Welcome to the Model ID Forum, but BEFORE you post an ID request....

[gonZo]

Due to popular demand, we've decided to create a separate forum for all the 'Who's this?' model ID requests which have previously been posted in the General Forum. Now, users asking for identifications of unknown models and the collective brain-trust of our community can gather here to conduct the business at hand.

Before posting an image or link as part of an ID request, please make sure that the image or linked content is not prohibited in some way by the Forum Rules (viewable from the "Rules" tab at the top of every page). If you’re unable to make sure, DON'T post the image. Instead, please contact one of the moderators.  We may be able to identify the model, or we may be able to verify that the image is safe for you to post.

Thanks,
The Mods

Edit April 5, 2011: the list of "frequently-asked-about ID requested subjects" has been repaired. You can check it before posting a new ID request here: http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,429354.0.html -Palomine

[Palomine]

Just to clarify: The site rules (viewable in the 'RULES' tab at the top of the page) specify that certain models are PROHIBITED from being posted about at the BEA Forums... no pix or links, etc... of/about them are allowed here for legal reasons. *IF* you post an identification request (an "IDQ") that turns out to be of one of the prohibited subjects, you will be held responsible for that violation (usually just receive a warning, unless you've got a long history of rule violations, in which case there may be more significant consequences).

BEFORE you complain that it's unfair (i.e.: "I didn't know who she was, hence my ID request... how can I be held responsible for a posting violation?") let us simply explain that a post of a prohibited subject CREATES THE SAME DEGREE OF LIABILITY for the BEA REGARDLESS of whether you knew it was a violation when you posted it or not. Thus, a rule violation is a rule violation and will be treated as such, regardless of intent.

The only way to avoid this unpleasant scenario is to either NOT post images of subjects you can't identify (erring on the side of caution) or to make every effort to be SURE that even though you don't know who the subject you're about to post is, you're certain that she's NOT one of the prohibited subjects listed in the rules. Admittedly, this is an imperfect solution, but it's the only one we have. Thanks. -Palomine

[Palomine]

"SOLVED" threads:

I've begun editing thread titles to include "SOLVED" with an ID so closed queries will be easily identified from the thread title list in this forum. I'm only about 40 pages in (going in reverse chron)... it'll take a while (I probably won't go all the way back). I'm only making these title edits for IDQs that have definitely been solved... however, if I miss one or maybe there's still some debate about an ID and I should re-edit, please send me a PM to let me know and I'll take care of it. With completed queries marked "SOLVED" folks can skip over them and concentrate their Sherlockian efforts on unresolved ones.

PS: if you see that your ID reQuest gets solved within 24 hours of your original post, you can just use the 'Edit' button in that post to add "SOLVED it's (insert name here)" to the rest of the thread title yourself. As I've done 100's of these and have 1,000s to go, I'd consider each one that I don't have to do a personal favor. Thanks!

Making your requests last longer:

Since some more challenging ID reQuests are sometimes not solved until weeks or months have passed from the initial post, PLEASE don't just rely on a link to an external image file or video... since those links often expire, die or are deleted, which renders your ID reQuest unsolvable and just clutters the forum with an 'unusable' IDQ, PLEASE attach/upload an image to your post (not just a link), so it's (relatively) safe here on our server and your request will be viewable indefinitely and thus have a better chance of being "SOLVED".

One way to find answers for ID reQuests:

With a bit of sleuthing, you can often ID a photo in your own IDQ or someone else's (very altruistic! ) by running the image through http://www.tineye.com/ or http://images.google.com/ ...these are reverse image search engines and if they find a match, you can follow the link(s) to try to come up with a name.

Bumps:

Finally, it's perfectly fine to bump an ID reQuest thread... but like all bumps it's best to wait a few days at a minimum before bumping. Also, bumping an IDQ thread WITHOUT adding another photo of the subject is unlikely to help you get an ID... so, when bumping, attach another photo of the subject (different view/angle, showing distinctive tattoos, etc...) to better aid you in your quest.

Missing pics and dead links:

Due to the sysadmin snafu the other year, the IDQ forum has a 'gap' in missing attachments (pix on our server) just like the other forums. Of course, an IDQ without an image isn't likely to be solved... you can easily FIND which of YOUR PERSONAL IDQ threads are now missing attachments by using the search tool to search just the IDQ forum for posts created by your own username that also contains the string "PIC MISSING" in the subject (I've been editing such threads to contain that in the title). Maybe you remember the photo you posted and still have it on your drive ...if so, feel free to REPLY to the thread to re-attach the image and also bump your request in the process. Sometimes you can still see what the original filename was (of your original attachment file) which might help jog your memory.

Of course, lots of folks simply put a link in their posts (to a clip or image on some external server) and these often get broken over time... I've marked such threads with LINK DEAD or LINK BROKEN in their titles... again, you can search just for your own IDQ posts that now have broken/dead links and find them/fix them (by REPLYing with a working link if you can recall/find what you need to do so). PLEASE ALSO ATTACH a still cap TO your post, so at least a pic will be there if/when the link goes bad again. Thanks.

Thanks!