Are photos still being moderated/checked before they get loaded on WBW?

I would hope the photos are still being moderated, but I do come across (excuse the pun) quite a few photos that I look at and wonder what the hell the person who uploaded them was thinking.

I guess as long as they are not professional, underage etc then it's not really for the moderator to judge who is good-looking, or that nobody can appreciate a sexy back. If Justin Timberlake can, why can't we?

Yeah that's a very good point without an easy solution.

When mods are rejecting pics due to ugliness and a sponsor member uploaded them, is their complaint less valid then yours?

Also, people have varying opinions on 'good looking'... There's no way to set a standard.

Ive seen some poor ones, one recent here. In this one, she seems to have a nice ass, but it's a distant shot, and, in MY opinion, probably isn't worth the upload.

Then again, someone HAS commented on it, liking the shot. So, really, it proves that even tho personal opinion, and maybe even general consensus, agree its terrible, there is a niche for it.

Still, I'm sure pic mods do weed out really bad ones......

Ainom, could you post some examples?

I've always wondered how babe photos are moderated. I've tried to uploaded a few photos over the years that I thought were real winners but never had any of them go through. So out of curiosity I took some time to find 30 photos and uploaded all of them at the same time. Over a screening process that lasted about three weeks I had three photos go through out of those thirty and what went through and what got left out really surprised me. Two of them were clothes young ladies who I thought were attractive but I doubted they would go through. They've received mixed reaction. The one nude that got through got positive feedback ( see below for the link to that photo ) but I also uploaded a companion piece to it. Same girl. Same stage, even better nudity! Her hands aren't covering her tits. But it was rejected. I thought it must be a mistake since the first one was uploaded so I tried it again and the 2nd photo was once again rejected in a matter of hours. No idea why. I also recently realized that you can press the PROPERTIES button above a photo and the original file name shows up. I did not know that. Could that be a reason some photos are rejected if it contains the girl's name on it?


http://whatboyswant.com/showpicture/1462894


I'm also sometimes surprised why some of the photos that get accepted are accepted in the first place. As Paddy says, everyone has different taste, but that makes me wonder on what grounds mods make their decisions.

Its all subjective to the viewer; The site name isn't "boys only want hot blonde chicks". When I was a pic mod, the rule basically was, if she's over 18, not peeing, no beastiality, nothing illegal, and doesn't contain mostly penis, then the pic was approved. There is no rule, nor any method to measure her level of hotness. I appreciate that you may may not find a certain picture appealing, but someone else may.

Ive been modding pics here for almost 5 years and it is a difficult balance as to what is "worth" posting and what isn't. Some people like some pics that others don't ... thats just how it is ...
As an insight we delete between 3 and 4 times as many as we approve each week (which most of is reposts , pro and just utter crap ) so we aren't letting everything through.
If you see anything overly rubbish send me or one of the pic mods a PM and we can take a look at it.

As for the pic your referring to Paddy .. I see nothing wrong with that ... Its in the right category and its not blurry ... Its just a voyuer shot taken from a distance and quite a few people like those sort of pics. 61 votes and a 6.7 score means that it isn't that bad .. There is a lot worse on here

One man's meat is another man's poison!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrannus

I've always wondered how babe photos are moderated. I've tried to uploaded a few photos over the years that I thought were real winners but never had any of them go through. So out of curiosity I took some time to find 30 photos and uploaded all of them at the same time. Over a screening process that lasted about three weeks I had three photos go through out of those thirty and what went through and what got left out really surprised me. Two of them were clothes young ladies who I thought were attractive but I doubted they would go through. They've received mixed reaction. The one nude that got through got positive feedback ( see below for the link to that photo ) but I also uploaded a companion piece to it. Same girl. Same stage, even better nudity! Her hands aren't covering her tits. But it was rejected. I thought it must be a mistake since the first one was uploaded so I tried it again and the 2nd photo was once again rejected in a matter of hours. No idea why. I also recently realized that you can press the PROPERTIES button above a photo and the original file name shows up. I did not know that. Could that be a reason some photos are rejected if it contains the girl's name on it?


[ Link ]


I'm also sometimes surprised why some of the photos that get accepted are accepted in the first place. As Paddy says, everyone has different taste, but that makes me wonder on what grounds mods make their decisions.

Its pretty simple modding grounds .. If the pics isn't or doesn't look pro , doesn't have a copyright on it , any stupid modifications like borders, white boxes etc, isn't overly blurry and isn't just plain rubbish then it should get approved ... Unless it is a repost.
People seem to forget that there a 1.4 million pics already on this site and that a large percentage of what gets uploaded to the queue is already posted here already ..I've even had some that have sworn black and blue they took the shot , its original etc etc just to point out to them the same photo posted a year or two earlier by someone else ...

As for the pic mentioned by Tyrannus .. Technically It shouldn't have been approved in the first place ... its got a dirty great white box on the bottom of the pic .. which is one of the madding rules as they usually are hiding copyrights and if the other pic you mentioned had that same white box then thats why its deleted

Quote:

Originally posted by BWT

As for the pic mentioned by Tyrannus .. Technically It shouldn't have been approved in the first place ... its got a dirty great white box on the bottom of the pic .. which is one of the madding rules as they usually are hiding copyrights and if the other pic you mentioned had that same white box then thats why its deleted

Thanks! I had never noticed that before.

Yeah, julle will find that one and zap it ere long.
he searches the gallery for pix that have gotten through us lowly pic mods.

As has been said, unless it has peeing, poop, ponies etc, we accept the girl even if her tight ass may be slipping a bit

It is an attempt to keep WBW an amateur site.

Quote:

Originally posted by ainom

Hi
I've been with WBW for 6 years now and a "sponsor" for at least three. I usually don't make comments but I thought I need to on this occasion.
It seems that there is an increasing number of "babes" pics here that are totally random and don't add any value to the site. On the contrary really.
Somebodys back, few girls in t-shirts, some portraits and in general more and more poor photos.

One might say that all women are beautiful but I have a feeling there is too much photo junk being uploaded. It's too random, too ugly and is turning WBW into a website where any photo is being published as long as there is a woman on it.

What do you think dear fellow WBW visitors.
P

Age Groups of registered Members
Agegroup Percentage Users
18 - 25 4.77 % 12256
26 - 35 58.57 % 150634
36 - 45 25.65 % 65970
46 - 55 7.82 % 20101
Older than 55 3.21 % 824

i post a pic of a womans pubic bone and get an 8.5
post a pic of a mature older woman she gets a 6.3 -- shes got a great body
post a pic of a woman spreading her bunghole she gets a 7.8

i fall into that 7.82% so mature woman are hot to me and some shit grosses me out. Never really questioned what why & how pics are moded.

excuse me now, it's time for my geritol

Quote:

Originally posted by BWT

...


As for the pic mentioned by Tyrannus .. Technically It shouldn't have been approved in the first place ... its got a dirty great white box on the bottom of the pic .. which is one of the madding rules as they usually are hiding copyrights and if the other pic you mentioned had that same white box then thats why its deleted

Sorry Tyrannus, but your pic somehow disappeared..

She shall be avenged!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Jullexxx

...

Sorry Tyrannus, but your pic somehow disappeared..

Julle

Quote:

Originally posted by ainom

Hi
I've been with WBW for 6 years now and a "sponsor" for at least three. I usually don't make comments but I thought I need to on this occasion.
It seems that there is an increasing number of "babes" pics here that are totally random and don't add any value to the site. On the contrary really.
Somebodys back, few girls in t-shirts, some portraits and in general more and more poor photos.

One might say that all women are beautiful but I have a feeling there is too much photo junk being uploaded. It's too random, too ugly and is turning WBW into a website where any photo is being published as long as there is a woman on it.

What do you think dear fellow WBW visitors.
P

I think you should look at your adds while inviting everyone on the site to do the same.

http://whatboyswant.com/babeoverview/uploadedby/1/100357 for instance. (not an attack, just a wtf ! )

As a free member, I have noticed that lately there seem to be more pictures of a lower quality than say a year ago. Also, the rate at which you can't view a picture without being a 'sponsor member' seems to have increased almost to the point of being annoying. Personally, I am wondering how long it will be until greed leads wbw down the same path as other great free websites of the past, such as consumptionjunction.com, which is now exclusively a pay site. I would say we are in the 12-24 month window before wbw folds and we all will be looking for the next good free site to take their place.

Quote:

Originally posted by hantavirus

As a free member, I have noticed that lately there seem to be more pictures of a lower quality than say a year ago. Also, the rate at which you can't view a picture without being a 'sponsor member' seems to have increased almost to the point of being annoying. Personally, I am wondering how long it will be until greed leads wbw down the same path as other great free websites of the past, such as consumptionjunction.com, which is now exclusively a pay site. I would say we are in the 12-24 month window before wbw folds and we all will be looking for the next good free site to take their place.

Actually, WBW is going the other way. In the next version of the site you'll be able to unlock pictures with the credits you earn by posting and contributing to the site.

I'd also dispute that there are more pictures now that are not-viewable than there were previously. It's always been the case that amateur porn pics were sponsor only, and the rest (topless, beach, cute, bathroom, whatever) were free to everyone.

As a free member myself for 4 years ish, I would have to disagree and say that I have nothing but appreciation for the mods and the community, I've had respectful and prompt response and feedback when I've ever posed mods questions or questioned a pics legibility for the site etc, and the site itself is of exceptional quality... Far far far far far outperforming anything else I've come across in the course of my time on this site, or time before (though obviously not long before because I wasn't legal then, and NO one ever looks at porn before being legal age on the internets )

On topic, I've found the picture modding to be pretty decent. Reposts are rare enough to not be common which is great consider the pure volume of pics to be kept track of, and the pictures that are posted are exactly what make this site most amazing to me: amateur, so you will always have personal preference on what you find most attractive and what you don't, as that is subject to each individuals personal opinion.

anyways ^^ yeah

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbowdemon

One man's meat is another man's poison!!

[/thread]

I agree with a few other people in this topic. I also have uploaded many pictures but also many are rejected. I also upload often like 20 at one time, and it takes 'weeks' before they get judged and 95% will be declined. Cause i've asked several times why it takes so long to judge my pictures and you always get the answer 'there a big que''. I don't want to talk bad about the moderators as they are very busy and have more things to do, but i think we can say it's a problem and if they need more people to judge pictures then i'm sure there are enough people on here that want to help.