#1 September 4th, 2004 02:28 AM

soneil

Member

Still don't understand Ratings...

Ok, why is:

Kahlo, 'bramble' 02 Sep 04 = X
  and
Emiline, 'sunbake', 03 Sep 04, = R

Just wondering what the criteria is...

Belgareth

Member

Re: Still don't understand Ratings...

Ok, why is:

Kahlo, 'bramble' 02 Sep 04 = X
  and
Emiline, 'sunbake', 03 Sep 04, = R

Just wondering what the criteria is...

I can see why you're confused ...... so am I .... now!!!!

---

[color="Red"]require "help.pl";[/color]

Head

Member

Re: Still don't understand Ratings...

I can see why you're confused ...... so am I .... now!!!!

We work out the rating on the raw set and nearly always, it applies equally well to the edited folio.  Also the guidlines we use are a little open to interpretation.   

But Emmiline's was just a mistake.  Guess we got distracted.

Belgareth

Member

Re: Still don't understand Ratings...

We work out the rating on the raw set and nearly always, it applies equally well to the edited folio.  Also the guidlines we use are a little open to interpretation.   

But Emmiline's was just a mistake.  Guess we got distracted.

OK Head. I can buy that. Well, who wouldn't get confused under the circumstances. All those images that you have to files through every day, just to bring a little light into the members and the contributors lives. You must get really bored, looking at bare boobs, bare bums and beautiful eyes all day ......... you're bound to mistake a pussy for a cuddly kitten every so often ;-)

---

[color="Red"]require "help.pl";[/color]

Luv_Red_Fuzz

Member

Re: Still don't understand Ratings...

We work out the rating on the raw set and nearly always, it applies equally well to the edited folio.  Also the guidlines we use are a little open to interpretation.   

But Emmiline's was just a mistake.  Guess we got distracted.

Just wondering, if the rating is worked out on the raw set, why do we (as "Extra" members) not get access to the entire raw set.  I assume you "filter" out the less phototartistic (for want of a better word) pictures, and put the best on the site, but isn't that defeating the purpose of the site, allowing women to photograph themselves as they want to be seen, then having their photographs edited by an outside source??

For example, on today's folios, Tailgate has 30 pictures, but the numbering used on the site would suggest that there were 111 or more photos, and hotdaze has 48 pictures, but it is suggested there is a minimum if 113 pictures...  What happens to the others, and why aren't we all (or at least the Extra members) getting the benefit of the raw folios???

Surely these beautiful girls must be a little upset that a photo that maybe they thought was there best was judged as "not good enough" by someone there, and doesn't get shared with the viewing public.

Come on, lets get serious.  We all know these are not professional photographers, and that is probably the best thing about this site.  Maybe a "voting" system for members, where they can decide if a folio is PG13, M, R or X???  Let us be our own judges of these folios I say!

Head

Member

Re: Still don't understand Ratings...

Just wondering, if the rating is worked out on the raw set, why do we (as "Extra" members) not get access to the entire raw set.  I assume you "filter" out the less phototartistic (for want of a better word) pictures, and put the best on the site, but isn't that defeating the purpose of the site, allowing women to photograph themselves as they want to be seen, then having their photographs edited by an outside source??

For example, on today's folios, Tailgate has 30 pictures, but the numbering used on the site would suggest that there were 111 or more photos, and hotdaze has 48 pictures, but it is suggested there is a minimum if 113 pictures...  What happens to the others, and why aren't we all (or at least the Extra members) getting the benefit of the raw folios???

Surely these beautiful girls must be a little upset that a photo that maybe they thought was there best was judged as "not good enough" by someone there, and doesn't get shared with the viewing public.

Come on, lets get serious.  We all know these are not professional photographers, and that is probably the best thing about this site.  Maybe a "voting" system for members, where they can decide if a folio is PG13, M, R or X???  Let us be our own judges of these folios I say!

There's a lot of repetition is some sets.  And dross.  E.g., try photographing your bum and you'll get fresh air 2 times out of 3.  If we put all the pix up we'd be drowning in complaints about the quality of images on the site.

soneil

Member

Re: Still don't understand Ratings...

Come on, lets get serious.  We all know these are not professional photographers, and that is probably the best thing about this site.  Maybe a "voting" system for members, where they can decide if a folio is PG13, M, R or X???  Let us be our own judges of these folios I say!

I don't know about the voting for 'Rating' but I would love to have a say in the 'Art Prize' winner.

napthene

Member

Re: Still don't understand Ratings...

And dross.  E.g., try photographing your bum and you'll get fresh air 2 times out of 3.

That, my friends, is what's known hereabouts as pure comedy gold.