Nobody Special <happyposter@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ak90v6h9n4qod6o42hia7fmh84m2igfq6o@4ax.com:
> FWIW, Webeweb had the most inane numbering scheme. What you have as
> "set 11" is actually set 1. The "s" number is the shoot number, but
> when model sets were posted on their sites they would often (usually)
> have a different "set" (gallery as they called them) number. When
> posting using the shoot number and calling it a set number, it can
> create confusion among people who then try to find all those "missing"
> sets.
>
> Here's how the sets posted correspond (if anyone cares):
>
> set # to shoot #
>
> 01 s011
> 02 s024
> 03 s027
> 04 s040
> 05 s021
> 06 s025
> 07 s033
> 08 s049
>
Dammit.
I knew that the Webeweb numbering was usually different than the
models' set numbers. I didn't know the "s" was for shoot. I know I
actually started to ignore the set numbers from the individual model
sites and used the Webeweb numbers to complete collections. It made it
possible, in say a torrent, for me to look at one of the file names and
know immediately whether or not I needed the set. Also, you can tell
that the shoot number generally follows a chronological order whereas
the other set numbers jump all over the place in time (if that matters
to you and I guess it does to me).
For consistency's sake I'll change "set" to "shoot" - or just leave it
out - I was only doing it to add some kind of order.
Since my obsession is with the "m" series models, I've been sorting them
this way - even though I know they often ended up affiliated with other
web sites.
Hopefully interested parties will be able to find what they need but
apologies for the confusion and thanks for the insight.
|
|