Posted
Stop declining uploads of satisfactory photos, please
Kim has been declining basically any photo upload (claiming "The photo quality is too low. Please read the requirements on the photo upload page", while none of the general photo requirements say anything about "low photo quality") that doesn't look as if it was shot by a professional photographer/with a nice camera. A lot of women who have profile pages here barely post photos on their social media anymore (it's all reels nowadys), so it is already hard enough to find some decent photos with good pose that show the figure and the face. I don't get it. Would you rather have no photos at all (or the only 1-2 that have high quality and bad posing) or do you want users to actually see what someone looks like without always having to go to their instagram/tiktok? That's literally what I have been doing a lot recently, because I can't appropriately judge the woman based on the meager selection of photos.
It's so frustrating to spend time to collect a few photos for upload just to get them declined (sometimes several days later) to such a point that I keep losing the motivation to upload any photos at all. I'm not saying that any photos that I upload are fine, sometimes I miss a border or people in the background, but "low quality" doesn't make sense, especially since there are a lot of profiles with old photos that wouldn't pass Kim's scrutiny. Would you then just delete all photos of such a profile and leave it empty?
Again, I don't get it.
It's so frustrating to spend time to collect a few photos for upload just to get them declined (sometimes several days later) to such a point that I keep losing the motivation to upload any photos at all. I'm not saying that any photos that I upload are fine, sometimes I miss a border or people in the background, but "low quality" doesn't make sense, especially since there are a lot of profiles with old photos that wouldn't pass Kim's scrutiny. Would you then just delete all photos of such a profile and leave it empty?
Again, I don't get it.
Comments (5)
The Nicole Alexis photo is a selfie from far away while she sits on her bed. Her face is not visible because her phone covers it. Her body takes up less than 5% of the photo. In this case, I'd rather have no photo than just this one. Luckily, there are far better photos of Nicole Alexis on her page.
The 3 photos of Constanza Gallardo are declined correctly as well. The bellydancing photo is too unsharp and is a video screenshot. The one showing her back on the beach is borderline acceptable as an extra user upload, but her body takes up less than 10% of the photo and the resolution is rather low. The one in the purple dress is also borderline acceptable. The photo is unsharp, looks like a video screenshot. Kim would have probably accepted this last one if there were no photos on her page yet.
The Maya Alessia photo was disapproved because it doesn't show her face and because of the visible timestamp (?) in the bottom left corner. Also, Maya Alessia has far better photos on her page.
I hope this feedback helps clarify our standards when it comes to photo reviews. I believe Kim does an incredible job. Please note that we receive thousands of uploads per week and Kim handles all of these. Because of the high volume, sometimes a mistake is made. But these 5 disapprovals were no mistakes. They were correct decisions.
One example is Carole Marnie , that still has no pics at all in her profile.
I already tried to find at least a pic of her to use as main profile pic, but I found none.
I think the requirements should be less strict when they regard vintage/not famous babes, when all we can find about them now are few pics and that don't satisfy every single Babepedia standard.
A completely empty profile, without even 1 pic, is a bit sad in my opinion.
For non-famous babes, that's not the case. Here, it's probably better not to have a page at all. We clean up older photo-less pages.
a) either make lists of women (models, celebrities, etc.) who they already know or keep forgetting about (to look them up or categorize them with all the public information about them and have all social media accounts linked) or to
b) learn about someone new or about some who are similar to someone else or match a user's taste, etc. (and also have infos and links right there) or to
c) participate in voting and ranking
For many of these causes we require photos that show off face and figure from all relevant perspectives.
There is a limit to the number of photos per profile and to the file size which puts Babepedia far behind other websites in terms of media and content quality and quantity. The two things that Babepedia does much better than any other website is the sheer number of profiles (almost every celebrity, actress, musician, social media star, pornstar and even a lot of politicians have profiles) and the features that enable very detailed search and cataloging. And I always thought that moderation should concentrate on these strengths. On the development side you certainly expand these strengths (for example in search and profile: the recent update to the measurement fields and the introduction of the WHR calculation)
Believe me, if I could find higher quality photos with good posing I would upload those. But you can tell how much the users prioritize pose by the fact that profiles that get their main profile picture changed to one with a good pose jump up in rank. Almost all of the profiles in the top 25 list have main profile pictures with the model posing seductively in a bikini or other minimal clothing. I am sure most users would even appreciate lower quality photos if apparel and pose are appealing.
There was another idea in the feedback section about profile picture rating. If that is something that will get implemented, it could show how users prioritize pose & apparel in relation to image quality.