Met-Art
FreeOnes Met-Art Blog
But then where do I send my penis pictures?
OK back to the AMA!
Anders will continue to take those, don't worry
But then where do I send my penis pictures?
OK back to the AMA!
We do look for natural models, without tattoos or piercings, etc. I am NOT a Met-Art model though
Thanks for the information, Alex! Man, I thought I had a lot of space with my 8TB Raid Array! 40TB arrays are just.... is there a "mind blown" smiley? I guess this will do: :suicide:Alex the CTO here.
A lot of servers and a lot of hard drives! We have a sysadmin that spends a good portion of his week just swapping out hard drives and rebuilding RAIDs. Our largest servers we build for content importing and preparation use 40 terabyte arrays.
Storage didn't used to be so cheap and hard drives were a major expense in our tech budget. Before SSD caching came about, we used to use the fastest platter hard drives possible on the MetArt member servers to ensure fast delivery (15K RPM SAS). Now that storage is cheap, we'll keep adding new storage slice servers (the 40 TB boxes) so that we always keep the highest resolution originals in a permanent archive.
Also I just noticed your username (solrage) -- you're a great commenter on SexArt. We really appreciate members like you who appreciate the work that goes into the production. Cheers!
-- Alex (CTO)
Thanks for the information. I do admit I often find it sad when I find a model that I love--usually from a while back--that only has one or two sets, but I can understand how that happens. Too many beautiful models, not enough time.We coordinate models with photographers and photographers also introduce models to us for approval. You'll notice that some models do very well when introduced to the site - which is no small feat to accomplish among the thousands of models we have. Some models don't perform as well. We listen to our members and bring back the models they love. We definitely work with the models and photographers to arrange more content production.
I joined FreeOnes after seeing the link to this discussion on MET. I've been a yearly member of MET for a long time now, and still think the photo content is great. The best sets, imo, are the ones that are not just nudes, but also include photos of the models in street clothes in public. There can never be enough of those.
One of the things that I really liked about MET when I was a new member in 2006 were the exclusive cam model shows. I saw my first cam shows on MET and spent a reasonable amount on the old MET-Cams once the pay-cams started. I liked that we could see photo sets on MET of the same models who appeared on cam. In 2010, you switched to a Streamate clone, like we see everywhere *cough* and the MET models we knew went elsewhere. My cam dollars followed them.
Are you considering returning to exclusive (like Diesel) now that there is a network that can bring in sufficient traffic to sustain its own cam site featuring models we see on the MET network?
PS: The feet with the pink toenails.
Calm down lads, let's not turn it turn it into a dick-waving contest because the professional in the porn biz is a pretty lady. Someone will end up taking it too far and talking about hard they're going to beat it, and it's not Jill's job to hear all that.
How has your time selling porn to (mostly) men changed your understaning of male sexuality and what do you do to make men choose your site over others?
I have learned that men really crave sex -
.....
What happened with the rankings on MET? Some models were consistently in the top rows, and now all of a sudden they are all at the bottom of the page, replaced by models with only a few sets. Lorena B, who is in the top one or two on Sex Art and TLE isn't even in the top 150 anymore, nor is Iveta B who was #1 for ages. Caprice and Malena were #1 at some point, and are two of the biggest names you have, but are now ranked way down the page. I'm not complaining as a fanboy of any particular models, but I noticed a big shift for a lot of models a month or two back. Are you trying to promote newer models, or are more people voting now, or did you change the way scores are calculated, and weighting more recent votes more highly? You may want to rethink that, since MET has great content that is older than 4 months.
Why is EB so messed up? There are models under different names (Eve and Ariana), and there are names like Iveta and Sveta with two different models under the same profile. I was a member there briefly once or twice back when it was MET-Models, and had some of the same content as MET-Art, and always found it treated like a stepchild of MET-Art.
Sorry about asking serious questions, but I had my first monthly sub back when it was Most Erotic Teens and Andrea was the icon of MET, and I hold the site to a pretty high standard.
Thanks for the information, Alex! Man, I thought I had a lot of space with my 8TB Raid Array! 40TB arrays are just.... is there a "mind blown" smiley? I guess this will do: :suicide:
Yeah, I am solrage on SexArt and Met-Art. I commented a lot more before the flood that ruined my last Raid array (and iPad, fence, roof, etc.). Luckily, insurance paid for everything, but I did get backed up on MA and SA sets/videos to see, so now I'm playing catch up!
It's great that storage is getting cheaper, isn't it? A long ways from the days of this:
Alex, CTO here:
Your observations are spot on. The details on how we compute model ratings has never been discussed but I'm glad to give you some insight here.
When the site first started, over a decade ago, decisions were made not to count user ratings that were below a certain threshold. The thinking behind that being that you can't really say any of our models are a "1" on a scale of 1 to 10 so why are people rating them a 1 or a 2? The decision was made not to count those very low ratings.
Recently we decided to reverse that decision and slowly roll back the ratings so they accurately reflect how people vote and also instantly change the ratingts on the site to reflect your vote. Before these changes it could take up to an hour for your vote to appear as calculated. The effect of this was, as you saw, a gradual change in our model ratings as we now include every vote that people make. I believe this is a more accurate rating system and that people aren't calling models a "1" but they are telling us how much they like the girl on a scale of 1 to 10. After all, if we believed our models are only 8s 9s and 10s, why do we even offer the lower ratings?
All in all I think this has resulted in more accurate and truthful representations of our top models and top content. But we are not weighting more recent votes or any votes more highly than any others.
Alex, CTO here:
Your observations are spot on. The details on how we compute model ratings has never been discussed but I'm glad to give you some insight here.
When the site first started, over a decade ago, decisions were made not to count user ratings that were below a certain threshold. The thinking behind that being that you can't really say any of our models are a "1" on a scale of 1 to 10 so why are people rating them a 1 or a 2? The decision was made not to count those very low ratings.
Recently we decided to reverse that decision and slowly roll back the ratings so they accurately reflect how people vote and also instantly change the ratingts on the site to reflect your vote. Before these changes it could take up to an hour for your vote to appear as calculated. The effect of this was, as you saw, a gradual change in our model ratings as we now include every vote that people make. I believe this is a more accurate rating system and that people aren't calling models a "1" but they are telling us how much they like the girl on a scale of 1 to 10. After all, if we believed our models are only 8s 9s and 10s, why do we even offer the lower ratings?
All in all I think this has resulted in more accurate and truthful representations of our top models and top content. But we are not weighting more recent votes or any votes more highly than any others.
I believe this is a more accurate rating system and that people aren't calling models a "1" but they are telling us how much they like the girl on a scale of 1 to 10. After all, if we believed our models are only 8s 9s and 10s, why do we even offer the lower ratings?.
I do not like that system with assigning numbers. Since one person might rate a girl as a 5 whereas another, for the same perceived "value", would assign a 7, you don't get either a ratio or a nominal scale that way. It only works for one individual's preferences. Never, ever, try to use a ratio scale to measure something that is inherently non-parametric. I would prefer to allow the users to rank the girls against each other by asking them if one set is better than another, or to distribute 100 points between the models; that way you will soon be able to rank the models/photographers/scenes on an ordinal scale.
Gotta say I agree with Ovidius and Sevrin here, Alex. Although I never much paid much attention to the ratings and, like Sevrin said, it won't affect my use of the site, I also don't like *just* having a 10 point ratings scale to determine rankings; there are too many problems with it. Personally, I don't think I've rated any MA model below a 5 (just checked: I haven't, and I've only given out twelve 5s). I don't know if most "1" ratings would actually be reflecting an individual's preferences, or if such votes are given only as a means of voting models down on the Top 150 and elevating others. EG, a "smart" user might give their favorite models a 10 and then go around the rest of the top 150 giving out 1s just to vote other models down in relation, since that would be their best chance of affecting a change. They may do this even if given those models in isolation they'd rate them a 5-7 or something. As sevrin said/suggested, I have to wonder how many of our older favorites (Jenya D, Iveta B, Ariel, Anna AJ, Altea B, Sofi A... just to name a few) would only have have done maybe half the sets they've done if they'd been under the new system, considering that now they're not even in the Top 150....Do you really think this is accurate? Were they really not as hot as we thought all those years? I think a system that includes clicks, page-views and downloads would give a better idea of how important a model is to a site's members...