There seemed to be some curiosity as to how we decide which sets from member review appear on the front page, here is the criteria we use:

Ratio of Loved It to Not For Me
Ratio of # comments to time in member review
Diversity of commenters
Quality and length of comments
Feedback from The Council
Feedback from the SG Photographers
Model activity on the site (blogs, comments, groups, etc.)

We don't just pick the sets with the highest number of comments, although often the sets with the highest number of comments are chosen because a high comment count often goes hand in hand with doing well in other criteria.

Is there other criteria you think should be added to our Member Review selection process? A criteria we currently use you don't think we should?

SilverSurfer

MODERATOR

Chicago, IL

SEP 13, 2008 09:04 AM

What is The Council? I've heard vague tales, told around the campfire, and I can see that it's an invitation-only private group, but I've never seen an explanation of what it is.

Annisa

SUICIDEGIRL

Michigan, USA

SEP 13, 2008 09:10 AM

the Council is just a group where people discuss sets in member review..

SilverSurfer

MODERATOR

Chicago, IL

SEP 13, 2008 09:16 AM

Annisa, thanks.

Sean, you didn't mention whether or not staff -- you, Missy, whoever -- sometimes just pick sets that you like a lot, or that you subjectively feel are a good fit for the site in some way. I hope you do. Of course, that's how all the sets got selected in "the old days", and that worked really well.

In other words, I think there should be staff "wild card" picks of sets that might not score as well using the other criteria, but that are still really worthwhile.

Tiger_Fodder

Braintree, MA

June 2007

SEP 13, 2008 09:38 AM

Annisa said:
the Council is just a group where people discuss sets in member review..

And who are these people? I imagine this:

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

SEP 13, 2008 09:38 AM

I think those are some damn good criteria. Maybe it would also be helpful to have a separate set of people that focus on the "Model activity on the site (blogs, comments, groups, etc.)" component? II imagine it must be very time-consuming to do!

Or make that a more official part of what The Council does, I dunno.

Fatality

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 13, 2008 09:55 AM

I'm surprised that things like "Quality and length of comments" and "diversity of comments" are actually taken into account. That's neat. I also like the model's behavior being taken into account...though I don't think it should be quantitative activity, but rather how much a part of the community she is - in whatever mode...

Fatality

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 13, 2008 09:56 AM

It also pisses me off when girls aren't even active or concerned enough to give themselves a cover or put their sets in the right order, but that's neither here nor there...

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

SEP 13, 2008 10:08 AM

Fatality said:
I'm surprised that things like "Quality and length of comments" and "diversity of comments" are actually taken into account. That's neat. I also like the model's behavior being taken into account...though I don't think it should be quantitative activity, but rather how much a part of the community she is - in whatever mode...

Indeed, it should definitely be qualitative. I care more about how a model acts when she's on the site than about how often she's on SG. I'd prefer an SG who can maybe only log on sometimes but always has something interesting and smart to say above a zillion SGs who are on all the time but act like idiots/assholes all over the place.

FreakPirate

Canada

November 2002

SEP 13, 2008 10:11 AM

Can we maybe have spamming considered in the criteria for rejecting sets? I mean, posting a link in your journal is fine but randomly friend requesting complete strangers with "PLZ VOTE ON MY SET IN MR!!<3" is fucking annoying and guarantees I won't look at your set.

Valium

SUICIDEGIRL

France

SEP 13, 2008 10:12 AM

InnocentSid said:

Annisa said:
the Council is just a group where people discuss sets in member review..

And who are these people? I imagine this:

that's it! i'm the one on the left.

more seriously, the council is random members, SGs and photographers.

Fatality

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 13, 2008 10:13 AM

FreakPirate said:
Can we maybe have spamming considered in the criteria for rejecting sets? I mean, posting a link in your journal is fine but randomly friend requesting complete strangers with "PLZ VOTE ON MY SET IN MR!!<3" is fucking annoying and guarantees I won't look at your set.

I know that staff is usually alerted to that and I believe they do try to take it into account (when possible). Maybe there should be a way (board, person, etc.) for members to notify when they do see such behavior?

FreakPirate

Canada

November 2002

SEP 13, 2008 10:16 AM

Fatality said:

I know that staff is usually alerted to that and I believe they do try to take it into account (when possible).

Cool.

Maybe there should be a way (board, person, etc.) for members to notify when they do see such behavior?

That would be wonderful. I hate spammers so much.

Elea

SUICIDEGIRL

I'm lost

SEP 13, 2008 10:17 AM

Fatality said:

I was tempted to flag a spam mail from an SG, but ended up not doing it.
Would it have made any difference? I felt so stupid for wanting to flag...

FreakPirate

Canada

November 2002

SEP 13, 2008 10:19 AM

Elea said:

I was tempted to flag a spam mail from an SG, but ended up not doing it.
Would it have made any difference? I felt so stupid for wanting to flag...

Might not make a difference but at least staff would be aware that she's spamming people. *shrug*

lil_tuffy

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

SEP 13, 2008 10:21 AM

FreakPirate said:

Fatality said:

I know that staff is usually alerted to that and I believe they do try to take it into account (when possible).

Cool.

Maybe there should be a way (board, person, etc.) for members to notify when they do see such behavior?

That would be wonderful. I hate spammers so much.

It's definitely the most annoying side-effect of the member review process. Quality of interaction on the site vs. quantity should be encouraged.

Hunkpapa

United Kingdom

June 2004

SEP 13, 2008 10:27 AM

Fatality said:
I'm surprised that things like "Quality and length of comments" and "diversity of comments" are actually taken into account. That's neat.

yes, I was a bit surprised too. but now I know, I'll try to put a bit more effort into what I write when I leave a comment on a great set. I can be One-Word Comment Boy sometimes.

also, I agree with what's been said about the spammers.

BrightRedScream

Stoney Creek, ON

April 2005

SEP 13, 2008 10:28 AM

The behaviour of the girls is taken into account?
There's a girl on this site who went pink, who generally had behaviour that is/was appalling....towards other members AND the other girls.....
So I'm a bit confused by that....are the girls really screened that much?
I would think that their conduct on here would be a key element into deciding who should go pink..and if someone is just plain nasty and rude - why should they be rewarded?

Tiger_Fodder

Braintree, MA

June 2007

SEP 13, 2008 10:33 AM

BrightRedScream said:
The behaviour of the girls is taken into account?
There's a girl on this site who went pink, who generally had behaviour that is/was appalling....towards other members AND the other girls.....
So I'm a bit confused by that....are the girls really screened that much?
I would think that their conduct on here would be a key element into deciding who should go pink..and if someone is just plain nasty and rude - why should they be rewarded?

I agree with you. In that case, the set was not even that strong.

FreakPirate

Canada

November 2002

SEP 13, 2008 10:35 AM

Based on some of the behaviour I've seen I don't think it's one of the top qualifiers.

BrightRedScream

Stoney Creek, ON

April 2005

SEP 13, 2008 10:52 AM

FreakPirate said:

Based on some of the behaviour I've seen I don't think it's one of the top qualifiers.

Obviously not, which kinda sucks.

Meagan

HOPEFUL

Oklahoma City, OK

SEP 13, 2008 11:06 AM

I agree with this. I think behavior should be a more important factor.

Yulia

SUICIDEGIRL

Canada

SEP 13, 2008 01:20 PM

YES. 1 for amount of spamming / continued spamming (in certain cases, give a girl a break if her site etiquette has radically improved, I think is right) counting as a factor. Or bad behaviour in general.

Melley

Canada

April 2008

SEP 13, 2008 03:07 PM

Just a personal option.....Suicide Girls was designed for alternative girls...girls that are different, I find some sets are not going live because they are not some peoples type, like either their body type or other factors like scars and stuff....I might be wrong but thats some of the things I'm seen.

Yulia

SUICIDEGIRL

Canada

SEP 13, 2008 03:41 PM

^ I agree -- not saying it's right, just saying it's happening. BS responses I find are generally either "OMG, what is THAT?" or "You just want attention" and neither of those are cool.

Ideally, I would like to think that there's something for everyone and everyone is perfect to someone, so can't rude comments be kept to themselves?

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 16

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

SEP 13, 2008 08:32 AM

MODERATOR

Chicago, IL

SEP 13, 2008 09:04 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

Michigan, USA

SEP 13, 2008 09:10 AM

MODERATOR

Chicago, IL

SEP 13, 2008 09:16 AM

Braintree, MA

June 2007

SEP 13, 2008 09:38 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

SEP 13, 2008 09:38 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 13, 2008 09:55 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 13, 2008 09:56 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

SEP 13, 2008 10:08 AM

Canada

November 2002

SEP 13, 2008 10:11 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

France

SEP 13, 2008 10:12 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 13, 2008 10:13 AM

Canada

November 2002

SEP 13, 2008 10:16 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

I'm lost

SEP 13, 2008 10:17 AM

Canada

November 2002

SEP 13, 2008 10:19 AM

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

SEP 13, 2008 10:21 AM

United Kingdom

June 2004

SEP 13, 2008 10:27 AM

Stoney Creek, ON

April 2005

SEP 13, 2008 10:28 AM

Braintree, MA

June 2007

SEP 13, 2008 10:33 AM

Canada

November 2002

SEP 13, 2008 10:35 AM

Stoney Creek, ON

April 2005

SEP 13, 2008 10:52 AM

HOPEFUL

Oklahoma City, OK

SEP 13, 2008 11:06 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

Canada

SEP 13, 2008 01:20 PM

Canada

April 2008

SEP 13, 2008 03:07 PM

SUICIDEGIRL

Canada

SEP 13, 2008 03:41 PM