear amount of pix that these 3-4 are submitting, I almost feel like it's a contest to see who can flood the site first. Another site I visit allows only 5 uploads / day.

I'd sure as hell hate to see that happen here...since this is THE place for all of us ''Honey Hunters''.:cool:

[Tony T]

Tony, you and all the mods are on the same wavelength, but there are a couple of issues: 1) Sometimes the duplicates are better quality, in which case we delete the lower quality shot; and 2) lately there has been a huge increase in the sheer number of submissions from two or three members.

I emphatically agree that we need a vidcap category for many more models, including C.C. and Ebony Ayes.

Charlie - as I mentioned above I have the utmost admiration for all the hard work the Moderators put in and appreciate the recent flood of posts has posed a processing problem. I only wish I had time to offer more than occasional help in highlighting the odd issue.

I definitely agree that lower quality pictures should be deleted in preference to better quality 'doubles'. My initial 'rant':rolleyes: was as a result of having downloaded a run of pics of a model only to find that a noticeable number were in fact duplicates of a lower resolution than ones previously posted. Also there was a series of pics (of another model) a while ago that consisted of deliberate duplicates of different resolutions, although this was picked up in another thread a week or so back.

TT

[lovin60s]

I am relatively new to this site and as such hesitate to make waves - it's not in my nature. However, since this thread was already started, I'd like to add my 2 cents.

This is really a GREAT site for lovers of the buxom women of the past and I would hate to see it deteriorate with the massive duplications that seem to be growing at an exponential rate. For example, my all time favorite is Candy Samples (bet you haven't heard that before :biggrin: ). Anyway, as of this date, the first page of her galley contains a whopping 24 duplicates out of the 40 pictures on that page. That's 60% of the pictures posted are duplicates. I categorize her pictures by location, clothes, type, etc. so I know that 60% is fact - not an estimate. I looked at the second page and since I'm short of time I did not get an exact count but going from memory I'm estimating the duplication rate on that page at 30% to 40%. These percentages are way too high.

Now don't get me wrong. I am grateful - and I mean really grateful - to those who take the time to post in the gallery - but it seems to me that if they are posting pictures then they should have some idea if the photo is a duplicate. I see duplicates being posted by the same member which I am at a loss to understand. A poster must be fan, to some degree, of the models they are posting and as such I have to assume they have reviewed the photos in the galley. Doesn't a light go on, at least sometime, in their head that says "hey I saw this picture before in the gallery". Apparently not because, again in the case of Candy Samples, there are many photos that are not just duplicates but 4 , 5, 6, or 7 copies of the same photo. I estimate that out of the 2,000+ photos in her gallery, 25% are duplicates.

The Administrators/Moderators can only do so much and I cannot say enough for their efforts. The members must take more responsibility and start being a little more selective in the photos they post. Quality is much preferred over quantity - this applies to live women as well as photos. :smile:

Since I have the floor, one more thing. VIDCAPS. Please don't flood the galley with vidcaps. Anyone can take a movie on a DVD and watch it fame by fame if that's their thing. A "gallery" - is meant for pictures, not movie excerpts. I've see sequences of vidcaps in the gallery that go on for 15 or 20 vidcaps of a movie frame by frame. The last fame in the sequence is basically the same as the first since 20 frames is less that a second on the screen. This makes no sense to me. It just clutters things up. Going back to the Candy Samples gallery, I estimate over 10% of the gallery is vidcaps - reticules in my opinion.

To summarize:
I am very grateful to those who post to the galley and I want them to keep it up with all the enthusiasm they can. However, please make at least a little effort to be more selective in your postings. As for the Administrators/Moderators, I can't say enough for the effort you put forth. Thank You, Thank You, Thank You :wink:

[kevin]

Anyway, as of this date, the first page of her galley contains a whopping 24 duplicates out of the 40 pictures on that page. That's 60% of the pictures posted are duplicates.

Whoah!! I must be looking at a different Candy folder :eek:

Nice to see some dedication from a newer member, lovin60's but you may be confusing Vidcaps as reposts ( which need to be moved too ) - There were three pics that i removed from the first page - the member in question obviously did not look at the folder or he would have seen them. The Candy folder has at a conservative estimate 20% reposts and with the vidcaps moved that will slim it down some.
A good exercise is to bring up the second last page and the first or second page in a new tab/window and check between the two - i run at 160 pics per page - 40 is too small :smile:

Ebony Ayes,Virginia Bell and now Christy Canyon have vidcap/screenshot sub folders.

http://www.myarchives.net/gallery/files/4/0/5/4/canspank05.jpg
http://www.myarchives.net/gallery/files/4/0/5/4/canspank04.jpg

[lovin60s]

I think I wasn't specific enough in my last post on this thread and my words got misinterpreted. I said:

Anyway, as of this date, the first page of her (Candy Samples) galley contains a whopping 24 duplicates out of the 40 pictures on that page. That's 60% of the pictures posted are duplicates.The response was:


Whoah!! I must be looking at a different Candy folderSo to clarify - I did not mean that the 24 duplications occurred all within those 40 photos. What I meant is: Among those 40 photos, 24 of those photos are duplications of photos that exist among the 2000+ that have been previously posted to her folder.

[charliels531]

Well, if this keeps up, we'll have to spank Candy some more!!

[shadowwolf]

Well, if this keeps up, we'll have to spank Candy some more!!

Charlie...you lay one hand on Her...and She might well be forced to spank you!:biggrin: ( I'm gonna be first in line, though, if She is doing the spanking:wink:)


Anyway...the hardest thing to do is keep a running tab on what pix are in a gallery. Unless you have an ediec memory like Mr. Data from 'Star Trek'...there's no way you can do it. It's just not possible.

SO...As I wander through the galleries here, I'll try and keep an eye peeled for any photos that might be duplicates; and notify the moderators.THAT, really, is the best, I feel, that we all can do.:smile:

[rainman_927]

Gentlemen, the moderators and administrators have an almost insurmountable task in catching and clearing duplicates. Based upon my observations, the site is going through a tremendous growth spurt in the terms of new members and those that are active.

I am a prime example, I have been here 3 months. Look at my numbers. One of the reasons that the number of images that I have posted is so limited is partially due to duplication, the other is what the posting guidelines are, not a lack of images that I could post. I check and double check the file before posting, but even doing that last week I missed one. I caught and reported it immediately and it was only on the site for 15-20 min. So, if I could miss 1 out of 6 even by double checking, imagine what it is like with the 100s of images posted daily.

Part of the problem is due to how the photo sections are set up and the other is in the numbering and identifying of the individual photos. Example, let say you want to post a retro image to the site, a gloved hairy buxom blonde with her arm covering her face identified, Opera Gloves. Where do you put her? Obviously, in the Jayne Mansfied folder. Right? That is if you knew that it was JM in the first place, so you upload "Opera Gloves" not noticing that someone else posted the mirror image under Jayne_0001 or Mansfield_Jayne_00258 in an earlier post. Or what about the Marilyn Monroe pose seen in the first Playboy, I have 10 variations plus a number of art works that have appeared in magazines and calendars . Should these too not go into her file? What about the women who were photographed under multiple names? Then you have a totally volunteer groups trying to sort through all the mess. Therein lies the problems.

Well, not to be one who just rants without providing a solution I have one that will end all duplication in a matter of hours. It is called the Johnsonian- Sherman Plan. or Johnsonian/Sherman, for short. The men from which the names derives, are the British writer and philosopher, Samuel Johnson, "A Modest Proposal" and William T. Sherman, U.S. General, and the business model that bears his name. There are some who will immediately accept and see the wisdom and logic in implementing a means to end this quickly and without dragging the problem out over months. The Johnsonian/Sherman Method is quite simple and has only two steps or stages to implement. Stage One-ban all uploads to the galleries, if files are not being uploaded they cannot be duplicated. Stage Two-will bring all duplication complaints and eradicate all duplication in a matter of hours. It is without doubt or argument the only method that can reduce all duplication to zero, go the file editor hit select all and then select delete and answer yes when prompted, are you sure?:confused: :eek: No more duplications, of course there a no files, but it did quickly solve the problem. No more complaints that hairy_babe0001236 is a duplicate of hairy_babe6321000. Moderators your problem has been solved. :smile:

All kidding aside, as you all know there are no easy solutions. It will take time. effort and diligence of all members of the site to overcome and correct the problems. The real questions are how severe is the problem and whether the benefits of having these massive additions to the site are overshadowed by the problems. Is is a matter of fact or perception? if indeed there is a serious problem then some action must be taken.

If the severity of the problem warrants it then actions might be required. Whatever is done it should not punish those who are willing to share and provide the site with its its lifeblond, new and exciting content. A moratorium or limitation on uploads might be necessary, but only temporarily. Another option may be that rather than adding massive uploads to existing files is that they are uploaded to a separate folder, then it would be the uploaders responsibility for verification of originality and elimination of duplicates and with a reasonable time frame to complete. Files over a certain size could be uploaded to a download site with a description and preview in the appropriate formum, then if a member is interested they can download. The adoption of a uniform file identification and numbering system would be a major help in the entire process. Jayne 0001 is a great deal easier than gloved blonde. Reasonable people can come up with reasonable solutions.

But then the there is always Johnsonian-Sherman.:biggrin:

[kevin]

Done! All folders are closed to further posts - no need to thank me - all credit to rainman :smile:

The problem is mainly the 5-6 big folders: Uschi Candy Roberta etc. And the not so obvious ones - June palmer - Suzanne pritchard ( removed a dozen reposts today ) Now, if i can spot a repost within 2-3 pages when checking a folder against an upload - i ask myself why didn't the member see it/them..

The answer is they almost never look and it is a pleasant surprise when you do find a member who has taken the time to check -- members can use the report to moderator function to report a repost if they so desire.

[TallGreenToad]

I do want to chime in and mention that there is a definite time element problem when there are no sub-, and sub-sub-folders for a particular model and a poster is trying to avoid duplication....and one is on dial-up.

I'm not bragging, simply stating the simple fact that - before I posted the few 'Busty Golfer' images a few days ago - I set the images per page up to 120(I think) and spent almost two hours plodding through images trying to spot one I had, and thus remove it from my 'PostIt' folder.
But I wanted to round out the collection of the photoset for posterity and thus it was worth it...

That said, the 'creating sub-folders' job is gonna be daunting. Just for Ms. Brown I've created(on my own database);
Main: Blonde, Brunette
Sub within that is: Indoors, Outdoors, SpiderPool
Sub within THOSE are: Alone, w/Blonde, w/Brunette
And there are still perhaps ten more categories if I had the time and patience to sort them all out...! And still some photos wouldn't 'fit'...

The only thing I can think of is to modify the military system - ('Paper, Toilet, Personal, For the Use of') of categorization to save the Moderators hundreds of hours of work individualizing the sub-folders...

In the meantime, I'll try to be careful to avoid posting a dupe...

[rainman_927]

Done! All folders are closed to further posts - no need to thank me - all credit to rainman :smile:

The problem is mainly the 5-6 big folders: Uschi Candy Roberta etc. And the not so obvious ones - June palmer - Suzanne pritchard ( removed a dozen reposts today ) Now, if i can spot a repost within 2-3 pages when checking a folder against an upload - i ask myself why didn't the member see it/them..

The answer is they almost never look and it is a pleasant surprise when you do find a member who has taken the time to check -- members can use the report to moderator function to report a repost if they so desire.

I guess with my post, I really stepped in it. Well, not being one to say who me? or shy away from controversy, I accept whatever part I played. I knew as I wrote and edited that post that some of my suggestions would be implemented. The tone from many of the earlier post indicated that changes had and were going to be made. So, no hate mail please.

If I understand Kevin's post, please clarify if I am wrong, that no new additions/uploads to any folder or no new sub folders can be made. If that is the cases, it was expected. but regrettable. You can imagine my disappointment after spending an inordinate amount of time creating new folders for potential uploads, how I feel.

Part of the problem lies in the lack of understanding of the folder system by many. Without that, duplication is bound to occur. It is not the fault of the site, but the responsibility of the members to go to each and see what is there. This, also applies to the forums as well. How many members read the announcements, etc. It is a matter of individual responsibility that few exercise.

As others have stated, it is a monumental task for me to sort files(one of my files has over 5000 images) that I have in various zip and unzipped files and folders on cd's and other storage media, let alone what I have on 500 GB of hard drives and remote storage for my own use. Part of the problem is that I have too many interests with it comes to this area, from a historial, artistic, photographic and erotic point of view. The duplication of my own files is and can be expected, because of the multitude of classifications-name, busty, hairy, retro, vintage, etc.

What I have been trying to do with my image posts is to provide a unique or different view. I used a number of different standards before posting. I have limited my posts, many times because it fails to meet that criteria. The second limiting factor is image quality. Does it meet the sites guidelines? Finally, after checking and double checking is it a duplicate?

Exercising the effort and spending the time doing this and creating new folders for potential uploads, as stated, and not having the opportunity to post them is disappointing. But I am working on a solution. One of my thoughts is just to load some of my edited and unedited files to the online storage sites, post a form with a link. some of these may be duplications of other files, set that they already have because they come from a number of sources and were not of my creation. I never thought of storing the link. Let the downloaders determine whether it meets their needs. It is a win/win solution. It removes the burden off the site, the moderators, and me. Others might want to try the same.

I really look at the entire issue a matter of personal responsibility. Many times well intentioned acts have unexspected consequences. I believe that has been the problem here. My proposed method may be a solution. There may be others and a clarification on the changes. It has been a few days since I have been on site and this was the first post that I accessed in my links file.

There may be oth

[winger]

There are tons of members but a very small amount who post here and CARE about what goes on and an even smaller amount of Mods.
To you, our tride and true REAL members I thank you for your vigilance and input. This wonderful sites continues to go through growing pains and has since I joined.

[kevin]

If I understand Kevin's post, please clarify if I am wrong, that no new additions/uploads to any folder or no new sub folders can be made. If that is the cases, it was expected. but regrettable. You can imagine my disappointment after spending an inordinate amount of time creating new folders for potential uploads,
http://www.myarchives.net/customprofilepics/profilepic16413_18.gif
My mistake, that was a joke - nothing is closed rainman.
- thanks for your well thought out posts here - yes the forums are not accessed as much as they should be, many times through contact with members i have heard " i never go there" or " i don't bother" :frown:

The only change will be the number of vidcaps posted in the galleries.

Instead of flooding the gallery with vidcaps,it would be better to post the clip or movie to the appropriate forum.

[rainman_927]

http://www.myarchives.net/customprofilepics/profilepic16413_18.gif
My mistake, that was a joke - nothing is closed rainman.
- thanks for your well thought out posts here - yes the forums are not accessed as much as they should be, many times through contact with members i have heard " i never go there" or " i don't bother" :frown:

The only change will be the number of vidcaps posted in the galleries.

Instead of flooding the gallery with vidcaps,it would be better to post the clip or movie to the appropriate forum.

Well, that is a relief. I saw the :smile: and felt that it may have been a joke. I was not offended. One reason I spend a great deal of time here is the good natured joking and light hearted tongue in cheek comments. I did notice after making my post that new picture files were being loaded. I checked the forums and saw that there were no announcements about a ban, limitation, moratorium or anything else. Your reply just confirmed everything.

My last two posts did take some time to compose and edit. Some take as long as trying to review a folder in one of the galleries:smile:. Well, not quite that long. I guess that trying to be sometimes humouous and thoughtful in these is the reason. Of course, being a slow and lousy typist is the main culprit.

Since I am here, I might as well discuss the topic with some specifics that occurred today. The problems did not relate to actual duplications in any particular folder, but are the basis which helps generate them.

I spent 2-3 hours going through galleries and it was a major source of frustration. Access and loading was painfully slow. :frown: To put it nicely, it is something only the "god of chaos" could love. Even if you had a reasonable idea of where someone should be you might have to go through 2-3 galleries to find her, if at all. Some appear to have been a "dumping ground". There is no organization, no consistancy, or standardization, other than the last post is the first viewed. They are sadly in need of attention. It is the galleries themselves that need to be addressed first. I believe that many would agree that a major overhaul is necessary. My observation is unless something is done, the possibility for duplication increases and is inevitable.

The problems with the galleries are they lack definition and organization. They have no rhyme or reason. They are too large. Should wmv and avi, be found mixed in picture files? Why are there 4 pics of a woman on page 1, 2 on page 4, 6 on page 7, etc. and then 10 of her on page 20? In this example why doesn't she have her own folder? Why is she listed as busty,natural, stripper, blonde, by her name or the ever popular, 01? Does listing a woman as busty001, 001busty, 001VB, natural1301, of the same woman make any sense? Many women have and could be legitimately and logically found in multiple galleries. Given all these factors, it isn't going to be easy to clean out the folders. But it is a necessity.

I have a few suggestions that may work. Some may be only a temporary fix, but may be helpful until more permanent ones are found. Some of my ideas and variations follow, in no particular order. Start breaking down the folders into a more workable size. Give the large volume posters their own folders. No direct assignment of new posts to existing folders or at least to large ones. All new post go into a named temporary file awaiting final determination in the proper main or sub folder when it reaches say 100, folder #2 is created. Large posts get their own folders and sub folders. Establish a criteria for individual folders. Set a folder size limit. Start breaking the folders down into smaler sizes. Establish a criteria of all new posts go into their own to be assigned folder. Establish a criteria for All new posts put into a to be assigned folder. Establish a uniform numbering system. Run a sort on existing folders. I believe adopting any one or more of these be result in improvements.

Because of what I encountered today with the folders as they are my frustation level is high. One can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Therefore, I have decided that rather than run the risk or waste the time, I just will not post to certain galleries. Hopefully, this will be temporary. Someone who isn't as patient as I would probably just said to hell with it.

[rainman_927]

Over the last 2 months, I have spent a considerable amount of time in the galleries and folders doing some research for some planned posts etc. To put it mildly, it was frustrating and an exercise in futility. And that is in the realitively small folders, not the mega ones such as Candy Samples or Roberta Pedon, etc. I know that this subject has been cuss and discussed, but it is an issue that is not going to miraculously correct itself or one remedied by mere acknowledgement of the problem. I have some observations or random thoughts and questions about the galleries and recommendations that may be of benefit.

In general, the galleries while designed to be a logical depository of pictures of a particular model, type, or genre are not. Recent posters did contribute to some of this, but the problems date back to the original creation of the folders or 2006/07. The old adage "the road to hell was paved with good intentions" is very applicable. The folders are amorphous and appear lack any set criteria. Yes, some are very logical, unfortunately, there are too few. There are instances of the same photo or photos which would seem to be properly placed in her folder, that are in the big tit, blonde/brunette, etc. folders,or in those folders but not hers. Why? Additionally, there are folders for models with as few as 3 images(1 duplication), another between 20-30 with 6 dupes, etc. and 30 plus images of another model without a folder of her own. Why? In one folder(pre1980s playmates), there are over 20 misidentifications/errors/ duplications/flipped images not including incorrect corrections. Why? Instances of duplication right next to each other. Why? Since some groups may have over 800 images making identifying and reporting duplicates problematic just because of their sheer size. Why? Etc. Etc. Ad infinitum.

A systematic approach to correcting the problems needs to be established. This is a monumental undertaking and without set of workable guidelines it will be doom to failure. Remove all the wmv, avi's, video clips, etc from the picture galleries into a separate area. Establish criteria for the big tit, blondes, brunettes etc. to avoid duplication. Create subfolders in some of the groups. Breaking down say pre 1980s Playmates into the 50s, 60s and 70s and then with individual folders is more logical than having to wade through 100s of images from the 60s and 70s when you are trying to find a specific 50s playmate. Start putting all identified models in their own folders and then place the folder in the proper section of the gallery. Create a simple form, photo ABC is a duplicate of XYZ delete XYZ; photos HIJ, MNO move to ____Gallery,etc.

While it could be argued that the creation of all the folders and subfolders would take up excessive amounts of space, in reality the net result will be less space. In addition, the benefits of making the site more manageable are immeasureable. It is hope that the logic of these proposals is not only viewed upon favorably, but that action is taken.

[kevin]

Thanks for your input rainman, yes some folders are a mess :- Roberta, Candy, Uschi - all been touched on before.

All the small clips should be here. (http://www.myarchives.net/gallery/browseimages.php?c=14) retro movies movies from the 1900s to the 1960s - the title will be changed to include the 80's.

You have to understand that working here is incredibly time consuming, if only the mods could right click on an item and edit/move etc. but it does not work that way unfortunately.

there are folders for models with as few as 3 images(1 duplication), another between 20-30 with 6 dupes, etc. and 30 plus images of another model without a folder of her own.

There is and has always been options for contacting moderators - admin, under image tools - report to moderator.

Model folders are made ( should be made ) when there are enough images - rough criteria is around 12 - 15 minimum. If you have found a model with enough pics contact one of us and the folder can be set up - i didn't think that there were that many left without a home.

When i became a member the site looked nothing like it does today - the bigger folders ( Big Tits etc. ) were humungous :smile:
They were trawled through and folders set up and filled.

Flooding is the cause of most of the problems along with posters not checking folders, i can tell you that nearly half of uploads lately are rejected - it is not easy to post here, some do it very well others not so good.

[rainman_927]

I understand the problem it is the same as when I was in management too much to do and not enough staff or time to do it. I empathize with the adminstrators and moderators, you are under paid and under appreciated. I didn't realize moving a file was so difficult.

I do have several other questions. Why don't we avoid some of the problems before they occur? Example, if I have 10-20 pics, such as those that I uploaded on Arline Hunter, who had a file. Can I set up a folder or request a folder for her prior to the upload? This would save time and effort, rather than dumping them into a temp folder and then requesting they be moved. Can I request a 50s, 60s and 70s Playmate folder? Those would be of great help in cleaning up that mess.

[BEAUABER237]

It is called the Johnsonian- Sherman Plan. or Johnsonian/Sherman, for short. The men from which the names derives, are the British writer and philosopher, Samuel Johnson, "A Modest Proposal" and William T. Sherman, U.S. General, and the business model that bears his name. :

Since this site strives for accuracy, let me point out that it was Jonathan Swift who wrote "A Modest Proposal".

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Dr Johnson is most famous for the Dictionary and for the slavish devotion of Thomas Boswell who wrote his biography, "The Life of Johnson". BTW, if you want make yiurself sick with laughter, check out the Blackadder episode "Ink & Incapability" (1987) with Rowan Atkinson and Hugh Laurie - long before anyone had ever heard of Dr House - which concerns the dictionary.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0526724/

[spectral]

I thought I'd seen this thread before somewhere.

I wondered if it was current.

[Tony T]

I thought I'd seen this thread before somewhere.

I wondered if it was current.

It hasn't been posted to since 2009, but the topic is even more relevant today as there are now numerous duplicates appearing with the vast increase in membership. I also think the topic has been discussed in other threads.

TT

[burpman]

I agree with most of the observations in the forum and I try to avoid posting duplicates except for the following circumstances:

a) the original post is of a vastly inferior quality (bad scan, photo, etc)
b) the scan or photo has been cropped excessively

There are still numerous numbers of photos though where there doesn't seem to be a discerning difference between the duplicates. The Jeanine Swenson folder is one that comes to mind. There are some tools to process duplicates which the admin level user maybe can avail themselves of. I don't know if Vbulletin has such tools but the simplest approach would be to take a thumbnail directory of all folders and dupe that locally and run some PC based package to look for duplicates.

[spectral]

It hasn't been posted to since 2009, but the topic is even more relevant today as there are now numerous duplicates appearing with the vast increase in membership. I also think the topic has been discussed in other threads.

TT

I did a search prior to posting and didn't find as many threads as I expected. I thought this one of the better ones. Perhaps duplicate discussion should be a "sticky" thread.

Checking for dupes prior to posting is tedious and it's easy to miss one now and then.
Go into the Candy thread looking for dupes and you might not come out again.

I thought pushing this thread back up again might be a helpful reminder.

[spectral]

Lately if I find a duplicate, I've been posting a link to the
prior image copy in the comments for the more recent copy.

I noticed in post #23 Kevin recommends:

"There is and has always been options for contacting moderators - admin, under image tools - report to moderator."

...so what information should go into the report.


I have noticed some posters explain in comments that the new
post is an upgrade of a previous post (somewhere). Seems like
that might be helpful. I don't recall if a link is provided to find the
older copy.