Hmm! New file-naming format???

st_weinblatt · 18-10-24 05:21:22

Bobbi_j Crystal Showers 1 is IFM-named as

f11867-32

where f always seemed to be ... well, "file", I guess, and
the next 5 digits - in this case, 11867 - consistently seemed to be the contributor's unique "serial number", and
"32" would mean (in this case) "the 32nd video from this contributor" (let's call this the "video series-number")
but!
Bobbi_j Crystal Showers 2 is IFM-named as

m15875-1 !!
i never caught sight of an "m", before, ever!
and ... bobbi_j's serial number is now different, it's 15875 ??
and the video series-number is now .... drum-roll ... 1 ??? The real, Present-At-The-Creation, _1_ ?????

What's goin' on, file-organization-wise, here ???? : )))

troyforyou · 18-10-24 06:00:28

Files used to have the name of the actual video but those days are long gone.

Harmony_Admin · 18-10-24 06:57:08

Hey St weinblatt,

With the friends videos there are 2 numbers or more connected to each video, so, the f in Crystal showers 1 refers to Bobbi & the m in crystal showers 2 refers to Duncan.
It's just the way they get uploaded.
f = female
m = male

I hope that makes sense, and doesn't mess with your organizing.

st_weinblatt · 20-10-24 00:49:55

Hmm. But when the user puts "m15875" in the "Artist and Video Lookup", on the Search page, the answer is:

"The data you entered isn't recognised, sorry! Please check it."

So "m15875" is not used for data-indexing. Using "m15875" will cause the user to fail to find a video that has either Bobbi_J or Duncan in it.

Every other video that I happen to have caught sight of, if it has two participants in it with one being a male, the video has one instance of indexing, and what is used is the female's f[number] (the female being, for IFM, the "main" participant.)

As we see, in the many "friends" videos that have no males, they are indexed "n" times - once for each f[number] - where "n" is the number of participants; "n" usually is 2 but, as we know, there are 3's and more.

Designating bobbi_j / crystal showers 2 as

m15875-1

appears to be a singular anomaly within IFM --

-- and it _does_ lead to a search-failure.

Designating it as:

f11867-40

would appear to have every likelihood of working well.

f11867-40 is not in use, as of Oct/19/2024 --

-- and this is even though Bobbi_J's current *highest-existing* video-number is f11867-48 .

Last edited by st_weinblatt (20-10-24 00:54:24)

richard · 20-10-24 04:29:17

st_weinblatt wrote:

Hmm. But when the user puts "m15875" in the "Artist and Video Lookup", on the Search page, the answer is:
"The data you entered isn't recognised, sorry! Please check it."
So "m15875" is not used for data-indexing. Using "m15875" will cause the user to fail to find a video that has either Bobbi_J or Duncan in it.
Every other video that I happen to have caught sight of, if it has two participants in it with one being a male, the video has one instance of indexing, and what is used is the female's f[number] (the female being, for IFM, the "main" participant.)
As we see, in the many "friends" videos that have no males, they are indexed "n" times - once for each f[number] - where "n" is the number of participants; "n" usually is 2 but, as we know, there are 3's and more.
Designating bobbi_j / crystal showers 2 as
m15875-1
appears to be a singular anomaly within IFM --
-- and it _does_ lead to a search-failure.
Designating it as:
f11867-40
would appear to have every likelihood of working well.
f11867-40 is not in use, as of Oct/19/2024 --
-- and this is even though Bobbi_J's current *highest-existing* video-number is f11867-48 .

The reason is that Duncan doesn't have his own profile, he's an accessory to Bobbi.

st_weinblatt · 20-10-24 21:28:31

[ The reason is that Duncan doesn't have his own profile, he's an accessory to Bobbi. ]

Assuredly, exactly.

Designating bobbi_j / crystal showers 2 as

m15875-1

appears to be a singular anomaly within IFM --

-- and it _does_ lead to a search-failure.

Designating it as:

f11867-40

would appear to have every likelihood of working well.

f11867-40 is not in use, as of Oct/20/2024 --

-- and this is even though Bobbi_J's current *highest-existing* video-number is f11867-48 .

Harmony_Admin · 23-10-24 03:05:19

Hey St weinblatt,

f11867-40 "Bobbi j diary 3.4" has been suspended due to Mens.tru.ation.

Unfortunately, if we re-uploaded m15875-1 as f11867-49 that video would lose all metadata and it would disappear from member's favourites.

alsbosilver · 23-10-24 09:54:03

Harmony_Admin wrote:

Hey St weinblatt,
f11867-40 "Bobbi j diary 3.4" has been suspended due to Mens.tru.ation.
Unfortunately, if we re-uploaded m15875-1 as f11867-49 that video would lose all metadata and it would disappear from member's favourites.

It's a shame... it was terribly exciting! And above all it showed a masturbation scene that many women must experience sometimes and which is their reality... I don't really understand why this deletion when there are hundreds of pee breaks!!

Christian (France)

FlyingChicken · 23-10-24 11:36:16

alsbosilver wrote:

Harmony_Admin wrote:
Hey St weinblatt,
f11867-40 "Bobbi j diary 3.4" has been suspended due to Mens.tru.ation.
Unfortunately, if we re-uploaded m15875-1 as f11867-49 that video would lose all metadata and it would disappear from member's favourites.
It's a shame... it was terribly exciting! And above all it showed a masturbation scene that many women must experience sometimes and which is their reality... I don't really understand why this deletion when there are hundreds of pee breaks!!
Christian (France)

It’s because saying no blood means no videos of women being beaten up and bleeding which is good. But we aren’t able to be sensible and differentiate

Last edited by FlyingChicken (23-10-24 11:36:45)

Harmony_Admin · 24-10-24 00:36:31

It's really great to hear that it was a loved video.

FlyingChicken is right, sadly.
As Richard explains, the banks influence and control what content we can share. Any red fluids are a no-no.

As Christian says it's a part of women's reality and we like authenticity on IFM, so it's a real shame.

pole1cat · 24-10-24 10:54:02

Can I assume that videos such as this one are still held in the IFM vaults until such time as social mores would permit their reposting?

polecat

richard · 24-10-24 13:15:36

pole1cat wrote:

Can I assume that videos such as this one are still held in the IFM vaults until such time as social mores would permit their reposting?
polecat

Dude pay attention, it's not about social mores, it's about conservative business being scared of lawyers and journos.

But we keep pretty much everything yes.

st_weinblatt · 24-10-24 20:35:43

[ f11867-40 "Bobbi j diary 3.4" has been suspended due to Mens.tru.ation. ]

Ah, there's a bit of technical history.

Thank you for the info.rm.ation -

_That_ would seem to solve the mystery.

richard · 24-10-24 23:58:24

richard wrote:

pole1cat wrote:
Can I assume that videos such as this one are still held in the IFM vaults until such time as social mores would permit their reposting?
polecat
It's not about social mores, it's about conservative business being scared of lawyers and journos.
But we keep pretty much everything yes.

pole1cat · 25-10-24 10:28:44

richard wrote:

Dude pay attention, it's not about social mores, it's about conservative business being scared of lawyers and journos.

Yes, but conservative business, lawyers, and journos all reflect social mores on some level. As the pendulum swings, maybe consensual sexual expression will become less of a problem for certain sectors of society, and conservative business wouldn't need to be scared.

Dreams are free!

privignus · 25-10-24 19:19:07

pole1cat wrote:

richard wrote:
Dude pay attention, it's not about social mores, it's about conservative business being scared of lawyers and journos.
Yes, but conservative business, lawyers, and journos all reflect social mores on some level. As the pendulum swings, maybe consensual sexual expression will become less of a problem for certain sectors of society, and conservative business wouldn't need to be scared.
Dreams are free!

People who are close to fianciers and right-wing politicians say that they are often horny and queer in their private lives, they have just convinced themselves that they can't let anyone talk about horniness and queerness in public. Its a self-licking ice-cream cone.

#1 18-10-24 05:21:22

Hmm! New file-naming format???

#2 18-10-24 06:00:28

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#3 18-10-24 06:57:08

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#4 20-10-24 00:49:55

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#5 20-10-24 04:29:17

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#6 20-10-24 21:28:31

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#7 23-10-24 03:05:19

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#8 23-10-24 09:54:03

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#9 23-10-24 11:36:16

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#10 24-10-24 00:36:31

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#11 24-10-24 10:54:02

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#12 24-10-24 13:15:36

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#13 24-10-24 20:35:43

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#14 24-10-24 23:58:24

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#15 25-10-24 10:28:44

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

#16 25-10-24 19:19:07

Re: Hmm! New file-naming format???

Board footer