Posted
Subcategories for the 'Similar Babes' Section (Similar Face, Similar Body etc.)
Currently, the 'Similar Babes' section on the bottom of each Babe's profile is just a big list of other Babes but it's hard to know whether it's accurate or its being abused/spammed as we don't know the reasoning behind the person who added the babe to the list (e.g. do they think its because she has similar hair, face, body etc.)
Not sure what the final list of subcategories should be but to start with:
- Similar Face
- Similar Body
- Similar Era (e.g. people often group 2000s pornstars together or UK Glam Models together etc.)
Not sure what the final list of subcategories should be but to start with:
- Similar Face
- Similar Body
- Similar Era (e.g. people often group 2000s pornstars together or UK Glam Models together etc.)
Comments (42)
The only thing in common among them ?
Their profiles are created and/or frequently edited and managed by that user.
What a curious coincidence, right ?
And yes, face and body should be the main reasons for similarities and create a list of similar babes, otherwise it wouldn't have sense.
For what it's worth, I've already (twice !) reported gccmelb's behaviour to the attention of the staff, asking them to monitor what he does especially in the "similar babes" sections of many profiles, making those sections false and not compliant with the reason why they exist.
You already described in detail what he does, and I add that he usually favored and privileged profiles of women from Australia and New Zealand.
No wonder if does it on purpose to promote specific profiles because that's his "mission" on Babepedia.
p.s: let me add that the fact he's already a trusted contributor, on the way to become even a top contributor, it's an insult to the most part of the users that act honestly and interact fairly with the database.
It's strange, isn't it ?
When I reported this kind of behaviour to the staff, I was told that it's not that serious and not against the rules.
So, at this point, I don't even feel like reporting again something that's not being addressed, but at least I think it's right to talk about it here with other users.
If gccmelb is Whatmeworry with another alias or someone else who does the same "job" on Babepedia, this is beyond my expertise.
Anyway, I hate when babes are added to the section just because they’re from the same country, same field, like tennis players (which duplicates the search function, duh) or they starred in the same TV show. And the absolute worst is when someone abuses this section to promote their favorites, like mentioned gccmelb or FantasyGuyX.
You say:
"And the absolute worst is when someone abuses this section to promote their favorites, like gccmelb or FantasyGuyX."
And that's exactly what I was talking about.
Honestly so far I didn't notice FantasyGuyX, but another "interesting" (if you know what I mean) is called Rachellelover, quite active in various high ranking profiles.
The fact is that people like that seem to use Babepedia for their personal gains.
They're not here for fun and entertainment, like most of us are, but to push certain names and profiles at all costs.
We are considering this idea, but are unsure how to implement it. Who decides the category? What do we do with the nearly 2 million votes currently in? Once a category is assigned, we could show this per entry and allow filtering.
First of all, thank you for taking the issue seriously and not underestimate it.
I think we all can agree at this point that some people are here for specific purposes, and I bet they do the same on all the other important sites about women.
On Instagram and other social network they would be called social media managers or stuff like that.
What I've seen yesterday on Mira Levelskaya profile goes beyond my imagination.
Beyond the fact that for me she is a creation of the AI and I reported her as such, but even worst are the multiple accounts created (maybe by just the same user ?) on purpose to promote her and push the profile as high as possible in the charts.
Mission accomplished when it got to no.4, even just for a day.
Take a look at the voting log in the similar (...) babes section in that profile and you'll see evidently what I'm talking about.
I don't know, maybe every user (especially the normal ones, whose accounts have been newly created) should have a limit of babes (2 or 3 to the utmost) to add in the similar section, in order to avoid excessive manipulations.
Apologies for the late response, didn't realise you commented until now.
Here are my suggestions for how it should be implemented:
Tried to make it simple, evolve based on user feedback, phase in gradually with old system & while keeping all existing votes
Suggested Categories:
Start with just 3:
1. Similar Face
2. Similar Body
3. Other - miscellaneous option where a user needs to provide a custom reason
The "other" category can be used to add new 'main' categories (i.e. besides the existing similar face & similar body) by analysing what reasons users are providing most frequently.
That way the system can naturally evolve instead of having to guess which categories users want from the start.
Example: If you find users are often listing 'similar hair' as their custom reason then you can decide to add that as a category down the line
For the 2M Existing Votes:
Keep these as they provide useful information (especially if a babe is already found to have a high similarity voting score), but perhaps move them to the 'Other' section. That way the new subcategory system can blend/phase in gradually as more people use it but the data from the old system doesn't need to be deleted.
For Preventing Spam:
Maybe also limit the number of votes or suggestions a user can make per day or something based on their standing on the site (normal, trusted user, admin etc.)
UI Suggestion:
Currently, it seems as if you can't see a babe's similarity voting score unless you click the 'edit similar babes section' button.
Not sure how difficult this would be to implement but it might be better to make each subcategory its own row featuring a horizontal scrolling carousel of babes similar to how streaming services like Netflix do their UI for categories of content. If the voting score was also visible for each babe along with a small thumbs up or down icon that may also encourage more user participation as that feature is currently sorta hidden behind the 'edit similar babes section' button as I mentioned. If the score is hidden by default babes that have wildly different similarity scores can appear next to each other (e.g. +6 and -1) just because they're the highest ranked & its also hard to know how much impact my 1 vote can have without knowing the score. Removing that tiny bit of friction could help with that.
Some people add the most seemingly unrelated babes in that section, sometimes the only similar bit is a part of their name. By that logic Julia Ann becomes similar to Lisa Ann.
What I personally expect first and foremost when it comes to being similar is the face and overall physique. Basically doppelgangers or close to that. Like you could swear they are sisters type of similarity.
But "Similar in Stature" is also definitely a thing, which is how Julia Ann and Lisa Ann can be considered similar.
Contemporaries is also another criteria, those who were active around the same time, regardless of stature.
Similar Circles could be another criteria, people club them because they have worked for almost the same studios.
When I look at Lylith Lavey's profile, Amanda Verona looks a lot like her but Holly Brooks doesn't, like at all.
Mandy Sweet reminds me of Ryan Smiles who also reminds me of Noelle Easton
Ashley Adams reminds me of Lily Lane.
Clearly someone added Courtney Tailor under the similar section of Courtney Taylor because of the names as they seem to have nothing else in common.
I'd suggest these categories
Similar in looks (face and/or body)
Similar in Stature
Contemporaries
They can all their own rows, but please keep the number of entries limited, if the horizontal carousel/strip thing is huge it will become overwhelming very fast and analysis paralysis might become real from all the branching out.
I'd also agree with analysis paralysis UX concern you mentioned.
The doppelgangers (highest votes for similar body + similar face & maybe even above some threshold of votes) should definitely come first and perhaps maybe other categories / rows could be hidden by default behind a 'show more' button or made less prominent in the UI via smaller size/spacing or something.
That way you could serve the 2 fundamentally different kinds of users:
1. Users who want truly similar babes (i.e. doppelgangers) & feel anything else isn't very useful or detracts from how the section should be used
2. Users who treat the similar babes section as a discovery engine similar to how YouTube displays related videos next to whatever you're watching
I'm more biased toward group 2 but Babepedia should ideally appeal to both and I think that 'show more' button or something like it could be a good compromise.
Regarding the Similar Babes categorization, we're thinking about the best practical approach. We don't want to waste the existing votes, and we want to let the community decide what subcategories are used. So here's what we have in mind:
When in editing/voting mode, there is a dropdown box under every entry. When clicked, it opens a list of checkboxes or voting options. It will present what the others have voted. For example:
Similar face: 80% voted yes
Similar body: 90% voted yes
Similar era/Contemporaries: 20% voted yes
Same circle/Similar circle: 0% voted yes
And then the system considers it confirmed if 50% votes are yes.
And for the viewing mode, we show filters/selection tabs above the list: Similar face, Similar body, ...
Clicking one of these unselects them. We store the selection globally, so people who want to see similar bodies always see similar bodies.
Feedback is welcome.
Just to be clear: This is still in the brainstorming phase. We haven't planned this yet.
Love the idea of having selection be stored globally.
Some Feedback
- For the Viewing Mode UI, users like me who would want to see all subcategories would want to be able to know which categories a babe satisfies without switching to voting/edit mode & ideally see them grouped together at a glance as that way there's less 'context switching' in a user's head. Hence why I suggested separate rows for each subcategory.
- Maybe it complicates things but an issue with using % who voted yes is that if only 1 user has voted it would show 100% and thats maybe not as useful of a signal as if say 10+ people voted and they all voted yes but they'd both display 100% yes unlike with the existing system that uses absolute vote count
- I'd argue maybe contemporaries and 'similar circle' could be merged as I would've thought those terms are roughly synonymous.
One of the reasons why I like the 'custom/other' category is for a site as big as Babpedia there's probably a huge number of edge cases/sub-categories that are only relevant for a small number of babes so probably shouldnt be 'global' subcategories like similar face/similar body but still useful nonetheless.
@wpgoar brings up an interesting example with sisters/mothers or another example is guys into redheads would want to see other redheaded babes but 'similar hair' as a global category would be less useful when applied to babes with, say, black or brown hair as that's so much more common.
It would also work with the checkbox UI you mentioned as it could just show a checkbox for "Other: <whatever custom reason user entered>"
Apologies for being long-winded but thanks for being so responsive to the community!
Apart from that, I agree. Either create separate subcategories, as suggested by @homer_simp, or require users to specify a specific/valid reason why the added girl is similar. In its current state, the More Like sections are often infested with unrelated babes who aren’t anything alike, but are simply also beautiful, also famous or someone’s favorites (they have to add them everywhere).
I enjoy the “More Like” section and DO AGREE that the reason for the similarity must be specified. But it has to be valid, NOT vague (such as she's also beautiful/famous), redundant (same profession, same country), or promotional (she's my favorite).
Just 12 days ago you posted:
A quick note about gccmelb. He was banned, too, after creating multiple accounts.
I just found out his account is still active, though limited, and he still connects to Babepedia:
https://www.babepedia.com/user/gccmelb
I suppose he may have created other accounts in the meantime, but I wonder why that main account is still here, after all he's done and we already talked about it before.
Look at Blackwidof. The top women in her 'similar babes' section are white women with naturally huge breasts and an average/slim body type. Appropriate matches, IMO.
I've seen 'similar babe' sections where the women look like they were picked by someone with severe visual impairment, but generally they're fine.
As for subcategories - I'm neither for nor against it.
Ahah really ? Who knows why I'm not surprised at all.
I found this new user too, you may have "nice weird conversations" with him if you want.
I have a very clear idea of who these accounts could be related to.
https://www.babepedia.com/user/goodonematt1
Imagine if the “More Like” sections included all the actresses who have ever filmed together. It would be a mess (unless a separate subcategory were created for it).
He's getting worse and worse, spamming in lots of profiles against you.
https://www.babepedia.com/user/jimjefferies
I don't know. He makes his presence known from time to time. But I haven't noticed him being able to achieve such large scale manipulation like before. I consider Babepedia to be stable for now. His original profile's description says "Yes I did break Babepedia!" But I don't know what he means by that... I don't care if he spams some inconsequential profiles.
Note: There was that weird comment about my vote manipulation made by him. I didn't even notice that you can see the "More like her" voting log. But the logs he posted contained only downvots, no upvotes, at least at some profiles. So, I don't think this new feature works well.
Another note: I use More Like Her section quite a lot. But by now only for girls I consider visually similar...