| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
The newer folders and individual files now do have more descriptive names.
I guess it works for some people, but it's not going to be that way for everyone.
One problem is that the longer names mean longer path names. My system chokes on the longer names often enough that I actually shorten them before opening a zip. Otherwise, folders just don't open or thumbs don't render.
Also with individual photo files, which I always keep in clearly named folders, the only file name info I care about is the file number. Now I have to stretch the folder windows open wider than a Gapeland babe just to see past all of that irrelevant info to the 3- to 4-digit number at the end. Not a pain that bears repeating.
And inserted numbers like "_625d3_" don't seem particularly salient, except perhaps to the folks at Met-Art.
Besides, I have my own conventions about naming, and I'm sure lots of people have theirs, so while I think the Met-Art staff meant well, they overdid it in redoing theirs.
|
09-07-11 11:15am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
BTW, don't you think that Barbara D bears a striking resemblance to Cybil Shepard? Just have a look at MetArt_GAZING_BARBARA-D_by_ALEX-SIRONI_medium_0012.jpg!
|
09-08-11 05:09am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Monahan (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :
I see your point. It really does look like a (much) younger version of Cybil Shepard. But Barbara D's breasts look they've had some aftermarket enhancements. Don't think Cybil had any adjustments made.
|
09-08-11 09:31am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
dracken (0)
|
I see Drooler's point, but to be honest I love it when a site at least tries to name their sets something that makes sense. As a guy that has a huge Misc-random-crap folder this is a nice improvement. I hope other sites follow the example :)
|
09-08-11 07:56pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :
I really liked Barbara Ds first photoset, but I found her other photosets to be much less appealing. It continually amazes me how a single model can look extremely attractive in one photoset, and so much less so in other photosets. You might expect this variation due to different photographers shooting the same model. But even the same photographer can make a model have a large difference in how attractively she is presented.
Anyhow, I agree that the new naming convention at Metart is more descriptive. But like Drooler states, the older system was far easier to use, in the sense the identifying section, e.g. SRT_141, was easy to list and keep track of. I am still trying to figure out how to keep a record of these long file names for a photoset.
|
09-09-11 09:14am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #5 - lk2fireone :
Yes, I've seen the same kind of thing with same model, same photographer, different in level of appeal. It's been hit or miss with Barbara D photosets. BTW I've seen her at Errotica-Archives and, as Xana, at FemJoy. Her sex appeal comes off OK at FemJoy (IMHO), and second set of her at Errotica, the cowgirl, is pretty hot.
|
09-10-11 03:15am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Drooler :
What you say convinces me, once again, that beauty (or sex appeal) is in the eye of the beholder. I downloaded the farm girl photo set of Barbara at Errotica and then deleted it after viewing, because I just didn't like it.
I'm trying to be a little picky. Because even though Hard Drive storage is so cheap, I'm filling up these external hard drives with photo sets and videos I will probably never look at twice.
|
09-10-11 03:29am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #7 - lk2fireone :
I have the same issues with hard drive space, but I do manage to look at them twice. Just not a third time ...:)
|
09-10-11 09:21am
Reply To Message
|
