[Palomine]

I don't know what's been going around lately, but there sure has been a lot of complaining, and ironically, it's mostly about too much/many pictures being posted.   Many popular threads are years old... it's not reasonable or realistic to expect every single user who's wanting to post a pic in that thread to manually pore over every single post on every single page of the thread to be sure it hasn't already been posted before they post, is it? I mean, which is worse: a dupe (or similar) pic getting posted, or us all missing out on a good pic completely, due to an overabundance of caution (about possibly making a dupe post)?

If the very act of seeing a similar or dupe photo is so off-putting, then all I can suggest is that you just don't open popular/active threads where it's likely to happen once in a while. Or, to be completely safe from dupe posting, maybe turn off your computer and cancel your 'net account with your ISP... only that way can you be sure that dupe posts won't rear their ugly heads in your daily life.

We've been here for between 15 and 20 years now... certainly by far the longest-lived and best-attended online forum on the planet for our shared interests. I don't understand why some people regard the unavoidable side-effects of such longevity (dupe posts, differing opinions/interests between users, postiing pix of retired models, etc...) as being so annoying as to justify publicly complaining about them. This is a diverse community of individuals and other users will wind up posting stuff you're not wild about... that's unavoidable. If you find it so offensive, maybe you should think about why...

[Glottis]

I don't know what's been going around lately, but there sure has been a lot of complaining, and ironically, it's mostly about too much/many pictures being posted.   Many popular threads are years old... it's not reasonable or realistic to expect every single user who's wanting to post a pic in that thread to manually pore over every single post on every single page of the thread to be sure it hasn't already been posted before they post, is it? I mean, which is worse: a dupe (or similar) pic getting posted, or us all missing out on a good pic completely, due to an overabundance of caution (about possibly making a dupe post)?

If the very act of seeing a similar or dupe photo is so off-putting, then all I can suggest is that you just don't open popular/active threads where it's likely to happen once in a while. Or, to be completely safe from dupe posting, maybe turn off your computer and cancel your 'net account with your ISP... only that way can you be sure that dupe posts won't rear their ugly heads in your daily life.

We've been here for between 15 and 20 years now... certainly by far the longest-lived and best-attended online forum on the planet for our shared interests. I don't understand why some people regard the unavoidable side-effects of such longevity (dupe posts, differing opinions/interests between users, postiing pix of retired models, etc...) as being so annoying as to justify publicly complaining about them. This is a diverse community of individuals and other users will wind up posting stuff you're not wild about... that's unavoidable. If you find it so offensive, maybe you should think about why...

Obviously, this is my personal opinion, and this isn't the best place to discuss it, but

1) It's very easy to miss a great new picture because it's lost in a sea of extremely similar photos. I'd consider that to be way more likely to make me miss a good photo than anything else.
2) This isn't a function of the forum being old, it's a function of one or two users, largely salem, who bump 10-30 threads a day with very similar if not the same pictures as what already existed in the threads. It's much harder to tell if a picture has been posted already because they've posted so many similar ones and utterly dominate posts from any other users. Up until a couple of years ago this wasn't even remotely an issue, and as you mentioned the forum had over 10 years before that.
3) My understanding was that the entire reason the 1-1-1 rule was created was to prevent threads from being a complete image dump from a particular shoot, but in reality posters that are patient and consistent enough are doing it anyway. I don't believe the forum was ever intended to be a place to catalog every photo of every girl with a thread, and yet that's how some users are using it.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable, and I'm not rabidly screaming at anyone. I won't bring it up again.

[Palomine]

Obviously, this is my personal opinion, and this isn't the best place to discuss it, but

1) It's very easy to miss a great new picture because it's lost in a sea of extremely similar photos. I'd consider that to be way more likely to make me miss a good photo than anything else.
2) This isn't a function of the forum being old, it's a function of one or two users, largely salem, who bump 10-30 threads a day with very similar if not the same pictures as what already existed in the threads. It's much harder to tell if a picture has been posted already because they've posted so many similar ones and utterly dominate posts from any other users. Up until a couple of years ago this wasn't even remotely an issue, and as you mentioned the forum had over 10 years before that.
3) My understanding was that the entire reason the 1-1-1 rule was created was to prevent threads from being a complete image dump from a particular shoot, but in reality posters that are patient and consistent enough are doing it anyway. I don't believe the forum was ever intended to be a place to catalog every photo of every girl with a thread, and yet that's how some users are using it.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable, and I'm not rabidly screaming at anyone. I won't bring it up again.

I didn't imply you were "screaming" at anyone... I'm just reading what you (and others) have written, and am responding... as all of us can express our views.

I do recall some users complaining MORE than 10 years ago that some threads were just collections of pictures. They didn't (and presumably still don't) like that and a few even went so far as to suggest that forums are for text only. That's one view... not one I share personally, but certainly if that's someone's opinion, they're entitled to it and to express it.

I understand that you say that you think you're more likely to miss a photo because there are too many/similar pix of a particular model in a thread*. Since there's no way for us to measure such a theory, and since it's subjective (it might be different for another user), there's not much we can do about that directly. We've got no way to measure what never gets posted of course, let alone why a never-made post (didn't) happen... but let's not get into a discussion of Rumfeldian "unknown unknonws" ...if only because he's such an epic sanctimonious douchebag war criminal (IMHO... I'm sure some consider him a scholar, saint and patriot).

The 1-1-1 rule was created to prevent the rapid accumulation of images of a single subject and/or from a single source so as to reduce how often the BEA receives cease-and-desist letters, which almost always lead to the creation of new additional prohibition rules. And the fact is that since we've had it, the 1-1-1 rule has been tremendously effective in that regard: for a while there (before 1-1-1) we had to add new prohibitions often... sometimes just weeks apart. Now, with 1-1-1 in place (and most users mostly following it) we're down to just one or two new prohibitions per year, and sometimes not even that. Fewer prohibited subjects/sources benefits every user, and the 1-1-1 rule is a big part of what's helped the BEA stay online for such a long time... it strikes a decent balance between property rights and fair use.

You are correct that some users post a lot of pix. And when mods get a sense that it's happening to such an extent that it's beginning to defeat the "protective" purpose of the 1-1-1 rule, we've stepped in. Sometimes we do that simply by sending that user a PM asking him or her to simply vary their posting a bit so as to avoid growing a particular thread too quickly. In other cases, we've contacted a user (or a group of users) and applied a hard limit on how many pix they can post in a day, in spite of the fact that it makes quite a bit more work for mods to keep track of that and enforce it. Mostly, we rely on the Owner's Rules (and FAQ policies) and everyone's common sense and restraint.

And again: I do think that the longevity of the forum plays into this: we have some long, popular threads (longer still after multiple redundant threads are merged together) and users are understandably enthusiastic about their subjects. I mean... for fans of Daniella from Israel for example... how would you suggest that we limit users posting of her in such a way that doesn't potentially negatively impact others but provides some benefit in your view? Do you have a specific idea that we can consider? Something that we could actually enforce w/o making more work (please don't ask mods to try to track how many pix of each model that each user posts in a given day/week/month, since such tracking isn't possible). But if you have a concrete practical suggestion to address what you see as a problem, I'm all ears.

* ...if you think you might be missing pix because there are too many similar ones in a thread, that implies you decide to not download a pic if it looks familiar, thereby risking not having it. You could do what I do in such cases: just download it anyway/to be safe, even if it does look very familiar... what's the harm? Individual jpegs take very little space on your hard drive and bandwidth, and at your leisure/option, you can run a duplicate file finding tool on the directory to weed out the copies if they bother you. Better to have than risk not having, right?

[Bramlet]

Back to the issue:

maybe I'll travel to Israel in a few weeks, I'll inform you, pals, if I may have seen her.

[Liam]

new stuff

[mgpuf]

Attempt at an impossible image enlargement:

[Liam]

...

[Liam]

.

[salem]

 

[Real]

new stuff

Brilliant.

[Liam]

...

[salem]

 

[Swill]

 

[Liam]

...

[Swill]