| Re: Ping: n@@dles re: Ukrainian Nymphets, please read zero - "un-57-079.jpg" yEnc (0/1) |
Saturday Night Live |
| mr.bill (mrbill@invalid.lss) |
2009/01/15 11:28 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!wns11feed!worldnet.att.net!209.197.12.242!nx01.iad.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post02.iad!news.privacy.li!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.picture.ls-series
Subject: Re: Ping: n@@dles re: Ukrainian Nymphets, please read zero - "un-57-079.jpg" yEnc (0/1)
From: "mr.bill" <mrbill@invalid.lss>
Organization: Saturday Night Live
References: <496c3571$0$31172$450c70f1@news.privacy.li> <Xns9B92DBEED96EEndles@216.196.109.131> <l4GdnUsQeu5GqvPUnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@gonamic.de> <kplsm4959dqj0cf9skreq8j7se8adpt2lo@4ax.com> <3qqdnc0JOO43_fPUnZ2dnUVZ8h6dnZ2d@gonamic.de> <Xns9B941A9F7C49Andles@216.196.109.131>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Date: 15 Jan 2009 18:28:14 GMT
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <496f803c$0$31150$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>
X-Complaints-To: admin01@privacy.li
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.picture.ls-series:450
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:37:19 -0600, n@@dles wrote,
>"mr.bill" <mrbill@invalid.lss> wrote in
>news:3qqdnc0JOO43_fPUnZ2dnUVZ8h6dnZ2d@gonamic.de:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:21:42 +0000, EAX wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:07:07 -0600, "mr.bill" <mrbill@invalid.lss>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>My thoughts at first were to rename images reissued as 'a' and 'b',
>>>>but that really complicates things, and neither copy carries the real
>>>>name. My current thinking is to create a separate folder for
>>>>'deprecated' LS images and put all the old copies there. That way,
>>>>serious collectors could have all legitimate LS issued images without
>>>>messing up the viewing folder with duplicate images where the
>>>>models's eyes are covered with a logo for example, or the image is
>>>>upside-down.
>>>
>>>I have the same opinion. Each collection should have a separate
>>>directory for additional files which are authentic but undesirable to
>>>stay in the main directories along with other files, because such
>>>files can spoil the impression of viewing collection.
>>>
>>>I think the following files should be always moved to the separate
>>>directory:
>>>
>>>1) old versions of re-logoed pictures;
>>>2) corrupt pictures even if they were corrupt on the site;
>>>3) thumbnails for missing pictures.
>>>
>
>I am of a slightly different opinion :) I believe that the collection
>should be the best representation of the original and/or complete site.
>
>If an image exists even if it is corrupt it belongs to the set and so
>should be included with it. If there was a reissue I would include that
>instead.
>
>Same sorta thing for thumbnails. Ive always included them as placeholders
>if possible for missing images. Although not officially part of the set
>they fill the gap and do at least give a impression of what it should
>look like albeit small :)
>
>I like to also include thumbs for corrupt images if I can. Some images
>are so corrupt they may as well be missing. I do admit that this is a
>little bit anal :)
>
>For the reissues the usual way was usually to change the names of the
>reissued with a "r" extension and/or the "a", "b", etc extensions.
>I like to keep everything that belongs to a set in the same directory but
>if theres multiple reissues in a set then i totally agree it would get
>cluttered. I would probably include the best version of the image as the
>main pic and include a subdir 'originals' or something altho i do like
>'deprecated' :)
>
>>>Each file in the separate directory should be commented in csv.
>>>
>
>Yeh agreed. I would include comments on any file that is extra or renamed
>as well as the usual corrupt and missing.
>
>>>So I would move the corrupt copy of lod-074-064.jpg to the separate
>>>directory and replace it with a good copy from UN.
>>
>
>:) In this case I would probably either not include it at all and keep
>the original or do include it in a subdir called 'reissues' without
>renaming it and keep the original. In both cases it would be commented in
>the csv where it came from :)
>
>Collectors organise their collections in so many different ways. It
>always comes down to personal taste.
>Ive often changed my mind about how ive organised a site and changed it
>:)
>The usual one i found was folk that wanted to keep the original site
>structure exactly. My idea was to include as much info in a csv as
>possible including having folder names with release date etc so along
>with the set thumbnails it is a mini bible :)
>
>I would say as long as we all agree on what images are correct then thats
>what counts anyway :)
>
>Regards
>n@@dles
I like your suggestions, n@@dles, but then you already have us spoiled
since you set the standard for the rest of us :) It's the agreement on
what's authentic that is most crucial. Beyond that, it's immaterial to me
who codifies all the agreeing csvs into an 'official' csv. I do want to
see it done. You've no idea how often such a collection has been requested
here.
"Please post all the official csvs for LS. TIA"
Yeah, right! Maybe one day such a thing will exist.
--
mr.bill
|
|
|
![Favorite](javascript:myfavor('http://www.nzbot.com/article/alt.binaries.picture.ls-series/450h', 'Re: Ping: n@@dles re: Ukrainian Nymphets, please read zero - "un-57-079.jpg" yEnc (0/1)')){kind=link}