Staff thread. Ask. Suggest. Get info.
You can talk to staff here about general issues, but not about how to post! You can get that information here:
https://namethatporn.com/help/faq.html
For community rules:
https://namethatporn.com/help.html
Violation of rules may result in suspension or ban from the site.
For account related issues, please contact us via:
https://account.namethatporn.com/contact
For other specific issues by email:
http://namethatporn.com/help/about-us.html
For beginner stuff, check out Yonis thread:
For questions that can be answered by other members:
Do not ask porn related questions here! To ask a question, create a new post.
https://namethatporn.com/help/faq.html
For community rules:
https://namethatporn.com/help.html
Violation of rules may result in suspension or ban from the site.
For account related issues, please contact us via:
https://account.namethatporn.com/contact
For other specific issues by email:
http://namethatporn.com/help/about-us.html
For beginner stuff, check out Yonis thread:
The ultimate noob guide
45.7k
80
11
7 years ago
For questions that can be answered by other members:
Any "Name That Porn" QUESTIONS..?
113.8k
73
2,293
12 years ago
Do not ask porn related questions here! To ask a question, create a new post.
161.3k
137
4,410
·
Can YOU Name That Porn?
You can still post as anon. Reload after login
@Operator
Sorry for that. We got a bit carried away. lol But although we were talking among ourselves, I think our suggestions were indeed directed at the staff. Many of us have been having issues with OP's not accepting correct answers recently, and perhaps one of our suggestions could be an answer.
Sorry for that. We got a bit carried away. lol But although we were talking among ourselves, I think our suggestions were indeed directed at the staff. Many of us have been having issues with OP's not accepting correct answers recently, and perhaps one of our suggestions could be an answer.
#555266
OP
Please make a new thread to talk about ideas between you guys. This is a thread between staff and users. Its getting very spammy, specially with the "good idea" "thanks" comments.
@WorldsBestPorn It's true that two random users can create posts and confirm each other, but that can only be for very low points, and, as you say, would take a long time. I also doubt anyone would do that, and we can see that they haven't.
That is not worth it, but if one of those users has "Mark as Correct" powers, now they can do this with posts that at 500+ points, several years old, and that becomes much faster, and much more worth it. And since the posts they have Marked are not by those two users, the Operator doesn't have an easy clean up situation. They can't just delete those posts, since the OPs for those posts were not the offending parties.
As for the time-frame solution, what if the Original Post was older, maybe a 2 year old 500 point question. It may be a little optimistic to expect the OP to continue checking at least once a week to see if they have a post.
Another unrelated possible part of a solution:
I think something that might help would be to have some common pieces of info that the OP is looking for as checkboxes for the OP to check for the required pieces of info. That way, it makes it easier to see that an Answerer did or did not correctly answer the question. For instance, you could have checkboxes when you are posting a question:
Name
Title
Source
Video
Full Video
Other
So now the Answerer can't get confirmed if he has not put in tags for the required pieces of information. More importantly, the Answerer should be notified that he did not post the required info, so that he can go back and correct. Perhaps the Answerer should also have some way to Mark his post as "I think I have correctly answered this". That way people doing Confirms, or Marking Correct have some extra filter to quickly find posts that are more likely to need to be confirmed. I know I often do research and can't find a solution, but I just add some info that may help someone else.
That is not worth it, but if one of those users has "Mark as Correct" powers, now they can do this with posts that at 500+ points, several years old, and that becomes much faster, and much more worth it. And since the posts they have Marked are not by those two users, the Operator doesn't have an easy clean up situation. They can't just delete those posts, since the OPs for those posts were not the offending parties.
As for the time-frame solution, what if the Original Post was older, maybe a 2 year old 500 point question. It may be a little optimistic to expect the OP to continue checking at least once a week to see if they have a post.
Another unrelated possible part of a solution:
I think something that might help would be to have some common pieces of info that the OP is looking for as checkboxes for the OP to check for the required pieces of info. That way, it makes it easier to see that an Answerer did or did not correctly answer the question. For instance, you could have checkboxes when you are posting a question:
Name
Title
Source
Video
Full Video
Other
So now the Answerer can't get confirmed if he has not put in tags for the required pieces of information. More importantly, the Answerer should be notified that he did not post the required info, so that he can go back and correct. Perhaps the Answerer should also have some way to Mark his post as "I think I have correctly answered this". That way people doing Confirms, or Marking Correct have some extra filter to quickly find posts that are more likely to need to be confirmed. I know I often do research and can't find a solution, but I just add some info that may help someone else.
@KeyMasterOfGozer
True, but 2 users can already game the system and level each other up as it is. One can ask a question, the other can answer it, and then the first one can accept it, and then they can repeat the process as often as necessary. But the problem is doing that will take them both a very, very long time to level up, so I doubt anyone would put in the time to try it.
As for my time-frame solution, I suppose I should have added a bit more info about it. In my scenario, the OP can "stop the clock" so to speak at anytime by simply accepting the answer, or explaining why the confirmed answer did not meet their criteria for a correct answer. So just because someone confirms an answer, doesn't mean it will automatically be accepted in 7 days. That would only happen if the OP remained neutral for that time, which I think is plenty of time for him to stop the clock. All I'm trying to do is keep OP's active. Active in accepting correct answers, or at least active in explaining why they didn't, so someone can give them the answer they desire. Right now we have too many OP's that are doing neither.
True, but 2 users can already game the system and level each other up as it is. One can ask a question, the other can answer it, and then the first one can accept it, and then they can repeat the process as often as necessary. But the problem is doing that will take them both a very, very long time to level up, so I doubt anyone would put in the time to try it.
As for my time-frame solution, I suppose I should have added a bit more info about it. In my scenario, the OP can "stop the clock" so to speak at anytime by simply accepting the answer, or explaining why the confirmed answer did not meet their criteria for a correct answer. So just because someone confirms an answer, doesn't mean it will automatically be accepted in 7 days. That would only happen if the OP remained neutral for that time, which I think is plenty of time for him to stop the clock. All I'm trying to do is keep OP's active. Active in accepting correct answers, or at least active in explaining why they didn't, so someone can give them the answer they desire. Right now we have too many OP's that are doing neither.
@WorldsBestPorn The Maddy O'reilly problem is a different Problem. That is the Apostrophe in the name, not the spelling. You see, the single-quote character is the string delimiter for ANSI SQL. My guess is the code for this site is not escaping that character correctly, so it is breaking the SQL either for inserting the name in the table for performer names, or for querying it. I agree, though that something like that should be fixed.
@tellmewhodis @dmac85@WorldsBestPorn
About marking posts correct... I can see where the OPs are coming from. It's not so easy to ensure quality in an automatic fashion. Points based really promotes gaming. People who are high rank have already proved that points gaming is important to them. Automatic moderation based on that makes for a lot of extra gaming. You can make other free accounts, and essentially level them up, or a friend's account, so that you can use that to further boost your primary account. You really need a level of trust. I would instead prefer another Class of user called something like "Moderator". Since Ops have to Confirm posts anyway, they have to look at them, so they can decide to promote a user to Moderator, who is someone that the Op can trust to ensure the required quality when they confirm. This status can then be removed if there are shenanigans. Perhaps you can aid in automation by allowing Moderators to nominate other people for Moderator, then the Ops can eventually spend time vetting Moderators rather than Confirming posts. I don't know, it's a hard problem.
I don't like the idea of a time-frame after a confirm either, because I frequently see people confirm answers that are sketchy at best. People are incentivized to Confirm because they get points. They are not penalized if they Confirm a wrong answer, so the only incentive is to confirm as many as possible, not to ensure quality, which I think is the Operator's intent.
This is a hard problem, and I appreciate the difficulty of the Operator's position.
I don't mean to be negative without any good solutions of my own, but I guess I was. Sorry guys.
@tellmewhodis @dmac85@WorldsBestPorn
About marking posts correct... I can see where the OPs are coming from. It's not so easy to ensure quality in an automatic fashion. Points based really promotes gaming. People who are high rank have already proved that points gaming is important to them. Automatic moderation based on that makes for a lot of extra gaming. You can make other free accounts, and essentially level them up, or a friend's account, so that you can use that to further boost your primary account. You really need a level of trust. I would instead prefer another Class of user called something like "Moderator". Since Ops have to Confirm posts anyway, they have to look at them, so they can decide to promote a user to Moderator, who is someone that the Op can trust to ensure the required quality when they confirm. This status can then be removed if there are shenanigans. Perhaps you can aid in automation by allowing Moderators to nominate other people for Moderator, then the Ops can eventually spend time vetting Moderators rather than Confirming posts. I don't know, it's a hard problem.
I don't like the idea of a time-frame after a confirm either, because I frequently see people confirm answers that are sketchy at best. People are incentivized to Confirm because they get points. They are not penalized if they Confirm a wrong answer, so the only incentive is to confirm as many as possible, not to ensure quality, which I think is the Operator's intent.
This is a hard problem, and I appreciate the difficulty of the Operator's position.
I don't mean to be negative without any good solutions of my own, but I guess I was. Sorry guys.
@tellmewhodis @dmac85
Giving high-ranking users and long-term users the ability to mark posts as correct is a good solution to the OP problem, but that brings with it possible problems too. Because if an high-ranking OP refuses to accept a correct answer, then they might choose not to mark a post as correct for the same reason, which is just because they don't want a certain user to get the points. So I have another suggestion, and let me hear how it sounds. What if after someone posts an answer for an OP, and someone confirms it to be correct, the OP now has 7 days to either accept the answer, or explain why it's incorrect. If the OP does neither and the time expires, then the post is automatically marked as correct, and the user with the confirmed answer gets the points. This solves 2 problems at the same time:
1. It forces OP's to come online at least once per week, so they can make sure their questions aren't automatically mark as solved. I've answered too many posts from OP's who haven't been on in months, so my answer just sits there collecting dust. lol
2. It forces OP's to give a detailed reason why they won't accept the confirmed answer as correct.
I think if we had this policy, our solved ratio would shoot up dramatically, and more people would be awarded the points that they deserve.
Giving high-ranking users and long-term users the ability to mark posts as correct is a good solution to the OP problem, but that brings with it possible problems too. Because if an high-ranking OP refuses to accept a correct answer, then they might choose not to mark a post as correct for the same reason, which is just because they don't want a certain user to get the points. So I have another suggestion, and let me hear how it sounds. What if after someone posts an answer for an OP, and someone confirms it to be correct, the OP now has 7 days to either accept the answer, or explain why it's incorrect. If the OP does neither and the time expires, then the post is automatically marked as correct, and the user with the confirmed answer gets the points. This solves 2 problems at the same time:
1. It forces OP's to come online at least once per week, so they can make sure their questions aren't automatically mark as solved. I've answered too many posts from OP's who haven't been on in months, so my answer just sits there collecting dust. lol
2. It forces OP's to give a detailed reason why they won't accept the confirmed answer as correct.
I think if we had this policy, our solved ratio would shoot up dramatically, and more people would be awarded the points that they deserve.
@KeyMasterOfGozer
When you tag someone's name and it comes up in black, it could mean she doesn't have a profile yet. But it can also mean that she does, but her profile has a differently spelled name. If you're not sure, then simply copy her name and post it the search bar on the left. Other answered posts will come up if she does have a profile, and you can see the "correct" ways her name is spelled. I call this the Maddy O'reilly rule. Why? Because THAT is the correct way her name is spelled, and yet it's in black. So in order to get points for answering questions with her, I have to purposely misspell her name as Maddy O Reilley, Maddy O Reilly, or Maddy Oreilly. It's soooooo annoying. lol
When you tag someone's name and it comes up in black, it could mean she doesn't have a profile yet. But it can also mean that she does, but her profile has a differently spelled name. If you're not sure, then simply copy her name and post it the search bar on the left. Other answered posts will come up if she does have a profile, and you can see the "correct" ways her name is spelled. I call this the Maddy O'reilly rule. Why? Because THAT is the correct way her name is spelled, and yet it's in black. So in order to get points for answering questions with her, I have to purposely misspell her name as Maddy O Reilley, Maddy O Reilly, or Maddy Oreilly. It's soooooo annoying. lol
@Operator , it most definitely DID have name tags on it before I edited it. I only changed one character when I edited it, adding a single "x" in the already formatted name tag to make the name match as per@WorldsBestPorn 's post. I think you can look back at my 680+ posts and you will see that they all are formatted correctly. This one was no different. I don't feel like you should take that tone with people who spend a lot of time for free to contribute to your site.
@WorldsBestPorn I see your point about making an AKA. I usually do, but in this case, I had no idea that "Shaun Foxx" as described in the official store site for that video had any other aliases. Either way, that should not prompt a "Formatted Incorrectly" error. The Format was correct. You could argue that the ANSWER was incorrect, but not the format.
@WorldsBestPorn I see your point about making an AKA. I usually do, but in this case, I had no idea that "Shaun Foxx" as described in the official store site for that video had any other aliases. Either way, that should not prompt a "Formatted Incorrectly" error. The Format was correct. You could argue that the ANSWER was incorrect, but not the format.
#554639
OP
For the rest: Like a broken record, I repeat again: We are working on big changes. They do not happen overnight. Not even with a week. There is going to be a beta program soon for users, who wish to contribute. I will in near future drop a link here, where you can sign up and get early access.
@KeyMasterOfGozer It probably didn't have nametags before you edited.
@KeyMasterOfGozer It probably didn't have nametags before you edited.
I don't know how many admins there are or how many people go around and mark posts as correct, but i think it would be great if high level and/or long term user get the ability to mark posts as correct too.
@KeyMasterOfGozer
Yeah, in situations like that, I would recommend simply using both names just to play it safe. For example:
Shauna Foxxx aka Shauna Foxx
Yeah, in situations like that, I would recommend simply using both names just to play it safe. For example:
Shauna Foxxx aka Shauna Foxx
That's cool, I can change that, but that is not how her name is spelled on the official site. It only has two x's. So at worse, she has two similarly spelled aliases, which is not uncommon. See this official video from the actual sales site for the company has it spelled with two x's,
https://clips4sale.com/studio/2511/13896117#!SHAUNA-FOXX-PART-2//DisplayOrder-desc
This comment is marked as "Answer can’t be marked as correct due to missing name tags."
But the answer clearly has Name tags correctly done for both actors in the clip, also a Title tag correctly done. I don't understand why this is marked like that.
whos the guy?
7,680
3
1
10 years ago
AnsweredBut the answer clearly has Name tags correctly done for both actors in the clip, also a Title tag correctly done. I don't understand why this is marked like that.
@Operator
Hello, just wondering how often moderators go through answers to confirm/accept? Have about 85+ posts and was wanting to know if I should list them anywhere for visibility?
I post them in both these threads but not seeing much results.
Hello, just wondering how often moderators go through answers to confirm/accept? Have about 85+ posts and was wanting to know if I should list them anywhere for visibility?
I post them in both these threads but not seeing much results.
A thread to request confirms
180.8k
289
5,512
11 years ago
A thread to keep track of answers that are waiting to be marked as correct
24.1k
53
426
10 years ago
#553624
OP
Why do u need second account? Try https://account.namethatporn.com/verify_email
In theory you should be able to create new verification link from there. And all account issues, please use the contact form at https://account.namethatporn.com/contact
In theory you should be able to create new verification link from there. And all account issues, please use the contact form at https://account.namethatporn.com/contact
SPONSORED
Other solved questions