|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Thursday September 05 01:45:45 2002 Bare Feet details |
| Could you please add the following blurb to these DB entries:
"You get a good glimpse of her bare feet." This applies to entry #'s: 56 214 226 (both scenes) 230 (Oxenburg, last scene) 244 254 (on bed) 289 577 582 (when she's hogtied on bed) 585 (during last two scenes) 706 (crampton strapped to table) 792 911 (last scene on bed) 996 (first scene) 1156 (first scene) 1163 (Rothrock on bed) 1617 1864 (all scenes) 2208 Thanks, It'd be great if people weren't lazy when they first submit scenes. |
| Thursday September 05 02:08:22 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
|
> It'd be great if people weren't lazy when they first > submit scenes. Completely unnecessary attack on people. Many people, myself included, don't care about bare feet. That's another fetish altogether, and you can't expect them to put it in just to please you. |
| Brian R |
| Thursday September 05 02:18:23 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
| > Could you please add the following blurb to these DB
> entries: > > "You get a good glimpse of her bare feet." > > This applies to entry #'s: Done |
| Jay L |
| Thursday September 05 02:22:50 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
| > > It'd be great if people weren't lazy when they first
> submit scenes. One point here, You do realise that I was adding barefoot, skirts, dresses, nylons and heels as favours huh? Fellas were probably more adhereing to the entry instructions than being lazy here. |
| Jay L |
| Thursday September 05 02:39:50 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
| > Many people,
> myself included, don't care about bare feet. That's > another fetish altogether, and you can't expect them > to put it in just to please you. Well was adding the barefoot and other details (skirts, etc) in as favours. Reasons being, you'd have an ungagged girl wearing slacks tied up pretty good, but have quite a few collectors not interested. Figured a good way to help those narrow down scenes of interest to them. If you figure this "another fetish altogether"? Can stop the practice? |
| Jay L |
| Thursday September 05 03:29:45 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
| Take a look at DB entry #244 (movie: Nightfire). The original description is "Tied up and blindfolded." Is that not one of the lamest descriptions that's in the DB?
Now compare that with entry #6540 (movie: Lowball). Now that's an entry!! See the difference? I'm just asking for a little more effort in posting. Whenever I post an entry, I try to cover every "turn-on" that others have collectively expressed an interest in. That would make the DB 10x better than having posts that only say something like... "tied up and gagged..." > > It'd be great if people weren't lazy when they first > > submit scenes. > > Completely unnecessary attack on people. Many people, > myself included, don't care about bare feet. That's > another fetish altogether, and you can't expect them > to put it in just to please you. > > |
| Thursday September 05 03:34:24 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
| By the way, I should clarify myself.
I didn't want the "bare feet" thing added just for the heck of it. In the scenes that I specified, the ladies have their bare feet tied. I didn't want the description added just to let people know that you can see some bare feet, but rather bound bare feet. I think it's just as important as clarifying what kind of gag is in a scene (cleave, tape, etc.) By the way Jay, thanks. > > > > Completely unnecessary attack on people. Many people, > > myself included, don't care about bare feet. That's > > another fetish altogether, and you can't expect them > > to put it in just to please you. > > |
| Thursday September 05 08:02:24 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
| > Take a look at DB entry #244 (movie: Nightfire). The
> original description is "Tied up and blindfolded." Is > that not one of the lamest descriptions that's in the DB? > > > Now compare that with entry #6540 (movie: Lowball). Now > that's an entry!! See the difference? > > I'm just asking for a little more effort in posting. > Whenever I post an entry, I try to cover every "turn-on" > that others have collectively expressed an interest in. > That would make the DB 10x better than having posts that > only say something like... "tied up and gagged..." The database, especially in its early entries, consists of information compiled from numerous sources, including other "databases." When the entry is "lame" that's because it was the best information available at the time. The hope is that the "lame" entry would flag the scene and a gentle reader would provide additional details later. |
| David |
| Thursday September 05 08:10:34 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
| > By the way, I should clarify myself.
> > I didn't want the "bare feet" thing added just for the > heck of it. In the scenes that I specified, the ladies > have their bare feet tied. I didn't want the description > added just to let people know that you can see some bare > feet, but rather bound bare feet. > > I think it's just as important as clarifying what kind of > gag is in a scene (cleave, tape, etc.) The editors are happy to update entries with useful information. Just remember that what's important to you may not have registered on the radar of the folks that placed the original entries. In the past other folks have knashed their teeth because the database didn't include such details as whether the gag was over-the-hair or under-the-hair, the damsel was wearing a skirt or jeans, yada yada. That doesn't mean that the information can't be added later, it just means that the original poster didn't notice those elements. |
| David |
| Thursday September 05 08:44:12 2002 Re: feet and gags |
| I*'ve always been glad to mention gags in my entries, and feet too where noticeable. Frex, the original entry for Tarzan and the Slave Girl contained only the gag scene, leaving out mention of a couple of scenes of barefoot slavegirls coffled at the ankles, with closeups of their feet, an AOH whipping scene and a catfight. But all I did was fix it.
My standard on bare feet is that I'll mention it if there are closeups of the bound feet or it's otherwise made much of, as in "Tarzan and the Slave Girl" and "Son of Sinbad" but that if the gal is just bound to a bed and her feet are bare but they're only seen in full body shots, I don't bother. I know that foot fetishists constitute a significant percentage of bondage fans, but I don't know how significant -- are they as well represented as gag snobs? They don't complain as often about missed opps for foot scenes, so probably not, but it could be that gag snobs are more numerous. I was thinking about the right way to handle gag scenes in the database. I have been mentioning the absence of gags in scenes with the notation "no gags" so that a gag snob reading the entry would know that the editor had been looking for gag scenes and there were none there, rather than the gag simply being overlooked. But it occurs to me that this might not be such a good idea. It means that anyone doing a search for the term "gag" in the database will pull up a bunch of entries that just say, "No gag." Also, I don't think there are that many entries in the database in which gag scenes are omitted. Any thoughts? |
| Pat Powers |
| Thursday September 05 12:03:30 2002 Re: Like More Effort In Posting |
| "I'm just asking for a little more effort in posting." Yeah sympathise, I don't put half the effort in as David here, but even I see an Unknown actress & episode title TV Series scene entered and get irritated about having to go wading through guides trying to ID it. However, some of them are entering with little experience in the English language. Like the fella from Singapore or wherever? so realise they're trying to assist but having a bugger of a time themselves. "Whenever I post an entry, I try to cover every "turn-on" that others have collectively expressed an interest in." Well, like I said, skirts, boots, feet, etc, were put in the bottom of the entry as favours. But you got fellas here that don't like those "just chloroed" and entries with no tying up, etc. So, don't agree with any favours either. "That would make the DB 10x better than having posts that only say something like... "tied up and gagged..."" Someone once (David?), described the DB as "a work in progress". Figure best way to put it. We do improve the entries with scene times and such, as we come across them, but it's going to take awhile to get around to them all. |
| Jay L |
| Thursday September 05 12:09:19 2002 Addition |
| Record number: 3418
Title: Charlie's Angels Medium: TV Series Actress: Shelley Hack Description: Episode: "Angels on Campus" (4.10) Tiffrany Welles (Hack) is bound to an easy chair, with her hands tied behind her back. She isn't gagged. _____________________________________________________ Tiffany receives a nice chloroforming before her chair-tie scene. At the beginning of the episode, a cute co-ed is stalked outdoors at night then chloroformed. |
| Bosley |
| Thursday September 05 13:39:04 2002 My two cents about DB entries... |
| Although I know this is not the discussion page, please let me add a few thoughts.
Certainly, an incomplete DB entry is a nuisance, especially when the word "unknown" shows up. But I think we all agree that having in incomplete entry is preferable to none at all, as long as the information provided is correct. We can work with it, e.g. when a show is repeated or when we get info from other sources. I also think the information "no gag" is still useful. For gag snobs this is a clear signal not to keep watching the show for something that will not happen. And how often when people give first info about a scene the first question is "was she gagged?". Pat is right of course that searching for "gag" will give you all of the no-gag-entries too. But with thousands of DB entries, searching for "gag" alone no longer makes sense anyway. You will have to narrow your search down further if you want a useful result. |
| Peter de K |
| Thursday September 05 14:06:02 2002 Re: Bare Feet details |
| > Take a look at DB entry #244 (movie: Nightfire). The
> original description is "Tied up and blindfolded." Is > that not one of the lamest descriptions that's in the DB? This has been taken care of. I entered a new scene description. |
| Peter de K |
| Thursday September 05 15:00:04 2002 Re: My two cents about DB entries... |
|
What I look for in an entry is a brief but informative description of the scene(s) and some indication of time(s). If the poster can add more detail, fine ... but not everyone has the time or inclination for that. "Just the facts, ma'am". As David said, it can always be embellished down the line. As for items not directly related to bondage, I think they shouldn't be the "star" of the entry ... i.e., there shouldn't be a long, fevered description of a sex scene or "catfight", along with a brief mention of a handcuffing. This *is* a mainstream bondage scene DB, and anything else should be secondary to those. |
| Biff |
| Thursday September 05 21:17:39 2002 The Boy Here's Been Asked To Explain Himself |
| Been e-mailed about this, so will go over it again: "Whenever I post an entry, I try to cover every "turn-on" that others have collectively expressed an interest in." "Well, like I said, skirts, boots, feet, etc, were put in the bottom of the entry as favours. But you got fellas here that don't like those "just chloroed" and entries with no tying up, etc. So, don't agree with any favours either. Recall awhile back we had this discussion, and was described as "Whatever floats your boat" (Bindan Gagger?), put it into the DB. Well, there are those that feel this is, as they put it "a Bondage Site". Meaning, if there is no tying up involved in a chloro scene, then the chloro scene doesn't belong in the Data-Base. I'd imagine the blindfold only scenes would be on the "hit list" as well? Again, my feeling due to the much greater interest in gags, skirts, barefoot, etc, scenes, compared to very little interest in a well tied lady wearing pants scenes, was that it didn't hurt to add it in the bottom line of the entry as a favour. Figure best leave it to Brian or his grumpy buddy Moderator, to draw the line here. |
| Jay L |
|
|