2016-02-24

Today is Wednesday......

2016-02-24

It's only Tuesday here. Can you tell me about the Wednesday stock market or lotto winners? ;)

2016-02-24

Gee, @moebius- THANKS for the help! *Now* it's also Wednesday here. I'd have given you a cut on those winning lotto numbers! ;) Maybe tomorrow? (Like the sign in the pub: "Free Beer Tomorrow")

2016-02-03

@Alien- Yeah, well you turned this one A/C with your wardrobe malfunction. Put you man-boob away. By the way... Nice... uh... HAT.

2016-02-03

TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!

2016-02-03

♪♫ I gave my love a cherry without a stone I gave my love a chicken without a bone I gave my love a ring that had no end I gave my love a baby with no crying... ♪♫

2016-02-24

Agree man-boob!!!! 8

2016-02-24

Should I report for AC???

2016-02-24

Nope. Report for "Poor Taste/Disgusting."

2016-02-24

I wish I could lol.

2016-02-24

@BiB: I don't think it specifies that "Poor quality" refers only to low-res pics.

2016-02-24

@TJG- You're not the first person to suggest that, but I've never had the guts to try, although I've seen some pretty disgusting and inappropriate pics and even *galleries* that I wish weren't here. Hey, but we're inclusive... something for everyone here, right? "Only on Wikifeet!"

2016-02-24

@TJG I disagree that "Poor Quality" should refer to low-res. I believe low-res pics should be reported as "Duplicate" and only after a higher-res pic of the same shot is posted. I suggest discontinuing the "Poor Quality" report category altogether as it has led to many pics, especially rare ones (and the rarity often means only low-res is available), being removed.

2016-02-24

@moebius- So, what do you do with *really* crappy pics that are very low-res (like 150 x 250) AND/OR so blurry from motion or out-of-focus, or very dark screencaps, or shot from 300 yards with a 55mm normal lens, where you can barely tell there's a *girl* let alone if she has *feet* showing? Currently, the lower-res duplicates *are* properly reported 'duplicates' except by a few errant reporters who use 'PQ' for that purpose, and *that* causes confusion. You may have a MQ or HQ pic being upgraded by HQ/UHQ but see "PQ" on it and assume its a troll/false report (not realizing there is a newer higher-res upgrade 'duplicate').

2016-02-24

Addendum: About a year ago, the Admin promised that he would 'think of something' in order to eliminate the PQ reports in rare/obscure galleries and especially *vintage* galleries where no HQ digital photography even existed during that era (pre-oughties or pre-90s). So far, he has done nothing about it beyond the *rule* that everyone ignores. We suggested disabling PQ reports in galleries with less than xx pics (25? 50? 99?)

2016-02-24

@BiB - It's only been a year relax.

2016-02-24

@Joker- I know. Patience is a virtue. I posted Eli's schedule for completion of all new features & upgrades earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

2016-02-24

@BiB I would use "No Feet Showing" for the blurry/dark/distant pics. The only pics I myself have reported as "PQ" are grainy blow-ups of low-res pics that are larger in SIZE but actually just as poor in resolution as the low-res original pic it was blown up from (and which is also already present on the site).

2016-02-24

Well, I think what you're saying makes sense, but good luck getting it changed. See my post, just above yours.