On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 06:23:31 -0500, Randy Wang
<abuse@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>In article <kovrmeha7unj95e40ghrb9a0ltqri1l8iu@4ax.com>, SL
><SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8> wrote:
>
>> I'd have never had the patience nor the resolve to catalogue
>> those like you've done.
>
>It's not so bad, because lately I've been getting a lot of old stuff
>from the VEF web board, where it's usually arranged OK to begin with.
>:-> Probably about half of what I've been posting is from my own
>collection, accumulated over the years, and the other half was ripped
>from VEF more recently. I mean those two categories mixed up together,
>for any model.
>
>The file names are all over the map, though. That's why I do so much
>renaming. The time-consuming part is to get everything organized that
>way and delete the duplicates (which are often lower-res images or old
>scans that are not so good).
>
>Also, as I've bitched about before, when some images are on one
>particular image host, stupid damned imagebam, those file names are
>always guaranteed to be useless because imagebam deliberately throws
>away the original names, from the beginning, and replaces each one with
>the MD5 hash or something similar, whatever it is (it ends up looking
>like a random string of hex digits). So those imagebam sequences
>always need to be renamed into something reasonable.
Obviously, I have no problem with renaming files. Why? It
makes sense and it keeps you from nesting folders within folders,
within folders...I think that is ridiculous and I'm supposing a
Windows search would fail in that circumstance(quicksand!).
I'll occasionally let original filenames stick, but it's
against my modus operandi of being/trying to be coy. It's mostly
useless, I know, but I think it keeps my mojo high. :-)
|
|
){kind=link}