[Link]
Introducing Brandi Swan| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| mapofhawaii Senior Member 1050 Posts 3/06 |  Posted - Jan 6 2009 : 2:09PMAnyone know what the longest time a porn star has taken between films? I believe Ginger Lynn was gone for about 10 yrs or so, but that's probably not the longest. [Link] |
| the unknown pervert Deactivated User I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06 | Posted - Jan 6 2009 : 8:01PM [Link] |
| mapofhawaii Senior Member 1050 Posts 3/06 | Posted - Jan 6 2009 : 8:07PM [Link] |
| buckaroo Member 283 Posts 10/08 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 12:28AM but it turns out she snuck in six scenes in 1997, so technically she did not have 14 years between retirement and comeback [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 1:58AM Unless you are very familiar with a particular performer's work and activity, it's very difficult to pin down. IAFD may not always report correctly as what the vey last movie an actress has made (some may be compilations, some may be non-sex appearances, some may be movies released at a later date, etc). In the case of certain performers like Cara Lott, Lisa Ann, etc, I believe they were shooting stuff for websites before we started to see DVD titles in which they were featured. The some actresses disappear, return years later to do all-girl stuff (would that in itself qualify?), and probably then resume b/g, so how do you count the years or activity? I don't know exactly when Lauryl Canyon shot her last movie (she had started in 1987) but she briefly reappeared around 1997 to do girl-girl scenes, then quickly disapepared and reappeared again in 1999 and left soon after. Try to figure out excatly how long she was retired. Marilyn Chambers has had a long career in mainstream and hc cinema. Her last hc work was in the "PRIVATE FANTASIES" #1-6 shot around 1984-85. She hosted "Electric Blue" for the Playboy Channel and did some mainstream B-flicks. She returned to full blown hc work in 1998. So that made it about 13 years. Careena Collins retired in the mid-1990's, apparently did some S/M stuff, and came back in 2003 when she did bj scene (does that count?). So how long was she out the first time? The popular red-headed FLAME retired, but then apparently was doing some fetish tapes through her fan club. Would that count, do you consider that coming out of retirement? Seka's movie career is hard to track. Movies kept showing up months and years after they were shot. But it appears she made her last one in 1986, and she reappeared in 1993 to star in VCA's AMERICAN GARTER. So she was out about 7 years. Rene Summers retired around 1990 and reappared to do fetish preggo and lactation movies in 1997. So she was out about 7 years. Shanna McCullough returned after about a 7 year hiatus in the mid 1990's. Selena Steele quit in 1993 (due to pregnancy) and returned in 2002. That's a 9 year absence. Ginger Lynn quit in 1986 and made her comeback in TORN in 1999: 13 years. Brittany O'Connell and Debi Diamond have reappeared in 2008 after a 10-year absence (although O'Connell apparently had been doing some fetish bondage work). So perhaps Chambers and Lott appear to be the longest out of the business before returning, but it would be hard to say who is the clear winner. [Link] |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 10:48AM From our FAQ: "Q: How do you calculate the Years Active field? Something seems fishy, it says this person worked after they were dead... A: It's pretty basic... we take the dates of first the earliest film in the performer's career to the latest non-compilation film in the performer's career." We mark known compilations (i.e. "Titles displayed in a darker row color are compilations."). We mark "non-sex" appearances when known (just like we track sex acts). Movies released at a "later date" are not our problem. We correctly report movies release years. Scenes being released at a later date are just a fact of life in the porn industry. So are retirements, cumbacks, 2nd retirements, MILF cumbacks, 3rd retirements, etc. Like any set of facts, the user has to know something about the subject to reach the correct conclusions. Furthermore, we are constantly making corrections and adding information based on user submissions. Not surprisingly, not all "corrections" we receive are, in fact, correct either. One thing that we do have, as an internal safeguard when entering information, is a warning screen whenever we try to credit performers with new credits that are more than three years outside their already listed credits. We make every effort to double-check these entries. Finally, with the rise of website only content -- which we do not track (we track movies) -- it becomes impossible to know the full extent of any performer's career based on the facts we track -- correctly -- on the IAFD. [Link] |
| Ramsey Senior Member Trina Michaels fan 10332 Posts 10/02 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 10:59AM As for males, Hershel Savage? [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 12:01PM As for Savage, I don't know exactly when he acted in the last film (probably late 1980's), but he directed a handful of movies in the early 1990's (1991-92) and returned to acting in 1997. So maybe he was out of action for a decade. [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 12:14PM You really need to be VERY familiar with a specific performer to know when she may have done their last movie, when she came back, what exactly she has done, and if she did scenes outside of VHS/DVD titles (this could be private clips posted in her her own website or work done for other websites). Even if IAFD only records movie titles, IAFD does not always correctly establish when they were made, when they were released or whether they are compilations. Information comes to IAFD in many ways, and it cannot be acountable for everything that is reported there. You only need to look at the IAFD filmographies of the female and male performers mentioned in my posts on this topic to realize how difficult it is to follow or establish a performer's movie career. If you read Amber Lynn's or Heschel Savage's filmos one gets the impression they basically never stopped. The other problem as I have outlined is: what constitutes a porn "comeback"? Take Amber Lynn, she did a solo in Blake's "ART OF DESIRE" in 1990, then girl-girl scenes 5 years later. Is that a comeback? Or do you only consider her return to b/g work in 2000?? [Link] |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 1:41PM I wasn't making your points, Len. I was putting your points into context. And, my points still stand: We (IAFD) report the facts correctly, and make corrections on an ongoing basis to correct errors when they occur. In particular, you state, "IAFD may not always report correctly as what the vey (sic) last movie an actress has made." Hey, we NEVER report the "vey (sic) last movie an actress has made." NEVER. Did you mean to be saying something different? Well, try stating it correctly then.Obviously.We do not track 2257 information (i.e. "when they were made"). We correctly track "when they were released." We correctly track "whether they are compilations." We immediately mark compilations that are obvious. We mark others as compilations later on as it can be confirmed. We do not brand a movie as a compilation unless we are as certain as we can be that it actually is. Wouldn't it just be a whole lot easier if studios would mark all compilations correctly, and not include previously released material in "new" releases  Find a compilation we missed, let us know. Find a previously released scene in a "new" movie, let us know. We can make a note of this in the "Comments" area we added to individual movie pages.No one is perfect, even the IAFD. For the most part, errors come directly from the studios (i.e. titles, end credits and box covers) themselves. We do, however, hold ourselves "accountable" to be as accurate and correct as possible. Sometimes -- actually often -- this means tracking performers (for example, by various AKAs) for some time before we can correctly consolidate credits under a single performer's listing (and including the known AKAs).Again, we deal in facts! We have never tried to draw conclusions for our visitors! YOU decide what you consider a "comeback." We, the IAFD, and speaking particularly for myself, don't give a rat's ass whether Amber Lynn did a "solo," did "girl-girl" or did "b/g work in 2000." We report the FACTS -- NOT the conclusions. Now, if we incorrectly mark one of her {lez} scenes as {BJ Facial}, let us know and we'll correct it. Look Len, You shot your mouth off inarticulately at the IAFD's expense. A simple "I'm sorry, I really was trying to say..." might have been appropriate. Instead, let's have this very important pissing contest Edited by - BigBobxxx on 1/7/2009 1:48:45 PM [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 2:05PM I don't need to apologize. I am not going to correct you or send corrections for every single error I see in IAFD. Everytime I say something about IAFD, you people take out the big guns and shoot all over the place. You seem to be extremely ticklish about any type of comment or criticism. It's a database. There are shortcomings in EBI, there are errors/inaccuracies (call it what you like) at IMDB, at IAFD, etc. Live with it. I was invited several times by Walter Burns to submit corrections. I have recently done so at the IAFD forum. But you are neither quick nor very trusting of informatuion sent to you (yes, yes I know you people are busy, but so are we all). It takes a lot of back and forth just to get you to correct incorrect info. It just is not worth the trouble anymore, and I will not utter one more word about IAFD or its contents in this forum. This way I will be out of your gunsights. Why do you think studios owe IAFD or any of us porn consumers any particular favorin telling us it is a compilation? We know who they are and what they do and they do not always act honestly. But studios DO tell you when they produced and released a certain movie (since 1995!), but IAFD has no desire to include that in its database. That's YOUR decision not to include that info, but it does not make it easy for people that consult the databse as to the chronology of the filmography of a director/performer. So my point was: how are we to know when an actor/actress made his her first/last movie since we don't have a complete and accurate record? IMDB does record date of release of a movie (domestically and foreign) and often even the production dates. IAFD does not, and that's a fact. It's a decision you have made NOT to include it.... Edited by - Len801 on 1/7/2009 2:26:58 PM Edited by - Len801 on 1/7/2009 2:36:40 PM [Link] |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 3:03PM  Everytime?Personally, I typically take issue with invalid criticism -- like taking the IAFD to task over issues we don't attempt to address (e.g. like performer's career tracks).We make errors all the time. We also correct errors all the time. We not only "live with it," we have user correction buttons on every performer and movie page available to the public. We have an e-mail addresss to contact: iafd@iafd.com We also have the IAFD Direct Forum here on ADT.WTF is "Mark Burns"? Is Walter working under an AKA we don't know about? Pray that Doctor Evil doesn't see this  Yes, and I see that Jeff has responded professionally everytime.Does it ever occur to you that someone else submitted the information that is already there?Fact is, when you, or anyone else, submit corrections for material that is already there -- particularly when it contradicts existing information -- an IAFD editor has to check into it, sometimes in depth, to see what is really going on.You have no idea how much back-and-forth it really takes [o\|] Feel free to tear us (IAFD) -- and me in particular -- a new asshole over on XPT, though (Relax. I'm just trying to be humorous.) Or, you could remember that IAFD editors, at least me, respond well to constructive criticism. I, admittedly, can have a thin skin... particularly when I see unfair and/or inaccurate criticism/comments. However, you might consider what I've said before you take your ball and go home. [Link] |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 3:53PM The IAFD? How about truthfully labeling the fucking product  You are such a tool.The IAFD does NOT receive copies of movies -- where the 2257 information is to be found. It's not so much a "decision" as it as a fact that this information is typically not available to us (at least not for free). You continue to want to hold the IAFD responsible for information we don't (can't) track. Where do you get the idea that the IAFD's mission includes "mak[ing] it easy for people that consult the databse as to the chronology of the filmography of a director/performer"? Perhaps you could enlighten us as how we would treat 2257 information -- when one of the editors actually has the movie in his possession to refer to -- when we have something like Intensities In 10 Cities, whose 2257 information states: 1/27/03, 3/11/03, 3/14/03, 3/18/03, 3/20/03, 4/12/03, 5/14/03, 6/7/03 and 6/30/03? To say we have "no desire" to include 2257 information is a lie. The fact is, we have determined that we can not obtain this information in a consistent and reliable way -- and/or at all for the majority of titles we list -- so we don't track it. Actually, you will sometimes see 2257 information included in the "Comments" section of movie pages. We recently instituted the "Comments" section to handle information we can't easily convey in the database itself.It astounds me how you believe that you can compare the information available for mainstream motion pictures -- which number a few hundred a year, and which are extensively tracked, documented, accurate and searchable for free on the Internet -- with the porn industry. If this information is important to you, please feel free to use the IAFD database as a starting point to your own research. [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 4:01PM I said what I said, I will not retract and I will not apologize, so stop agonizing and analyzing every word I type. I have no intention to respond to every point and I am not engaging in a pissing mud-slinging contest with you. There was no need to go into those useless and lengthy explanations about what is and what is not in IAFD. I have been reading IAFD for over 10 years, so take it as a (very good) compliment before you turn it into something else. So I know the score. I am not in a kindergarten class. I have a lot of respect for Peter van Aarl, Walter Burns (yes I had corrected/edited the name before you had to turn even THAT into a joke!) and Jeff. They have always been extremely polite and fair with me even when we did not always agree on everything. Unfortunately, WE got off to a bad start. Your self-declared efforts at "humour" do not amuse me in the least. If taking the ball home means I have no desire or inclination to provide you/IAFD with any future corrections, I made that abudantly clear. I have moved on, and hopefully this will be our last polite and diplomatic exchange on this suject. Best of luck, success and regards... To get back on topic do you have any particular information (personally or via XXXX) of who made the longest comeback (however you wish to qualify it)? [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 4:36PM I am not telling, suggesting or demanding that IAFD include this or that information in its database. Each database does things according to what can it can practically or physically with the information or resources it had, has or will have available in the furture. It has ben explained to me various times that IAFD is a database of movies, and that performer filmographies are a secondary function. Fine... So let's look at the "accurrate" factor. When a film title begins with the letter "The", IAFD drops the letter "the" and just lists the remaining words. If Vivid releases a movie called "The Masseuse", IAFD simply lists it as "Masseuse". Is that accurate? Not really.... Have I ever argued with IAFD with this "anomaly"? Never! But, I'm pretty sure there is an explanation for this, perhaps it has to do with the way titles are dealt with in its database and adding the "the" would make search difficult or impossible. But let's say you went to check out at IMDB a film with Errol Flynn called "The Sea Hawk" and only came up the title "Sea Hawk", would you find that accurate, odd, silly? It's worth nothing that when IMDB set up its mainstream movie database many years ago, at first there were no release dates, no production dates and no names of film titles as they were released in other foreign countries. There were no reviews, no movie posters, not much of anything. Gradually they began to add a lot of useful information (film budget, production dates, movie locations, under what title it was released overseas and what dates, etc). That's a decision they took to be as complete as possible. Is this something that IAFD would like to aspire to? I don't know, you keep those cards close to your chest and only reveal changes as they happen or are about to happen. You have said IAFD is unable to obtain information from the distributor about production, release dates. I find that hard to believe. I have gone to webites such as Evil Angel and Anabolic/Diabolic and they post release dates of their movies. A lot of other companies do also. CAVR.com when they review a movie indicate production dates (movie reviews posted on this forum often indicate this as well). DVD video box covers usually show on the reverse side the movie's production dates (sometimes they're short and sometimes as you indicated are very long). If you were to tell me it takes too much human resources and time and effort to track down production/release dates, I would accept that, but saying that such information is difficult or impossible to get at, having seen what is avaiable on line, I find that hardly credible. If IAFD has little interest in such information, that's fine with me, but is in my view missing out on being as complete as possible on a movie title. That's the point I was trying to make and not being critical in the way IAFD compiles relevant data about a movie. Hopefully we can have a meaningful discussion about this point without you having to thrash every word I say. [Link] |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 4:47PM Of course not. You're the helpful guy who likes to express opinions, but doesn't like to be called on it.I don't care if you "apologize" or not. I don't care if you respond to any point. I'm satisfied to respond in a public way, here, so that others can judge for themselves.Then why take the IAFD to task for things that a guy who "know(s) the score" ought to already know?Did you know there are currently 11 IAFD Administrators? Did you know that Walter Burns and I were regular contributors to Jeff and Peter? Did you know that Jeff, Walter and I, along with Don, kept the IAFD going after Peter's death, and introduced and created the headshot pics (now 18,744 pics and growing)? Do you have any idea how hard all 11 Administrators work -- all gratus, and at their own expense -- to maintain and grow the IAFD database? I'm glad you "have a lot of respect for Peter van Aarl, Walter Burns... and Jeff." You damn well should! Agreed.Live long and prosper.Other than the obvious performers, it doesn't interest me enough to dig into it. (And, remember, everytime I credit a performer, who has been inactive for more than three years, into the IAFD database, I get an automatic alert.) [Link] |
killbillvol69  All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18631 Posts 4/08 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 5:48PM I think that, while I don't really like to make a habit of putting words into other people's mouths (though I have done it in the past and later apologized for it), perhaps all of this could have been avoided if Len had originally said something along the lines of "finding the information you require about exactly how long someone went without performing in an adult video, either for a DVD, a personal collection, a website, etc. is not the type of information that can be provided by IAFD, for a variety of reasons." This likely wouldn't have disturbed BigBob as much as what was said, and it would still have provided the point that Len was trying to make - that it's tough to tell exactly who had the longest time between retirement and comeback, because there is no one place that lists the exact day a person stops performing and the day they come back. Apologies to you Len if my suggestion doesn't convey the same message you originally intended to convey in your initial post, but I think it does - or if it doesn't, it's pretty close. At any rate, you two did pretty well for a heated discussion (minus the odd insult), and I hope that you can put it behind you and still interact in a friendly manner here at ADT if you need to in the future. [Link] |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 6:03PM You're trying, so I will too...OK.Jeff can elaborate further, but, my understanding is that it is a hangover from early database limitations and the more important need to alphabetize the entries. Personally, I would have dealt with the "The" issue as "Masseuse, The." We can now, however, include "The Masseuse" in the title AKA field. As I come across these titles and issues, I make the corrections. Same thing with "A". We now have a title AKA field, wherein these kinds of issues can be dealt with. For example, in the case of series titles, we typically include "1" in the title... even though it actually isn't in the title. However, I will include the original title (i.e. without the "1" added to the title) in the AKA field... so that a search by either name gets you to the record.There are many resources available to research these types of things when it comes to mainstream. As I have explained, absent the physical movie to examine, 2257 production dates are not readily or easily available to us. And, prior to 1995, as you have referred to, such information usually doesn't exist at all. We (IAFD) too have added many things to our database as well. You may have noticed that all our headshot pics are non-nude. Due to the U.S. government's witch-hunt on porn via 2257 rules and regulations, we have chosen to exempt ourselves from 2257 record-keeping requirements by avoiding nudity altogether. We can't post box covers on our site -- even though at one time we did -- because most box covers feature nudity including erections and sexual activity.We list a release year for virtually every movie we list. It is almost always correct. Release dates and 2257 production dates are entirely different animals. I have yet to find any website, even the studios themselves, who list the 2257 production dates information for movies.Yes. Sometimes this information is available via reviews. But, the vast majority of the time, it is not practical to obtain. We do, BTW, link to many reviews so that you can dig deeper into any given title. Also, the majority of the box cover images I've researched online do not have the image clarity that permits reading the fine print on the box covers.I've told you this, in regard to 2257 production date information, but you refuse to believe me. It is not worth our time to try to track down what 2257 information might be able to be found. Since we can't get the 2257 information for most movies, we don't attempt to track it. Also, back-filling older titles -- the vast majority of which are no longer available, and not listed on most online retailers, even studios themselves -- makes historical research almost impossible. Let's stay focused on 2257 production date information... which is what I'm talking about. You state that "...having seen what is avaiable on line, I find that hardly credible." Please show me where the 2257 information is available? I, and the other IAFD Administrators, do a ridiculous about of research online. Often, just to get accurate information the studios themselves don't bother to get right in the first place. I have looked for 2257 information. What I have found is far too little obtained at far too much cost in time. And, again, it's not "findable" for the majority of movies I've had to research. Remember, even if you don't see 2257 information on the IAFD, chances are very high that one of us has looked for it when attempting to vet a title for the IAFD. |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 6:13PM Your point is correct with regard to my viewpoint. If it had been phrased as you postulate, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 6:40PM I have said that I have moved on and have no grudges to exact as a result of this exchange (my last post clearly indicated that I wanted to have a courteous and intelligent discussion about production/release dates, regarldless of what what went on prior). I will continue to interact in this forum in a polite and informative fashion. However, I regret that I have no desire at this time to provide any meaningful information to IAFD, since Bob so clearly indicated in a telling smiley that he couldn't care less. Let's move on and thank you Bill for your intervention... [Link] |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 7 2009 : 7:05PM [Link] |
| mapofhawaii Senior Member 1050 Posts 3/06 | Posted - Jan 9 2009 : 4:12PM [Link] |
| Jeff @ IAFD Webmaster IAFD.COM 931 Posts 6/00 | Posted - Jan 10 2009 : 11:08PM 1. Articles were dropped by Peter back when he did the database. This was his choice, and I'm not privy why he chose to list "Masseuse" instead of the "The Masseuse" or "Masseuse, The" -- my guess is to save typing since he was initially the only audience for his data. We just maintained the style once the data was moved online. Certainly not the most accurate way of doing things, but it's how we do it -- at least until someone volunteers to go thru the 90,000 titles we have and add ", The" and ", A" as necessary. :-) (Because, really, if we started doing it in the middle, we'd be probably be called out for inconsistency. Damned if you do, and all that... we just have to decide which criticisms we can live with and which we are shamed into fixing. ;-) 2. Years Active -- another place that was never designed in. it's actually a function of the website and not the database. Someone along the way asked for the data, and since we never tracked dates of production -- for the reasons BigBob lists plus none of that info was tracked by anyone pre-1995 until the US Govt. told producers they had to... so to keep the reader happy, we listed oldest and most recent as a range of years. Not 100% accurate. We figured the "sort by year" capabilities will allow persons to infer when gaps might have occurred by scanning the list. A related casualty is the "Started Around Age..." listing, since we don't track production dates, we can't compare by day and date. Had a discussion with Gianna Lynn about this today on the show floor when we were updating her info -- she said "I started when I was 20." Her birthday is in December, so it makes sense that if she did a movie in Sept. she hadn't turned 21 yet, as we claim... that's why we use the fuzzy "Around" in the listing, we can't tell for sure. [Link] |
| Dean Wormer Senior Member Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. 1048 Posts 7/04 | Posted - Jan 11 2009 : 12:52AM [Link] |
| pornologist Member 724 Posts 12/04 | Posted - Jan 11 2009 : 1:09AM Seka - added new footage to ( Careful He Maybe Watching ) Nina DePonca Lisa Ann Jessie St. James? Jeannie Pepper [Link] |
| BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04 | Posted - Jan 11 2009 : 9:40AM Move along now. Nothing here to see... [Link] |
| backdoorman Senior Member Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman ! 2776 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Jan 11 2009 : 12:12PM [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 11 2009 : 1:41PM [Link] |
| inquisitive Member 162 Posts 12/08 | Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 12:56AM [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 1:32AM [Link] |
| Jeff @ IAFD Webmaster IAFD.COM 931 Posts 6/00 | Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 12:15AM Do you want a listing of all titles released in a certain year broken down, say, by alphabet? We did recently add a filter to search results so that if you get a giant list of films back, you can further narrow the results by year. It works for both movies and performers. So if you did a search on NIKKI, you might not want Nikki's who haven't worked pre-2006, so it's an easy filter to use... [Link] |
| backdoorman Senior Member Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman ! 2776 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 8:38PM [Link] |
| Jeff @ IAFD Webmaster IAFD.COM 931 Posts 6/00 | Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 10:55PM Or, we can pump out a page with a list of years and present you with a giant list. Is there a difference between choosing 1972 from a dropdown box and typing it in a search box? (I ask not to be snarky, but because these kinds of interface questions interest me.) [Link] |
| killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18631 Posts 4/08 | Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 11:07PM While you're here, have you thought about allowing for searches for girls who are of a certain age/height/weight/breast size/etc? (height is the one I'm interested in, BTW - I like the tall girls!) - I recognize that this would pose problems because of lack of info for many girls, but at least users could find girls who fit what they're looking for amongst those for whom you do have the info. [Link] |
| backdoorman Senior Member Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman ! 2776 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 11:10AM [Link] |
 | |
| Jeff @ IAFD Webmaster IAFD.COM 931 Posts 6/00 | Posted - Jan 17 2009 : 11:15PM http://www.iafd.com/listyear.rme I'm aware the Toggle Gay button doesn't quite work when looking at a movie list. It kicks you back to the initial "pick a year" page... working on that... [Link] |
| backdoorman Senior Member Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman ! 2776 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Jan 18 2009 : 9:53PM [Link] |
| backdoorman Senior Member Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman ! 2776 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Jan 19 2009 : 10:08PM [Link] |
| Jeff @ IAFD Webmaster IAFD.COM 931 Posts 6/00 | Posted - Jan 21 2009 : 5:10AM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |