If you were admin what would you change, add, or remove in planetsuzy?

[DoctorNo]

Originally Posted by tonanti

I totally agree with you DoctorNo, if the links are dead then remove the post to the dead links section at least the few pics are still there and will show up on a search. I recently reported a request for a deep clean of the http://veterperementour.ru/t940474-me...ktomara-a.html thread and the MOD replied that if the pics are live then the post stays!! I lost the will to live after the first 100 odd posts are dead links bar a few scattered live links. There are live pics in PATM SD threads with dead links but they get removed??

Well, yes, SD is a video section, so there is no disagreement whether posts without working links should be removed, because you can't download a video without a link.

This forum has been around for a long time. Back in the before time, imagehost posts (thumbnail posts) were way more common in PATM, just like they are in Celebs/Supermodels Pictures now. Picture sets were much smaller. Sets from websites just as Suze Randall were only around 20 - 40 pictures, and sets published in print magazines were much smaller than that. Filehost posts (zipped sets) often had more preview pics than required. So the policy was to leave Picture posts if they had working thumbnails.

Then in 2012, the PATM Dead Links section was created. So it no longer makes sense to leave a few thumbnails for sets that have over a hundred pictures.

[alexora]

Originally Posted by tonanti

if the links are dead then remove the post to the dead links section at least the few pics are still there and will show up on a search.

Personally, I think that rather that automatically remove content posts that contain dead links, the OP should be contacted via PM and offered the opportunity to create new downloads within a specified time period.

If they fail to do so, then by all means those posts should be moved to the Dead Links section.

[pockets]

Originally Posted by tonanti

PATM pictures. If the links are all dead, then remove the post. Some have one or two pictures. I cant see the point, when you are searching for a set, these results keep popping up. And giving you false hope

Response #1 (To help you understand)
Moderators have access to userscripts that help them "clean" threads. The script that we have has a "check" button and a "pencil" button. The check button selects posts that have all dead links, and those posts are marked for removal. The pencil button edits dead links and replaces the links with the text "Dead Link Removed". In picture sections moderators are encouraged to not remove posts that have dead links but do have a significant number of images available. Since this is a bit ambiguous, some moderators use the pencil only and do not remove posts. That being said...

Response #2
For the most part I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am (mildly) annoyed with the first page of the Jenny Poussin thread. It isn't PATM pics, but the same policy applies. Those posts were edited long ago, before we had the current scripts. Do those posts still serve any purpose? I don't think so.

Some moderators do it one way, some do it another. I think we should simply accept that.

Originally Posted by tonanti

What is the point of the long thin box within the main body of each PATM post, it has a “page” symbol at the extreme left? Some posters fill that in with the title and relevant info, others leave it blank. Its great when its completed as you can search elsewhere when the main body content has been removed due to DCMA edits. Either remove the box or make it compulsory. At present it seems “optional” and is rarely used.

As much as I'd like to see the subject box used more frequently I'd not support making it's use compulsory. Unless there were a way to make it so that the post couldn't be submitted without text in the subject field. We ask members to provide a lot of information, we don't need to make things more of a hassle than it already is.

Originally Posted by tonanti

Dead links. I am fully aware of the dead link reporting system, and I am very grateful for all the hard work that the various MODs do on there. Could some sort of clickable notification be made within each PATM post that highlights the presence of dead links to
1. The original poster. 2. A MOD. 3. A highlighted message to appear on the post for the general viewing population to see.

I'm pretty sure that there is no way to do this.

Originally Posted by tonanti

PATM. On each stars page, post number one with the bio, include a link to the other PATM threads linked to the star. HD, SD and Picture. I know it is going to be time consuming but it would be helpful and its done already on some stars pages.

A lot of work, with very little reward. Yeah, it'd be nice, no doubt, but very time consuming.

That being said... I've offered this before: you send me the links, I'll make the edits.

Originally Posted by tonanti

How about recruiting "helpers" they could pick say 10 of their fave stars and be responsible for checking and reporting on their PATM threads. Or they could choose five and be given five of the less desirable ones. These helpers, dont need Mod status but just report the dead links and keep on top of the housekeeping. I am very grateful that Planet Suzy is free and there are very few restrictive rules on new members and long term users, but tasking new members to do some housekeeping in some form as a contribution to the smooth running of the site.

????????????????????????????????????
Anyone can do this without being "recruited"... if you want to recruit members for this task you're more than welcome to do so.

Originally Posted by alexora

This sounds like a valid suggestion.

However I have no idea how the Staff would respond to it: on the whole they do not like rank and file members take any kind of supervisory role in the running of our Planet.

The last time this happened, was when some ordinary members were temporally tasked with keeping things in order during some changes to our forums.

This is nonsense. Staff members not only appreciate members who take a "supervisory" role in thread maintenance, they encourage it. if the two of you want to "recruit" members to report dead links and maintain threads, I can assure you that the staff will appreciate it.

Please note...
If you're suggesting that members themselves should maintain/clean those threads, I'm afraid that this is out of the question. Providing members with the tools to edit/remove posts is a more delicate matter than you might think.

Originally Posted by alexora

I agree and always try to do so if mine is the first post in a PATM thread.

Here are a couple of examples:

Gauge

Anastasia Blue

This post doesn't ask a question and it doesn't offer an answer. What does this post do? It says "look at me".

Originally Posted by alexora

Personally, I think that rather that automatically remove content posts that contain dead links, the OP should be contacted via PM and offered the opportunity to create new downloads within a specified time period.

If they fail to do so, then by all means those posts should be moved to the Dead Links section.

For about a year I tried this... I can assure you that this is not worth the effort.

To be more transparent/candid:
When I'd clean threads I would make it a point to reach out to VIP(+) members and inform them that their links were dead. The dead links would be edited out in the customary manner, and there would also be a "note": Dead Link Removed Re-upload requested [Date]

I sent PMs to these members with a link to the post in question asking for a re-upload. This took an enormous amount of time, and it was not only inefficient, it was ineffective.

The PATM Dead Links Section makes this effort even more futile. If a member want to re-upload their dead links they can search the Dead Links section, find their posts there, re-upload the content, and ask a moderator to restore the post to the original thread.

[ViceLikeEye]

Originally Posted by alexora

Personally, I think that rather that automatically remove content posts that contain dead links, the OP should be contacted via PM and offered the opportunity to create new downloads within a specified time period.

If they fail to do so, then by all means those posts should be moved to the Dead Links section.

Great in theory, but it would be extremely impractical. Hypothetically speaking; Even if we had a button that could auto-send a PM to the member saying "Your post is dead, please re-up the post within X amount of time or it will be removed, etc", it would still be a shitload of extra work - with no guarantee of that work ever bearing fruit.

• Many posters do not respond to PM's (for various reasons).
• Many posters are in it for quick cash, so when links die...oh well!!
• Many poster here are quit prolific, but also fall into the first two points.
• And how would the rest of PATM Staff know if one of us sent that member a "Your post is dead" message on a specific post or multiple posts?

If a post is not re-up'd, a mod would then have to go back into that thread again and remove that post or many posts. Thus essentially cleaning a thread at least twice - in an already vast, extremely busy section. I could see this as a great system in a much, much, much smaller section, but not PATM. It seems like a lot of extra work for mods with not a lot of return on investment - for mods or the community. Sorry, but in my opinion the juice is not worth the squeeze (even in a hypothetical scenario).

Originally Posted by tonanti

I totally disagree with your statement that a member will report their own dead content, if that was the case there wouldn’t be any dead links and you would be out a job and sat twiddling your thumbs. Oh to live in a perfect world.

As for a clickable link within each post to report a dead link and the facility to send it to the poster and a MOD and A highlighted message to appear on the post for the general viewing population to see. As I originally said Im not Tech Savvy but surely the tech exists where once the post has been clicked/identified/message sent and the “Post Reported” Highlighted message appears then no one else can report it, no duplicated reports. Tech a bit like having to click on the thanks button to see hidden links.

I didn’t “Wish” for anything. I merely suggested some things that in my view seemed easily achievable and would be a benefit to all, and assist in the smooth running of the forum. Yes, things are time consuming, what isn’t? As for where have I been for 9.5 years, well I have read this board from time to time but all I see from individuals like you is negativity and dismissive comments against individuals who post suggestions to hopefully improve the forum for the good and benefit of all. So I didn’t bother, as I didn’t want the sarcasm. Probably how a lot of people feel.

I never said members were reporting their own content. Example: If member ABC has a post with dead links, but member XYZ has the content (with fresh links) they will report ABC's post, a mod will remove the post, then member XYZ will post so they can make money. It benefits member XYZ to report dead links (content).

The only thing we have that's remotely close to a clickable link to report anything is the report button, but that's for rule violations. We have a bunch very smart people on Staff. If there was a solution to this, we wouldn't be talking about it, because it wouldn't be an issue. The forum has limitations.

Wishes, wants, or suggestions for things you'd like to see happen - I think they're all pretty synonymous, don't you? If Amazon had a "want" list instead of a wish list, it wouldn't change much for me.

If I seemed dismissive, that wasn't my intent - Sorry. This isn't an excuse, but text and emojis aren't the best medium to convey intent. Maybe I'm jaded and my attempt at "humor" was misguided. My bad.

[Gwynd]

Originally Posted by alexora

Some members might remember when PS had a 'dark mode': this featured a totally different banner - the 'banner girl' was also different: a pretty brunette holding up in her hands a large set of tits, with a naughty expression on her face...

We took that away because it messed things up, I'm not sure to what degree the brunette was at fault.

[Gwynd]

Originally Posted by alexora

This sounds like a valid suggestion.
However I have no idea how the Staff would respond to it: on the whole they do not like rank and file members take any kind of supervisory role in the running of our Planet.
.

Considering all the Staff Members here are/were (depending on your point of view) 'rank and file' members, it's arguably more the case that to do this stuff you need to have access to the necessary tools.

So, we as Admins (ultimately Larry I guess) are left with two options, either promote people just so they can mod a few threads each, and also give them access to other things, or give people at 'lower' levels of responsibility access to thread checking.

Neither is really a 'good' solution so far as I see it, why would you want dozens/hundreds of members with reasonably 'unlimited' access to things they aren't going to use, just so that they can check 'only the threads they want to,' when some other poor bugger's going to have to check everything they don't 'want' to deal with anyway?

Then you have to consider that some posters would, understandably, consider other members have any form of 'preferential' access to threads they may be competing for posts in, to be 'unfair.'

[alexora]

[quote=pockets;22433435]

If you're suggestingThis post doesn't ask a question and it doesn't offer an answer. What does this post do? It says "look at me". .

No: all I am saying is that it is possible to start a new PATM thread with as much info as possible, and to keep adding to it as new details come to light: this kind of info is what goes towards setting us above all the other adult forums, among many other things.

You can roll your eyes all you like, but it is what is is.

You have a history of actively disrespecting me in in the past, and from what I can see, nothing has changed.

Being a good member should not lead you to showing such contempt from a staffer such as yourself are displaying.

At least try and be more respectful: junior staffers may get the wrong idea as to how our Planet is to be run.

I love our Planet, yet you consistently try to portray me as a hater - you are wrong in this narrative.

You have even gone out of your way to resort to dirty tricks to have me banned: I have all the screenshots and documentation that attest to this.

Please leave me alone.

[Gwynd]

Originally Posted by alexora

No: all I am saying is that it is possible to start a new PATM thread with as much info as possible, and to keep adding to it as new details come to light:

Possible - yes.

Worth the extra effort involved - no.

The problem to my eyes at least is that no-one knows what information is contained in the first post of a thread without actively checking that post. The only way to therefore 'know' if a post is 'up-to date' is to regularly actively check it, something which takes time the Staff Members can spend doing other things.

When I come across them I update PATM threads with biographies because members have either started the thread before bio/database links were required, or have started one with 'Not on any approved database' - and they very rarely, if ever, go back to fix posts they start like that when the performer appears on a database.

Perhaps way back when the solution would have been for the poster creating the thread to put this information in, if it were available, but now it's probably way too late.

[Pornizmo]

Originally Posted by pockets

The PATM Dead Links Section makes this effort even more futile. If a member want to re-upload their dead links they can search the Dead Links section, find their posts there, re-upload the content, and ask a moderator to restore the post to the original thread.

Hi pockets.
May I ask how the "duplicate" post rules come in play here?

PATM Rule 04:

Do not post the same video scene (in any video resolution) with a link from the same file host as has already been posted

It could be possible that some other member have posted the same scene after a dead post was moved to dead section.

Re-Uploading the files and asking for the post to be restored could leave 2 identical scenes on the same host(s) - which under normal circumstances is not allowed.

Just curious how that works.

[DoctorNo]

Originally Posted by pockets

Response #1 (To help you understand)
Moderators have access to userscripts that help them "clean" threads. The script that we have has a "check" button and a "pencil" button. The check button selects posts that have all dead links, and those posts are marked for removal. The pencil button edits dead links and replaces the links with the text "Dead Link Removed". In picture sections moderators are encouraged to not remove posts that have dead links but do have a significant number of images available. Since this is a bit ambiguous, some moderators use the pencil only and do not remove posts. That being said...

Speaking for myself, I never used that script. It didn't exist when I first started moderating. So I got very fast at doing it the old-fashioned way. It also misses things. As far as I know, it doesn't show whether a post has a significant number of images available or any working preview pics. I didn't remove posts without preview pics if the links were good, but often PM'd the poster. I've also found posts that had multi-part rar files that had a combination of working links and Dead Link Removed. Which are not only dead, it might not be obvious to downloaders that the removed link wasn't a different host or that the working link is now useless without the other link.

Originally Posted by pockets

Response #2
For the most part I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am (mildly) annoyed with the first page of the Jenny Poussin thread. It isn't PATM pics, but the same policy applies. Those posts were edited long ago, before we had the current scripts. Do those posts still serve any purpose? I don't think so.

I'm more than (mildly) annoyed at that terrible boob job