Everything SG

TOPICS:

12/20/06

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46

 ... 319

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Joanne

Joanne

Santa Cruz, CA
September 2003

NOV 12, 2006 08:31 PM

Has anyone used that button yet?

unravled

unravled

Portland, OR
August 2003

NOV 12, 2006 08:41 PM

Am I missing something?

TheInsomniac

TheInsomniac

Washington, DC
October 2003

NOV 12, 2006 08:43 PM

unravled said:
Am I missing something?



I think she's talking about the "It's not for me" button that comes up after you view an entire set. You know, as opposed to "I Loved It!"

unravled

unravled

Portland, OR
August 2003

NOV 12, 2006 08:45 PM

Oh. Yes.

mamet

mamet

Charleston, SC
March 2005

NOV 12, 2006 08:49 PM


Hated It!


I'm sure many people have. I haven't. Then again, I turned that feature off.

doolittle

doolittle

Mesa, AZ
December 2004

NOV 12, 2006 08:55 PM

mamet said:

Then again, I turned that feature off.



good call, i never noticed i could turn it off biggrin

Friedhamster

friedhamster

I'm lost
January 2006

NOV 12, 2006 09:00 PM

I must have turned it off, I've never seen it

Joanne

Joanne

Santa Cruz, CA
September 2003

NOV 12, 2006 10:10 PM

SaintInsomniac said:

unravled said:
Am I missing something?



I think she's talking about the "It's not for me" button that comes up after you view an entire set. You know, as opposed to "I Loved It!"



that's exactly what i was talking about.

Shal

Shal

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

NOV 12, 2006 10:15 PM

Joanne said:

SaintInsomniac said:

unravled said:
Am I missing something?



I think she's talking about the "It's not for me" button that comes up after you view an entire set. You know, as opposed to "I Loved It!"



that's exactly what i was talking about.



"Not for me" comments get sent (anonymously) to staff, not posted where everyone can see them. It gets used quite often.

Pudding

Pudding

San Pedro, CA
June 2005

NOV 12, 2006 10:24 PM

i've used it twice, but in my opinion both sets i used it on seroiusly lacked the quality i normally associate with sg

Joanne

Joanne

Santa Cruz, CA
September 2003

NOV 12, 2006 10:27 PM

thanks shal.

beppo

beppo

Ontario, CA
April 2003

NOV 12, 2006 10:50 PM

Shalome said:

Joanne said:

SaintInsomniac said:

unravled said:
Am I missing something?



I think she's talking about the "It's not for me" button that comes up after you view an entire set. You know, as opposed to "I Loved It!"



that's exactly what i was talking about.



"Not for me" comments get sent (anonymously) to staff, not posted where everyone can see them. It gets used quite often.



Just out of silly curiosity is it logged ina database along with the "I loved it!"s? Or does staff have to look on the boards to see the comment count and compare it with the "Not for me"s?

biggrin

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

NOV 13, 2006 07:21 AM

I used it once, before they gave me the option of turning the stupid box off. I wanted to camplain about the box but didn't want that posted publically. Really, I'd use it more if A. I thought anyone on staff actually read them all, and B I didn't think it would contribute to some sort of negative tally kept track of somewhere.

Coralee

Coralee

SUICIDEGIRL

Wisconsin, USA

NOV 13, 2006 11:08 AM

Miss_Narcissus said:
i've used it twice, but in my opinion both sets i used it on seroiusly lacked the quality i normally associate with sg



+1

Perversia

Perversia

United Kingdom
November 2003

NOV 13, 2006 11:12 AM

I've never used it and I don't think I ever will. If I don't like a set much, I just don't look at it again; there's plenty of gorgeous sets on the site.

Sugar

Sugar

SUICIDEGIRL

Sweden

NOV 13, 2006 11:35 AM

I would never use it. For the same reason i wouldn't post stupid tags. Because it's just stupid.

MrStitches

MrStitches

Brooklyn, NY
November 2003

NOV 13, 2006 11:56 AM

Sugar said:
I would never use it. For the same reason i wouldn't post stupid tags. Because it's just stupid.



As it is only visible to staff, it seems like it serves the purpose of letting the staff know what people think of the sets without it hurting the model's feelings creating some kind of drama. Why is that stupid?

PRockGirlScout

PRockGirlScout

Portland, OR
October 2005

NOV 13, 2006 12:00 PM

What is this about being able to turn that prompt off? Someone please tell me how to do it because it drives me crazy.

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

NOV 13, 2006 12:08 PM

Under your settings, it's called "SET FEEDBACK", so just turn that off. I think it would be easier to find if they gave it a more honest name - like "annoying fucking box".

PRockGirlScout

PRockGirlScout

Portland, OR
October 2005

NOV 13, 2006 12:14 PM

apesamongus said:
Under your settings, it's called "SET FEEDBACK", so just turn that off. I think it would be easier to find if they gave it a more honest name - like "annoying fucking box".



Yay! Thank you. kiss

RockinRicky

RockinRicky

Denver, CO
July 2003

NOV 13, 2006 12:41 PM

Sugar said:
I would never use it. For the same reason i wouldn't post stupid tags. Because it's just stupid.



Agreed.

Sugar

Sugar

SUICIDEGIRL

Sweden

NOV 13, 2006 02:19 PM

MrStitches said:
As it is only visible to staff, it seems like it serves the purpose of letting the staff know what people think of the sets without it hurting the model's feelings creating some kind of drama. Why is that stupid?



For the same reason stupid tags would still be stupid, even if only staff could see them? No but seriously, isn't it already pretty obvious what people think of the sets, looking at the amout of (positive) comments? (Also, the photographers can see the negative comments aswell, not just staff).

Sugar

Sugar

SUICIDEGIRL

Sweden

NOV 13, 2006 02:21 PM

RockinRicky said:

Sugar said:
I would never use it. For the same reason i wouldn't post stupid tags. Because it's just stupid.



Agreed.



smile

MrStitches

MrStitches

Brooklyn, NY
November 2003

NOV 13, 2006 03:15 PM

Sugar said:

MrStitches said:
As it is only visible to staff, it seems like it serves the purpose of letting the staff know what people think of the sets without it hurting the model's feelings creating some kind of drama. Why is that stupid?



For the same reason stupid tags would still be stupid, even if only staff could see them? No but seriously, isn't it already pretty obvious what people think of the sets, looking at the amout of (positive) comments? (Also, the photographers can see the negative comments aswell, not just staff).



But not all comments are set are positive, and some are total nonsense. That gives them a pretty simple to read gauge of how the set was recieved. As for the photographers, if they get butt hurt when someone doesn't like their work, they probably spend a lot of time feeling sorry for themselves to begin with.

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 13, 2006 03:21 PM

Sugar said:
For the same reason stupid tags would still be stupid, even if only staff could see them? No but seriously, isn't it already pretty obvious what people think of the sets, looking at the amout of (positive) comments? (Also, the photographers can see the negative comments aswell, not just staff).



The number of comments doesn't mean all that much, sometimes a girl is just more popular in general or a set goes up on a certain day (there aren't as many comments on Sundays, for example), and besides, with the "I loved it" option even positive comments on sets don't really say WHY people like that set in particular. Having the ability to see both positive and actually insightful comments (in the actual set comments threads) AND to see why people didn't like a set gives the staff and photographers both positive and negative feedback, so they know what to keep doing and how to improve.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next